Other Crimes

December 3, 2010

Obstructing Governmental Administration (New York Penal Law 195.05): Can Words Alone be the Basis of the Obstruction

Often times confused with Resisting Arrest (New York Penal Law 205.30), Obstructing Governmental Administration in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 195.05), occurs when a person intentionally obstructs the administration of law or attempts to prevent a public servant, such as a police officer, from performing an official function. This obstruction can be through intimidation, physical force or any independent unlawful act. In other words, if the police are trying to make a lawful arrest of another person and you prevent them from doing so by blocking the police or pushing them away, this charge would likely be applicable. If the police were trying t make an arrest of you and you conducted yourself in the same manner, the likely charge would be Resisting Arrest. Both crimes are “A” misdemeanors punishable by up to one year in jail. In Manhattan, Brooklyn or any other location in New York City, the one year in jail would be served on Rikers Island.

An interesting question that will be addressed in this blog entry is whether or not words alone can create a sufficient obstruction to sustain the charges of Obstructing Governmental Administration in the Second Degree. Fortunately, a recent decision may help shed light on this issue.

November 13, 2010

Stalking in the Fourth Degree: New York Penal Law 120.45 & “Reasonable Fear”

by Jeremy Saland

Any crime or offense in New York where violence is perceived or carried out is a serious offense. Experienced New York criminal defense lawyers who handle violent felonies and misdemeanors often represent clients in Criminal Possession of a Weapon and Assault cases. Not seen as often, but potentially as serious, is the crime of Stalking. Briefly, Stalking in New York ranges from a “B” misdemeanor (New York Penal Law 120.45) punishable by up to 90 days jail to a “D” felony (New York Penal Law 120.60) punishable by up to seven years in prison. Between these two crimes are Stalking in the Third Degree (New York Penal Law 120.50) and Stalking in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 120.55). The following entry will define and address Stalking in the Fourth Degree as it relates to “reasonable fear.” Although addressing “reasonable fear” in the context of Stalking in the Fourth Degree, this entry is relevant to the other degrees as well.

Generally, one is guilty of Stalking in the Fourth Degree when one intentionally and without a legitimate purpose, engages in a course of conduct directed towards an individual person and knows, or reasonably should know, that his or her actions:

November 8, 2010

Saland Law PC’s Criminal Mischief (New York Penal Law 145.00, 145.05 & 145.10) Criminal Defense Resource Page

by Jeremy Saland

The New York criminal defense attorneys at Saland Law PC have created an “information page” for those people charged with or seeking information on the crime of Criminal Mischief in New York. Not merely a regurgitation of New York Penal Law sections 140.00, 145.05, 145.10 or 145.12, the resource page is a starting point to educate yourself about this crime. While the page is no substitute for an in depth review of your particular facts with an experienced New York criminal lawyer, this tool does discuss potential areas where you may find your defense.

Generally, Criminal Mischief in the Fourth Degree (NY Penal Law 145.00), a relatively common misdemeanor involving the damaging of another person’s property, is the basis of all of the other felony crimes involving Criminal Mischief. From Manhattan to Queens and Brooklyn to Westchester County, the crime of Criminal Mischief involves the same premise. That is, if you intentionally damage another person’s property, regardless of how significant, you can be charged with a crime. The misdemeanor offense even permits a reckless damaging to be the basis of this charge. What bumps the crime up to a felony is the amount of the damage. Once the damage exceeds $250 and $5,000, the crime becomes an “E” and “D” felony respectively.

September 10, 2010

Graffiti Crimes & Making Graffiti in New York: The “Related Matters” Criminal Defense & Right To Counsel

by Jeremy Saland

Although it rears its head in other areas of New York criminal law, violations of a defendant’s right to counsel (right to remain silent) seem disproportionately greater in the area of New York graffiti crimes including Making Graffiti (New York Penal Law 145.60), Criminal Mischief (New York Penal Law 145.00) and Possession of Graffiti Instruments (New York Penal Law 145.65). While I cannot base my opinion on any scientific data, as a New York graffiti crimes criminal defense lawyer, I have litigated and addressed the issues regarding right to counsel numerous times in this specific arena. In fact, one of the New York City District Attorney’s Offices recently dropped five of six cases against our client after I successfully argued that the client’s right to counsel was violated by the New York City Police Department’s Vandalism (Vandal) Squad. The argument was based in the doctrine of “Related Matters.”

In the case mentioned above, our client had been arrested by police after he was allegedly observed with a spray paint can. A person had called indicating someone was in the process of spray painting. Our client was alleged to have made a particular tag at that location. Weeks later, after he was arraigned and had been assigned counsel, but had yet to retain Saland Law PC, the Vandal Squad stopped our client on the street and confronted him with photographs. These photographs were of the same alleged tag at other locations. During his street interrogation by about six officers and detectives from the Vandal Squad, our client “admitted” to spraying the tag at the other locations. As a result, he was once again arrested and charged with five new cases regarding the same tag as the first arrest that was currently pending in criminal court.

July 18, 2010

Reckless Endangerment in New York – NY Penal Law 120.20: When Does Acting Recklessly Constitute a Crime in NY?

by Jeremy Saland

Reckless Endangerment in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 120.20) is a misdemeanor crime routinely handled by both prosecutors and criminal defense lawyers in New York City and the region. Although seemingly straight forward, the law not only has terms that have their own meaning, but cases that have decided how and when the law is applied. This entry will be the first in a series of “primers” on Reckless Endangerment in the Second Degree (NY PL 120.20). Future entries will address the law as well as the “felony version” of Reckless Endangerment pursuant to New York Penal Law 120.25.

Reckless Endangerment in the Second Degree – NY PL 120.20

July 14, 2010

New York Penal Law 145.65: What is an “Instrument” for the Purposes of Possession of Graffiti Instruments

by Jeremy Saland

Although not often litigated by New York criminal defense lawyers where a client is charged with Possession of Graffiti Instruments, pursuant to New York Penal Law section 145.65, it is important to understand or identify what constitutes a “graffiti instrument.” Certainly, some tools are obvious. Cans of spray paint, markers, etc. are obvious “graffiti instruments” in the right circumstances. Yet, why are those objects “graffiti instruments” and what is the basis of that definition?

New York Penal Law 145.65 sets forth that one is guilty of Possession of Graffiti Instruments when one possess any instrument (even a substance or solution) designed or commonly used to etch, paint, cover or draw upon property. The definition is further expanded to address permission or authority to make such marks and circumstances evincing the intent to damage the property of another. These terms put together establish graffiti instruments.

April 20, 2010

Criminal Impersonation & Your Criminal Defense: New York Penal Law Sections 190.25 & 190.26

by Jeremy Saland

Before the dawn of identity theft laws, the crime of Criminal Impersonation, pursuant to New York Penal Law sections 190.25 and 190.26, was the weapon of the assistant district attorney to prosecute fraud crimes related to one’s identification or persona in New York. This entry will address the crime of Criminal Impersonation in Second Degree (NY PL 190.25) and Criminal Impersonation in the First Degree (NY PL 190.26). A second entry will address legal decisions applicable to these laws.

Criminal Impersonation in the Second Degree – New York Penal Law 190.25

April 16, 2010

NY Penal Law Sections 250.45 & 250.50: Your Criminal Defense & Unlawful Surveillance in the Second Degree & First Degrees

by Jeremy Saland

That secret video recorder you installed capturing someone undressing in a hotel bedroom, the changing room or in your tenant’s apartment may land you in serious trouble. While you may think it is funny to show your friends images of a person you filmed while you were intimate without that person knowing, it will be far from humorous when you find yourself charged with either Unlawful Surveillance in the Second Degree pursuant to New York Penal Law section 250.45 or Unlawful Surveillance in the First Degree pursuant to New York Penal Law 250.50.

Although a serious offense, there may be numerous defenses to the crimes of Unlawful Surveillance pursuant to New York Penal Law sections 250.45 and 250.50. For example, did the subject of the surveillance or video consent to the recordings and is there any corroboration of that? Obviously, making such an argument where the installation is in a fitting room, bathroom or other “personal space” may be difficult. That being said, was the search of the location or computer used in the alleged crime conducted with probable cause and with a search warrant? Do you have standing to challenge that search? Whatever the facts, discuss the them with your New York criminal defense attorney to ascertain and implement the best defense you deem appropriate. Having briefly glossed over the severity of the crime and potential defenses, the follow are the definitions involving Unlawful Surveillance in New York:

March 9, 2010

New York Penal Law 165.05 & 165.06: Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle & Your NY Criminal Defense

by Jeremy Saland

Whether a vehicle is stolen or being driven without permission of the owner, one particular crime that may be charged in New York is Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle in the Second and Third Degrees pursuant to New York Penal Law sections 165.06 and 165.05 respectively. While other crimes may have been perpetrated, such as Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, an “E” felony punishable by up to four years in state prison, Unauthorized Used of a Vehicle, the “joyriding statute,” is defined as follows: NY PL 165.05(1) – Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle in the Third Degree

A person is guilty of Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle in the Third Degree when knowing that he does not have the consent of the owner, he takes, operates, exercises control over, rides in or otherwise uses a vehicle. A person who engages in any such conduct without the consent of the owner is presumed to know that he does not have such consent

February 28, 2010

Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) or Summons in New York City: 100 Centre Street, Midtown Community Court & 346 Broadway

by Jeremy Saland

The NY criminal defense attorneys and former Manhattan prosecutors at Saland Law PC have handled a significant number of Desk Appearance Tickets (DATs) and “pink” summonses for our clients. In Manhattan, these cases are often dealt with at 100 Centre Street, 346 Broadway (“pink” ticket / summons court) or at Midtown Community Court. Whether the summons or Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) charges you with Shoplifting Petit Larceny (NY PL 155.25 or NY PL 165.40), Marijuana (NY PL 221.10), Drug Possession (NY PL 220.03), Theft of Services (NY PL 165.15), Assault (NY PL 120.00), Trespass (NY PL 140.10), or even Disorderly Conduct (NY PL 240.20), the ramifications of mishandling the Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) is no different than if you were arrested, booked and put through the criminal justice system. That means, you can still end up with a criminal record even though you were merely given a “ticket” for a criminal act.

For the purpose of today’s entry, I will discuss the differences between the potential Manhattan courts that deal with these charges. Again, a Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) or “pink ticket” summons in Manhattan is returnable to 100 Centre Street, Midtown Community Court or 346 Broadway.