Opinion
CR-028761-22KN
01-05-2023
The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. P.D., Defendant.
For the People: Jourdan Thompson, ADA, Brooke Cohen, ADA, Eliana Holloway, Law Graduate, Office of the Kings County District Attorney For the Defendant: Alexander McHugh, Attorney at Law, Office of Brooklyn Defender Services
For the People: Jourdan Thompson, ADA, Brooke Cohen, ADA, Eliana Holloway, Law Graduate, Office of the Kings County District Attorney
For the Defendant: Alexander McHugh, Attorney at Law, Office of Brooklyn Defender Services
Holderness, J.
On November 21, 2022, this court held a hearing pursuant to Crawford v. Ally , 197 A.D.3d 27, 150 N.Y.S.3d 712 (1st Dept. 2021), in order to determine what conditions were necessary in temporary orders of protection that had been issued at the defendant's arraignment in favor of five individuals.
An issue in the hearing was whether two (2) prior Domestic Incident Reports (DIRs) were admissible when they had been prepared in response to allegations that resulted in previous prosecutions that were dismissed.
The matter was initially heard in the morning session, and the court gave counsel a second call until after the lunch break to research the issue. In the afternoon, the court ruled that the prior DIRS were admissible. This decision explains the court's reasoning.
Procedural History
Defendant was arraigned on October 7, 2022, and was charged with four (4) counts of Endangering the Welfare of a Child, Penal Law (P.L.) § 260.10(1), and with one (1) count each of Criminal Obstruction of Breathing, P.L. § 121.11(A), Assault in the Third Degree, P.L. 120.00(1), Attempted Assault in the Third Degree, P.L. § 110/120.00(1), Menacing in the Third Degree, P.L. § 120.15, and Harassment in the Second Degree, P.L. § 240.26(1).
The complaint alleged that on October 6, 2022, the defendant pushed his wife, causing her to hit a bed, and then placed both hands around her neck and applied pressure to her neck, all in the presence of four children who ranged in age from five months to twelve years. A full order of protection was issued at arraignment for his wife and for the four children who were alleged to have been present during the incident. The matter was adjourned to November 15, 2022.
On November 15, 2022, defense counsel requested a Crawford hearing and the matter was adjourned to November 21, 2022, for that purpose.
At the hearing on November 21, 2022, defendant asserted that at the time of the arrest, he lived with his wife and the four children, one of whom was his biological child. Defendant asserted that his name was on the lease for the apartment and that he paid utilities, including electricity. The People conceded that the defendant had a substantial property and personal interest at stake.
The People maintained that a full order of protection was nonetheless necessary to ensure the safety of the protected parties during the pendency of the prosecution. People's Exhibits I and 2, a typed DIR and handwritten DIR for the October 6, 2022 incident, as well as People's Exhibits 3 and 4, photographs of the complainant's injuries from the incident, were admitted without objection.
The People also sought to introduce Exhibit 5, a DIR dated October 16, 2019, and Exhibit 6, a DIR dated November 3, 2020, both of which involved incidents that had resulted in the defendant's arrest. The matters relating to those two incidents were both later dismissed. The defense objected, asserting that both DIRs were subject to sealing under Criminal Procedure Law (C.P.L.) § 160.50 because the defendant had been arrested for those two incidents and the cases were later dismissed.
The Admissibility of DIRs from Incidents that Result in Prosecutions that are Dismissed
At issue in this Crawford hearing, and in scores of other proceedings where issues such as bail and orders of protection are considered, is whether a prosecutor may rely on, and a court may consider, information maintained on DIRs that were created for an incident that resulted in a prosecution when that prosecution was ultimately dismissed. C.P.L. § 530.12 and Crawford Hearings
C.P.L. § 530.12, which authorizes the court to issue orders of protection for victims of family offenses, provides a non-exhaustive list of factors a court must consider when determining the conditions of an order of protection. Those factors include "whether the temporary order of protection is likely to achieve its purpose in the absence of [a] condition, conduct subject to prior orders of protection, prior incidents of abuse, past or present injury, threats, drug or alcohol abuse, and access to weapons."
In Crawford v. Ally, supra , the First Department held that "when the defendant presents the court with a showing that there may be an immediate and significant deprivation of a substantial personal or property interest upon the issuance of the [temporary order of protection], the Criminal Court should conduct a prompt evidentiary hearing on notice to all parties and in a manner that enables the judge to ascertain the facts necessary to decide whether or not the [temporary order of protection] should be issued." 197 A.D.3d 27, 28, 150 N.Y.S.3d 712.
The Sealing Statute
C.P.L. § 160.50 provides broad protections to a defendant when criminal proceedings are terminated in favor of an accused: "Upon termination of a criminal action or proceeding against a person in favor of such person ... all official records and papers including judgments and orders of a court ... relating to the arrest or prosecution, including all duplicates and copies thereof, on file with ... any court [or] police agency ... shall be sealed and not made available to any person or public or private agency."
The Court of Appeals has emphasized the policy considerations that underscore C.P.L. 160.50 : avoiding the stigma and other consequences that result from a criminal prosecution. Harper v. Angiolillo , 89 N.Y.2d 761, 766, 658 N.Y.S.2d 229, 680 N.E.2d 602 (1997) ("The sealing requirement was designed to lessen the adverse consequences of unsuccessful criminal prosecutions by limiting access to official records and papers in criminal proceedings which terminate in favor of the accused"); Hynes v. Karassik , 47 N.Y.2d 659, 662, 419 N.Y.S.2d 942, 393 N.E.2d 1015 (1979) ("The statute serves the laudable goal of insuring that one who is charged but not convicted of an offense suffers no stigma as a result of his having once been the object of an unsustained accusation. That detriment to one's reputation and employment prospects often flows from merely having been subjected to criminal process has long been recognized as a serious and unfortunate by-product of even unsuccessful criminal prosecutions") (internal citation omitted).
But the Court of Appeals has also recognized that not all documents or records constitute official records relating to the arrest or prosecution, and thus not all documents or records are subject to the sealing statute. "[A]lthough CPL 160.50 specifies judgments and orders of a court as items ‘included’ in the category of official records and papers, the statute is otherwise silent on the nature of such ‘official’ material (see , C.P.L. § 160.50 [1] [c] )"). Harper , 89 N.Y.2d at 765-766, 658 N.Y.S.2d 229, 680 N.E.2d 602.
The Court of Appeals notes that the statute's inexplicitness discourages a hardline rule on what constitutes an "official record." "[ CPL § 160.50(1)(c) ] is otherwise silent on the nature of such ‘official’ material ... further supporting the conclusion that bright line rules are not wholly appropriate in this area." Id. at 766, 658 N.Y.S.2d 229, 680 N.E.2d 602.; see also, People v. Anonymous , 34 N.Y.3d 631, 660, 123 N.Y.S.3d 41, 145 N.E.3d 924 (2020) (Fiore, J., dissenting) ("The words of the statute do not support the conclusion that the protections of CPL 160.50 must be mechanically applied.").
There is no direct appellate authority as to whether a DIR constitutes an "official record relating to [an] arrest or prosecution" within the scope of C.P.L. § 160.50(1)(c). While People v. Anonymous, 76 Misc.3d 1022, 174 N.Y.S.3d 820 (Crim. Ct., Bronx County 2022), as well as several Family Court decisions, have found that DIRs constitute official records within the ambit of C.P.L. § 160.50, this court respectfully disagrees. While DIRs may be used in a subsequent prosecution when an arrest is made, that does not render them an official record relating to the arrest or prosecution. See discussion below, C.P.L. § 140.10(5).
Domestic Incident Reports
C.P.L. § 140.10(5) mandates the creation of a DIR any time a law enforcement official responds to an incident involving allegations of violence within a household. It further requires that those records be maintained for a minimum of four (4) years. Enacted in 1994 as part of the Family Protection and Domestic Violence Intervention Act of 1994, L 1994, chs 222, 224, C.P.L. 140.10(5) was part of a significant legislative attempt to address domestic violence and provide for the protection of victims of family violence.
The legislative findings recognized the need "to strengthen materially New York's statutes by providing for the immediate deterrent action by law enforcement officials and members of the judiciary". Id. In addition to providing domestic violence victims with increased access to both the criminal and the family courts, the legislation "created many provisions designed to enhance the protection of victims of domestic violence." Id. C.P.L. § 140.10(5) is one such provision: it requires that, in responding to an allegation of domestic violence, "a law enforcement officer shall prepare, file, and translate a written report of the incident, on a form promulgated pursuant to [ Executive Law § 837 ], including statements made by the victim and any witnesses ..."
C.P.L. § 140.10(5) specifies that a DIR "shall be prepared and filed [ ] regardless of whether an arrest is made." Despite that fact that it was enacted twenty-nine years after the sealing statute, C.P.L. § 140.10(5) specifically requires that all DIRs "be retained by the law enforcement agency for a period of not less than four years."
In compliance with this statute, the New York Police Department (NYPD) requires that responding officers "complete the NYS Domestic Incident Report Form ... whether or not an offense was committed or an arrest was made." Law Enforcement Domestic Incident Model Policy , p. 5, https://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/ops/training/other/officer-involved-domestic-violenceincidents-policy/story content/external files/MPTC% 20-% 20Model% 20Domestic% 201ncident% 20Policy.pdf [New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, Dec. 2010, last accessed Jan. 5, 2023).
The DIR form used by the NYPD documents extensive information that does not relate to any criminal prosecution. It documents how the complainant responds to six "risk factor" questions that are not necessarily related to the incident but that help the responding officers determine the amount of risk involved or the level of intervention required in a particular situation. These questions include: whether the suspect has ever threatened to kill the complainant or the complainant's children, whether the suspect has ever strangled or choked the complainant, whether the suspect has beaten the complainant while the complainant was pregnant, whether the suspect whether the suspect is capable of killing the complainant or the complainant's children, whether the suspect is violently and constantly jealous, and whether the physical violence has increased in frequency or severity over the last six months. In addition to an evaluation of these risk factors, the DIR requires that the complainant be asked whether the suspect has made threats against children or pets or threatened self-harm, and it requires an assessment of whether any report should be made to the NYS Child Abuse Hotline Registry.
In addition, the DIR, a copy of which must be given to the complainant, includes information such contact information for domestic violence and sexual assault hotlines and a phone number for criminal court information. It also provides the complainant with information about how the police and courts can provide assistance to the complainant, detailing the complainant's rights in both Criminal and Family Court.
In this way, the court notes that DIRs can be analogized to 911 calls: DIRs, like 911 calls, involve a law enforcement response, they may pertain to an incident that results in an arrest, and they may document or constitute evidence in a future prosecution.
The First Department has held that 911 calls are not official records within the meaning of C.P.L. § 160.50. See, Matter of Krystal N. (Juan R.), 193 A.D.3d 602, 602, 142 N.Y.S.3d 808 (1st Dept. 2021) ("Family Court properly declined to strike the 911 tapes from the record after his acquittal in Criminal Court because those records were not official recordings relating to respondent's arrest or prosecution and thus were not subject to the sealing statute."); Matter of Dockery v. New York City Hous. Auth. , 51 A.D.3d 575, 575, 859 N.Y.S.2d 130 (1st Dept. 2008) ("The 911 recordings were properly admitted into evidence at a disciplinary hearing since they were not official records relating to petitioner's arrest or prosecution, and thus were not subject to the sealing statute").
While there is no direct appellate decision on whether DIRs are official records within the scope of C.P.L. § 160.50, the Third Department has seemed to acknowledge that they are not. In Matter of Groves v. State Univ. of New York , 265 A.D.2d 141, 707 N.Y.S.2d 261 (3d Dept. 2000), the petitioner brought an Article 78 petition seeking to expunge two DIRs, or, in the alternative, to seal them. The DIRs related to two separate incidents. In one incident, there was no arrest; in the other, the petitioner had been arrested the case was later dismissed in his favor. In affirming the lower court's denial of the petition, the Third Department notes that, "as for petitioner's alternative request that such reports be sealed," he waived his entitlement to that relief and the court saw no need to reach the issue in the interests of justice. Id. at 144-5, 707 N.Y.S.2d 261. This decision essentially assumes that the DIR did not automatically seal when the criminal case was dismissed, further confirming that DIRs are not official records within the meaning of C.P.L. § 160.50.
Finally, a further indication that DIRs are not official records relating to an arrest or prosecution, is that the data they collect has significant application outside of specific incidents or allegations. DIR data is used to inform policies, best practices, and government reports. For instance, the "2020 Report on the Intersection of Domestic Violence, Race/Ethnicity and Sex" analyzes the New York City Police Department's domestic violence related offenses data. Mayor's Office to End Domestic and Gender-Based Violence, 2020 Report on the Intersection of Domestic Violence, Race/Ethnicity and Sex, nyc.gov, 1 (Sept. 2021), https://wwwl.nyc.gov/assets/ocdv/downloads/pdf/endgbv-intersection-report.pdf. DIRs figure prominently in that study. Id. at 3, 6 (NYPD DIR data from 2017-19 used to quantify sex, gender, race/ethnicity, and relationship between victims and offenders as well as neighborhood, neighborhood poverty rates, medium household income, and unemployment rates of site of domestic incident).
Accordingly, this court finds that DIRs are not official records within the ambit of C.P.L. 160.50. They do not seal, and the information contained on them may be considered in Crawford hearings and other proceedings, subject to evidentiary rules relating to admissibility.
Of course, admitting a DIR or other item into evidence does not mean the court will credit information contained in it, nor that the court will accord the exhibit any particular weight.
This court therefore overruled the defense's objection to People's Exhibits 5 and 6 and admitted them into evidence at the instant Crawford hearing.
Application
At the Crawford hearing in this matter, the People conceded and the court found that the temporary orders of protection deprived the defendant of significant personal and property interests.
Next, the court considered what conditions were necessary to ensure that the adult complainant and the four children were not subject to danger of intimidation or injury during the pendency of the case. In addition to the allegations in the complaint, the People asserted that two of the children, those born in 2015 and 2018, had attempted to intervene when the defendant's hands were on their mother's neck; according to the People, the defendant then pushed both children, who did not sustain any injuries. On People's Exhibit 1, the DIR that was prepared for the incident charged in this matter, the complainant had checked three of the six risk factors, indicating that she told the responding officers that the defendant had strangled or choked her, that he was violently and constantly jealous, and that the physical violence had increased in severity over the last six months. The People further noted what they argued to be visible injuries to the complainant as depicted in People's Exhibits 3 and 4, both of which related to the allegations in this matter.
The People then noted that on People's Exhibit 5, the DIR from October 16, 2019, the complainant had checked four of six risk factors. In addition to checking the three factors she reported on People's Exhibit 1, the complainant also indicated that the suspect had threatened to kill her or her children and that the suspect was capable of killing her and her children. That DIR indicated that the complainant reported that she had been strangled to unconsciousness and that one of the children had called 911. As to People's Exhibit 6, the DIR from November 2, 2020, zero out of six risk factors was checked, and the DIR indicated that the complainant had "refused" to provide any information to responding officers.
The defense contested whether injury was visible in the photographs introduced by the People, and he asserted that the adult complainant wanted the defendant to return to the home. He further stated that the defendant had voluntarily enrolled in parenting classes since his arrest.
The court then applied each of the factors enumerated in C.P.L. § 530.12. In light of the serious nature of the allegations in this incident, which included criminal obstruction of breathing in the presence of four children, of the alleged injury here, which the court noted was minimal, and of the past reported allegations of domestic violence, which indicated that police had been summoned to the home at least three times in the previous three years, the court determined that a full order of protection remained necessary to prevent a danger of intimidation or injury to the complainants. The court ordered that the full orders of protection remain in effect but noted that the order was subject to modification by the Family Court, such that a Family Court judge could adjust the conditions as that judge believed to be appropriate.
In considering the necessary conditions of the orders of protection in this matter, the court would have maintained full orders of protection subject to modification by Family Court even without considering People's Exhibits 5 and 6.
This reflects the decision and orders of the court.