Monday, September 3, 2012

Appellate Court Upholds Right of Public Housing Tenants to Invite Guests

In a significant victory for public housing tenants, Onondaga County Court (Aloi, J.) ruled on August 23, 2012, that guests of those tenants could not be arbitrarily arrested for criminal trespass. In People v Finch, (Index #11-0627), Mr. Finch, whose girlfriend and infant son lived in public housing, was told by Syracuse police officers to stay off the premises.  He was arrested and charged with three counts of criminal trespass and one count of resisting arrest, and was convicted after trial in Syracuse City Court of two of the trespass counts and the resisting arrest.


On appeal the County Court reversed and dismissed the trespassing convictions, finding that, “[A] tenant with a lease to a specific apartment in an apartment complex has the inherent right to invite guests and therefore those guests by virtue thereof are “licensed and privileged” to be in or upon the property. Clearly, residents of a multi-unit apartment complex and their “invited guests” have license or privilege to be in or upon the property and cannot be found guilty of the crime of criminal trespass without more [proof] (see People v Graves, 72 NY2d 160; People v Bazile, 20 Misc3d 1127A).” The Court found that the prosecutor did not meet their burden of proving that Mr. Finch”entered or remained unlawfully” as there was no showing that his license had been revoked. County Court paradoxically affirmed the resisting arrest charge, finding that officer had probable cause to arrest Mr. Finch even though they knew that he was the lawful guest of an existing tenant.


Mr. Finch was represented by Philip Rothschild, Senior Attorney, Hiscock Legal Aid Society Appeals Program. The brief is here.

Sunday, July 8, 2012

2012 First Half Statistics - Fourth Department Criminal Case Decisions


Case Summaries - Fourth Department Decisions Released on July 6, 2012


Criminal Case Summaries
·        People v Cobb (KA 11-01063) – 4AD found that the lower court erred by failing to suppress a statement made by D, because the police did not advise him that he had the right to remain silent.  The Miranda warnings were therefore legally insufficient.  The error, however, was harmless because D stated only that he lived in the apartment in which he was arrested.  Also, among other things, D was the only person present in the apartment when police arrested him, and another officer observed someone throw a bag of crack cocaine from a bedroom window.  D was apprehended immediately after he left the bedroom.