Common Desk Appearance Tickets from JFK Airport include 1) shoplifting offenses (Petit Larceny – PL 155.25, a Class A misdemeanor) at the JFK retail shops or duty-free stores, 2) misdemeanor possession of controlled substances (PL 220.03), 3) misdemeanor possession of a weapon, such as a knife or collapsable baton or brass knuckles (PL 265.01), 4) theft of services, such as failing to pay a bar or restaurant tab (PL 165.15), and 5) assault (PL 120.00, a Class A misdemeanor). However, there are many other possible offenses at JFK Airport that could result in Desk Appearance Tickets.

A Desk Appearance Ticket is the same thing as a criminal arrest and a conviction for a misdemeanor can give you a permanent and public criminal record. It can also potentially result in jail time, probation, fines, loss of employment, loss of immigration status, and loss of licensure, depending on the circumstances. These DATs must be taken seriously, as should any criminal arrest. Matthew Galluzzo has successfully helped over 100 clients earn dismissals in cases involving Desk Appearance Tickets, and has specifically helped over a dozen clients with charges stemming from JFK Airport.

Generally, a person who receives a Desk Appearance Ticket from JFK Airport must appear in Queens Criminal Court (located at 125-01 Queens Boulevard) as instructed by the ticket. Sometimes these court dates occur on weekends. Of course, many of the people arrested in JFK are travelers from out of town or even out of the country. In certain types of cases, Matthew Galluzzo has successfully appeared of behalf of many out-of-town and foreign clients and resolved these cases favorably without the clients having to appear personally. If you are a foreign or out-of-town client with a JFK Desk Appearance Ticket, you should strongly consider hiring Matthew Galluzzo to appear on your behalf, so that you do not have to make a special trip back to New York City just to appear in court to resolve a misdemeanor offense.

The allegations in these cases suggest that the defendants used the public enthusiasm and fervor around cryptocurrency investing to run what amounted to a Ponzi scheme with a crypto appearance. The defendants allegedly went to crypto conventions and investor events and flashed conspicuous wealth in order to persuade people to invest in their cryptocurrencies. The defendants allegedly used a software platform to allow investors to see their investments growing, but the defendants would not allow the investors to withdraw funds. Meanwhile, these defendants allegedly used the investor funds for their own purposes and spent the money lavishly.

The defendants might argue that there was in fact a real cryptocurrency investment that simply failed, as so many cryptocurrencies have. (Some reputable economists might even argue that the entire cryptocurrency industry is, at base, a Ponzi scheme in and of itself.) Prosecutors will use bank records and other evidence to show that these investor accounts ran dry because they were emptied by the defendants.

The charges here are predominately conspiracies to commit Wire Fraud (18 USC 1343) and Money Laundering (18 USC 1956(h)). A person commits wire fraud, basically, when he or she commits fraud using the internet or a telephone system. Money laundering involves taking stolen money (or proceeds from an illegal activity) and knowingly converting it into another form or depositing it into a bank account, for example.

The defendants face significant potential prison sentences. Generally, the penalties for wire fraud and money laundering depend largely on the amount of money stolen. However, the penalties can increase significantly where there are many victims, or when a person acts as a manager of others in the criminal conspiracy, or when the person has a criminal record. In addition to prison penalties, the defendants, if convicted, can expect to owe their victims significant amounts in restitution.

Matthew Galluzzo is an experienced criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan prosecutor. He has successfully represented many individuals accused of federal wire fraud and money laundering and understands how prosecutors investigate and build their cases. If you or a loved one have been accused of wire fraud in federal court, you should strongly consider contacting him today to discuss his potential representation.

18 U.S.C. § 844(i) makes it a federal crime punishable between 5 and 20 years to “[m]aliciously damage[] or destroy[], or attempt to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other real or personal property used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce.” (The penalties are higher when public safety officers sustain injuries).

According to the complaint (as well as video footage available on the Internet) – Ms. Shader allegedly threw a Molotov cocktail (a bottle of flammable beer containing a burning rag or cloth) through the window of a police vehicle while it was occupied by four police officers. Thankfully, no police officers were injured. According to the publicly-available complaint filed against her, Ms. Shader has also admitted to the conduct. In addition, it is alleged that just a few hours later, the two aforementioned lawyers threw similar Molotov cocktails into an empty NYPD vehicle in Brooklyn.

Defending against these cases is going to be challenging for their attorneys. Ms. Shader probably has no defense whatsoever, assuming that her statement was voluntarily given to the police. As much as Mr. Mattis, an African-American attorney, may have a valid grievance about police brutality in America, there is no First Amendment or protest exception to this criminal statute. These attorneys could go to trial and attempt to persuade juries to “nullify” their cases, meaning find them not guilty where the evidence clearly proves their guilt. The Eastern District of New York is an extremely diverse jury pool – almost certainly the most diverse jury pool in the U.S. – but it seems unlikely that a jury of 12 would unanimously agree to forgive this sort of conduct that jeopardizes lives and safety.

Defense attorneys are going to have to fight hard to try to persuade federal prosecutors to charge their clients differently, in order to avoid stiff jail sentences. Federal prosecutors rarely if ever make deals for “lesser included offenses,” but there are some charges that could be potentially substituted for 18 U.S.C 844(i) that do not have the same penalties, e.g. 18 U.S.C. § 33, 18 U.S.C. § 231, 18 U.S.C. §2232. Perhaps they could be permitted to plead guilty to one of these charges in satisfaction of the primary charge. Otherwise, their attorneys might try to have the case charged in state court, as well, with the hope that their clients could plead guilty to an offense with a lesser penalty in state court with the federal court being dismissed as covered by those state-court pleas. This is admittedly something of a long shot but perhaps worth considering under the circumstances.

Ultimately, this case is most likely going to be about demonstrating remorse and good character to the prosecutors in the hopes of earning some mercy or leniency from them. A “proffer” could be necessary to do so. Otherwise, they’ll likely be forced to accept a plea with a five-year mandatory minimum sentence.

Matthew Galluzzo is a former Manhattan state court prosecutor and experienced federal court defense attorney on the CJA panels for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. If you or a loved one have been arrested or charged with a federal crime, you should strongly consider contacting him immediately.

Oftentimes, in these cases in which no one was injured, a protester-defendant could – with the help of an experienced attorney – successfully negotiate a plea bargain whereby the protester will have no criminal record and spend no time in jail (such as an “adjournment in contemplation of dismissal or a violation like Disorderly Conduct). In cases involving Desk Appearance Tickets, such negotiations may even be possible prior to the return date (i.e. the first court appearance). However, for reasons relating to principle, many protester-defendants refuse to accept any such deal, preferring to demand dismissal or a trial where their voices can be heard by a jury. Such an attitude is certainly understandable but it does tend to increase the risk of a negative result (such as a permanent criminal record).

Unfortunately, some protests escalate into confrontations with police officers. In those cases, charges like Assault in the Second Degree can sometimes be levied against arrested protesters alleged to have injured police officers. That charge is a serious felony that can carry real jail time, and should not be treated lightly at all. The best defense in these cases is often to argue that the defendant did not act unreasonably, and that any injuries to the police officer were sustained on account of his/her own aggressive or improper actions. In today’s current climate, that argument can have real traction with some jurors.

Thankfully, nowadays many protesters have video footage of their arrests, or their behavior just prior to being arrested. Oftentimes, this footage can be helpful to their defenses. In those cases, it may make sense for their attorneys to share the footage with prosecutors in the hopes of securing outright dismissals. Of course, an outright dismissal of an arrest charge can open the door to a lawsuit for wrongful arrest against the City.

Sometimes people attempt to intervene during an arrest of a protester by trying to prevent the police officer from apprehending someone else. In these cases, the intervenors typically are charged with Obstructing Government Administration or Resisting Arrest, misdemeanors. A person being unlawfully arrested can argue that they are not guilty of Resisting Arrest because the arrest was unlawful or unauthorized under the circumstances, and an intervenor may also be able to successfully argue the same thing.

Generally speaking, defendants (and defense attorneys) prefer some anonymity with respect to their cases, and prefer to try their cases discretely in the courtroom. However, for those defendants seeking trials by jury, attorneys should consider trying to garner public sympathy and/or publicity for the client’s case before the trial. After all, these cases frequently depend less on the facts presented at trial so much as they do upon the attitudes of the fact-finders (i.e. judges or juries) deciding the case.

If you or a loved one have been arrested or given a Desk Appearance Ticket in New York City for protesting, you should strongly consider contacting Matthew Galluzzo. He is an experienced criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan state prosecutor. He is also a civil rights attorney who has successfully sued members of the NYPD for false arrest and police brutality.

18 U.S. C. § 2241 – aggravated sexual abuse18 U.S. C. § 2244 – abusive sexual contact

But also with specific charges:

49 U.S. C. § 46504 – Interference with flight crew members and attendants: “An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.”49 U.S. C. § 46507 – False information and threats: “An individual shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, if the individual—

(1) knowing the information to be false, willfully and maliciously or with reckless disregard for the safety of human life, gives, or causes to be given, under circumstances in which the information reasonably may be believed, false information about an alleged attempt being made or to be made to do an act that would violate section 46502(a), 46504, 46505, or 46506 of this title; or(2)(A) threatens to violate section 46502(a), 46504, 46505, or 46506 of this title, or causes a threat to violate any of those sections to be made; and(B) has the apparent determination and will to carry out the threat.”

18 U.S. C. § 32 – Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities

However, Department of Justice figures show that just 11% of cases brought to the Federal Aviation Administration between 2001 and 2014 rose to the level of federal criminal prosecution. Moreover, even when there is a criminal prosecution, a plea agreement is often approved for the reduced misdemeanor charge of simple assault (18 U.S.C § 113). The airlines are sometimes reluctant to press criminal charges against the traveler because of fears that bad press could hurt the airline’s image, which can be surprising considering that many disruptive passengers can cost airlines big money, because it can cost between $10.000 and $200.000 to perform an unscheduled landing divert a flight or disembark an unruly passenger.[If you or a loved one is involved in an unruly passenger case, do not hesitate to reach out to The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo; our team of former prosecutors and experienced criminal defense attorneys can help you with your case.]

Notably, federal law and regulations take precedence over state and local laws. This means that everyone in the USA must register his drone with the Federal Aviation Administration and follow the FAA’s Special Rule for Model Aircraft.

There are nine major cities in New York State and all of them have made it illegal to fly drones in them (except for commercial drone applications which might get individual permits or licenses). Luckily, New York City allows you to take your drone to the skies in designated parks and model airfields like:

• Flushing Meadows Corona Park
• Calvert Vaux Park
• Marine Park
• Forest Park
• La Tourette Park

Yet, you must not forget that all of Manhattan is off-limits, which includes: water, waterways, land under the jurisdiction of the city and the air space above.

According to the New York Department of Transportation and the New York State Assembly, there are currently no state laws in place concerning the operations of drones in New York, which means that the general Federal regulations are the primary restrictions on what you can do. However, there are plenty of non-specific laws that still apply to drone use, such as reckless endangerment and trespass laws. Furthermore, a City of New York restriction (Administrative Code § 10-126) makes illegal the flying and landing of aircraft (including drones) in New York City in most non-commercial circumstances.

While New York might have been a little slow off the mark with drone-specific legislation, there are quite a few proposed laws that might come into effect any day now. Thereby, one of them would describe what the liabilities are of drone owners, operators and makers respectively. Another one would allow to predict what sort of damages an injured party can claim from each of the three entities depending on circumstances. Finally, because of the development of weapons, New York wants to ban the weaponization of drones like Florida has already done. But even if this is not a law yet, we can only recommend you to not try to attach a pistol, knife or any sort of weapon to your drone. Because drones have also been used to bring weapons, drugs and other illegal stuffs intro prison yards, there will probably be a law prohibiting anyone from flying drones near correctional facilities.

You should also know that drones are not the only aircraft forbidden in and over the city: it is also unlawful for any person to jump or leap from an aircraft in a parachute or any other device within the limits of the city or to take off or land for anybody avigating an aircraft, except in emergency, at any place within the limits of the city other than places of landing designated by the department of transportation or the port of New York authority (NYC Administrative Code § 10-126).

[If you or a loved one was arrested for piloting a drone in the limits of the city, do not hesitate to reach out to The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo; our team of former prosecutors and experienced criminal defense attorneys can help you with your case.]