Criminal Defense

January 6, 2015

Federal Computer Hacking (18 USC 1030) Is Not Always What It Seems: Client Gets Federal Misdemeanor and No Jail

Having the FBI knocking on your door at 6 in the morning can be the most frightening experience in your life. They enter, start searching through your most personal belongings, take your papers, records, phone and computers and leave. This is what happened to one of Saland Law’s recent clients (we’ll call him “Dave” – not his real name). He reached out to us a short time afterwards, when we put our experience and knowledge to work. After some initial investigation, we discovered that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York was investigating an international computer hacking ring and that they believed Dave was involved. They initially intended on charging Dave with the serious felony of Computer Hacking under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1030(a)(i), which carries a potential sentence of 10 years in federal prison.

After a diligent and thorough examination of the evidence and Dave’s background, it became clear that Dave was not an international computer hacker. Rather, Dave was a down on his luck twenty-something, who had a troubled past. Dave had a difficult upbringing, growing up in a violence-filled household, child welfare agents constantly around. Dave witnessed abuse of his mother by his father and his sister’s suicide attempt. Dave sunk into deep depression. He spent more and more time and energy on the computer, eventually suffering an addiction to computer gaming and usage. Dave hit rock bottom when he wandered onto a website that promoted computer hacking – it described how to do it, and sold software that enabled the hacking. In a weak moment, Dave purchased the software and began to use it to look at other’s computer files, including his girlfriends. Dave wasn’t proud of his conduct, but because of his addiction, he couldn’t help himself. Dave didn’t try to steal credit card information, or his victim’s identification. Rather, he was only falling deeper into his computer addiction. Continue reading

November 6, 2014

Does Failing to Allow Police in Your Apartment Without a Warrant or an Emergency Constitute Obstruction of Governmental Administration (PL 195.05)

by Jeremy Saland

Simply, we can all appreciate and respect the fact that just as the police act on calls, information and statements with the goal of providing safety and security to residents of New York, there are times when the police are not needed or warranted. Practically speaking, it is often difficult for law enforcement to ascertain whether their services and presence is truly necessary without further investigation. Many times it is essential for the police to get involved while other times it is not. An interesting question arises where the police come to your house and want to gain access. In such a circumstance, can you deny them entry and if you do deny them access, can you be prosecuted for a crime such as Obstructing Government Administration in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 195.05)? Addressing this exact circumstance (but remember each case is unique and the facts of the case dictate what law applies), People v. Holmes, 2014 NY Slip Op 51099 (NY Crim. Ct.) sheds some light on this issue.

October 17, 2014

Facial Insufficiency & Dismissal: When NY Criminal Complaints Charging Reckless Endangerment & Criminal Obstruction of Breathing or Blood Circulation Meet the Minimum Legal Standard

by Jeremy Saland

Facial Sufficiency is a vital consideration in the field of Criminal Law (one of many, of course). If a misdemeanor information (some people call it a complaint) is facially insufficient then the misdemeanor information is considered jurisdictionally defective and should be dismissed. In order for a misdemeanor information to be facially sufficient the misdemeanor information must, when viewed in a light most favorable to the People (the District Attorney or prosecution), contain non-hearsay factual allegations providing reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense(s) charged; and which establish, if true, every element of the offense(s) charged. CPL §§100.15[3]; 100.40[1][b] and [c].

September 2, 2014

Federal Computer Crimes and Federal Computer Hacking Offenses: Understanding the Magnitude of 18 USC 1030 Beyond the Celebrity Scandal and Photo Leak

by Jeremy Saland

It may be great tabloid fodder for the foreseeable future, but hacking computers, PCs, mobile devices and Apple’s ICloud is a very dangerous and risky pastime. Sure, sharing intimate and naked photos of Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton and Kirsten Dunst may be good for sophomoric kicks and gossip sites. Arguably, many of the images of the also-rans and lesser knowns who were exposed may have secondary and post embarrassment value in boosting their respective profiles. Irrespective of the consequences to the victims both “good” and bad, computer hacking is a serious Federal crime with equally serious punishment. Make no mistake. You need not be the anonymous celebrity hacker to feel the power and wrath of law enforcement from Federal agents to prosecutors. There will be few, if any, Federal judges who will not come down hard with bail upon your arrest or punish you severely at your sentencing should you be convicted of a computer hacking offense. If nothing else is clear, you and your criminal lawyer will have a long road ahead if you are accused, the target, or a subject of a computer hacking offense. If prosecutors have successfully executed search warrants and found materials on your computers, tracked IP information, and obtained any statements from you during the course of their investigation, your predicament can easily go from bad to worse.

The following blog entry will address some of the potential Federal crimes that the anonymous celebrity hacker – or anyone – would face if prosecuted in Manhattan’s Southern District of New York, Brooklyn’s Eastern District of New York, Newark’s District of New Jersey or any other Federal jurisdiction.

December 7, 2013

New York Criminal Contempt Information Page: Understanding the Different Crimes of Criminal Contempt

by Jeremy Saland

Criminal Contempt is a crime that generally brings both personal attention and significant scrutiny from Assistant District Attorneys and judges beyond what one would normally expect in a criminal prosecution. Its not that other criminal cases aren’t thoroughly reviewed, but the personal and often domestic component to a Criminal Contempt case forces prosecutors to dig deeper into allegations, protect an alleged victim and even cover themselves should something happen at a later date and it is deemed that at the time of the initial incident, the Assistant District Attorney did not properly handle the case. For all of these reasons and the often very serious nature of a Criminal Contempt case, the crimes in New York of Criminal Contempt in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 215.50), Criminal Contempt in the First Degree (New York Penal Law 215.51) and Aggravated Criminal Contempt (New York Penal Law 215.52) are all “top shelf” crimes in the eyes of law enforcement and know less serious to defend in the hands of even the most experienced New York criminal lawyer.

Because of the varying degrees and crimes of Criminal Contempt, understanding your exposure should commit a Criminal Contempt crime is important. Second Degree Contempt, NY PL 215.50, is an “A” misdemeanor with a punishment that can be as great as one year in a local (county) jail. First Degree Contempt, NY PL 215.51, is an “E” felony punishable by as much as four years in prison. Aggravated Criminal Contempt, NY PL 215.52, is a “D” felony carrying a sentence of as long as seven years behind bars.

November 17, 2013

Acting in Concert & Accomplice Liability: How Far Must You Go to be Liable for Another Person’s Conduct

by Jeremy Saland

New York, like all other states, has its own means to determine whether individuals can be arrested and charged as co-defendants for a particular crime. Obviously, merely being present when a crime is committed by another person is not legally sufficient enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (although, do not be shocked if you are arrested and later have to fight to have the matter dismissed). Because presence alone is not enough, what do New York criminal defense attorneys review to determine if an accused’s conduct reaches the level of acting in concert or accomplice liability in any New York arrest?

Addressed in the context of a marihuana (marijuana) sale, In People v. Ramirez, 2013NY046507, NYLJ 1202624767720 (Crim., NY, Decided September 27, 2013), a separately-charged individual sold marihuana to an undercover officer and then, according to another police officer, that individual handed money to the defendant as “part of the above-mentioned transaction.” Afterward, a police officer attempted to place the defendant under arrest, but the defendant ran 1-½ city blocks, refusing to be handcuffed. The defendant’s actions resulted in the arresting officer sustaining injuries. Subsequently, the defendant was charged with Criminal Sale of Marihuana in the Fourth Degree (New York Penal Law 221.40), under the theory he acted in concert with or as an accomplice to the separately-charged individual (the principal), and Resisting Arrest (New York Penal Law 205.30). While the defendant made a motion to dismiss both charges, the court only dismissed the marihuana crime.

November 9, 2013

When Wrongful Access of a Computer is Not a Crime: Unauthorized Use of a Computer – NY PL 156.05

by Jeremy Saland

With prosecutors seeking to protect proprietary and “secret scientific” information of financial, research, medical and other commercial institutions, it should come as no surprise to criminal defense lawyers regularly practicing in New York courts or those accused of crimes involving computers that Unauthorized Use of a Computer is potential crippling offense. The “lowest” of all New York’s computer crimes, Unauthorized Use of a Computer, an “A” misdemeanor pursuant to New York Penal Law 156.05, occurs when you knowingly use, cause to be used, or accesses a computer, computer service, or computer network without permission. Again, while NY PL 156.05 is not as significant as other New York computer crimes, it is likely one that if convicted would result in not merely your termination from your current employer (assuming it involved an employer-employee relationship), but would be a red flag on any future employment.

Defined in the New York Penal Law, computer service and network are critical terms to analyze in a Unauthorized Use of a Computer arrest. However, equally important is to these elements is whether or not your use of the computer was authorized. In People v. Klapper 2009NY032282 (Crim. Ct. New York County, Decided April 28, 2010), a Manhattan Criminal Court judge issued a surprising decision that puts into question what we all believe is the basis or foundation of permission and authority.

November 4, 2013

Unlawful Surveillance – PL 250.45: From “Up Skirts” to Bathroom Recorders – Must All Defendants Register as Sex Offenders Upon Conviction

by Jeremy Saland

Every criminal arrest or conviction has a collateral consequence. Obviously, some are more severe than others. While an arrest can be humiliating, a conviction can strip us of many rights we take for granted, destroy our ability to continue in our career or set a chain of events into action that ultimately result in our deportation. One crime that often has these secondary consequences is the New York felony crime of Second Degree Unlawful Surveillance. Unlawful Surveillance in the Second Degree, New York Penal Law 250.45, is routinely viewed by prosecutors in an extremely different light than the accused (as noted by the intensity of these prosecutions). While a defendant may argue this was a crime of opportunity by an otherwise “good” person, a police officer, detective or Assistant District Attorney, is more likely to view this crime as a premeditated and malicious act. Yes, your criminal lawyer or Unlawful Surveillance defense attorney may seek to convince a prosecutor that the recording was one act, a prosecutor may counter that it was many acts. In fact, it is fairly common for prosecutors to execute search warrants on mobile phones and other recording devices. When or if they find evidence of the current arrest charge or past acts, its is equally common for prosecutors to stand firm with a felony charge.

Irrespective of the above arguments in an Unlawful Surveillance case by either your criminal lawyer or the prosecutor, avoiding a felony conviction is critical. Yes, a felony can land in prison, but long after your case is over, NY PL 250.45 has significant ramifications. New York State Correction Law § 168-a[2][e] establishes that a person convicted of subdivision two (2), three (3) or four (4) of New York Penal Law 250.45 is a “sex offender.” As such, if you are convicted, like a rapist or child molester, you must comply with the New York State Sex Offender Registration Act (“SORA”). While your level may not be as high as those individuals convicted of the crimes I just mentioned, to a certain extent, registration is registration. The level wont matter to your neighbors, employer, etc. You are deemed a sexual predator by society.

September 17, 2013

If the Police Fail to Establish their Training and Experience in Your Gravity Knife Arrest is it Grounds for Dismissal: Facial Sufficiency & PL 265.01

by Jeremy Saland

If you are reading this blog entry regarding a gravity knife arrest in New York City or any other jurisdiction or municipality, there is a good chance you were stopped innocently walking down the street or driving your car and the police saw the knife’s clip outside your pocket. After stopping you, the police flipped the knife around, flicked their wrists and tried as hard as they could (it may have been fairly easy or awfully difficult) to open the knife with the use of gravity. Whether they did it on their first attempt or the police were only successful after numerous tries, the officers placed you under arrest, finger printed you and charged you with possessing a gravity knife in violation of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree, New York Penal Law 265.01(1). If it was your first offense and you have no criminal record (and you can provide a local address in the New York City area), the police may have given you a NYC Desk Appearance Ticket with the top offense charge of PL 265.01.

Assuming you consult with a criminal attorney or New York City weapon defense lawyer for the Fourth Degree Criminal Possession of a Weapon DAT, you will likely be asked numerous questions about the legal basis of your stop as well as what transpired when the police tested the knife. Ultimately, however, when you go before a judge for your arraignment (this is where you are formally accused and advised of your criminal arrest charges), the legal work of your attorney will really begin. Certainly your lawyer may want to ask to see the actual knife (it will take some time), but within the four corners of the complaint against you there may be fertile ground for dismissal. One potential basis is how the actual complaint is drafted. It must sufficiently establish a “knife which has a blade [that] is released from the handle or sheath thereof by the force of gravity or the application of centrifugal force which, when released, is locked in place by means of a button, spring, lever or other device.” For the purpose of this blog entry we will briefly address how the police establish that a knife in question is in fact a gravity knife as defined by the New York Penal Law. More specifically, if the police merely test the knife, but do not establish their training and experience in identifying these weapons, will the complaint be facially sufficient? After all, how can you affirmatively test something that you have no training or experience in identifying or handling?

January 22, 2013

Long Island Dentist Arrested for Reckless Endangerment: Is Intoxication Automatic Proof of Recklessness during any Medical Type Procedure

by Jeremy Saland

While the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office will not be resolving the age old question of whether a dentist is in fact a “doctor” (I do not want to be accused of being an antidentite by-the-way), DA Thomas J. Spota’s Herculoids (a little homage to Hana Barbara, folks), will soon be addressing whether a dentist can be criminally reckless if he or she performs procedures on a patient while intoxicated. According to reports, police arrested Robert B. Garelick, a Lindenhurst dentist, for Second Degree Reckless Endangerment (New York Penal Law 120.20) after he was accused of this exact conduct.

An “A” misdemeanor, Reckless Endangerment in the Second Degree is punishable by a year in jail. You are guilty of NY PL 120.20 if you recklessly engage in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. To be clear, your conduct is not sufficient if it “may” or can “possibly” cause any type of injury, but creates a substantial risk of a physical injury that is legally classified as serious.