New York Marijuana Arrests are especially high in New York City. Smoking pot in public. Usually the defendant was smoking in a park or had the unique scent of marijuana emanating from their possessions before the New York City Police intervene. In People v. Velez, 2015CN008005, NYLJ 1202765159918, at *1 (Crim., NY, Decided August 12, 2016), the Defendant was charged with one count of Criminal Possession of Marihuana in the Fifth Degree (Penal Law §221.10 ) and one count of Unlawful Possession of Marihuana (Penal Law §221.05). As is often the predicate of a great many arrests, stops, searches, seizures and sometimes frisks, the New York City Police Officers swore that
“I observed the defendant holding a marijuana cigarette in a public place and open to public view. I then took the marijuana, one cigarette containing marijuana, from the ground where I observed the defendant discard it. I took marijuana, two bags containing marijuana not burning or open to public view, from the defendant’s pocket. I observed Police Officer Christopher O’Connor, Shield #  of the Midtown North Precinct also take five bags containing marijuana from a container in the defendant’s bag…I believe the substance is marijuana based upon my professional training as a police officer making marijuana arrests, the odor emanating from the substance, an observation of the packaging, which is characteristic of marijuana, and a field test that confirmed that the substance is marijuana.”
The Defendant was arrested for the marijuana that the defendant allegedly threw to the ground. Was it in a public place? As The New York Law Journal Reports, “[a] Manhattan judge has tossed out a drug possession charge for a man accused of holding a marijuana cigarette in public, finding that the complaint against him did not adequately describe the public place where he allegedly committed the offense.” more
The Fourth Amendment, just like the regulations of a driverless car, does not end with the advent of new technology. Here the use of a cell-site simulator to track down a criminal suspect without a warrant has led to the suppression of a large amount of narcotics seized from a New York City apartment. Logistically, this meant that the scales utilized and narcotics that were likely being sold by the defendant and are suppressed and cannot be used against the defendant at a criminal trial because this New York City tenant was subject to a Fourth Amendment violation by Drug Enforcement Administration Agents:
The Fourth Amendment guarantees that all people shall be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. CONST. amend. IV. “[T]he underlying command of the Fourth Amendment is always that searches and seizures be reasonable.” New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 337 (1985). “[A] Fourth Amendment search occurs when the government violates a subjective expectation of privacy that society recognizes as reasonable.” Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 33 (2001). Barring a few narrow exceptions, “warrantless searches ‘are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.'” City of Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746, 760 (2010) (quoting Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967)). The home has special significance under the Fourth Amendment. “‘At the very core’ of the Fourth Amendment ‘stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.'” Kyllo, 533 U.S. at 31 (quoting Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511 (1961)).
Although technology changes the law evolves to catch up with it. Here, a case nearly half a century old, is invoked by the Southern District of New York to suppress this cell-site simulator: Kyllo v. United States. Kyllo dealt with the production of marijuana, the growing of marijuana, and the use of thermal imaging to detect the grow house. Although widely available now (try a Google search), at the time thermal imaging was only available to the government and allowed them to have “through-the-wall surveillance,” a violation of one’s Fourth Amendment Rights. At the time it was break-through technology. Like Kyllo, “the DEA’s use of the cell-site simulator to locate [Defendant’s] apartment was an unreasonable search because the ‘pings’ from [Defendant’s] cell phone to the nearest cell site were not readily available ‘to anyone who wanted to look’ without the use of a cell-site simulator.” (citing United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276, 281 (1983); State v. Andrews, 227 Md. App. 350, *23 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2016)). The advent of such technology, as in Kyllo, does not allow the government to skirt the Fourth Amendment rights of the Defendant:
The use of a cell-site simulator constitutes a Fourth Amendment search within the contemplation of Kyllo. Absent a search warrant, the Government may not turn a citizen’s cell phone into a tracking device. Perhaps recognizing this, the Department of Justice changed its internal policies, and now requires government agents to obtain a warrant before utilizing a cellsite simulator. See Office of the Deputy Attorney General, Justice Department Announces Enhanced Policy for Use of Cell-Site Simulators, 2015 WL 5159600 (Sept. 3, 2015); Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard Downing Testifies Before House Oversight and Government Reform Committee at Hearing on Geolocation Technology and Privacy, 2016 WL 806338 (Mar. 2, 2016) (“The Department recognizes that the collection of precise location information in real time implicates different privacy interests than less precise information generated by a provider for its business purposes.”).
The People of the State of New York failed to demonstrate that the defendant understood the Miranda warnings and his statement, therefore, such statements should have been suppressed. Here, the “defendant was charged, inter alia, with robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree based on allegations that he personally, or acting in concert with others, committed robberies in two stores in Brooklyn.” He was convicted of robbery in the second degree (three counts) and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree. The Court “Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the defendant’s motion to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials is granted, and a new trial is ordered.”
Once the right to counsel is invoked, a New York Defendant has the indelible right to counsel. Police cannot question a New York Defendant once that Defendant demands an attorney. This case is a hallmark example of how Miranda rights can be skirted and, sometimes, disregarded when a Defendant is not of sound capacity, mind or understanding as to his constitutional rights, his Miranda rights, and how to exercise those rights. Involuntarily given statements are inadmissible. The court sets out the hallmark factors of admissibility of a Defendant’s statement:
“[F]or a statement to be admissible, the People must prove a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination” (People v Aveni, 100 AD3d 228, 236  [citation omitted]; see People v Rodney, 85 NY2d 289, 292 ; People v Williams, 62 NY2d 285, 288 ). “Whether a defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his or her rights to remain silent and to an attorney is determined upon an inquiry into the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation” (People v Santos, 112 AD3d 757, 758  [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Williams, 62 NY2d at 288), including the defendant’s “age, experience, education, background, and intelligence, and . . . whether he [or she] has the capacity to understand the warnings given him [or her], the nature of his [or her] Fifth Amendment rights, and the consequences of waiving those rights” (Fare v Michael C., 442 US 707, 725 ). Where a “person of subnormal intelligence” is involved, “close scrutiny must be made of the circumstances of the asserted waiver” (People v Williams, 62 NY2d at 289).
“A defendant’s mental deficiency weighs against the admissibility of an elicited confession, so that any such confession must be measured by the degree of the defendant’s awareness of the nature of the rights being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon them” (People v Dunn, 195 AD2d 240, 242 , affd 85 NY2d 956 ). A suspect of “subnormal intelligence” may effectively waive his or her Miranda rights “so long as it is established that he or she understood the immediate meaning of the warnings” (People v Williams, 62 NY2d at 287), that is, “how the Miranda rights affected the custodial interrogation” (id. at 289). Therefore, it must be shown that the suspect “grasped that he or she did not have to speak to the interrogator; that any statement might be used to the subject’s disadvantage; and that an attorney’s assistance would be provided upon request, at any time, and before questioning is continued. What will suffice to meet this burden will vary from one case to the next” (id.).
Traffic Infractions and Vehicle and Traffic Law Violations bear serious consequences in New York State. This case comes by way of “[a]ppeal from eight judgments of the City Court of Rye, Westchester County…The judgments convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of three charges of failing to obey a traffic control device, three charges of failing to signal before turning, operating an unregistered motor vehicle, and failing to wear a seatbelt while operating a motor vehicle, respectively.” The defendant contends that the “City Court failed to provide findings of fact to support its decision as required by CPLR 4213 (b) or, in the alternative, remit the matter for a new trial.” The Court disagrees but reviews the evidence based on its discretion and the interests of justice.
So what happened here: a New York State motorist was pulled over and received eight (8) eight simplified traffic informations charging the motorist with failing to obey a traffic control device (Vehicle and Traffic Law §1110 [a]) by traveling in excess of the posted speed limit (three charges), failing to signal before turning (Vehicle and Traffic Law §1163 [d]) (three charges), operating an unregistered motor vehicle (Vehicle and Traffic Law §401 ), and failing to wear a seatbelt while operating a motor vehicle (Vehicle and Traffic Law §1229-c ). He goes to trial and the judge convicts the motorist of all of the above mentioned charges. Not a unique situation.
What is unique is the Court reviewing the case and finding that evidence was legally insufficient to establish the motorists’ guilt of all of these violations: more
Driving While Intoxicated. Everyone has seen the commercials. Sometimes the driver is in a car filled with some sort of alcohol, swerving, while a trooper turns on flashing lights and pulls him or her over to the side of the road. Driving While Intoxicated checkpoints are rife throughout Long Island and New York. This conviction comes as a result of a DWI checkpoint in Suffolk County New York. The Defendant here challenged the constitutionality of the DWI Checkpoint. Unfortunately for the Suffolk County, New York Defendant, the portion of motion suppressing evidence was denied and he was convicted. On appeal the judgment was affirmed.
On August 24, 2012, after defendant was stopped and arrested at a police checkpoint, the People charged defendant with driving while intoxicated (common law) (Vehicle and Traffic Law §1192 ), failing to wear a seatbelt (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1229 [d] ), and failing to comply with a lawful order or direction of a police officer regulating traffic (Vehicle and Traffic Law §1102). After a hearing, the District Court (Jennifer A. Henry) denied defendant’s motion to suppress all evidence obtained as the result of the stop. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to driving while impaired (Vehicle and Traffic Law §1192 ).
The Court here is required to perform a balancing test: with individual liberty interests on one side of the scale and the governmental interest(s) on the other side of the scale. Here, the government has the compelling interest in pulling over motorists in a program that is purportedly designed to enhance traffic safety in Suffolk County, New York.