Desk Appearance Ticket

May 15, 2013

When a Mere Conclusion by the NYPD Cannot Sustain a Complaint for PL 220.03

The ease by which the police can arrest and Assistant District Attorneys can prosecute denizens of New York City (or any municipality in New York State) for drug crimes can be greatly concerning. Merely because one is a New York drug lawyer or a New York criminal defense attorney should not give one permission to be blind to the serious consequences of the drug trade and use. With that in mind, however, more than one person has been accused of a narcotics crime such as Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree (New York Penal Law 220.03), based on weak or wrong evidence.

For better or worse (which need not be debated here), the law formerly required that a prosecutor provide a laboratory test result or a field test from the police to move forward with a narcotics or drug criminal case beyond the initial arrest. Without this corroboration, the complaint against an accused drug user or seller would contain hearsay. Now, as a result of People v. Kalin, “the sworn allegations by the arresting officer [that the substance in question was a drug are] sufficient to satisfy the requirements of an information.” Simply, an officer, while not compliant with the “old law,” may state that based on his observations, training and experience, the substance in question is a particular contraband. Upon doing so, the complaint becomes an information without any scientific analysis of the alleged drugs. Again, while we need not debate the merits of this case and law, it is clear to even the untrained eye that an officer can be completely wrong as to the nature or presence of a controlled substance, but an accused will still be arrested and prosecuted for a crime he or she did not commit.

April 29, 2013

All “Weapons” are not Equal: Understanding Subsection Two of Fourth Dgree Criminal Possession of a Weapon (NY PL 265.01(2))

by Jeremy Saland

New York State is on tough place to face a criminal charge. Yea, there are always concerns with New York’s “strict liability” crimes where knowledge, as opposed to intent to commit a crime, is a sufficient basis for an arrest and conviction, but in the realm of New York City and the greater New York State, there are other seemingly innocent actions or items that can form the basis of a criminal arrest. Unlike possessing a gravity knife or switchblade knife where it matters not whether the knife was to be used to cut cardboard or human flesh (see New York Penal Law 265.01(1) – Fourth Degree Criminal Possession of a Weapon), other weapon offenses relate specifically to how you used the item or object in question. So…that pillow, iphone or sneaker may be just as dangerous in the eyes of the law as a set of brass knuckles. Simply stated, you are guilty of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree, New York Penal Law 265.01(2), if you possess a dangerous or deadly instrument with the intent to use that instrument against another person in an unlawful manner.

To help better understand the misdemeanor weapon crime of NY PL 265.01(2), the following case is a good place to start. While no criminal lawyer would expect that you, as an accused person charged with a misdemeanor offense and given a Desk Appearance Ticket (which does qualify as an arrest, by the way), will read all the relevant statutes and cases, educating yourself prior to speaking to a criminal defense attorney will certainly land you in a better place.

March 31, 2013

Per Se Weapons & Fourth Degree New York Weapon Crimes: Defining Bludgeon and Identifying Defense Practices in a NY PL 265.01 Arrest

by Jeremy Saland

There are countless means in which a non-weapon, if used in a particular way, becomes a weapon in the eyes of the law. In New York, a tree branch, spoon, pair of shoes or just about anything else, if used in violent and assaultive way, can be the basis of an arrest for Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree, New York Penal Law 265.01(2). Beyond the offense of PL 265.01(2), there are specifically identified items or objects that are automatically weapons irrespective of the manner in which they are used. The two most common weapons outside of firearms are gravity knives and switchblade knives. Possession of these weapons in New York City, Westchester County or, for that matter, Lake Placid, all constitute a violation of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree pursuant to subsection one of PL 265.01. Whether your arrest is for NY PL 265.01(1) or NY PL 265.01(2), the crime is punishable by a year in jail. Whether your best defense to a weapon arrest is to mitigate your conduct, attack the search or challenge whether the object in question is in fact a weapon, is something critically important to address at the earliest stage possible with your own New York criminal lawyer or New York weapon attorney.

When deciding how to defend against an arrest for PL 265.01(1), if you are immediately processed or receive a New York City Desk Appearance Ticket is really not that important. If the police or prosecutors are wrong on the law, the vehicle or manner of your arrest and prosecution is of no significance. Instead, an examination of the evidence is critical. While the following case does not identify when a knife, for example, qualifies as a gravity knife, it does address one of the enumerated weapons of Fourth Degree Criminal Possession of a Weapon. Therefore, the message of the case, if not the actual weapon in question, is important to understand.

January 8, 2013

Arrests for Marijuana Possession in New York: Understanding the Difference Between a Criminal and Non-Criminal Offense

by Jeremy Saland

Although wrongfully classified by many people as a narcotic drug crime, arrests in New York City and throughout the State of New York for possession of a marijuana (or marihuana as it is referred to in the New York Penal Law) are a distinct and separate category of crime. Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance crimes, unlike Criminal and Unlawful Possession of Marijuana, are much more broad as they include an enormous spectrum of drugs ranging from cocaine to heroin and more “trendy” contraband such as ecstasy. Regardless of the drug, if you possess one of these substances you would be charged with Seventh Degree Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance (New York Penal Law 220.03) as long as you lacked the intent to sell the substance and the weight was not classified as felonious. It makes no difference if the drug is in your hand and open to public view or buried in your pocket. Just ask any person arrested outside a Phish concert at MSG in Manhattan or at a Disco Biscuits concert right around the corner.

Unlike controlled substances, marihuana crimes in New York (or more correctly the crimes for which you are arrested and charged) relate directly to how you possess the contraband.Obviously, weight is relevant when ascertaining if the crime is a felony or misdemeanor, but the vast majority of offenses are defined by how the marijuana is possessed.

September 23, 2012

Batchuta the Tiger’s Playmate Arrested for Trespass: Insanity Defense for David Villalobos’ Bronx Zoo Escapade?

by Jeremy Saland

David Villalobos, the young man arrested for allegedly wanting to “become one” with a Bronx Zoo tiger, is far from the first New Yorker to commune so closely with nature. Antoine Yates, a/k/a, the “Tiger Man of Harlem,” has that distinct “honor.” In fact, as a prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, I was the Assistant District Attorney that handled Mr. Yates’ case. Unlike Villalobos, Mr. Yates was indicted for numerous crimes including felony Reckless Endangerment in the First Degree (New York Penal Law 120.25). Ultimately, because Ming the tiger had free range inside a large sprawling apartment in a public housing complex where children, building employees and other residents were potentially accessible, Yates pleaded guilty to felony Reckless Endangerment. Now retired Supreme Court Justice Budd Goodman sentenced Yates to five years probation along with a few months on Rikers Island.

Despite the similarity in the apparent love of all things Animal Planet, Villalobos’ case is starkly different. That is, while his actions certainly imperiled his own health, children, police officers an other denizens of New York City were not potential prey. In fact, unlike an apartment where a housing employee may have access and enter the premises only to be surprised by a large feline (let’s not forget the cayman who took up residence outside the bathtub), Villalobos had to drop down approximately seventeen feet above to access the Bronx Zoo tiger den. Simply, Villalobos only endangered himself.

June 3, 2012

Foreign Nationals Visiting NYC: How to Deal with Unresolved NY Arrests and Desk Appearance Tickets Still Pending After Leaving the United States

by Jeremy Saland

There are few things more frightful and concerning than being arrested in a nation where you do not reside. Compounding matters, because the United States has a unique criminal justice system, you may not have any idea about the arrest process and what you may face whether you were charged with a crime in New York City (Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, etc.), White Plains or some other jurisdiction. Not only will you have to contend with collateral immigration issues of your arrest such as how to renew your visa (if you can), what will you do if you plan on leaving New York and returning home before your case is resolved? For example, if you are issued a Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) to return to Manhattan Criminal Court weeks after you go back to your home nation, how will you avoid a Bench Warrant from being issued and an arrest upon your return to the United States? Even if you wanted to stay and fight your case, what will happen if you overstay your visa?

Before addressing the issues mentioned above, please note that this blog entry merely addresses misdemeanor crimes in New York and not felony offenses in the context of an arrest of a foreign national. Not only are felony crimes much more serious, but these crimes have a separate set of procedural rules that may not be applicable to their misdemeanor brethren. Having addressed that, some of the more common misdemeanor arrests that foreign nationals face and those I have defended against as a New York criminal lawyer have been shoplifting (Petit Larceny – New York Penal Law 155.25 and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fourth Degree – New York Penal Law 165.40), possession of drugs such as cocaine, heroin or other controlled substances (Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree – New York Penal Law 220.03), jumping a turnstile or failing to pay a cab driver (Theft of Services – New York Penal Law 165.15) and possession of a marijuana joint or pipe open to public view (Criminal Possession of Marijuana – New York Penal Law 221.10). Far from an exhaustive list, if you, as a foreign national, provided a local address, the NYPD officer who arrested you may have given you a Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) for your return to court on a future date. You will not be processed through “the system” in the same manner as if you committed a felony or a similar misdemeanor without establishing ties to New York City.

April 3, 2012

Is an Arrest for NY PL 220.03 or NY PL 221.01 Sufficient if the Police Fail to Base Their Conclusion on Training & Experience

by Jeremy Saland

Drug arrests for Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree, New York Penal Law 220.03, may come in the form of a Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) or a full 24 hour processing through the system. No matter how you were arrested, however, there are certain mandatory requirements that must be within the four corners of any criminal court complaint. Similar to arrests for marijuana, NY PL 220.03 arrests in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, or any other county in New York City or New York State, involve the possession of certain “banned” drugs such as cocaine, heroin, ecstasy and other narcotics. Irrespective of that controlled substance, in order for prosecutors and Assistant District Attorney’s to have a viable and legal complaint against you, language in that complaint (actually called an “information” once it is legally sufficient), must reflect “proof” that the drugs in questions are in fact drugs. Anyone can merely guess based on appearance or smell, but the law requires more than mere speculation.

The law involving drug possession crimes (whether NY PL 220.03 for controlled substance or NY PL 221.10 for marijuana) definitely favors the prosecution. Years ago, before People v. Kalin, 12 NY3d 225 (2009), courts required that a laboratory analysis or field test be filed with a criminal court complaint in order to remove any legal impediments preventing the prosecution from proceeding with criminal charges. In other words, if prosecutors failed to provide a lab report or field test confirming the presence of heroin, cocaine, ecstasy or marijuana, a defendant would ultimately be able to obtain a procedural dismissal of the charges. As noted above, Kalin altered this rule by permitting the police, when drafting a complaint or signing off on its accuracy, to assert that the drug or marijuana recovered was that particular contraband based on their observations, training and experience (or some combination of this).

February 15, 2012

The Legal Burden in Establishing a Working “Weapon” in New York Criminal Court: NY PL 265.01

by Jeremy Saland

From gravity knives to switchblade knives, whether in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens or out in Westchester County, as an experienced New York criminal lawyer I have frequently seed defendants charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree. A misdemeanor, CPW 4, pursuant to New York Penal Law 265.01, is punishable by up to a year in jail. Often times, the alleged offenders are not taken into full custody (traditional arrest, spending a night in jail), but instead are issued a Desk Appearance Ticket (largely issued to NY residents to make it easier on the police, who can issue the ticket and release the ‘defendant’ from their custody without having to send the offender to central booking). More important than procedure, however, is the fact that District Attorney’s Offices in the New York City area consider Criminal Possession of a Weapon one of the most serious types of misdemeanor offenses. This fact is reflected in tough and limited offers and plea deals at arraignment (the first time one sees a judge) regardless of whether a DAT was issued or not.

Briefly, a person is guilty of NY PL 265.01, if that person possesses a weapon specified in the statute (such as a gravity knife or switchblade knife). An individual’s intended used of the “weapon” is not a factor in their guilt. That is, even if you don’t intend to harm anyone, if you have a knife that is deemed a weapon in your possession, you are guilty of the crime. Logically then, mounting a defense against Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree rests largely on showing that the search and recovery of the weapon was improper, the weapon was not in your possession or showing that in fact the item is not a weapon.

February 10, 2012

Breaking Down a New York City Desk Appearance Ticket & DAT

by Jeremy Saland

Although the New York City Police (NYPD) can easily arrest you and send you to Central Booking for any misdemeanor or “E” felony, in certain circumstances they can, and will, give you a Desk Appearance Ticket (often called a “DAT” or “Appearance Ticket”) instead. While you have still been arrested, whether your criminal lawyer secured this DAT for you or the police were just being reasonable in light of the allegations, you will be sent home after your fingerprints are taken. This blog entry addresses the “white paper” or “white ticket” that you were given and some routinely asked questions about what is contained therein. What is the Physical Desk Appearance Ticket

Before breaking down your DAT or Desk Appearance Ticket, it is critical to understand that it is NOT the complaint or criminal papers that will ultimately be filed against you. Instead, the DAT is a note or document that merely informs you that you must appear in a particular court on a particular date. Should your name, address or even the offense charged be incorrect, it in no way invalidates your DAT. In fact, if you lose the Appearance Ticket it would not adversely impact the prosecution’s case in any way. If you appear in New York City Criminal Court without this DAT, the court staff will locate the official criminal complaint against you. If you do not appear, on the other hand, a judge will likely order a bench warrant for your immediate arrest.

January 20, 2012

When Police Conduct a Post Arrest Search Without an Arrest: Challenging Illegal Searches in New York

by Jeremy Saland

You received a summons for having an open container of beer somewhere in New York City either on the streets of Brooklyn or Manhattan. The police issued you a pink summons and you believed you were on your way to a slap on the wrist. However, to your surprise, you, in the words of the police, are “searched incident to your lawful arrest” where they find cocaine, a gravity knife or some other contraband. Originally given merely a pink ticket, you are arrested and put through the system or issued a Desk Appearance Ticket for violating New York Penal Law 220.03 or New York Penal Law 265.01. Compounding matters, you made some statements as too the drugs or weapon you are alleged to possess. Whether it came in the form of a New York Desk Appearance Ticket or you were sent to Central Booking, you now need a criminal lawyer to help fight the misdemeanor charge you face. How did this simple “nothing” case evolve into something so serious…

While rarely anything in the practice of New York criminal law is easy and straightforward, a recent decision from an Appellate Court in Western New York has given a little extra support to New York criminal defense attorneys defending clients in scenarios such as the one mentioned above. In People v Kalikow, 2011 NY Slip Op 09452 Decided on December 23, 2011 Appellate Division, Fourth Department, the defendant had received an appearance ticket for having an open container of alcohol. This was a violation of a local municipal ordinance. Upon issuing the appearance ticket, the defendant was ultimately searched and he made damaging statements. What specifically the police recovered and what the defendant actually said is irrelevant. In Kalikow, the issue was whether the conduct of the police was legal (the search) and, if not, whether the evidence recovered could be used against the accused at trial.