Case In Point
Major Court Decisions Impacting New Yorkers This Month
Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:37:00
An Annoying Law to Enforce
Vives v. City of New York
Decided by: United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, May 1
Despite some anecdotal evidence to the contrary, it is illegal in the State of New York to intentionally annoy people. Carlos Vives learned this when the NYPD arrested him in 2002 for sending 2002 lieutenant governor candidate Jane Hoffman press clippings warning that Europe would soon unify into a single political and military entity. According to Vives, he sent such statements to Jewish people “with the intent to alarm them about current world events.” Hoffman was apparently alarmed.
Although the New York District Attorney’s Office declined to prosecute the case, Vives sued the city and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, alleging his arrest and nine hours in detention under New York’s broad anti-stalking law violated his right to free speech. A federal judge agreed, enjoining the NYPD from enforcing the law, and a jury awarded Vives $3,300 for his troubles.
The appeals court held that a policy exists if the city makes a “conscious choice” to enforce an unconstitutional law. If the city was free to not enforce the law, it could be held liable. Finding the record on this question unclear, the court vacated the decision and ordered a new trial to examine how the NYPD decides which laws to enforce.
The NYPD describes the anti-stalking provision as follows: “John, intending to annoy Ann, sends her anonymous letters in which he calls her fat and ugly. The letters annoy Ann. John has committed Aggravated Harassment.” The Court noted, “In giving [this example], the Police Department put flesh on the bones of [the statute] and apparently instructed officers they could make arrests for constitutionally protected behavior.” If a jury agrees, Vives will get his $3,300.
•••••
When a Judge Forgets to Sentence
Garner v. New York Department of Correctional Services
Decided by: Court of Appeals, April 29
Elliott Garner may have gotten lucky, but sometimes that is all the law demands. Garner pleaded guilty to second-degree attempted robbery in 2000 and received a five-year prison sentence. Jenna’s Law, passed in 1998 by the Legislature, requires that all violent felony offenders serve a period of post-release supervision when their prison sentences conclude. Although Garner was a violent offender, he was not apprised at his sentencing that he faced a mandatory five-year supervision term, and only learned of the new sentence when the provision was presented as a condition of the agreement he received when released from prison in 2004. He signed the agreement to get out of the prison, but filed a suit challenging the Department of Correctional Services’ addition of the sentence.
Both the trial court and lower appellate court denied his petition to eliminate the supervision term. Nonetheless, a unanimous Court of Appeals reversed and removed the sentence.
The effect of the case goes well beyond Garner: According to the Legal Aid Society, which represented Garner, he was just one of “thousands of defendants” whose supervision sentence lacked any judicial imprimatur.
•••••
The Inexperience Excuse
People v. Cabrera
Decided by: Court of Appeals, May 1
Three teenagers died and a fourth was critically injured on their way to a swimming hole in Sullivan County when 17-year-old Brett Cabrera’s Mercury Mountaineer lost control and plunged down an embankment in June 2004. Cabrera, who took a 40-mile-per-hour curve at 70 miles per hour, was the only one in the car wearing a seatbelt.
Cabrera was convicted on three counts of criminally negligent homicide and sentenced to a maximum security prison for up to four years. Cabrera argued that speeding alone and license violations (too many passengers for his license class) were both insufficient to rise to “criminal negligence.” In a 4-3 decision, the Court of Appeals agreed, tossing out his convictions.
The dissent noted that the crash rate for teen drivers is four times greater than adults, and the New York Legislature had just this type of behavior in mind when it drafted the criminal negligence statute. But the decision stands.
Vives v. City of New York
Decided by: United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, May 1
Despite some anecdotal evidence to the contrary, it is illegal in the State of New York to intentionally annoy people. Carlos Vives learned this when the NYPD arrested him in 2002 for sending 2002 lieutenant governor candidate Jane Hoffman press clippings warning that Europe would soon unify into a single political and military entity. According to Vives, he sent such statements to Jewish people “with the intent to alarm them about current world events.” Hoffman was apparently alarmed.
Although the New York District Attorney’s Office declined to prosecute the case, Vives sued the city and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, alleging his arrest and nine hours in detention under New York’s broad anti-stalking law violated his right to free speech. A federal judge agreed, enjoining the NYPD from enforcing the law, and a jury awarded Vives $3,300 for his troubles.
The appeals court held that a policy exists if the city makes a “conscious choice” to enforce an unconstitutional law. If the city was free to not enforce the law, it could be held liable. Finding the record on this question unclear, the court vacated the decision and ordered a new trial to examine how the NYPD decides which laws to enforce.
The NYPD describes the anti-stalking provision as follows: “John, intending to annoy Ann, sends her anonymous letters in which he calls her fat and ugly. The letters annoy Ann. John has committed Aggravated Harassment.” The Court noted, “In giving [this example], the Police Department put flesh on the bones of [the statute] and apparently instructed officers they could make arrests for constitutionally protected behavior.” If a jury agrees, Vives will get his $3,300.
•••••
When a Judge Forgets to Sentence
Garner v. New York Department of Correctional Services
Decided by: Court of Appeals, April 29
Elliott Garner may have gotten lucky, but sometimes that is all the law demands. Garner pleaded guilty to second-degree attempted robbery in 2000 and received a five-year prison sentence. Jenna’s Law, passed in 1998 by the Legislature, requires that all violent felony offenders serve a period of post-release supervision when their prison sentences conclude. Although Garner was a violent offender, he was not apprised at his sentencing that he faced a mandatory five-year supervision term, and only learned of the new sentence when the provision was presented as a condition of the agreement he received when released from prison in 2004. He signed the agreement to get out of the prison, but filed a suit challenging the Department of Correctional Services’ addition of the sentence.
Both the trial court and lower appellate court denied his petition to eliminate the supervision term. Nonetheless, a unanimous Court of Appeals reversed and removed the sentence.
The effect of the case goes well beyond Garner: According to the Legal Aid Society, which represented Garner, he was just one of “thousands of defendants” whose supervision sentence lacked any judicial imprimatur.
•••••
The Inexperience Excuse
People v. Cabrera
Decided by: Court of Appeals, May 1
Three teenagers died and a fourth was critically injured on their way to a swimming hole in Sullivan County when 17-year-old Brett Cabrera’s Mercury Mountaineer lost control and plunged down an embankment in June 2004. Cabrera, who took a 40-mile-per-hour curve at 70 miles per hour, was the only one in the car wearing a seatbelt.
Cabrera was convicted on three counts of criminally negligent homicide and sentenced to a maximum security prison for up to four years. Cabrera argued that speeding alone and license violations (too many passengers for his license class) were both insufficient to rise to “criminal negligence.” In a 4-3 decision, the Court of Appeals agreed, tossing out his convictions.
The dissent noted that the crash rate for teen drivers is four times greater than adults, and the New York Legislature had just this type of behavior in mind when it drafted the criminal negligence statute. But the decision stands.
