People v. Santiago

Decision Date20 April 1972
Citation332 N.Y.S.2d 733,69 Misc.2d 1098
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Joseph SANTIAGO, Defendant.
CourtNew York City Court

Angelo Ingrassia, District Attorney (Mark Fox, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Edward S. Corner, Port Jervis, for defendant.

WILLIAM J. GREGG, Judge.

This is a trial of the defendant for resisting arrest under Section 205.30 of the Penal Law of the State of New York. It is a trial without a jury and defendant, among other things, raises the question of his arrest by Sergeant Francis Graziano of the Port Jervis Police Department as being an unlawful arrest resulting from the defendant failing to produce a license and a charge resulting from failure to produce a registration for an automobile in which said defendant was sitting behind the steering wheel of said automobile at the time of the arrest. The defendant has testified to the fact that the automobile was immobile at the time of the arrest. Although the automobile had its headlights on, neither the defendant nor the prosecution could testify with any degree of certainty that the key of said automobile was in fact in the switch at the time of the arrest. From the evidence produced on such trial the Court is of the opinion that the defendant was not in fact guilty of either of such charges, such charges being dismissed.

However, the matter of the defendant violating Section 205.30 of the Penal Law is now before the Court. Under Section 35.27 entitled 'Justification; use of physical force in resisting arrest prohibited,' such statement states as follows: 'A person may not use physical force to resist an arrest, whether authorized or unauthorized, which is being effected or attempted by a peace officer when it would reasonably appear that the latter is a peace officer.' In the instant case the Court, in view of this section of law, requires that a person who has been arrested whether or not such arrest is valid or invalid or authorized or unauthorized and which has been or is being effected by a police officer, and at the time the defendant can reasonably be assumed to know that he is being arrested by a peace officer, whether such peace officer is in uniform or not so long as he is advised or has reason to believe that such peace officer is on duty, said defendant cannot use any physical force to resist such arrest. In fact, in the case of People v. Simms, 36 A.D.2d 23, at page 24, 319 N.Y.S.2d 144, at page 146, the Court in discussing the logic...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • State v. Holeman
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • January 10, 1985
    ...made by police officers. See, e.g., People v. Bailey, 108 Ill.App.3d 392, 64 Ill.Dec. 75, 439 N.E.2d 4 (1982); People v. Santiago, 69 Misc.2d 1098, 332 N.Y.S.2d 733 (1972); Gonzalez v. State, 574 S.W.2d 135 (Tex.Crim.App.1978). Our own Court of Appeals in State v. Westlund, 13 Wn.App. 460, ......
  • People v. Giorgetti
    • United States
    • New York District Court
    • February 15, 1980
    ... ...         The court is also aware that another line of cases has developed which indicates that acquittal on the underlying charges is not a bar to prosecution of a resisting arrest charge. (People v. Simms, 36 A.D.2d 23, 319 N.Y.S.2d 144; People v ... Santiago, 69 Misc.2d 1098, 332 N.Y.S.2d 733). In any event, the present case is not directly controlled by either line of cases. We note that in this case there has been no adjudication as to the merits of the harassment charge. The reason for this failure was the refusal of the defendant's wife to sign ... ...
  • People v. Ailey
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • January 4, 1974
    ...of arresting the defendants'. The court is well aware that some cases (People v. Simms, 35 A.D. 23, 319 N.Y.S.2d 144; People v. Santiago, 69 Misc.2d 1098, 332 N.Y.S.2d 733) seem to say that a person may be found guilty of Sec. 205.30 whether the arrest was authorized or unauthorized because......
  • Spencer v. Board of Ed. of City of Schenectady
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • June 9, 1972
    ... ... one from office on account of age; and this is a matter for the legislative process to specifically provide for is such is the will of the people ...         This Court determines that the Petitioner was a qualified candidate and that the action of the Board of Education in locking [69 ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT