Subway Pug Owner Case Heads To Criminal Court

This post is sooo 2 days ago... any updates?

How dare a woman be boisterous in public, especially in such a polite and rarefied atmosphere as our beautiful and immaculate subway system! Obviously, this woman should have been home taking care of her children and cooking for her husband. The fact she spoke out and was boisterous is obviously a heinous crime and carrying poor little snuffling pug in her tote bag is outrageous?

Should we reconsider the death penalty so that our women will be on warning to NEVER be boisterous with NYPD?

I'm really shocked that some females in our city don't realize they should behave in a a more ladylike fashion.

jayclay you make a very good point (she didnt have ID) but the officer can use "descretion to arrest" in that scenario. Again no one was hurt and no one was bitten by the dog and he actually _arrested_ her? MY POV is taxpaying commuters shouldnt have to wonder if police will stop them and then arrest them for minor crap. That's not cool.

You can say he could use discretion, but policy is clear: no ID, you go through the system.

You're expecting a rookie cop (or close anyway, don't remember exactly so he might be slightly out of probation) to go against policy for someone who by her own admission wasn't being entirely cooperative.

Things I love: that every time we have a thread about police brutality, some asshat shows up defending why in this case, the brutality totally was justified.

Do we really want to go down the path where we say that it’s okay to rough up and arrest people for calling someone names? I mean, really? The guy is a fucking cop, and he can’t deal with someone calling him an asshole? Shit, I’ve had people call me a hell of a lot worse than that, and I never felt like they needed to be arrested for it.

"Do we really want to go down the path where we say that it’s okay to rough up and arrest people for calling someone names?"

I certainly said nothing like that. I said that if you're cited by NYPD and don't have identification on you, policy is that you'll be taken into custody, booked, and fingerprinted. "Put through the system," in the vernacular.

I also said nothing about whether I feel that's the right thing to do. It's simply a fact. It happens very commonly, which is why reading newspapers regularly would be enough to reveal it.

It doesn't matter whether it's a violation or not. It could happen if you make an illegal turn while driving, if you're stopped for jaywalking, or if you're stopped for smoking in the subway. A violation, by the way, in New York State means an infraction punishable by imprisonment of no more than 15 days. It doesn't often happen, but you can be locked up for a violation, for up to 15 days.

"Stop and identify" only applies if you have committed no offense. It applies after an officer has detained a subject, as he is conducting an interview. If you don't have an ID and it goes no further, correct, you should not have any problem.

However, if that interview provides probable cause to charge you, you now have an obligation to provide identification. If you can't provide it, you can be taken into custody until your identity can be determined.

So, to relate that to this case: he stopped her because she was carrying her dog. She's detained at that point; he's conducting an investigatory interview. She is no longer free to leave, but does not have to provide identification. He decides to ticket her for the violation. Now it's an arrest. He can let her go by issuing a citation, but doesn't have to. If he does, the ticket has to have the right name on it, so now her identity has to be positively determined. Courts have held that it's reasonable, if that can not be done immediately on the scene, for the person to be held.

There's tons of case law on this stuff. Really nothing to debate.

Now it's an arrest. He can let her go by issuing a citation, but doesn't have to. If he does, the ticket has to have the right name on it, so now her identity has to be positively determined. Courts have held that it's reasonable, if that can not be done immediately on the scene, for the person to be held.

I agree with all except "her identity has to be positively determined" . I will ask a community officer on this issue.

Well, if you're anything in real life like you are on the internet, you deserve a lot worse than someone calling you a bad name. Hell, if you're anything in real life like you are on here it's a wonder someone isn't in jail for fucking murdering you already.

Not all of us are pussies. I stand up for what is right and I don't take shit from pussies like you.

..on the internet.

how do you supposed the officer issue her a summons without her providing identification for said summons?

was he supposed to make it out to Ronald McDonald?

you fuck tard.

Wrong, it is not illegal not to have ID, Then why wasn't she charged with no ID because it isn't a crime not to ID. You only need to identify yourself not have ID.

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court (2004) 542 U.S. 177 stated that a state could make it a crime for a person to refuse to identify hirself when asked by police, while lawfully detained. These are “Stop and Identify” statutes, and apply only in cases where a person is being officially detained by the police. Note that they ruled that you must already be lawfully detained–not that the police could detain you for it. Nor did the decision state that an identification card was required, only that the person must identify hirself. If she wasn’t yet officially being detained, then failing to identify herself wasn’t a detainable offense.

Of course she wasn't charged with not having ID. Reading comprehension, please.

Your explanation of "stop and identify," as most of your attempts to cite the law on this page, is irrelevant. That's not what applies in this case because, again, she was charged with disorderly conduct.

If you don't think that the policy for NYPD is as I described, you should actually read a newspaper or something occasionally.

YOu need to read more than a newspaper to know the NYPD policy. How about confirming all your erroneous statements with the NYPD or its community officers. Disorderly conduct is a violation and she should have been summons not arrested.

Actually arresting her was total overkill for her "boisterousness" and unleashed dog. She didnt hurt or rob anyone and the dog didnt bite or hurt anyone. That what citations tickets are for. She seems like a flake but that's not a arrestable crime.

She was taken into custody because she didn't have ID. Standard procedure for the NYPD; you're not given a citation or desk appearance if your identity can't be established with certainty.

If she'd had ID, she'd likely have been cited and gone on her way. It was when he began to make the arrest that she allegedly became "boisterous."

I once got stopped for an open container on the subway (shut up - I was 19) and didn't have an ID. I took my ticket like a sane person and didn't get grabbed, assaulted, or hauled off to jail. Oh the wonders of treating people with respect.

a law for everything. even being boiterious. I hate NYC.

The charge was disorderly conduct. It's a state law, not a city ordinance. Every state has essentially the same law on the books, and in every state it's an easy catch-all when a cop just wants to make an arrest.

fine. I hate that law. What would be the donwside of rounding up being charged with a crime - so you can only be charged with one crime per arrest? This way there wouldnt be these - brought pug on a subway - and you're charged with 5 crimes - its seems like such a injust way to fck with someone.

Here's hoping she sues the sh*t out of the city, the NYPD and the cop nazi Witriol who arrested her.

Bringing a non-service dog leashed into a train is a violation, he was supposed to summons her and not arrest her. It was false arrest. Taking the ACD is not an admission of guilt but it also doesn't prove her innocence as a trial would. I wish her lots of luck

"Bringing a non-service dog leashed into a train is a violation, he was supposed to summons her and not arrest her. It was false arrest."

Now you're becoming plain silly.

She is right and wrong. An ACD does not involve any admission of guilt, but it is also not a "disposition in favor of the accused" so it does bar a suit for wrongful arrest.

No, all you need in a suit for a wrongful arrest is a wrongful arrest. It doesn't matter whether you're later convicted. Plenty of suits have been successfully brought in cases that had resulted in dismissal. Commonly when the prosecutor reviews the case, charges are dropped. The arrest is where the infringement happened, though, so a civil case can still proceed.

There is no wrongful arrest in this situation since the defendant has admitted to bringing the dog in the subway which is a violation. You can be legally arrested for commiting such a violation. How exactly was the arrest wrongful? Just because you don't like the law doesn't mean you can disregard it and not be charged with it.

"There is no wrongful arrest in this situation since the defendant has admitted to bringing the dog in the subway which is a violation."

You're a couple steps behind. That charge was already dismissed. The only charge she's facing is disorderly conduct.

But just adding to that, she hasn't said anything about a suit for a wrongful arrest or anything else. That's just groundless speculation by various bloggers and Gothamist commenters.

Ah, you are right. I was thinking about a suit for malicious prosecution.

Another failed media whore goes lawyer shopping. Meanwhile, it's warm and partly cloudy. The UV index will be slightly higher than usual today.

So she plans to sue eh. Big surprise.

What about the Red Sea pedestrian? Why is he still on the force? The bastige needs to lose his job over this disgraceful incident. Not holding my breath on that one however.

You can be charged with being "loud and boisterous"? Sheesh... that's half the city.

Half?

I'm really not sure what her defense to the charges of being "loud and boisterous" will be, since she already admitted that she got upset and yelled at the cop, etc. She must be crazy to want to go to court with this.

i never bought her story, but that little picture of her with the hangdog head is making me sad inside. just the aesthetics. not the story.

fuck this story.

There's something very Charlie Brown looking about it. "I can't do anything right" :(...

Arrrgghh!!

Officer Witriol should sue this disgusting pig of a woman for defamation when she claimed he 'pinched her breasts', 'fondled her', 'punched her in the back', and 'roughed her up'.

Where is RegoParker?!? Queeck get een da choppaa!

How is her job search going?

I would also declined the ACD if I was innocent. Where is JDS and where is copy of the police report? Where is Viane Delgado? How is the Pug doing? When will she bankrupt the NY Post? So many unanswered questions.

regardless of innocence, if you're offered it, you accept the ACD. it's off your record, and you don't have to deal with any more bullshit going to court and talking to lawyers.

as many people pointed out above, it's not an admission of guilt.

But it can be used against her in the civil matter. Also I still wouldn't take it if I was innocence since I would want my day in court. FYI-In NYC there is nothing off the record. Former mayor Guiliani loved to unseal records. Once you are processed in the system there is no removal. Her fingerprints and arrest date will always be in the system.

"But it can be used against her in the civil matter."

What can? In the end, the record reads that charges were dismissed. That creates no civil liability (and I have no idea what "civil matter" you're referring to anyway. Has she been sued over this?)

Granted some people do choose to decline ACD, if they're confident that they'll eventually be acquitted. That's taking a chance, but deciding that you'd rather have the court record end in acquittal rather than dismissal. But of course, you're risking that it will be conviction.

"Civil Matter" -(1) Chrissie vs NYPD/NYC for false arrest, (2) Chrissie vs. NY Post for libel which led to her firing.

If the criminal matter/case is heard then the ADA and NYPD are compelled to hand over all the records to her attorney per discovery. If she does a ACD then the case is over and no records have to be turn over to her. In my opinion, I think NYPD is hiding something and wants this to go away. Why didn't they fulfill Gothamist's foil request. Something really smells rotthen. puh

"If the criminal matter/case is heard then the ADA and NYPD are compelled to hand over all the records to her attorney per discovery. If she does a ACD then the case is over and no records have to be turn over to her."

They'd be two different cases, in two different courts. What's presented in one isn't automatically admitted in the other, and what records are relevant would be demanded in the civil case regardless of the disposition of the criminal case. They can ignore a FOIL request, but not a court order.

In a civil matter, it is harder and longer for subpoenas. In a criminal matter, both the ADA and NYPD can be sanctioned and even fired for not handing all discovery to her lawyer. I am not a lawyer but I would take her same route. Most lawyers state it is easier to win a civil matter when there is a criminal matter conviction. In her case, the criminal matter can reveal any false reporting or misconduct of NYPD. Even the Civilian board won't turn over the investigation to her lawyer. I know this for a fact since one of my friends complained to the Civilian board, after months the Board contacted him that the officer was reprimanded and it was noted in his service record. However they refused to turn any records to him because they were afraid he would sue. However he didn't sue but was only curious on the investigation done.

Exactly as you said, he didn't sue. So they didn't have to turn anything over. And again, anything that is turned over in the criminal case still can't simply be presented in the civil case. They're two different cases, each starting from scratch.

On the News, I hear attorneys that represent victim of police brutality say they would wait for the criminal matter to proceed before they proceed with the criminal matter. I really don't know if the Civilian Board can be subpoena but I hope the truth is found in the end.

I meant they would wait for the criminal matter to proceed before they proceed with the civil matter.

The Civilian Board told him that it was private property owned by the city since the city did the investigation and that his lawyer (which he didn't have) would have to pay for its own investigation. However in the criminal court, they can't objected at all because she is the defendant. If she is innocent then she has the upper hand in the criminal case and NYPD/NYC will be exposed to civil liability if any misconduct and false reporting is discovered in the criminal case hearing.

the only thing that led to her being fired is her moronic rants and raves on twitter/facebook/gothamist when she was a blogger by profession getting paid to keep a good face on.

She may have been a very shitty worker and this incident was the last straw for her employer... If she is actively seeking employment she may want to wrap this thing up as quickly as possible. That is unless she doesn't care if she needs to take time off from the new job if/when she sues the NY Post for libel and if/when she sues the NYPD for false arrest. If only she was employed by the NFL like that scumbucket Michael Vick, who waltzes out of jail into a million dollar gig.

We FOIL-ed the police report but the cops won't give it to us, citing the CCRB investigation.

what's the process for a FOIL application?

Not surprising, but ridiculous. Publicly releasing the report would have no impact at all on the CCRB investigation, since of course they'll see the report either way.

It seems wrong that a city agency can circumvent the FOIL act when it doesn't fall under the Privacy Act of 1974. But Chrissie's lawyer must be provided with a copy of the police report for her defense. Something smells rotten.

ACD = adjournment for consideration of dismissal. It requires no admission of guilt. The charges are dropped as long as one does not commit any crimes within the adjournment period. She should go check with her lawyer.

Does she have a lawyer? An ACD normally does not require an admission of guilt or anything similar. That is, you don't even make any statement regarding your involvement in the alleged crime. The case is simply adjourned, meaning delayed. No disposition is arrived at.

She declined to take the ACD, because then she "would not be able to get this level of attention ever again in her life."

maybe we'll finally get to see ms. Viane DelGado.