Saratoga County Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Lisa: ...I mean, if you're the police, who will police the police?

Homer: I dunno. Coast Guard?

A fascinating video out of Rochester, New York, has hit You Tube, and it's getting a lot of play, probably because the arrest of a young woman who had the nerve to videotape the police in action (over their objections) seems so at odds with the fundamental notion that ours is a "free country".

The actual criminal charge was dismissed yesterday, as reported by Rochester's Democrat and Chronicle, which has done a great job of covering this case. However, by the time the charge was dismissed the video - and the issue - had gone 'viral'.

Exactly why was the woman, Emily Good, arrested? According to the complaint filed by the police officer (posted by the Democrat and Chronicle,), the presence "behind them" of Ms. Good "holding something in her hand and [illegible] it in the air towards officers," made those officers "extremely nervous and posed an officer safety issue."

The charge was Obstructing Governmental Administration in the Second Degree, NY Penal Law section 195.05. In pertinent part, a person is guilty of this when he or she "intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official function, by means of intimidation, physical force or interference, or by means of any independently unlawful act." In consenting to the dismissal of the charge, the prosecutor agreed that Ms. Good's actions didn't meet those criteria.

So again, exactly why was Ms. Good arrested? A number of things are apparent from the video: Ms. Good was clearly some distance from the police action. She never approached or threatened to approach the scene more closely. When questioned, she explained exactly what she was doing. Other people were standing in the vicinity (This is clear from the fact that the videotaping continues after the arrest, from approximately the same vantage, and from the other nearby voices heard on the video). The officer never ordered the others back. In short, the only apparent basis for the order to go back into her house was Ms. Good's presence with camera rolling (the device was a video-equipped i-pod).

Continue reading "New York Arrest for videotaping police traffic stop: officer's miscalculation goes viral" »

A recent article in Long Island's Riverhead News-Review relates a sad and, sadly, all too common occurrence. Two cars collide. Both drivers are hurt. One of the drivers, according to police investigating the accident, has had too much to drink.

That driver is charged with Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) (and in this case, according to another article in The Long Island Press, with driving without a license, and crossing the divider of a limited access highway). He is given a court-ordered blood test. Later, he must appear in the local criminal court, "where," the News-Review notes, "he might face additional charges."

What might those charges be? As the Long Island Press correctly notes, it depends on the results of the blood test. If the test confirms what the police apparently suspect -- that the defendant had a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .08 or greater -- a number of options will open up for the prosecution.

First, the defendant is currently charged with what lawyers call "common law" DWI [Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 1192(3)]. Intoxication is proven using roadside tests of impairment, such as the one-legged stand and reciting the alphabet backward, along with testimony that the defendant admitted drinking and/or smelled of alcohol. A blood test result of .08 or greater would expose the defendant to an additional misdemeanor charge: driving with a BAC of .08 or greater as measured by a test of blood, breath or urine [Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 1192(3)].

The defendant's potential exposure goes far beyond these misdemeanor charges, however.

Continue reading "DWI/DUI and Serious Injury in New York" »