New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

April 8, 2013

Attempted Endangering the Welfare of a Child: When Does Your Conduct Cross the Criminal Line for a NY Arrest

An arrest in New York for Endangering the Welfare of a Child is one of the more serious misdemeanor crimes in the New York Penal Law. Generally speaking, its not that one “A” misdemeanor is more serious than another (all “A” misdemeanor crimes are punishable by as much as one year in jail), but when an crime, charge or arrest involves children, both courts and prosecutors pay much closer attention. Add this practical reality to Endangering the Welfare of a Child prosecutions and you will quickly realize that the police (NYPD and others), may be inclined to make an arrest for New York Penal Law 260.10 first and then ask the deeper and more relevant questions later. Whether this is the situation for your NY PL 260.10 arrest, a New York criminal lawyer is likely a necessity not only to get you limited bail or released from custody, but to ascertain whether the allegations against you form a legally sound complaint of a Child Endangerment crime.

In terms of your own New York Child Endangerment lawyer or NYC criminal defense attorney implementing the best defense, he or she must have a firm grasp on the law. Certainly, it would help if you, the accused, had the same comprehension. Boiled down to its basic elements, Endangering the Welfare of a Child occurs under the first subsection (NY PL 260.10(1)) when you act knowingly in a way that is likely to be injurious to a child (who is less than 16 years old) in terms of their physical, mental or moral welfare. Alternatively, you direct or authorize that child to engage in an occupation where a substantial risk or danger to that child’s life or health is exists.

April 4, 2013

Can You Vacate a New York DWI Plea if the Court Failed to Advise You of Possible Felony Consequences of a Second DWI Arrest?

by Jeremy Saland

Most people are familiar with New York DWI laws and crimes on a general level. That is, if you drive drunk in Manhattan, drive under the influence in Brooklyn or drive while intoxicated in White Plains, the potential crimes that you face are only one of a few set forth in New York’s Vehicle and Traffic Law. If you “blow” a .08 or higher you will likely be arrested and charged with DWI pursuant to VTL 1192(2) or VTL 1192.2 and if you refuse to give a BAC sample in an intoxilyzer or you display the characteristics of intoxication such as blood shot eyes and slurred speech, you will be arrested for DUI pursuant to VTL 1192(3) or VTL 1192.3. Regardless, each of these crimes are misdemeanors punishable by jail, probation, the Drunk Driver’s Program (DDP) a fine and license suspension.

What is less known by many people including those legal professionals who are not New York DWI lawyers or DUI attorneys, is that a second DWI arrest (actually a conviction) is punishable as a felony offense with a sentence of up to four years in prison. This second drunk driving arrest in New York must be within ten years of the previous arrest and conviction. It is important to recognize that an arrest for VTL 1192.2 or VTL 1192.3 is not enough to establish the basis of the felony DWI crime. Further, if a lesser plea offer is accepted to the violation of Driving While Ability Impaired is accepted (VTL 1192.1 or VTL 1192.(1)), this non criminal disposition will also not be form the foundation of a felony DUI conviction.

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.

March 28, 2013

Understanding Official Misconduct & Obstructing Governmental Administration with a “Brady” Twist: NY Penal Law Sections 195.00 & 195.05

by Jeremy Saland

Being charged with and arrested for any misdemeanor crime in New York is no walk in the park. A New York criminal defense attorney need not advise you of this obvious fact. The reality is, any accusation has significant and collateral consequences. When the crimes involve some alleged form of fraud or dishonesty involving the government, the offense looks even uglier. Two crimes that fit in this mold are Official Misconduct, New York Penal Law 195.00 and Obstructing Governmental Administration in the Second Degree, New York Penal Law 195.05. As ugly as the crimes may be, however, an arrest for either PL 195.00 or PL 195.05 does not equate to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Although I have blogged and drafted materials on both of these crimes, before addressing a recent court decision it is worth briefly explaining the parameters and definitions of these offenses. To be guilty of Official Misconduct pursuant to NY PL 195.00, one first must be a public servant. Further, one must have the intent to obtain a benefit or deprive another person of a benefit. In addition to these elements, as charged in the case discussed below and according to subsection two of this crime, one must knowingly refrain from performing a duty that one is imposed by law or clearly inherent in the nature of one’s office.

March 23, 2013

NYC ID Theft Ring Bust: Manhattan DA Charges Four in Fraudulent Debit Card Scheme – Over $200,00 & 100s of Debit Cards Recovered

by Jeremy Saland

The extent and amount of fraud that is perpetrated by Identity Theft is staggering. As a prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office who spearheaded many multi-million dollar Identity Theft, Forgery and Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument investigations, arrests and indictments, I have certainly dealt with the underbelly of these financial crimes. As a New York criminal defense lawyer and IdentityTheft defense attorney, I have also represented numerous individuals accused of the same allegations that I prosecuted for years. While I have yet to be shocked by the means in which these crimes are committed or the extent of the alleged criminal networks involved, it seems clear to me that Identity Theft will be the central or greatest crime of our generation.

Along these lines, according to New York City newspapers, the NYPD has arrested four men in another alleged large scale Identity Theft ring. It is alleged that at least four Los Angeles and Las Vegas men (Garegin Spartalyan, Aram Martirosian, Hayk Dzhandzhapanyan and David Kudugulyan) and possible other accomplices, stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from Manhattan banks by utilizing bogus or fraudulent credit cards to withdraw money and cash. More specifically, its is claimed by the NYPD that the accused were caught after one or more of the men attempted to withdraw money from “flagged” bank accounts. Further, upon investigation and the execution of search warrants, $198,000 in money orders as well as $16,000 in cash with 200 fake credit cards were recovered from a hotel room. This was on top of the $5,000 and 92 debit cards and $16,000 and 82 debit cards allegedly recovered from two of the defendants.

March 21, 2013

NYC Weapon & Imitation Pistol Crimes: Understand the Administrative Code and “Reasonably Perceived” Language

by Jeremy Saland

Not all of New York’s weapon crimes are located or found in the New York Penal Law. Certainly, a review of Article 265 of the New York Penal Law will reveal the most serious gun and firearm crimes such as Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 265.03) and the “gravity knife crime” of Fourth Degree Criminal Possession of a Weapon (New York Penal Law 265.01), but the New York Administrative Code houses many other weapon offenses. Once such misdemeanor crime, an offense that will leave you with a permanent criminal record upon conviction, is AC 10.131(g)(1). According to AC 10.131(g)(1), you are guilty of Unlawful Sale, Possession, or Use of an Imitation Pistol when if and when you “sell(s) or offers to sell, possess or use or attempt to use or give away, any toy or imitation firearm which substantially duplicates or can reasonably be perceived to be an actual firearm.” This crime carries a possible and potential sentence of up to one year in jail on the world class, Starwood resort of Rikers Island.

This blog entry will assess and briefly address the crime of AC 10.131(g)(1) in the context of possessing an imitation pistol. In People v. Ronald Johnson, 2012BX068528, NYLJ 1202591137115, at *1 (Crim., BX, Decided February 19, 2013), an officer from the New York City Police Department in possession of a “black power drill.” The officer observed the “weapon” in the defendant’s waistband. According to the complaint, the officer stated that “said power drill resembled a real .9mm semi-automatic pistol, in that, it was all black in color, and the barrel was not closed with any material.”

March 2, 2013

Gun Arrest JFK Results in ACD Dismissal: New York Criminal Possession of Firearm Arrest Results in No Record

by Jeremy Saland

In the best of all scenarios, the New York criminal defense attorneys and former Manhattan Assistant District Attorneys at Saland Law PC are proud to announce the granting of an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal (commonly called an ACD) on behalf of a client arrested for Second Degree Criminal Possession of a Weapon (New York Penal Law 265.03). In a not so atypical set of circumstances, Port Authority Police Officers arrested our client as he attempted to check his legally owned and licensed out-of-state handgun with airline ticket agents at JFK airport (the same would have occurred at LaGuardia Airport). Assuming he was compliant with the law prior to his arrest for NY PL 265.03, our client secured the firearm in a hard side case, removed the ammunition from the pistol and voluntarily advised the airline representatives of his possession. Unfortunately for our client, ignorance of the law is no defense for a Weapon Possession crime and our client faced the wrath of New York’s strict firearm laws.

Whether or not you agree with New York’s gun laws and possession statutes, compliance in one state does not mean compliance in New York. Where your possession would be non criminal elsewhere, your possession of a legally owned and registered out of state firearm in New York City or an airport in Queens becomes a class “C” felony if the gun is loaded. Remember, loaded in the eyes of the law is much more liberal and does not require bullets or ammunition actually in a chamber, cylinder, cartridge, etc.

February 26, 2013

Falling Like a House of Cards: Resisting Arrest Dismissed as a Result of Legally Insufficient Claims of Disorderly Conduct

by Jeremy Saland

One of the more common ways the police and prosecutors can amplify an otherwise insignificant event is by alleging, and ultimately arresting a person for, Resisting Arrest (New York Penal Law 205.30) or Obstructing Governmental Administration in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 195.05). That is not to say that these crimes are not legitimate offenses and prosecutions are not warranted, but that the conduct for which a person is accused may not based on sound law. To be clear, an arrest for NY PL 205.30, for example, can be established with an accused merely pushing away and refusing to place his or her hands where they can be handcuffed. Despite what an “average” person may believe, to commit Resisting Arrest, one need not become violent or cause injury to an officer. However, before the crime of Resisting Arrest can happen, the reason for that arrest must be lawful. Simply, you cannot be convicted of Resisting Arrest if your underlying conduct is lawful. It is black letter law that “[i]f force is necessary to prevent an unlawful arrest, then force may be employed…” See People v. Cherry, 307 NY 308, 311, (1954) (Having said that, one should not violently or physically oppose the police because one believes one’s conduct is lawful. The courts, not the accused or the police, ultimately make the decision as to the legality of an arrest).

Although I have written on this topic multiple times (a search for “Resisting Arrest,” “205.30” and following the link above will reveal more content), a recent decision once again affirms the above rule. In People v. Coley 2013 NY Slip Op 50167 – NY: County Court, Criminal Court 2013, the defendant was accused of Disorderly Conduct in violation of New York Penal Law 240.20 by standing “in the middle of the above location, a public sidewalk, impeding the flow of pedestrian traffic.” After attempting to issue the defendant a summons for his failure to leave the location, the defendant could not produce any identification. The police attempted to handcuff the defendant who “flailed his arms and twisted his body.”

February 7, 2013

Limiting the a New York Police Officer’s Right to Inquire about Weapon Possession in a Vehicle: People v. Garcia

by Jeremy Saland

There is no denying that armed offenses and mere weapon possession are some of the most serious crimes in the New York Penal Law. Its equally clear that police officers in New York should be able to protect themselves from potential danger when they stop a person who committed a crime or may be perpetrating a New York gun crime. An interesting question, however, is when a police officer can make an inquiry and ask a passenger or driver of a vehicle if he or she has a weapon such as a firearm, revolver, gun, gravity knife or switchblade. A recent decision by the top court in New York, the Court of Appeals, clearly explains the rule when this question can be asked. Whether you are a New York criminal lawyer, Assistant District Attorney or judge in a county, criminal or local court, People v. Garcia, No. 205, NYLJ 1202581900488, at *1 (Ct. of App., Decided December 18, 2012), is a critical case to read and fully understand.

In the words of the Court, Garcia’s appeal asked the judges to “determine whether a police officer may, without founded suspicion for the inquiry, ask the occupants of a lawfully stopped vehicle if they possess any weapons..” There, the police pulled over the defendants’ vehicle because of a nonworking headlight. In addition to Garcia, the driver, four other people were in the car. The three backseat passengers looked nervous, “were a little furtive,” kept “looking behind,” and “stiffened up.” Asked for his license and registration, Garcia complied. Shortly thereafter, the officers asked if anyone possessed a weapon at which time one of the passengers admitted to possessing a knife. After ordering everyone from the vehicle, what appeared to be a firearm (it was an air pistol) was found wedged between a seat (it was visible with a flashlight). After waiving his rights to an attorney, Garcia admitted the air gun was his pistol.

February 3, 2013

Circumstantial Proof for a NY DWI Arrest: Recent Appellate Decision Favorable to Prosecutors

by Jeremy Saland

Every year New York DWI attorneys and DUI lawyers find themselves representing clients accused of drunk driving and Vehicle and Traffic Law 1192 crimes that are re-defined by new criminal statutes or legal decisions. For example, Aggravated DWI in New York State is a crime that enhances penalties and did not exist years ago. Further, while portable “brathalyzer” tests were often not admissible at trial years ago, many courts are allowing prosecutors from New York City and Westchester County to municipalities and jurisdictions in Western New York and Upstate to introduce the field test BAC results with proper foundation.

One of the areas of law that always seems to expand with renewed analysis by local, county and appellate courts concerns the “operation” or “operating” terminology in VTL 1192 arrests. First, courts often address whether one must be actually driving to be operating (one does not) and second, if a defendant is not seen operating the vehicle how prosecutors can establish a drunk driving or driving while intoxicated crime circumstantially. A case right on point, and a very recent appellate decision, People v. Shaffer, 943 NYS2d 672 [3rd Dept. 2012], examined these issues. In Shaffer, a State Trooper observed the defendant sitting on his motorcycle. Although the motorcycle was not running, the defendant was wearing a helmet and facing the wrong way down a one way street. Ultimately arresting the defendant for violating VTL 1192.2 and VTL 1192.3, the Appellate Court found that there was both probable cause to arrest the defendant and it was of nominal consequence that the officers did not actually observe the defendant driving or operating the bike. Testimony at trial revealed, as mentioned above, that the defendant sat upon his motorcycle facing the wrong way, helmet on his head, kick stand up and keys in the ignition. Although the defendant’s motorcycle was not running, the defendant admitted to driving it moments before. More specifically, he stated he travelled about fifty yards down the one way road (the correct direct), realized he had gone the wrong way and turned around to figure things out. When taking into consideration that the officers observed the “standard” indicia of intoxication – watery and blood shot eyes, slurred speech and the smell of alcohol – along with the fact that the defendant was astride his motorcycle with the key in the ignition and kickstand up, admitted to driving and failed field sobriety tests, probable cause was certainly in place to arrest the defendant. The greater (or at least equally important) question was whether this evidence, if credible, was enough to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Simply, the answer here was yes. Even without direct knowledge of operation, the circumstantial evidence was very strong and by itself can form the basis of a DWI or DUI conviction.