Criminal Defense

November 28, 2009

New York’s “Wholly Inconsistent” Shoplifting Standard: NY Case Law & Applicability to Your Criminal Defense

Whether you were arrested or issued a New York Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) for Shoplifting pursuant to New York Penal Law sections 155.25 (Petit Larceny) or 165.40 (Criminal Possession of Stolen Property), the legal standard is the same. Regardless of the crime, police officers in New York City and throughout the state, must have probable cause to arrest you. If not, your criminal defense attorney or lawyer must file a motion for the dismissal and to request a Dunaway hearing (other hearings might be applicable as well). Beyond this basic legal right that you have to prevent unlawful arrests, there are other factors that should be addressed by your criminal defense attorney. The following is a brief analysis of one of such factor.

According to People v. Olivo, 52 N.Y.2d 309, 310 (1981), the Court of Appeals, New York’s highest court, has found that in order to sustain a conviction for shoplifting, one’s actions must be “wholly inconsistent with the rights of the owner.” Taken further, the Court of Appeals found that “[i]f a customer exercises dominion and control wholly inconsistent with the continued rights of the owner, and other elements of the crime are present, a larceny has occurred.”

October 23, 2009

Your Right to Remain Silent and Your New York Criminal Defense: When Asking for an Attorney or Lawyer May be the Smartest Thing

by Jeremy Saland

I have routinely advised my clients that if they are questioned by the police they should always call me first. What may seem like innocent questioning may actually be the final steps of a law enforcement investigation that will leave them incarcerated for the foreseeable future. As former Manhattan prosecutors trained under Robert Morgenthau, my partner and I at Saland Law PC know how an admission by an accused can often be a nail hammered by a defendant into their own coffin.

We routinely file motions for our clients to obtain hearings to challenge the voluntariness of their statement to the police (this is called a Huntley Hearing). Yet, what role, if any, does sleeplessness or intoxication have on ones ability to voluntarily give a statement to the police even if you, the accused, believe you are giving a voluntary statement (did I lose you?!!?)? In other words, does sleeplessness or intoxication negate an otherwise voluntary admission?

October 5, 2009

Disorderly Conduct in NY: Reckless Behavior Sufficient to Establish Violation

by Jeremy Saland

Just about every NY criminal defense attorney has either represented a client charged with Disorderly Conduct or worked out a disposition where Disorderly Conduct was offered in lieu of a top count plea. In the criminal courts of New York City, “Disorderly Conduct” can be heard throughout the hallways and courtrooms before the judge bangs his gavel to start the day until the last cases are called in the evening.

Recently, a NY County Criminal Court judge addressed Disorderly Conduct in denying a defendant’s motion to dismiss. In People v. Derrick Diaz, 2008NY062928, the complaint alleged that the police “observed the defendants yelling and screaming and behaving in a violent, tumultuous, and threatening manner, as follows: pushing at police officers and causing a disturbance. Defendant’s [sic] conduct created a public disturbance/inconvenience in that it caused a crowd to gather, disruption of the normal flow of traffic, and people to express alarm.”

October 2, 2009

Extortion and Grand Larceny in New York: Your Criminal Defense & an Analysis of NY Penal Law 155.05(2)(e), 155.30(6) and 155.40(2)

by Jeremy Saland

With the recent Extortion attempt of David Letterman by Robert “Joe” Halderman fresh in our minds, now would be a good time to share with my readers what constitutes Extortion under New York State law. As a New York criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan prosecutor who supervised the investigation and prosecution of multiple individuals charged with the Extortion of an NBA All Star, I am intimately familiar with Extortion as it is defined under New York Penal Law section 155.05(2)(e) and under Grand Larceny in the Fourth and Second Degree pursuant to New York Penal Law sections 155.30(6) and 155.40(2) respectively.

Before proceeding with an analysis of the Extortion statute, it is important to note that Extortion is specifically defined under section 155.05(2)(e) of the New York Penal Law. Like larceny by trick, false promise and common law larceny, Extortion is a means by which a larceny is perpetrated. According to NY Penal Law 155.05(2):

August 13, 2009

Accomplice Liability (New York Penal Law 20.00) in Conjunction with Assault in the Third Degree (New York Penal Law 120.00)

by Jeremy Saland

Your buddy is waiting to be arraigned at 100 Centre Street in Manhattan for Assault in the Third Degree pursuant to New York Penal Law 120.00(1) for splitting someone’s lip with his fists. The worst part is you need an experienced criminal defense attorney as well. Why? Well, you are sitting right next to him. So, here is the question. How is it that he is the guy who threw the punches, but you were arrested as well? The answer is found in New York Penal Law section 20.00. As we like to call it…accomplice liability.

Under New York law, one is liable for the acts of another when:

August 3, 2009

NY Criminal Defense Law Update: New Court Decision May Help Those Arrested for Shoplifting (Petit Larceny – 155.25) in New York City

by Jeremy Saland

Whether you are arrested and charged with Petit Larceny (NY Penal Law 155.25) or Criminal Possession of Stolen Property (NY Penal Law 165.40) for shoplifting, you need to consult with a New York criminal defense attorney about People v. Lai Lee. It does not matter if you have been issued a Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) or you have already been arraigned by a judge. Moreover, it does not matter where in New York City your case is pending from Manhattan Criminal Court at 100 Centre Street to Brooklyn Criminal Court at 120 Schermerhorn Street. What matters is that you put yourself in the best position possible to protect your rights and integrity by consulting with an experienced criminal defense lawyer about your case and whether certain legal decisions, such as ruling in People v. Lai Lee, may be used in your defense.

In a recent decision dated July 2, 2009, a Manhattan Criminal Court judge dismissed the shoplifting, Petit Larceny and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property charges that the defendant faced. The complaint alleged that a store investigator observed the defendant remove a handbag, tights and other clothing by “placing said items inside the defendant’s bag.” The defendant then walked past multiple open registers and moved to another floor of the store without paying for the items. The defendant was stopped and investigator recovered just under $1000 worth of clothing from the defendant’s handbag.

July 29, 2009

The New York Grand Jury, Plaxico Burress and Any Person Accused of a Crime: Beyond a Possible Indictment What Happens Behind Closed Doors

by Jeremy Saland

As I type, it is likely that Plaxico Burress is sitting in a Manhattan Grand Jury testifying about the events that ultimately resulted in his arrest for possessing a loaded firearm in New York and being charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree. As a former Manhattan prosecutor who served for seven years under Robert Morgenthau and who has cross-examined many defendants in the Grand Jury and represented clients in the same, I have unique insight that many New York criminal defense attorneys do not. The following entry will address some of what happens in this “secret proceeding.”

What is the Grand Jury

May 23, 2009

Entrapment: NY Criminal Defense – Inducement and Encouragement by a Public Servant

by Jeremy Saland

Whether you are accused of a “street crime” in New York such as Assault or Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance (selling drugs) or, in the alternative, you are accused of a White Collar crime such as Money Laundering or Grand Larceny, there are certain defenses specifically outlined in the Penal Law that you need to review with an experienced criminal defense attorney such as the former Manhattan prosecutors at Saland Law PC. One of those “affirmative” defenses is Entrapment.

According to Penal Law Section 40.05 – Entrapment – “it is an affirmative defense that the defendant engaged in the proscribed conduct because he was induced or encouraged to do so by a public servant, or by a person acting in cooperation with a public servant, seeking to obtain evidence against him for purpose of criminal prosecution, and when the methods used to obtain such evidence were such as to create a substantial risk that the offense would be committed by a person not otherwise disposed to commit it. Inducement or encouragement to commit an offense means active inducement or encouragement. Conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment.”

April 9, 2009

GPS Tracking Devices and Motor Vehicles in NY: Is a Warrant Needed?

by Jeremy Saland

New York criminal defense attorneys are constantly dealing with law enforcement as they continue expanding their arsenal of tools to investigate and prosecute crimes. Whether it be for drug and narcotic sales or forgery and theft related offenses, law enforcement is utilizing these growing number of tools. One example of that technology is the GPS device. GPS devices have given law enforcement another means to track and locate targets and defendants. The question that has been raised, however, is whether or not a GPS device can be placed on a vehicle without first getting a warrant?

Although the Court of Appeals, New York State’s highest court, has not yet given a definitive answer on the issue, the Appellate Division, 3rd Department recently did. In People v. Weaver, decided this past June, law enforcement placed a GPS device on a target’s van who was believed to be involved in numerous burglaries. This particular GPS devices was battery operated, placed under the vehicle’s bumper and attached while the vehicle was parked in a public location.

February 27, 2009

Criminal Defense Victory and Dismissal: Every Case – “Big” or “Small” – Requires Undivided Attention

by Jeremy Saland

The New York criminal defense attorneys at Saland Law PC take each and every criminal case seriously whether the case involves a misdemeanor charge of Harassment or a felony charge of Grand Larceny. Our results speak for themselves. We recognize that regardless of how “small” the case may appear to be in the scheme of the entire criminal justice system, to the accused and our criminal defense attorneys, each case is priority matter.

Recently, the attorneys at Saland Law achieved what may appear to be a small victory, but one that was hard fought over a period of months. Our client, a former employee at a one of the world’s largest media companies, was accused of Prostitution as a “high end girl.” After drafting a memorandum similar to a Clayton motion bearing out why the District Attorney’s Office should offer a disposition different than the standard offer, the prosecutor assigned to the case agreed to offer such a disposition. However, although our client accepted the offer, upon going to court to accept the plea someone other than the assigned prosecutor changed the offer. A supervisor refused to make the original offer despite the previous agreement. Therefore, our client was unable to obtain the agreed upon disposition and the case was adjourned.