PEOPLE v. KNIGHT (2010)

Defendant, charged with a violation of Penal Law § 195.05, obstruction of governmental administration in the second degree, moves for an order dismissing the information for facial insufficiency (CPL §§ 170.35 and 100.40), and for Sandoval and Huntley hearings.

The accusatory instrument, signed by Detective Elija Brooks, states that a detective observed defendant and an unapprehended other person sell marijuana to a third person in front of 226 East 122nd Street, in Manhattan. Brooks states that he is informed by Detective Damien Bradshaw, who signed a supporting deposition, that as Bradshaw approached the location, he observed defendant receive cell phone call and then “․ yell ins substance to the unapprehended other: GO IN THE BUILDING, thereby preventing the arrest of said unapprehended other.” (capitalization in the original)

Defendant argues that the words defendant allegedly used are “․ innocuous ․ even when coupled with an officer approaching.” The People, citing People v. Alejandro, 70 N.Y.2d 133 and People v. Love, 306 N.Y. 18, make only the general argument, with no reference to the facts of this case, that an information must contain non-hearsay allegations establishing each elements of the charged offense and that if it meets this requirement it is sufficient “however awkwardly [it] may be drawn.”

Contrary to defendant's argument, his words, yelled at a crime scene and, concededly, when an officer was approaching, is a legally sufficient basis for the charge of obstructing governmental administration. (see People v. Davan L. 91 N.Y.2d 88; People v. Covington, 18 AD 3rd 384) and so the information in this case is facially sufficient (see People v. Casey, 95 N.Y.2d 354) Uttering a warning of police activity from a place removed from a crime scene and not directed at a specific individual is not a basis for liability under Penal Law § 195.05. (People v. Case, 42 N.Y.2d 98). Thus, broadcasting a warning over a radio that there was police radar surveillance at a certain highway location was not a crime under the statute.

However, the Court of Appeals, mindful of its holding that words alone is not the interference required under the statute, held that the statutory requirements were met in People v. Davan L., (id.) In that case, the defendant, at a location where police were about to enter, disobeyed the police directive to leave the scene and yelled “cops, cops ․watch out, Five-O, police are coming.” (id )The Court held the statute imposes liability for even this minimal activity that frustrates police activity. (id. at 91)

In People v. Covington, (id.), “..in a voice that was almost a yell', stated yo, get out of the building, the police are coming in.” ‘ (id. at 67) The First Department, noting that while the police did not direct a specific warning to defendant, he “interjected himself into an obvious, defined area of police activity.” (id. at 71) These facts were legally sufficient to support defendant's conviction under Penal Law § 195.05.

In the instant case, the accusatory instrument alleges facts showing that defendant was present at a place where police activity was apparent: another individual was being arrested; defendant acknowledges that an officer was approaching. Defendant yelled a warning to the unapprehended person, frustrating the arresting officer's efforts. These facts allege a prima facie case of obstructing governmental administration. (People v. Covington, id .) While defendant's words may have been innocuous at another location under other circumstances, his geographical presence at a place where an arrest was imminent change the nature of his utterance to a criminal act.

Defendant's request for a Huntley hearing is denied as academic, as the People do not intend to offer, at trial, any statements defendant made to a law enforcement officer.

The part of the motion seeking a Sandoval hearing is granted to the extent that the hearing will be conducted by the trial Judge.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the motion is granted to the extent that the trial Judge will conduct a Sandoval hearing at the trial of this matter and is otherwise denied.

FRANK P. NERVO, J.