Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New York Law Question...

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New York Law Question...

    There are two laws in Texas we have that I would like to know which New York statute/law covers this. They are:

    38.15. INTERFERENCE WITH PUBLIC DUTIES. (a) A person
    commits an offense if the person with criminal negligence
    interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with:
    (1) a peace officer while the peace officer is
    performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by
    law;
    (2) a person who is employed to provide emergency
    medical services including the transportation of ill or injured
    persons while the person is performing that duty;
    (3) a fire fighter, while the fire fighter is fighting
    a fire or investigating the cause of a fire;
    (4) an animal under the supervision of a peace
    officer, corrections officer, or jailer, if the person knows the
    animal is being used for law enforcement, corrections, prison or
    jail security, or investigative purposes;
    (5) the transmission of a communication over a
    citizen's band radio channel, the purpose of which communication is
    to inform or inquire about an emergency; or
    (6) an officer with responsibility for animal control
    in a county or municipality, while the officer is performing a duty
    or exercising authority imposed or granted under Chapter 821 or
    822, Health and Safety Code.
    (b) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.
    (c) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(1)
    that the conduct engaged in by the defendant was intended to warn a
    person operating a motor vehicle of the presence of a peace officer
    who was enforcing Subtitle C, Title 7, Transportation Code.
    (d) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that
    the interruption, disruption, impediment, or interference alleged
    consisted of speech only.
    (e) In this section, "emergency" means a condition or
    circumstance in which an individual is or is reasonably believed by
    the person transmitting the communication to be in imminent danger
    of serious bodily injury or in which property is or is reasonably
    believed by the person transmitting the communication to be in
    imminent danger of damage or destruction.


    38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY.
    (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.
    (b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:
    (1) lawfully arrested the person;
    (2) lawfully detained the person; or
    (3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.
    (c) Except as provided by Subsections (d) and (e), an offense under this section is:
    (1) a Class C misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a); or
    (2) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).
    (d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is:
    (1) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a); or
    (2) a Class A misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).
    (e) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under Section 106.07, Alcoholic Beverage Code, the actor may be prosecuted only under Section 106.07.

  • #2
    Maybe this will help http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article120.htm
    Ignore List : Bearcat357, Blackavar

    Comment


    • #3
      no exact fit, but...

      The first one is similar to our OGA....

      § 195.05 Obstructing governmental administration in the second degree.
      A person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration when he
      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, or by means of interfering, whether or not
      physical force is involved, with radio, telephone, television or other
      telecommunications systems owned or operated by the state, or a county,
      city, town, village, fire district or emergency medical service or by
      means of releasing a dangerous animal under circumstances evincing the
      actor`s intent that the animal obstruct governmental administration.

      Obstructing governmental administration is a class A misdemeanor.

      There are some more specific sections that have to do with say firefighting operations, or by the manner in which one interferes, such as through the use of types of force, but this is a general one.

      The second one is similar to our False personation...

      § 190.23 False personation.

      A person is guilty of false personation when after being informed of
      the consequences of such act, he or she knowingly misrepresents his or
      her actual name, date of birth or address to a police officer or peace
      officer with intent to prevent such police officer or peace officer from
      ascertaining such information.

      False personation is a class B misdemeanor.

      Again, there are more specific laws that apply depending on why you lied, what benefit you derived from giving such false info, who you pretended to be, etc.

      It's easier to be given a situation and tell you what laws were violated than it is to "translate" laws from one state to another. Good luck.

      Comment


      • #4
        ^what he said. The exact two that came to mind.

        Comment


        • #5
          Thank you guys.

          Scenario:

          Police has a person stopped for a traffic violation. While conducting the investigation/issuing summons another person walks up on scene and begins talking to the person that was stopped. Police ask the person who walked up for his ID and the person becomes uncooperative. The person then refuses to give his ID and is arrested.

          The debate at hand is of course the police are being accused of "abusing their powers" and had no reason to ask for the guy's ID who walked on scene. I was trying to explain this to a non law enforcement officer.

          My personal opinion was of course number one is an officer safety issue when people just approach your stop/scene and start talking. We have no idea who he is or what his intentions are. The point being argued is the person I was talking to thinks police did not have the right to ask for his ID and made a unlawful arrest. I say he is wrong because in Tx we have the intereference with public duties law which gave police the right to ask for ID which led to the person refusing to give his ID and was arrested. The incident happened in New York City. Thanks for any input
          Last edited by AC1074; 05-10-2011, 03:30 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Adam12 View Post
            Thank you guys.

            Scenario:

            Police has a person stopped for a traffic violation. While conducting the investigation/issuing summons another person walks up on scene and begins talking to the person that was stopped. Police ask the person who walked up for his ID and the person becomes uncooperative. The person then refuses to give his ID and is arrested.

            The debate at hand is of course the police are being accused of "abusing their powers" and had no reason to ask for the guy's ID who walked on scene. I was trying to explain this to a non law enforcement officer.

            My personal opinion was of course number one is an officer safety issue when people just approach your stop/scene and start talking. We have no idea who he is or what his intentions are. The point being argued is the person I was talking to thinks police did not have the right to ask for his ID and made a unlawful arrest. I say he is wrong because in Tx we have the intereference with public duties law which gave police the right to ask for ID which led to the person refusing to give his ID and was arrested. The incident happened in New York City. Thanks for any input

            The only way or reason legally, I would or can ask them for ID is if I told them to leave the area due to police activity with the person stopped and they refused my lawful order.

            Then they would be arrested for Obstructing.

            I dont want to be a case law in NY for doing that. That sounds a bit unlawful and difficult to legally articulate why you locked him up.
            Captain Square Badge, reporting for duty!.

            Comment


            • #7
              discon, oga, resisting.....with our DA's it's one big DP anyway, doesn't really matter what goes on the olbs.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Adam12 View Post
                Thank you guys.

                Scenario:

                Police has a person stopped for a traffic violation. While conducting the investigation/issuing summons another person walks up on scene and begins talking to the person that was stopped. Police ask the person who walked up for his ID and the person becomes uncooperative. The person then refuses to give his ID and is arrested.

                The debate at hand is of course the police are being accused of "abusing their powers" and had no reason to ask for the guy's ID who walked on scene. I was trying to explain this to a non law enforcement officer.

                My personal opinion was of course number one is an officer safety issue when people just approach your stop/scene and start talking. We have no idea who he is or what his intentions are. The point being argued is the person I was talking to thinks police did not have the right to ask for his ID and made a unlawful arrest. I say he is wrong because in Tx we have the intereference with public duties law which gave police the right to ask for ID which led to the person refusing to give his ID and was arrested. The incident happened in New York City. Thanks for any input
                I just found your scenario

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxjNV...layer_embedded

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Roninjin View Post
                  That's exactly what I am referring to. Do you agree or disagree with the decision to arrest? The comments posted about the video are nothing but bad of course. However, as I approach year 15 on the job I like to think I have the right perspective or am I an "old head" needing to change the way we police?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Adam12 View Post
                    That's exactly what I am referring to. Do you agree or disagree with the decision to arrest? The comments posted about the video are nothing but bad of course. However, as I approach year 15 on the job I like to think I have the right perspective or am I an "old head" needing to change the way we police?
                    I just watched the video, those are Patrol Borough Brooklyn North cops and that arrest, without knowing the full facts and circumstances, appears to be legitimate based solely on the video. I'm willing to bet the violation the Impact SGT was going to issue him a summons for was Disorderly Conduct. Yes, it sounded like he was just joking around, and yes to someone in Texas, it may seem harmless, but in Brooklyn, NY, this type of conduct on a police scene quickly draws the attention of others and creates a chaotic situation. I can't hear what the SGT initially said to the bystander, but I did hear him say to "mind your own business" and I'm guessing that he had already told him to move along prior to that. Now, why was this person actually arrested and not issued a summons? Well, the Impact SGT repeatedly requested ID from the person who was evasive and uncooperative. At that point, the person can be arrested rather than summonsed for the Disorderly Conduct offense. In fact, upon learning he was going to receive a citation, the individual actually became more rowdy and created more of a scene. I work in an Impact zone, and these Zones lay in some of the worst neighborhoods in America. Even slight disruptions or interference by the public in these areas can't be tolerated because when they are, they send a message to a group of people that already hate the police that we can be bullied and prodded, this emboldens the criminal element and it creates a dangerous environment for us who are out there on foot dealing with that same criminal element every day.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Not a bad comment, but i just want to let you know that u can put someone under for a violation even if they have an id.
                      sigpic

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        True, I try not to when it can be avoided though. I think the SGT was trying to avoid that too. Most people don't understand that from the video. He was just going to write a C. Instead the guy got crazy and was combative about his ID. The guy did it to himself.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Alright, thanks for the input guys. Much appreciated.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            NYC7011, u presented a Valid & Thorough explanation...I think even a Civilian can appreciate that explanation. Good Job/Contribution.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by nyc7011 View Post
                              I just watched the video, those are Patrol Borough Brooklyn North cops and that arrest, without knowing the full facts and circumstances, appears to be legitimate based solely on the video. I'm willing to bet the violation the Impact SGT was going to issue him a summons for was Disorderly Conduct. Yes, it sounded like he was just joking around, and yes to someone in Texas, it may seem harmless, but in Brooklyn, NY, this type of conduct on a police scene quickly draws the attention of others and creates a chaotic situation. I can't hear what the SGT initially said to the bystander, but I did hear him say to "mind your own business" and I'm guessing that he had already told him to move along prior to that. Now, why was this person actually arrested and not issued a summons? Well, the Impact SGT repeatedly requested ID from the person who was evasive and uncooperative. At that point, the person can be arrested rather than summonsed for the Disorderly Conduct offense. In fact, upon learning he was going to receive a citation, the individual actually became more rowdy and created more of a scene. I work in an Impact zone, and these Zones lay in some of the worst neighborhoods in America. Even slight disruptions or interference by the public in these areas can't be tolerated because when they are, they send a message to a group of people that already hate the police that we can be bullied and prodded, this emboldens the criminal element and it creates a dangerous environment for us who are out there on foot dealing with that same criminal element every day.
                              You should be a Dept spokesperson, lol.

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 3513 users online. 193 members and 3320 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X