In New York State if a motorist is involved in an automobile accident and does not report that accident it can open the motorist up to criminal prosecution.  There are two very different types of charges under the Vehicle and Traffic Law for leaving the scene of an accident without reporting.  As white plains felony charges lawyers and traffic violations attorneys we want you to know the different classes of offenses and potential sentences for each.

Leaving the scene of a PROPERTY damage accident without reporting

VTL 600(1) provides that ” Any person operating a motor vehicle who, knowing or having cause to know that damage has been caused to the real property or to the personal property … due to an incident involving the motor vehicle operated by such person shall, before leaving the place where the damage occurred, stop, exhibit his or her license and insurance identification card for such vehicle, … and give his or her name, residence, including street and number, insurance carrier … and license number to the party sustaining damage, or in case the person sustaining the damage is not present at the place where the damage occurred then he or she shall report the same as soon as physically able to the nearest police station, or judicial officer.”

A violation of VTL 600(1)(a) is a traffic infraction punishable by :

1. A fine of up to $250;

2. Up to 15 days in jail; or

3. Both

Leaving the scene of a PERSONAL INJURY accident without reporting

VTL 600(2)(a)  “Any person operating a motor vehicle who, knowing or having cause to know that personal injury has been caused to another person, due to an incident involving the motor vehicle operated by such person shall before leaving the place where the said personal injury occurred, stop, exhibit his or her license and insurance identification … to the injured party, if practical, and also to a police officer, or in the event that no police officer is in the vicinity of the place of said injury, then he or she shall report said incident as soon as physically able to the nearest police station or judicial officer.”

The level of the offense and the punishment depends upon if the mororist has ever committed this crime in the past and also the level of injury or death of the party.  Leaving the scene of a Personal Injury Accident is a CRIME and ranges from a class “B” misdemeanor to a class “D” felony.  The Sentences for Misdemeanors and felony range from fines, probation to jail.

Leaving the scene of a PERSONAL INJURY accident is a fingerprintable offense and a crime.  Any conviction will result in a license revocation and the motorist will not be permitted to obtain a conditional license.

In any criminal defense its important to know the classes of misdemeanors and the types of misdemeanor crimes including felonies.  Here in this case leaving the scene of a property damage accident is a noncriminal offense while leaving the scene of a personal injury accident is a crime.

If you have any questions how these charges are defended or how they relate to other charges such as driving while intoxicated (DWI) or driving while ability impaired (DWAI) contact my office for a free consultation.

Illegal Police Search

In Westchester County Court (White Plains) a handgun was suppressed with the consent of the District Attorney due to an admitted illegal search of an automobile by the Rye City Police Department.  The two felony charges for possession of a weapon were dismissed after indictment.

Rye City Police Search of a Vehicle

In the City of Rye a motorist was stopped for making an illegal right turn on a red light (traffic infraction).  After the vehicle was stopped the driver was found to have a suspended driver’s license (VTL 511) and asked to exit the vehicle.  The driver was handcuffed, placed under arrest and seated in the rear of the officer’s police vehicle.  After the arrest the officer began the search of the client’s vehicle and discovered a gym bag next to the driver’s seat.  The officer opened the bag and found gym clothes and a loaded, defaced, handgun wrapped in a sweatshirt.  The defendant was arrested for Criminal Possession of a Weapon and Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle (VTL 511).

The Illegal Search

After an investigation by criminal defense trial attorney, Andrew Proto it was determined that the police had no reasonable cause to search the vehicle.  There could be no safety concerns for the officer since the client was handcuffed in the back of the police vehicle.  The District Attorney claimed that the officer was simply inventorying the contents of the vehicle as the vehicle was about to be impounded and no illegal search was conducted.  However, the officer admitted that he had not searched the bag pursuant to an inventory search but for officer safety.

Motion to Dismiss the Criminal Possession of a Weapon Charge and to Suppress the Handgun

In the United States Supreme Court case of Arizona v Gant _ US_, WL 1045962 (2009), the Supreme Court overturned the search of defendant Gant’s car after he was arrested for driving with a suspended license, handcuffed and secured in the back of a police car.  Criminal Defense trial attorney Andrew Proto, argued the Rye City Case had the same facts as in Gant and any inventory search by the Rye City Police Department was an after thought by the police once the handgun was discovered. 

Suppression

Once the gun was suppressed on consent of the District Attorney the client was no longer facing a minimum five year sentence in state prison.  The best criminal defense is to aggressively defend serious charges such as criminal possession of a weapon and look for any violation of one’s constitutional rights.

The criminal defense trial attorneys at Riebling, Proto & Sachs, LLP regularly appear in the Courts of Westchester, Orange, Putnam, Dutchess and Rockland Counties.  If you or someone you know is facing a serious charge contact our office.  We look to every defense possible and pursue the best criminal defense to protect your rights.  We are always available for a FREE Consultation.

A topic of usual concern for clients involved in both Family Law Cases and Criminal Defense Cases is the issuance of an order of protection by the court.  The attorneys at Riebling, Proto & Sachs, LLP regularly appear in the Family Courts and Criminal Courts of Westchester, Orange, Rockland, Dutchess, Putnam, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, and New York to defend clients against the issues that arise when an order of protection is issued.

An order of protection may be granted in a number of different cases pursuant to various criminal and civil statutes, including Criminal Procedural Law sections 530.12(1) and 530.13(1); Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 of the Family Court Act; and Section 240(3) of the Domestic Relations Law.  Generally, orders of protection fall under two categories, temporary and permanent.  A temporary order of protection is typically made during the pendency of the action.  A permanent order of protection is usually issued at the conclusion or disposition of the case.  Frequently, temporary orders of protection precede permanent orders of protection.  

New York Law prohibits the extension of an order of protection to a person(s) unrelated to the underlying criminal action.  See People v. Konieczny, 2004 WL 1263762 (N.Y. 2004).  The order of protection may cover the complainant and family or household, but not beyond.  People v. Petrusch, 306 A.D.2d 889.

Orders of protection may also be issued in instances where the person being “protected” by the order opposes the terms of the order of protection and does not want the defendant being barred from contacting him or her.  People v. Monacelli, 299 A.D.2d 916.  This particular event often occurs in cases involving spouses and families. 

In criminal cases, an order of protection may be part of the court’s order allowing for the defendant release from custody.  CPL Sections 530.12 (family offenses) and CPL 530.13 (non-family offenses).  At times, a court may issue an order of protection on its own, based upon “good cause shown”, when an accusatory instrument (complaint) is filed by the prosecution.  In such an instance, the defendant has a right to contest the issuance of the order of protection in those circumstances where a constitutionally protected right, such as being excluded from the defendant’s residence or being prohibited from contacting the defendant’s family, is restricted.

Also, a court can suspend or revoke a pistol permit and possession of firearms.  A defendant has a right to hearing on the issue of firearms.  It should be noted that a violation of an order of protection due to firearm possession is also a violation of federal criminal law.

By understanding these important aspect of the law as they pertain to orders of protection, the criminal, matrimonial and family law (child custody, child support, family offense) trial attorneys of Riebling, Proto & Sachs, LLP continue to successfully assist their many clients.

If you or someone you know needs the assistant of a criminal, family or matrimonial attorney, please contact Riebling, Proto & Sachs, LLP for a free consultation.  The firms trial attorneys regularly appear in the courts of Westchester, Bronx, Rockland, Putnam, Dutchess and Orange Counties in New York State.

Stephen Riebling successfully represented his client at trial in the City Court of White Plains, New York in defense to the misdemeanor crime of Menacing in the Third Degree.

In defending those criminal charges, criminal trial attorney Riebling focused on demonstrating that his client did not engage in any actions which were criminal under the law.  All New York crimes, including felonies and misdemeanors have specific elements which need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The crime of Menacing in the Third Degree states:

“A person is guilty of Menacing in the Third Degree when, by physical menace, he or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person in fear of death, imminent serious physical injury or physical injury.” (PL § 120.15.)

The single most important factor in defending his client in the White Plains, New York Court was the lack of any “physical menace.”  In order to satisfy the physical menace element of this crime, it must be alleged that the defendant committed a physical act which, in and of itself, placed another person in fear of imminent injury.Words or threats are not enough to satisfy the requirement.A defendant may not be convicted of Menacing without evidence of this important element.

At the time of trial, the case was successfully resolved in favor of Attorney Riebling’s client.

****

If you or someone you know has been arrested for a crime, misdemeanor or felony and needs a criminal defense lawyer in New York, please contact Stephen Riebling or any member of the firm for a free consultation. The firm’s criminal defense lawyers regularly appear in the courts of Westchester, Bronx, Rockland, Putman, Dutchess and Orange Counties.