NYPD to Ticket, Not Arrest, in Most Public Marijuana-Smoking Cases
The New York City Police Department has announced that officers will issue tickets for most cases of public marijuana-smoking rather than make arrests, but the city's district attorneys remain divided on how their offices plan to approach the cases.
June 19, 2018 at 06:25 PM
4 minute read
Photo: Stanimir G. Stoev/Shutterstock.com. The New York City Police Department has announced that officers will issue tickets for most cases of public marijuana-smoking rather than make arrests, but the city's district attorneys remain divided on how their offices plan to approach the cases. Starting on Sept. 1 under the directive, officers will issue criminal summonses instead of arresting offenders. Arrests are not to be made unless the offenders are on probation or parole, have outstanding warrants, have a history of violence or if their smoking poses a public safety risk, such as smoking marijuana behind the wheel of an automobile. The policy change, which was the product of a 30-day working group that Police Commissioner James O'Neill formed last month, is expected to reduce overall marijuana arrests by 10,000 based on enforcement figures from 2017. Last year, there were 17,000 smoking-in-public arrests in the city, according to a news release from Mayor Bill de Blasio's office. When de Blasio said last month that the NYPD should stop smoking-in-public arrests, as he sees legalization of recreational marijuana in New York as a fait accompli, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. had already announced that, starting in August, his office would decline to prosecute public smoking and low-level possession cases. Also at that time, the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office, which stopped prosecution of low-level possession cases in 2014, was in the midst of a pilot program in which the office would decline to prosecute public smoking cases except in instances where it was causing a nuisance. On Tuesday, Brooklyn DA Eric Gonzalez lauded the announcement in a news release and said his office may go further and look for ways to vacate and seal thousands of past marijuana cases. The New York City Bar Association, which has called on state lawmakers to pass legislation to legalize marijuana for recreational use, also applauded the policy shift, calling it a “step in the right direction.” But the city's three other DAs, who have expressed concern about enforcing the laws that are still on the books, were more measured in their support for the working group's recommendation. In a statement released after the policy change, Queens District Attorney Richard Brown noted that no other jurisdiction in the United States that has legalized recreational pot allows public smoking, which he said can pose “public health and safety hazards,” and that as it stands now a small fraction of those charged with marijuana offenses receive a criminal conviction. But Brown said that O'Neill has chosen a “wise middle ground” with the policy change, as it allows police to keep a degree of control over the activity while sparing many from arrest. “These matters can be adequately resolved in the summons part without the individual being convicted of a crime,” Brown said. “While the means to the end may be different, the end remains substantially the same.” Bronx District Attorney Darcel Clark said in a news release that issuing summonses instead of making arrests will address public safety concerns while sparing from arrest residents in her jurisdiction, who tend to be arrested for marijuana offenses in disproportionately higher numbers than in other areas. “As long as marijuana is prohibited by law, I will enforce the law because that is my duty as a district attorney,” she said. Staten Island District Attorney Michael McMahon said he opposes backing off full enforcement of the law against smoking-in-public, calling the shift a “unilateral policy change” that will “l ead to confusion, possible crimes and an assault on our quality of life.” McMahon said the issue is something that should be decided by state lawmakers and that his office will continue to prosecute the cases that police bring before it. “While it is important to bring fairness to our justice system, we must be careful not to let the city's new policies endanger the communities we are sworn to protect,” McMahon said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrade Fixtures In New York Eminent Domain Cases - What Qualifies and How Are They Valued?
10 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Daniel Habib to Serve as Next Attorney-in-Charge of NY Federal Defender Appeals Unit
- 2Protecting Attorney-Client Privilege in the Modern Age of Communications
- 3High-Profile Sidley M&A Partner Heads to Covington
- 4Stars and Gripes: Firms Need a 'Superstar Culture' to Crack the U.S. Market
- 5BCLP Exploring Merger Prospects as Profitability Lags, Partnership Shrinks
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250