The People of the State of New York v. Weldon Hinson (2026)

Defendant stands before this Court charged with Disorderly Conduct, in violation of New York State Penal Law § 240.20(7)¹ . The charge stems from an incident that took place in the City of Beacon on September 28, 2025. On May 27, 2026, a bench trial was held on this matter. The People of the State of New York were represented by Caterina Civera-Tomaselli. The Defendant was present and represented by Seth Gallagher of the Dutchess County Public Defender's Office. At the conclusion of the trial, the defense submitted a Memorandum of Law to which the People filed a Response and defense then submitted a Reply Affirmation. The Court has reviewed these submissions, and in addition to the testimony and evidence, considered the same when rendering the following decision. After a thorough review of the testimony and evidence, the Court's findings of fact and determination are set forth below.

TRIAL TESTIMONY

The People's first witness was Police Officer Jason Burns. In sum and substance, Officer Burns testified that he has been employed as a police officer for the City of Beacon for eighteen years. Prior to his employment, he was trained at the Dutchess County Police Academy and as part of his training he learned de-escalation techniques when dealing with disruptive or combative individuals. Officer Burns is currently a patrolman with the department and is a field training officer ("FTO") for new hires. Officer Burns was working in his capacity as a patrolman on September 28, 2025 and was in uniform in a marked patrol car. At that time he was training Officer Cross as his "FTO". At approximately 1:15 a.m. Officer Burns was on standard patrol located on Willow Street near Main Street, in the City of Beacon and he was following behind a grey Nissan Altima. Officer Burns stated that the windows of his car were down and he noted the smell of burning marijuana. The Nissan turned onto Main Street and Officer Burns continued to follow behind and noted that the smell of marijuana persisted. The driver of the Nissan made an illegal right hand turn at a steady red light and Officer Burns attempted to pull the car over. However, the driver continued for one and a half blocks and turned onto Ralph Street before eventually stopping. Officer Burns stated that there were two occupants in the car and he was familiar with the defendant, who was the passenger in the vehicle. The driver was arrested for driving while impaired and Officer Burns testified that it is policy to not leave an unsecured car on the road so they called to have the car impounded. As part of that process, an officer needs to fill out an impound sheet and note the condition of the car before it is towed. During the investigation, the defendant was asked to exit the car. Officer Burns testified that based on his observations he believed the defendant was in an impaired state. Specifically, officer Burns stated that the defendant had bloodshot eyes, was slurring his speech, and smelled of marijuana. According to the testimony, when the defendant exited the car he became loud and belligerent and his actions impeded the attempt to inventory the car. Officer Burns testified that the defendant approached him several times in an aggressive manner and due to the circumstances he believed that there was a high likelihood of violence. The defendant was using his phone to film his interaction with Officer Burns and at one point Officer Burns described the phone being shoved into his face blocking his vision. At this time, Officer Burns pushed the defendant back and placed him under arrest. The interaction was captured on Officer Burns' body worn camera and a copy of the footage was entered into evidence as People's Exhibit "1". Officer Burns stated that due to the defendant's actions he was forced to split his focus between the investigation and the safety of himself and his fellow officer. Officer Burns added that there are several bars in the area of the incident which close at 1:00 a.m. and there is a lot of vehicular traffic in the area. Additionally, he testified that the defendant's actions created a hazard for the officers as well as the defendant and impeded the officers attempt to impound the vehicle. On cross-examination, Officer Burns agreed that the defendant was compliant when he was asked to exit the vehicle. He denied being in a fighting stance during the encounter with the defendant and he also denied being angry or frustrated. Officer Burns agreed that during the initial contact the defendant moved away when he was asked to do so.

Officer Ryan Cross also testified on behalf of the People. In sum and substance, Officer Cross testified that he has been employed by the City of Beacon Police Department for approximately one and a half years as a patrol officer. Prior to his employment he was trained at the Rockland County Police Academy. He was working in his capacity as a patrol officer on September 28, 2025 and he was being trained by Officer Burns. During the encounter with the defendant, Officer Cross was tasked with completing the impound paperwork for the vehicle. When he started this process he observed Officer Burns and the defendant engaged in a verbal altercation. This altercation prevented Officer Cross from asking Officer Burns (as his "FTO") questions about the inventory. Officer Cross was concerned that the altercation could get physical. Officer Cross was wearing his body worn camera during the incident and a copy of the recording was entered into evidence as People's Exhibit "2". He described the defendant's phone as being one to two inches away from Officer Burns prior to the defendant's arrest. On cross-examination, Officer Cross agreed that he was ultimately able to complete his job and fill out the impound forms. He recalled that the defendant had a phone in one hand a two bouquets of flowers in his other hand during the incident. Officer Cross did not recall how many cars drove by during the encounter.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Defendant is charged with violating New York State Penal Law § 240.20(7) which provides in pertinent part that "a person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof [h]e creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose." "A hazardous condition is one which is dangerous, perilous or risky" and "[a]n offensive condition is one which is noxious, annoying, painful or disagreeable to the senses." The public nature of this offense "refers to a whole body of people or an entire community, or the inhabitants of a particular place, or a neighborhood, or the people at large" (Charges to the Jury and Requests to Charge in a Criminal Case in New York, 2025-26 Edition, § 29:12). Case law analyzing this specific subsection has determined that a violation would include "throwing fireworks into a crowd or loosening noxious materials within a confined area such as a theatre" (Seymour v. Seymour, 56 Misc 2d 546, 548 [Tioga County Family Court, 1968]), or under certain circumstances urinating in public (People v. Cooke, 152 Misc 2d 311 [South Nyack Village Court, 1991]).

Section 240.20(7), however, "is not a general catchall intended whereby a person who may properly be charged with violations of other subdivisions of disorderly conduct, other provisions of the Penal Law and in particular violations of various sections of the Vehicle and Traffic Law may instead be charged thereunder" (People v. Brown, 137 Misc 2d. 172, 177 [Oswego City Court, 1987]). This subsection "contemplates not acts directed at individuals" but situations of a public nature (Seymour, at 548).

In the instant matter, it is alleged that the defendant created a hazardous or physically offensive condition when located on the sidewalk of Ralph Street he yelled profanities at Officer Burns as he and Officer Cross were trying to inventory the contents of a car following a DWI arrest. Additionally, it was alleged that the defendant repeatedly approached Officer Burns placing his phone very close to the officer despite repeated requests not to do, ultimately shoving the phone into the officer's face. At trial, Officer Burns' testimony focused primarily on the individual nature of the defendant's actions and not the public aspect. Specifically, Officer Burns stated that the defendant's actions created a hazard for the officers on scene as well as the defendant and impeded Officer Cross from conducting the vehicle inventory. There was no testimony or evidence, however, tending to establish that the defendant created a condition which was dangerous, perilous, or risky or one which was noxious, annoying, painful, or disagreeable to the senses as contemplated by the statute. Additionally, the evidence failed to establish that there was a public concern related to the defendant's conduct. Instead, the defendant was arrested after he shoved his cell phone in the Officer Burns' face because it interfered with Officer Cross' attempt to inventory of the vehicle, which may have affected the officers but this action was not of a public nature (People v. Timpone, 12 Misc 3d 1164(A) [Nassau County District Court, 2006]). The Court notes that the several cases cited by the People in their Affirmation in Response involve incidents where the defendant was not charged with violating this specific subdivision of § 240.20 and therefore not relevant to the instant matter.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds the People failed to meet their burden and therefore the Defendant is NOT GUILTY of violating New York Penal Law § 240.20(7).

Dated: July 22, 2026

Beacon, New York

GREGORY J. JOHNSTON

CITY COURT JUDGE

FOOTNOTES

1.   The defendant was originally charged with the misdemeanors of Obstructing Governmental Administration in violation of NY Penal Law 195.05 and Resisting Arrest in violation of NY Penal Law 205.30. However, on March 6, 2026 the People filed a Prosecutor's Information charging Disorderly Conduct and the misdemeanors were dismissed.

Gregory J. Johnston, J.