You are here: / Criminal Law
, , ,

STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO EFFECT CIVIL ADMINISTRATIVE ARRESTS PURSUANT TO ICE DETAINERS, IMMIGRATION LAW VIOLATIONS ARE NOT CRIMES, HABEAS CORPUS PETITION GRANTED TO FRANCES, A CITIZEN OF INDIA WHO WAS HELD IN A COUNTY JAIL OSTENSIBLY PURSUANT TO AN ICE DETAINER, EVEN THOUGH FRANCES IS NO LONGER IN THE CUSTODY OF THE COUNTY, THE PETITIONER’S CIRCUMSTANCE IS LIKELY TO RECUR AND THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive opinion by Justice Scheinkman, considering a matter of first impression, determined state and local law enforcement officers are not authorized to effect civil immigration arrests in connection with ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] detainers. The matter came before the court as a habeas corpus petition. The petition alleged that the continued detention (in county jail) of Frances, a citizen of India who had been in the US since his visa expired in 1996, after his criminal sentence was complete, was illegal. Although Frances was in ICE custody at the time of the appeal, Frances’s circumstance was deemed likely to recur and the appeal was therefore heard as an exception to the mootness doctrine:

Following the conclusion of his court proceeding, at which he was sentenced to time served, [Frances] was handcuffed and taken to a courthouse holding cell by members of the Sheriff’s Office …  . … [B]ased on the ICE warrant, … Francis was regarded by the Sheriff as being in the custody of ICE. Francis was placed in a jail cell rented by ICE. * * *

Illegal presence in the country, standing alone, is not a crime… ; it is a civil violation that subjects the individual to removal … . The federal process for removing someone from the country is a civil administrative matter, not a criminal one … . * * *

New York statutes do not authorize state and local law enforcement to effectuate warrantless arrests for civil immigration law violations. An arrest without a warrant is permitted where an individual “has committed or is believed to have committed an offense and who is at liberty within the state” under certain circumstances prescribed by statute (CPL 140.05). County sheriffs and their deputies are police officers (see CPL 1.20[34]), as are members of the state police, county police, and municipal police. * * *

The narrow issue in this case is whether New York law permits New York state and local law enforcement officers to effectuate civil immigration arrests, and not whether federal civil immigration officers have the authority to effectuate such arrests. Nor do we decide any issues under federal law deputizing state and local law enforcement officers to act as federal immigration officers. … [W]e conclude that the Sheriff’s policy … directing the retention of prisoners, who would otherwise be released, pursuant to ICE detainers and administrative warrants is unlawful … . People ex rel. Wells v DeMarco, 2018 NY Slip Op 07740, Second Dept 11-14-18

IMMIGRATION LAW (STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO EFFECT CIVIL ADMINISTRATIVE ARRESTS PURSUANT TO ICE DETAINERS, HABEAS CORPUS PETITION GRANTED TO FRANCES, A CITIZEN OF INDIA WHO WAS HELD IN A COUNTY JAIL OSTENSIBLY PURSUANT TO AN ICE DETAINER, EVEN THOUGH FRANCES IS NO LONGER IN THE CUSTODY OF THE COUNTY, THE PETITIONER’S CIRCUMSTANCE IS LIKELY TO RECUR AND THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (IMMIGRATION LAW, STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO EFFECT CIVIL ADMINISTRATIVE ARRESTS PURSUANT TO ICE DETAINERS, HABEAS CORPUS PETITION GRANTED TO FRANCES, A CITIZEN OF INDIA WHO WAS HELD IN A COUNTY JAIL OSTENSIBLY PURSUANT TO AN ICE DETAINER, EVEN THOUGH FRANCES IS NO LONGER IN THE CUSTODY OF THE COUNTY, THE PETITIONER’S CIRCUMSTANCE IS LIKELY TO RECUR AND THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (IMMIGRATION LAW, STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO EFFECT CIVIL ADMINISTRATIVE ARRESTS PURSUANT TO ICE DETAINERS, HABEAS CORPUS PETITION GRANTED TO FRANCES, A CITIZEN OF INDIA WHO WAS HELD IN A COUNTY JAIL OSTENSIBLY PURSUANT TO AN ICE DETAINER, EVEN THOUGH FRANCES IS NO LONGER IN THE CUSTODY OF THE COUNTY, THE PETITIONER’S CIRCUMSTANCE IS LIKELY TO RECUR AND THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT))/MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (APPEALS, STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO EFFECT CIVIL ADMINISTRATIVE ARRESTS PURSUANT TO ICE DETAINERS, HABEAS CORPUS PETITION GRANTED TO FRANCES, A CITIZEN OF INDIA WHO WAS HELD IN A COUNTY JAIL OSTENSIBLY PURSUANT TO AN ICE DETAINER, EVEN THOUGH FRANCES IS NO LONGER IN THE CUSTODY OF THE COUNTY, THE PETITIONER’S CIRCUMSTANCE IS LIKELY TO RECUR AND THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT))/IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO EFFECT CIVIL ADMINISTRATIVE ARRESTS PURSUANT TO ICE DETAINERS, HABEAS CORPUS PETITION GRANTED TO FRANCES, A CITIZEN OF INDIA WHO WAS HELD IN A COUNTY JAIL OSTENSIBLY PURSUANT TO AN ICE DETAINER, EVEN THOUGH FRANCES IS NO LONGER IN THE CUSTODY OF THE COUNTY, THE PETITIONER’S CIRCUMSTANCE IS LIKELY TO RECUR AND THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT))/ICE (STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO EFFECT CIVIL ADMINISTRATIVE ARRESTS PURSUANT TO ICE DETAINERS, HABEAS CORPUS PETITION GRANTED TO FRANCES, A CITIZEN OF INDIA WHO WAS HELD IN A COUNTY JAIL OSTENSIBLY PURSUANT TO AN ICE DETAINER, EVEN THOUGH FRANCES IS NO LONGER IN THE CUSTODY OF THE COUNTY, THE PETITIONER’S CIRCUMSTANCE IS LIKELY TO RECUR AND THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT))/DETAINERS (ICE, STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO EFFECT CIVIL ADMINISTRATIVE ARRESTS PURSUANT TO ICE DETAINERS, HABEAS CORPUS PETITION GRANTED TO FRANCES, A CITIZEN OF INDIA WHO WAS HELD IN A COUNTY JAIL OSTENSIBLY PURSUANT TO AN ICE DETAINER, EVEN THOUGH FRANCES IS NO LONGER IN THE CUSTODY OF THE COUNTY, THE PETITIONER’S CIRCUMSTANCE IS LIKELY TO RECUR AND THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL IMMIGRATION ARRESTS  (STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO EFFECT CIVIL ADMINISTRATIVE ARRESTS PURSUANT TO ICE DETAINERS, HABEAS CORPUS PETITION GRANTED TO FRANCES, A CITIZEN OF INDIA WHO WAS HELD IN A COUNTY JAIL OSTENSIBLY PURSUANT TO AN ICE DETAINER, EVEN THOUGH FRANCES IS NO LONGER IN THE CUSTODY OF THE COUNTY, THE PETITIONER’S CIRCUMSTANCE IS LIKELY TO RECUR AND THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (IMMIGRATION LAW VIOLATIONS ARE NOT CRIMES, STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO EFFECT CIVIL ADMINISTRATIVE ARRESTS PURSUANT TO ICE DETAINERS, HABEAS CORPUS PETITION GRANTED TO FRANCES, A CITIZEN OF INDIA WHO WAS HELD IN A COUNTY JAIL OSTENSIBLY PURSUANT TO AN ICE DETAINER, EVEN THOUGH FRANCES IS NO LONGER IN THE CUSTODY OF THE COUNTY, THE PETITIONER’S CIRCUMSTANCE IS LIKELY TO RECUR AND THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT))

,

EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT JOINED A CONSPIRACY TO MURDER WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conspiracy conviction, determined the evidence of defendant’s participation was legally insufficient:

… [T]he People in this case were required, inter alia, to establish that the defendant entered into an agreement that was specifically intended to result in the death of Friday (count one) and Morris (count two) … . While the record evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, showed that the defendant conspired with others to retaliate against rival gang members for the recent shooting death of a member of the S.N.O.W. Gang, there was no direct or circumstantial evidence tying this defendant to any plan specifically intended to kill either Friday or Morris. Among other things, the defendant was not present at an alleged planning meeting in a park, at which many of the coconspirators were arrested. Moreover, the defendant is not listed as a participant in any social media discussions in which other S.N.O.W. Gang members named Friday and Morris as possible targets for retaliatory action. For this reason, the defendant’s timely motion for a trial order of dismissal should have been granted, and the indictment dismissed insofar as asserted against him … . People v Lucas, 2018 NY Slip Op 07755, Second Dept 11-14-18

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, CONSPIRACY, EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT JOINED A CONSPIRACY TO MURDER WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, CONSPIRACY, EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT JOINED A CONSPIRACY TO MURDER WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CONSPIRACY (EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT JOINED A CONSPIRACY TO MURDER WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT JOINED A CONSPIRACY TO MURDER WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT JOINED A CONSPIRACY TO MURDER WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

POLICE OFFICERS CERTIFIED AS GANG EXPERTS PRESENTED INADMISSIBLE TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY IN THE GUISE OF EXPERT OPINION, ONE OF THE OFFICERS ACTED AS A SUMMATION WITNESS USURPING THE JURY’S FUNCTION OF INTERPRETING THE EVIDENCE, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s gang-related convictions, determined that the two police officers (Georg and Bracero) certified as experts in gang culture served as conduits for inadmissible testimonial hearsay and acted as summation witnesses usurping the jury’s role of interpreting the evidence:

As a threshold matter, we note that Crawford does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted (see Crawford v Washington, 541 US at 60 n 9…). Thus, “it is permissible for an expert witness to form an opinion by applying [his or] her expertise to otherwise inadmissible evidence because, in that limited instance, the evidence is not being presented for the truth of the matter asserted” … .

Here … information derived from the debriefing of arrested S.N.O.W. Gang members constitutes testimonial statements within the meaning of Crawford … . The more difficult question presented is whether the substance of such statements was impermissibly conveyed to the jury by Georg and/or Bracero in the guise of expert testimony … . We find that it was. …

Separate and apart from the Crawford errors, Georg’s testimony also ran afoul of the proscription against police experts acting as summation witnesses, straying from their proper function of aiding the jury in its factinding, and instead ” instructing the jury on the existence of the facts needed to satisfy the elements of the charged offense'” (People v Inoa, 25 NY3d 466, 475, quoting United States v Mejia, 545 F3d at 191). During the trial, Georg read Facebook posts verbatim to the jury, offered commentary about the time of each post in relation to key events in the case, and connected evidence of the parties exchanging their phone numbers with records confirming that a call was subsequently placed. The defendant’s counsel correctly objected to such testimony, citing Mejia and Inoa, on the ground that Georg was no longer acting as an expert witness but was usurping the jury’s function by interpreting, summarizing, and marshaling the evidence. Unlike the Crawford violation, this type of error is nonconstitutional in nature … . People v Jones, 2018 NY Slip Op 07752, Second Dept 11-14-18

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY, POLICE OFFICERS CERTIFIED AS GANG EXPERTS PRESENTED INADMISSIBLE TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY IN THE GUISE OF EXPERT OPINION, ONE OF THE OFFICERS ACTED AS A SUMMATION WITNESS USURPING THE JURY’S FUNCTION OF INTERPRETING THE EVIDENCE, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/HEARSAY (CRIMINAL LAW, TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY, POLICE OFFICERS CERTIFIED AS GANG EXPERTS PRESENTED INADMISSIBLE TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY IN THE GUISE OF EXPERT OPINION, ONE OF THE OFFICERS ACTED AS A SUMMATION WITNESS USURPING THE JURY’S FUNCTION OF INTERPRETING THE EVIDENCE, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY ( POLICE OFFICERS CERTIFIED AS GANG EXPERTS PRESENTED INADMISSIBLE TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY IN THE GUISE OF EXPERT OPINION, ONE OF THE OFFICERS ACTED AS A SUMMATION WITNESS USURPING THE JURY’S FUNCTION OF INTERPRETING THE EVIDENCE, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/CRAWFORD EVIDENCE, TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY, POLICE OFFICERS CERTIFIED AS GANG EXPERTS PRESENTED INADMISSIBLE TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY IN THE GUISE OF EXPERT OPINION, ONE OF THE OFFICERS ACTED AS A SUMMATION WITNESS USURPING THE JURY’S FUNCTION OF INTERPRETING THE EVIDENCE, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/EXPERT OPINION (CRIMINAL LAW, GANGS, TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY, POLICE OFFICERS CERTIFIED AS GANG EXPERTS PRESENTED INADMISSIBLE TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY IN THE GUISE OF EXPERT OPINION, ONE OF THE OFFICERS ACTED AS A SUMMATION WITNESS USURPING THE JURY’S FUNCTION OF INTERPRETING THE EVIDENCE, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/GANGS  (EVIDENCE, TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY, POLICE OFFICERS CERTIFIED AS GANG EXPERTS PRESENTED INADMISSIBLE TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY IN THE GUISE OF EXPERT OPINION, ONE OF THE OFFICERS ACTED AS A SUMMATION WITNESS USURPING THE JURY’S FUNCTION OF INTERPRETING THE EVIDENCE, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/SUMMATION WITNESS (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY, EXPERT OPINION, POLICE OFFICERS CERTIFIED AS GANG EXPERTS PRESENTED INADMISSIBLE TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY IN THE GUISE OF EXPERT OPINION, ONE OF THE OFFICERS ACTED AS A SUMMATION WITNESS USURPING THE JURY’S FUNCTION OF INTERPRETING THE EVIDENCE, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CONCERNING THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION BASED UPON HIS GUILTY PLEA, MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, granting defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, determined defense counsel did not provide effective assistance on whether the guilty plea would result in deportation and there was a reasonable probability defendant would not have pled guilty had he been correctly informed. Defense counsel told the court that defendant was going to be deported based upon a prior offense, but the facts indicated otherwise:

The defendant, through his new counsel, subsequently made a timely motion to withdraw his plea, which was summarily denied by the County Court. Upon remittal from this Court, the County Court held a proceeding pursuant to People v Tinsley (35 NY2d 926) and, upon questioning the defendant, determined that he had not received effective assistance of counsel at the time of the plea. We discern no basis in the record to disturb the County Court’s findings in this regard.

In order for the defendant to obtain vacatur of his plea of guilty based on Padilla v Kentucky (559 US 356), he must establish that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial  … . Although the County Court did not specifically address this question in its report, the record is sufficient for us to conclude that, but for counsel’s errors, there is a reasonable probability that the defendant—who has lived in the United States since the age of four and has significant family ties here, including a wife and three children, as well as parents and siblings—would not have pleaded guilty … . People v Ghingoree, 2018 NY Slip Op 07748, Second Dept 11-14-18

CRIMINAL LAW (INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, IMMIGRATION LAW, DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CONCERNING THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION BASED UPON HIS GUILTY PLEA, MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS, CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CONCERNING THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION BASED UPON HIS GUILTY PLEA, MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEPORTATION, DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CONCERNING THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION BASED UPON HIS GUILTY PLEA, MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/IMMIGRATION LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEPORTATION, DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CONCERNING THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION BASED UPON HIS GUILTY PLEA, MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/GUILTY PLEA, MOTION TO WITHDRAW (INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, IMMIGRATION LAW, DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CONCERNING THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION BASED UPON HIS GUILTY PLEA, MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/DEPORTATION (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE,  DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CONCERNING THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION BASED UPON HIS GUILTY PLEA, MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SENTENCED AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER BECAUSE THE PENNSYLVANIA BURGLARY WAS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF A NEW YORK FELONY, ALTHOUGH THE ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED THE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined, in the interest of justice, that defendant should not have been sentenced as a second felony offender based upon a Pennsylvania burglary conviction:

… [T]he predicate conviction, i.e., the Pennsylvania crime of burglary (18 Pa Cons Stat § 3502), is not the equivalent of a New York felony. Although defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review … , we exercise our power to address it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice … . Upon our review of Pennsylvania statutory and case law, “there is no element in the Pennsylvania statute comparable to the element in the analogous New York statute that an intruder knowingly’ enter or remain unlawfully in the premises . . . [and t]he absence of this scienter requirement from the Pennsylvania burglary statute renders improper the use of the Pennsylvania burglary conviction as the basis of the defendant’s predicate felony adjudication” … . People v Funk, 2018 NY Slip Op 07558, Fourth Dept 11-9-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SECOND FELONY OFFENDER, DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SENTENCED AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER BECAUSE THE PENNSYLVANIA BURGLARY WAS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF A NEW YORK FELONY, ALTHOUGH THE ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED THE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, SECOND FELONY OFFENDER, DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SENTENCED AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER BECAUSE THE PENNSYLVANIA BURGLARY WAS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF A NEW YORK FELONY, ALTHOUGH THE ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED THE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT))/SENTENCING (SECOND FELONY OFFENDER, DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SENTENCED AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER BECAUSE THE PENNSYLVANIA BURGLARY WAS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF A NEW YORK FELONY, ALTHOUGH THE ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED THE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT))/SECOND FELONY OFFENDER (DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SENTENCED AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER BECAUSE THE PENNSYLVANIA BURGLARY WAS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF A NEW YORK FELONY, ALTHOUGH THE ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED THE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT))

,

POLICE OFFICER’S SENDING A TEXT TO DEFENDANT’S PHONE FROM A NUMBER USED TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE VICTIM, AND OBSERVING THE ARRIVAL OF A TEXT ON DEFENDANT’S PHONE SHORTLY THEREAFTER, DID NOT VIOLATE THE US SUPREME COURT’S RULING IN RILEY REQUIRING A WARRANT FOR A CELL PHONE SEARCH (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the ruling by the US Supreme Court in Riley v California (124 S Ct 2473) did not provide grounds for defendant’s second and untimely motion to suppress evidence seized from a search of his cell phone pursuant to a warrant. Before applying for the warrant, at the time of arrest, a police officer sent a text to a phone number used in communications between the victim and defendant and noted that a text message arrived on defendant’s phone shortly thereafter. The Fourth Department held that sending the text and observing the arrival of a text did not violate Riley:

The Riley Court determined that “officers must generally secure a warrant before conducting [a search of data stored in a cell phone]” … . Here, the search warrant application for defendant’s phone indicates, among other things, that, after defendant’s arrest and the recovery of a cell phone from him during a search incident to the arrest, the applicant officer sent a text message to the phone number that had been used during earlier communications between the victim and defendant, and the officer noted that the phone recovered from defendant upon his arrest signaled the arrival of a new text message moments later. Contrary to defendant’s contention, however, nothing in the warrant application supports the inference that the police opened or manipulated the phone to get inside to retrieve data prior to obtaining the search warrant. Although Riley prohibits warrantless searches of cell phones incident to a defendant’s arrest, Riley does not prohibit officers from sending text messages to a defendant, making observations of a defendant’s cell phone, or even manipulating the phone to some extent upon a defendant’s arrest …  Indeed, Riley provides that the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement entitles law enforcement officers to “examine the physical aspects of the phone” after it has been seized … . Inasmuch as the information included in the warrant application is not suggestive of a warrantless search of the phone, we conclude that the Supreme Court’s decision in Riley did not provide good cause for defendant’s untimely second suppression motion. Thus, the motion was properly denied … .

Moreover, even if the officer’s actions in sending a confirmatory text message to defendant’s phone did constitute an unlawful search under Riley, we nevertheless conclude that the validity of the warrant to search defendant’s phone was not vitiated. The police did not use the alleged illegal search ” to assure themselves that there [was] cause to obtain a warrant’ in the first instance” … , and the remaining factual allegations in the warrant application provided probable cause to search the cell phone that was recovered from defendant at the time of his arrest. People v Hackett, 2018 NY Slip Op 07557, Fourth Dept 11-9-18

CRIMINAL LAW (POLICE OFFICER’S SENDING A TEXT TO DEFENDANT’S PHONE FROM A NUMBER USED TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE VICTIM, AND OBSERVING THE ARRIVAL OF A TEXT ON DEFENDANT’S PHONE SHORTLY THEREAFTER, DID NOT VIOLATE THE US SUPREME COURT’S RULING IN RILEY REQUIRING A WARRANT FOR A CELL PHONE SEARCH (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, CELL PHONES, POLICE OFFICER’S SENDING A TEXT TO DEFENDANT’S PHONE FROM A NUMBER USED TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE VICTIM, AND OBSERVING THE ARRIVAL OF A TEXT ON DEFENDANT’S PHONE SHORTLY THEREAFTER, DID NOT VIOLATE THE US SUPREME COURT’S RULING IN RILEY REQUIRING A WARRANT FOR A CELL PHONE SEARCH (FOURTH DEPT))/SUPPRESSION (CELL PHONES, POLICE OFFICER’S SENDING A TEXT TO DEFENDANT’S PHONE FROM A NUMBER USED TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE VICTIM, AND OBSERVING THE ARRIVAL OF A TEXT ON DEFENDANT’S PHONE SHORTLY THEREAFTER, DID NOT VIOLATE THE US SUPREME COURT’S RULING IN RILEY REQUIRING A WARRANT FOR A CELL PHONE SEARCH (FOURTH DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (CELL PHONES, POLICE OFFICER’S SENDING A TEXT TO DEFENDANT’S PHONE FROM A NUMBER USED TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE VICTIM, AND OBSERVING THE ARRIVAL OF A TEXT ON DEFENDANT’S PHONE SHORTLY THEREAFTER, DID NOT VIOLATE THE US SUPREME COURT’S RULING IN RILEY REQUIRING A WARRANT FOR A CELL PHONE SEARCH (FOURTH DEPT))/CELL PHONES (CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH AND SEIZURE, POLICE OFFICER’S SENDING A TEXT TO DEFENDANT’S PHONE FROM A NUMBER USED TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE VICTIM, AND OBSERVING THE ARRIVAL OF A TEXT ON DEFENDANT’S PHONE SHORTLY THEREAFTER, DID NOT VIOLATE THE US SUPREME COURT’S RULING IN RILEY REQUIRING A WARRANT FOR A CELL PHONE SEARCH (FOURTH DEPT))

DENIAL OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER TREATMENT WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, 35-YEAR SENTENCE WAS HARSH AND EXCESSIVE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to sentence youthful offender treatment. The majority deemed the 35 year sentence excessive and directed that the sentences be served concurrently. The dissenters argued that the sentences were not excessive:

CPL 720.10 (3) provides that “a youth who has been convicted of an armed felony offense . . . is an eligible youth if the court determines that one or more of the following factors exist: (i) mitigating circumstances that bear directly upon the manner in which the crime was committed; or (ii) where the defendant was not the sole participant in the crime, the defendant’s participation was relatively minor although not so minor as to constitute a defense to the prosecution.” Contrary to defendant’s contention, “traditional sentencing factors, such as the criminal’s age, background and criminal history, are not appropriate to the mitigating circumstances analysis . . . Rather, the court must rely only on factors related to the defendant’s conduct in committing the crime, such as a lack of injury to others or evidence that the defendant did not display a weapon during the crime”… , or other factors that are directly related to the crime of which defendant was convicted … . Here, we perceive no basis to disturb the court’s determination that defendant is not an eligible youth because, in the first crime of which he was convicted, “defendant carried a gun to an encounter with known gang members, displayed the gun, . . . and . . . fired a shot that struck one of the” gang members… , and he was again armed with a loaded weapon when he was arrested several weeks later. …

The victim in this case is a rival gang member who attempted to rob members of defendant’s gang. Defendant arrived at the scene of the attempted robbery and shot at the victim, who was struck by a bullet but survived. Defendant obviously deserves a stern sentence but, in our view, 35 years is too severe. Indeed, the maximum punishment for intentional murder is 25 years to life … . Defendant has no prior criminal record (he was adjudicated a youthful offender on a misdemeanor), he was only 18 years old when he committed the crimes, and the People offered him a 20-year sentence prior to trial as part of a plea bargain. Under the circumstances, and considering that the victim was attempting to commit an armed robbery when he was shot, we conclude that defendant’s sentence is unduly harsh and severe. People v Jones, 2018 NY Slip Op 07556, Fourth Dept 11-9-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DENIAL OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER TREATMENT WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, 35-YEAR SENTENCE WAS HARSH AND EXCESSIVE (FOURTH DEPT))/YOUTHFUL OFFENDER DENIAL OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER TREATMENT WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, 35-YEAR SENTENCE WAS HARSH AND EXCESSIVE (FOURTH DEPT))/SENTENCING (HARSH AND EXCESSIVE, DENIAL OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER TREATMENT WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, 35-YEAR SENTENCE WAS HARSH AND EXCESSIVE (FOURTH DEPT))/YOUTHFUL OFFENDER DENIAL OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER TREATMENT WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, 35-YEAR SENTENCE WAS HARSH AND EXCESSIVE (FOURTH DEPT))/HARSH AND EXCESSIVE SENTENCE (DENIAL OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER TREATMENT WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, 35-YEAR SENTENCE WAS HARSH AND EXCESSIVE (FOURTH DEPT))

DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION ASPECT OF HIS SENTENCE, PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department vacated defendant’s guilty plea because he was not informed of the postrelease supervision aspect of the sentence:

On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal sexual act in the first degree …, defendant contends that reversal of the judgment and vacatur of the plea are required because County Court failed to advise him, at the time of the plea, of the period of postrelease supervision that would be imposed at sentencing. We agree … . People v Hemingway, 2018 NY Slip Op 07587, Fourth Dept 11-9-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION ASPECT OF HIS SENTENCE, PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT))/SENTENCING (DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION ASPECT OF HIS SENTENCE, PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT))/GUILTY PLEA  (DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION ASPECT OF HIS SENTENCE, PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT))/POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION (DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION ASPECT OF HIS SENTENCE, PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT))

,

AGENT FOR US CUSTOMS WAS NOT ACTING AS A PEACE OFFICER WHEN HE EFFECTED A VEHICLE STOP AND DID NOT EFFECT A VALID CITIZEN’S ARREST, THEREFORE THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE FIREARM FOUND IN THE VEHICLE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the vehicle stop could not be justified on the ground that the stop was made by a peace officer, and also could not be justified on the ground the stop was a citizen’s arrest. Therefore the motion to suppress the firearm found in the car was properly granted. The vehicle stop was made by an agent with the US Customs and Border Protection Air and Marine Operations after the agent became concerned about the driver’s dangerous operation. The agent called the Buffalo Police Department and pulled the car over using his truck’s emergency lights. A police officer arrived and the officer and the agent approached the car together:

In concluding that the agent unlawfully stopped the vehicle, the [motion] court determined that the agent had the powers of a peace officer, but that the traffic stop could not be justified on that basis because the agent was not acting pursuant to his special duties or within his geographical area of employment. The court also determined that the traffic stop could not be justified as a valid citizen’s arrest because the agent, who had the powers of a peace officer, activated the emergency lights and approached the stopped vehicle with the BPD officer and therefore acted under color of law and with the accouterments of official authority rather than as a private citizen. …

A private person, however, is not authorized to display such emergency lights from his or her private vehicle… . Moreover, a private person may not falsely express by words or actions that he or she is acting with approval or authority of a public agency or department with the intent to induce another to submit to such pretended official authority or to otherwise cause another to act in reliance upon that pretense … . Thus, the agent was not lawfully acting merely as a private person effectuating a citizen’s arrest when he activated emergency lights that were affixed to his truck by virtue of his position in law enforcement. …

Even if a violation of the citizen’s arrest statute is not necessarily a violation of a constitutional right, we conclude that adherence to the requirements of the statute implicates the constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures … by precluding a person who “act[ed] under color of law and with all the accouterments of official authority” from justifying an unlawful search or seizure as a citizen’s arrest … , and that suppression is warranted where, as here, the purported private person is cloaked with official authority and acts with the participation and knowledge of the police in furtherance of a law enforcement objective … . People v Page, 2018 NY Slip Op 07552, Fourth Dept 11-9-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SUPPRESSION, PEACE OFFICER, AGENT FOR US CUSTOMS WAS NOT ACTING AS A PEACE OFFICER WHEN HE EFFECTED A VEHICLE STOP AND DID NOT EFFECT A VALID CITIZEN’S ARREST, THEREFORE THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE FIREARM FOUND IN THE VEHICLE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, AGENT FOR US CUSTOMS WAS NOT ACTING AS A PEACE OFFICER WHEN HE EFFECTED A VEHICLE STOP AND DID NOT EFFECT A VALID CITIZEN’S ARREST, THEREFORE THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE FIREARM FOUND IN THE VEHICLE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/PEACE OFFICER (VEHICLE STOP, AGENT FOR US CUSTOMS WAS NOT ACTING AS A PEACE OFFICER WHEN HE EFFECTED A VEHICLE STOP AND DID NOT EFFECT A VALID CITIZEN’S ARREST, THEREFORE THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE FIREARM FOUND IN THE VEHICLE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/CITIZEN’S ARREST (VEHICLE STOP, AGENT FOR US CUSTOMS WAS NOT ACTING AS A PEACE OFFICER WHEN HE EFFECTED A VEHICLE STOP AND DID NOT EFFECT A VALID CITIZEN’S ARREST, THEREFORE THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE FIREARM FOUND IN THE VEHICLE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/VEHICLE STOPS (PEACE OFFICER, AGENT FOR US CUSTOMS WAS NOT ACTING AS A PEACE OFFICER WHEN HE EFFECTED A VEHICLE STOP AND DID NOT EFFECT A VALID CITIZEN’S ARREST, THEREFORE THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE FIREARM FOUND IN THE VEHICLE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC STOPS (PEACE OFFICER, AGENT FOR US CUSTOMS WAS NOT ACTING AS A PEACE OFFICER WHEN HE EFFECTED A VEHICLE STOP AND DID NOT EFFECT A VALID CITIZEN’S ARREST, THEREFORE THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE FIREARM FOUND IN THE VEHICLE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/STREET STOPS (PEACE OFFICER, AGENT FOR US CUSTOMS WAS NOT ACTING AS A PEACE OFFICER WHEN HE EFFECTED A VEHICLE STOP AND DID NOT EFFECT A VALID CITIZEN’S ARREST, THEREFORE THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE FIREARM FOUND IN THE VEHICLE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

PEOPLE DID NOT PROVIDE A SUFFICIENT RACE-NEUTRAL REASON FOR STRIKING AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN JUROR, CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that the People did not provide a sufficient race-neutral reason for striking an African-American juror. The case had been remitted for a hearing on the issue:

We agree with defendant that the People failed to meet their burden at step two of the Batson analysis to articulate a “race-neutral reason” for striking the prospective juror … . On remittal, the prosecutor testified that he did not remember his reason for striking the prospective juror at issue, but stated that it had “nothing to do with race.” The prosecutor testified that, instead, “there was something on [the prospective juror’s] jury questionnaire . . . that [he] did not particularly like,” which would have provided a basis for exercising a peremptory challenge if he “could not clarify [that] issue” during voir dire. The prosecutor, however, had no recollection of the subject prospective juror’s actual questionnaire, which, apparently, was not preserved.

We conclude that the prosecutor’s articulated reason for striking the only African-American prospective juror was insufficient to satisfy the People’s burden. As noted, the prosecutor could not recall a specific reason for striking the prospective juror, but rather assured the court in a conclusory fashion that the challenge was not based on race and was based, instead, on “something” in the prospective juror’s questionnaire. Thus, the prosecutor’s explanation “amounted to little more than a denial of discriminatory purpose and a general assertion of good faith” … . Where, as here, “the facts establish, prima facie, purposeful discrimination and the prosecutor does not come forward with a neutral explanation for his action, . . . precedents require that [defendant’s] conviction be reversed” … . People v Davis, 2018 NY Slip Op 07569, Fourth Dept 11-9-18

CRIMINAL LAW (PEOPLE DID NOT PROVIDE A SUFFICIENT RACE-NEUTRAL REASON FOR STRIKING AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN JUROR, CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, PEOPLE DID NOT PROVIDE A SUFFICIENT RACE-NEUTRAL REASON FOR STRIKING AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN JUROR, CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))/BATSON CHALLENGE (CRIMINAL LAW, JURORS, PEOPLE DID NOT PROVIDE A SUFFICIENT RACE-NEUTRAL REASON FOR STRIKING AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN JUROR, CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy