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.

In these cases, federal law generally requires the agents to send a notice to the person from whom the cash was seized. The person who receives the notice is typically given the opportunity to make a claim for the cash, which includes an explanation as to the source of the cash. This response must be made under penalty of perjury, and can include supplemental documentation from a related business (such as tax returns or bank statements), or sworn statements from other people, among other things. Every once in awhile, the agents return the cash to the claimant based upon the representations made by the claimant, or based upon the evidence demonstrated to the agency. Our attorneys have successfully assisted clients in getting cash returned by federal agents this way.

If, however, the agency refuses to return the money based upon these representations, then they must commence a civil forfeiture action in federal court. The precise procedures for doing so are outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 983. Ultimately, in a civil court proceeding, the federal agency (DEA) must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the seized cash represents proceeds of illegal activity. This is the civil standard for proof and it is much lower (easier) than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard necessary to prove a person’s guilt of a crime.

Of course, the DEA may also elect to arrest the claimant as a co-conspirator to narcotics trafficking or money laundering. In that case, the DEA and federal prosecutor (U.S. Attorney) can add a forfeiture count to the indictment, and a civil forfeiture proceeding no longer becomes necessary.

The person considering whether to respond to this initial seizure notice has many things to consider. First, the response has to be made under oath. Thus, a false statement relating to the seized cash is punishable as a federal crime pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Second, the claimant should carefully consider the circumstances under which the cash was seized. They should ask themselves: how did the DEA agents know that there was cash to be seized? Did they simply stumble upon it, or has there been a long-term investigation with wiretaps, cooperating witnesses, and/or surveillance that led them to make this cash seizure? The latter is normally more likely. Of course, it could be suspicious for a claimant to let DEA agents seize a huge quantity of cash without any protestations – after all, if, say, one million dollars in cash were lawfully obtained, wouldn’t the owner want it back?

Ultimately, the top priority for someone whose cash has been seized by the DEA should be avoiding an arrest or an indictment by federal authorities. Thus, any response to a seizure notice should be made after careful discussion with a knowledgeable criminal defense attorney. Matthew Galluzzo, an experienced criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor, has assisted many clients in these sorts of matters and is prepared to assist you or a loved one as well.