New York Criminal Attorney Blog

GUN OWNERS OUTED BY LOCAL PAPER

December 23, 2012 | Jasmine Hernandez

Firearms defense firm Tilem & Campbell is very unhappy to report that a local newspaper has outed local law-abiding gun owners. In the modern day equivalent of the scarlet letter the Journal News has published an article in today’s paper with an interactive on-line map that discloses the names of addresses of all law abiding gun owners in Westchester and Rockland Counties. The information was obtained by a Freedom of Information law request to the County clerks of each county.

Exactly the point of the article is not clear but is an apparent attack on law abiding gun owners who may face consequences at their work or in social circles now that their ownership of firearms has been publicized. The map also appears to have the names and addresses of several sworn police officers who for obvious reasons generally keep their residence information a secret. The article, an apparent reaction to the tragic shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, ironically puts everyone in danger in that it tells would be murders, terrorists, psychos and other people who are inellegible to purchase guns lawfully, exactly where they can steal them.

The basis for such a publication unfortunately has its basis under New York law. No civilian may lawfully purchase or possess a firearm in New York without a permit issue under Penal Law § 400.00 which defines the types of gun license in New York and the rules for issuing them. Penal Law § 400.00(5) specifically requires the filing of all approved applications and goes on to state: “The name and address of any person to whom an application for any license has been granted shall be a public record.” Penal law § 400.00(5). Apparently, Paul Piperato, the Rockland County Clerk, expressed some reluctance in giving up these records even as he apparently released the records under New York Law. “You have judges, policemen, retired policemen, FBI agents — they have permits,” Piperato said. “Once you allow the public to see where they live, that puts them in harm’s way.”

DWI CONVICTION REVERSED ON APPEAL. TRIAL JUDGE COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR BY PERMITTING HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW TO SERVE ON JURY

December 21, 2012 | Tilem & Associates

In another stunning victory for Westchester County based DWI attorney Peter Tilem, a Yates County man had his conviction reversed on appeal because the Trial Judge allowed his own mother-in-law to sit on the jury.

In a December 20th Decision, Acting Yates County Court Judge Dennis Bender reversed Richard Regan’s July, 2011 Driving While Intoxicated Conviction because the trial judge, Benton Town Justice Dave Grace, allowed his mother-in-law to serve on the jury. While Regan’s trial counsel, Dave Mashewske failed to object to Judge Grace’s mother-in-law sitting on the jury, the County Court placed the ultimate responsibility on Judge Grace. In reversing the conviction, the County Court held that Judge Grace: “should not have permitted his mother-in-law to serve on the jury and she should have been disqualified on the Court’s own initiative.” Allowing Judge’ Graces mother-in-law to sit on the jury, argued Campbell, violated Regan’s constitutional right to a fair trial by a panel of impartial jurors.

The victory is one of a recent string for Mr. Campbell who just last week had all of the evidence in a Westchester County DWI suppressed. In that case, Mr. Campbell was able to successfully argue that the driver was unlawfully stopped and seized because the police office lacked probable cause that the driver was speeding.

GUN OWNERS BE WARNED ABOUT SUICIDE HOTLINES

October 25, 2012 | Jasmine Hernandez

As a New York criminal defense lawyer that handles an inordinate number of gun related cases, I hear a large number of stories about the interaction between the police and law abiding gun owners. After more than 20 years, however, very few cases shock me. What happened after a Westchester County gun owner called a suicide hotline bears repeating as a cautionary tale to law abiding citizens everywhere.

A Westchester County gun owner owner got the surprise of his life when he called a suicide hot line to talk about tools to manage depression. After the gun owner’s wife from whom he had been separated introduced him to her new boyfriend, and after having suffered a medical condition the loss of his home and the break up of his marriage the gun owner decided to call a suicide help line for help and instead ended up with more trouble.

The gun owner clearly remembers calling 1800 SUICIDE to ask about tools for managing depression. He also recalls that he started out the conversation by telling the operator that he wasn’t going to hurt himself or anyone else but that he simply wanted information. The operator then steered the conversation to whether or not there was a child in the house (there was) and whether or not there were guns in the house (there were). Within a very short time of answering that there were guns in the house, and while still on the telephone, the Westchester County gun owner heard a knock at the door. It was the police.

Appearance Tickets In New York: Service Of An Appearance Ticket Or A Summons For Purposes of Commencing or Prosecuting a Criminal Action Against a Corporate Defendant [CPL 600.10]

June 5, 2012 | Tilem & Associates

Corporations in New York can be charged with criminal and non-criminal offenses. Corporations are often charged with regulatory violations some of which are indeed criminal. These include zoning, building, fire safety and health offenses but can also be charged with criminal offenses. Service of an appearance ticket on a corporate defendant in a criminal action is not guided by Article 150 of the New York Criminal Procedure Law as it is for service on a natural person. Instead, service of an appearance ticket upon a corporate defendant in a criminal action is guided by CPL 600.10 which provides in pertinent part:

The court attendance of a corporation for purposes of commencing

or prosecuting a criminal action against it may be accomplished by

APPEARANCE TICKETS IN NEW YORK: IMPROPER SERVICE OF AN APPEARANCE TICKET WILL NOT DEPRIVE THE COURT OF JURISDICTION IF THE DEFENDANT APPEARS IN COURT AND A SUFFICIENT ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT HAS BEEN FILED

May 27, 2012 | Tilem & Associates

Recently I was contacted by a person who had been issued a ticket for passing a stopped school bus (VTL 1174 “Overtaking And Passing School Bus) by a New Rochelle Police Officer who left the ticket with this person’s son at the front door of his home located in White Plains, New York. Briefly, this gentleman’s front doorbell rang. His nineteen year old son answered the door and was greeted by a New Rochelle Police Officer who asked him if he was the owner of a particular vehicle that was parked in his driveway. The son said he wasn’t but that his dad was at which point the New Rochelle Police Officer handed the son a traffic ticket for his father for passing a stopped school bus (VTL 1174).

I later learned that the New Rochelle Police Officer had not witnessed the alleged improper passing of the school bus nor had any other police officers. However, a school bus driver had written down the license plate number of a vehicle the school bus driver alleged had failed to stop for the school bus which had stopped, activated its lights and stop-sign and was discharging school children. The school bus driver then contacted the police, told them what he witnessed and gave them the plate number.

The police ran the plate number and learned the make, model, year and color of the vehicle and who it was registered to. The make, model, year and color matched the description given by the school bus driver. That’s what led the New Rochelle Police to this person’s home in White Plains, NY. However, the police cannot issue a traffic ticket to a person by leaving it with someone else.

SENTENCING IN NEW YORK: WHEN A DEFENDANT IS SENTENCED TO PROBATION, THE SENTENCING COURT, NOT THE DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, SETS THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PROBATION

May 17, 2012 | Tilem & Associates

In New York, as elsewhere, probationary sentences for criminal charges play a major role in the criminal justice system. Incarceration is rarely appropriate. When a judge sentences a defendant to a sentence that involves probation, it is the judge that determines the conditions of such probation. By law, it is the judge who determines a sentence and the conditions of that sentence. The sentencing judge cannot delegate his or her sentencing authority by allowing the Department of Probation to determine a defendant’s probation conditions. It is improper for sentencing judge to simply tell a defendant at sentencing that the Department of Probation will determine the defendant’s probation conditions. Such a blanket delegation of total discretion to the department of probation without any court-imposed parameters and guidance is improper.

“Sentenc[ing] is primarily a judicial responsibility.” People v. Selikoff, 35 N.Y.2d 227, 240 (1974). The granting of probation is a judicial process exercised in the discretion of the sentencing court. People v. Oskroba, 305 N.Y. 113 (1953). When a defendant is sentenced to probation, the Court, not the probation department, sets the terms and conditions of probation. PL § 65.10(1).

New York Criminal Procedure Law § 410.10(1) provides in part, “When the court pronounces a sentence of probation . . . it must specify as part of the sentence the conditions to be complied with.” This duty of the court to specify probation conditions cannot be delegated to the probation department or to any other party. See People v. Fuller, 57 N.Y.2d 152 (1982)(“Although a sentencing court may utilize the Probation Department “to act as a preliminary fact finder and submit its recommendations in a written report . . . in the end it is for the court, which alone must impose the sentence, to decide how much of the report, if any, to adopt and how much to reject”).

HOW CAN APPEARANCE TICKETS ISSUED IN NEW YORK BE SERVED [CPL 150.40(2)]

May 7, 2012 | Tilem & Associates

With Limited Exceptions, When the Defendant is a Natural Person,
Appearance Tickets Must be Served Personally [CPL 150.40(2)]

Generally, under New York law, other than an appearance ticket issued for a traffic infraction relating to parking, an appearance ticket must be personally served. Except, an appearance ticket issued for the violation of a local zoning ordinance or local zoning law, or of a local building or sanitation code may be issued in any manner authorized for service in a civil action under CPLR 308. CPL 150.40(2).

To summarize, appearance tickets issued to natural persons in New York must be personally served. Except, appearance tickets may be served in accordance with CPLR 308 (see below section) if they are for parking violations or violations of local zoning, building or sanitation violations.

Service Upon a Natural Person by Mail Insufficient. New York City Routinely Ignores The Requirement That Appearance Tickets Issued To Natural Persons Be Personally Served.

Personal service on a “defendant, whose liberty will be at stake in a criminal action, serves to assure his right to adequate notice and expeditious resolution of the charges.” People v. DiLorenzo, 149 Misc.2d 791, 794 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 1990). In DiLorenzo, the court noted that the certified mailing of an appearance ticket that should have been personally served was insufficient service.

In People v. Baxter, 148 Misc.2d 1009 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 1990) the court found service of appearance tickets by a New York City administrative agency by mail defective and dismissed charges for lack of jurisdiction. In doing so, the court observed “that the CPL requirements of personal service are not being followed by the Buildings Department and other administrative agencies.” Id. at 1010.

In People v. Neuberger, 149 Misc.2d 1 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 1991) the court dismissed all charges against the defendants in the interests of justice explaining that “[a]s for the Corporation Counsel’s continued practice of flouting the service requirements of the Criminal Procedure Law, that abuse cannot be left unremedied.” People v. Neuberger, 149 Misc. 2d 1, 5 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 1991).

In Neuberger, several defendants were served appearance tickets by mail which ordered them to appear in criminal court. The Honorable Martin G. Karopkin explained that the Corporation Counsel had been warned numerous times over the preceding several months that such service by mail was improper:

On numerous occasions during the past several months this court, and others, have warned the Office of the Corporation Counsel, the Buildings Department and other city agencies that service by mail is improper and contrary to CPL 150.40, as well as CPL 600.10

.

Id. at 1-2.

Despite the repeated warnings of both J. Karopkin and other judges, “the Corporation Counsel . . . continued to submit affidavits of mailing to the court accompanying its pleadings and to argue that the defendants’ appearances confer jurisdiction and render that issue moot.” Id. at 2-3.

In other words, the New York City Corporation Counsel knowingly served appearance tickets on individuals by mail, in clear contravention of the law. What’s more troubling is that they continued to do so even after several judges warned the Corporation Counsel that such service was improper. Thus, the Corporation Counsel “acquired these defendants’ presence by means of improper service” and then argued that the defendants’ mere presence before the court conferred jurisdiction thus mooting the service issue. Id. at 5.

APPEARANCE TICKETS IN NEW YORK: POLICE CAN REQUIRE BAIL BEFORE THEY RELEASE SOMEONE ON AN APPEARANCE TICKET [CPL 150.30(1)]

April 30, 2012 | Tilem & Associates

In New York, where a police officer has arrested a person but has decided to issue that person an appearance ticket instead of bringing that person before a judge, the arrested person may be required to post pre-arraignment bail. The bail is forfeited if the person fails to appear as instructed in the appearance ticket. [CPL 150.30(1)].

Pre-arraignment bail (sometimes referred to as “stationhouse” bail) is fixed by the desk officer in charge at any police station/headquarters or the county jail or any of the desk officer’s superior officers as follows:

• For an E felony – up to $750.00;

ARE YOU UNDER ARREST IF THE POLICE SHOW UP AT YOUR HOME? THE MERE ISSUANCE OF AN APPEARANCE TICKET BY THE POLICE AT A PERSON’S HOME DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ARREST

April 20, 2012 | Tilem & Associates

If the police crash through your front-door at 6:00 a.m. in full paramilitary ninja outfits like Seal Team 6; drag you out of bed with assault weapons jammed in your temple; handcuff you and then proceed to tear up your house before realizing you live at 639 Main Street and the warrant is for 693 Main Street, you are most likely in custody. You couldn’t just get up and head out for your morning jog. However, if the police simply want to serve you with an appearance ticket at your home for leaving the scene of an accident or some other traffic infraction mystery they diligently investigated; you would not be in custody when they show up in the same paramilitary ninja outfits.

It does not constitute an arrest where the police decide to issue an appearance ticket to a person in a situation that does not require them to stop and seize that person. For example, in Angel v. Kasson, 581 F Supp 170 (N.D.N.Y 1983) after conducting an investigation into the death of an infant, the police decided to charge the parents with Endangering the Welfare of a Child. Id. at 174.

However, instead of formally arresting the parents, the police traveled to their home and served them with appearance tickets directing them to appear in court on a specific date to answer charges of endangering the welfare of a child. Id. The parents weren’t stopped while walking on the street or driving their car, detained and searched.

Are New York Police Required To Read A Driver Their “Miranda Rights” Before Questioning Them During a Car Stop?

April 5, 2012 | Tilem & Associates

If you’re stopped by the police in New York (Greenburgh, White Plains, Harrison, etc) for a traffic infraction such as speeding, should the police read you your “rights” prior to questioning you about where you coming from, if you had anything to drink or if you knew why you were stopped? When a person is arrested they lose certain rights. For example, when one is arrested, they lose their right to liberty and they are subject to a warrantless search incident to their arrest. In fact, a search incident to a lawful arrest is one of the many exceptions to the search warrant requirement.

However, while a person loses certain rights when they are arrested, they also obtain certain rights once they are arrested. For example, before the police can question a person who has been arrested they must read that person their “rights” – the police must “Mirandize” an arrested person before questioning.

There is absolutely no doubt that Uniform Traffic Tickets or Simplified Traffic Informations are also appearance tickets. See e.g., People v. Tyler, 1 N.Y.3d 493 (2004)(speeding ticket deemed an appearance ticket); People v. Hollinger, 15 Misc. 3d 130A (App. Term 2nd Dept. 2007)(The front of the uniform traffic tickets directed defendant to appear in the Justice Court of the Village of Old Westbury on September 18, 2003, thus serving as an “appearance ticket” under CPL 150.10); Farkas v. State, 96 Misc. 2d 784, 787 fn 1 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. 1978)(Appearance ticket includes, by definition, uniform traffic tickets); People v. Litean, 2008 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5475, 240 N.Y.L.J. 33 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2008)(“A summons requiring a defendant to appear in court is the equivalent of a desk appearance ticket . . .”); People v. Genovese, 156 Misc. 2d 569, 571 (J. Ct. 1992)(“the yellow copy of the simplified traffic information is an appearance ticket as defined by CPL 150.10”).

Since People v. Hazelwood, 104 Misc.2d 1121, 1123 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 1980) held that the detention of a person by the police for the purpose of issuing such person an appearance ticket creates an “arrest situation” justifying a search of such person just as if they had been formally arrested, doesn’t it follow that the police would have to Mirandize this so-called “arrested” person before questioning them? Why should the police get the benefit of deeming the person “arrested” so they can search them but not allow this “arrested” person the benefit of his Miranda rights just like any other arrested person?

One stopped by the police is clearly not free to go. In People v. Wallgren, 2011 NY Slip Op 51556U, (N.Y. County Ct. Aug. 16, 2011) the police officers testified at the probable cause hearing that defendant’s vehicle was driving erratically and they stopped it only to check on the driver’s “welfare.” However, as observed by the court, the officers were not concerned about the driver’s welfare but instead immediately launched into a DWI investigation:
Notwithstanding both officers’ testimony regarding the welfare
check, Officer Einsfeld, upon approaching the driver’s window,
asked whether the defendant was drinking prior to driving, where
the defendant came from and where the defendant was going.
These questions were clearly indicative of a DWI investigation,
not a welfare check and are designed to solicit incriminating
evidence from a motorist.

Furthermore, the police admitted that “when a police officer activates the police lights, the person is supposed to stop and is not free to leave until the police speak with the person.” Id. The court therefore concluded that the police testimony established that the defendant was in custody from the very inception of the defendant’s encounter with the police: “By [Officer Einsfeld’s] testimony alone the custodial status of the defendant from the very inception was admitted by the police.” Id.