[T] People v. Farra S.6/1/2004
walk, that none of the nearby places of businesses were open at the time, that none of the motorists she approached were taxis, buses or livery vehicles, and that she was not standing at a bus stop or taxi stand.
The information further alleges that the defendant was present at the above location on other occasions engaging in the same conduct and that Officer Rocchio is experienced in the field of prostitution crimes and effected or assisted in over 200 arrests for prostitution. The information also includes allegations that, while engaging in the above-described behavior, the defendant obstructed vehicular traffic by approaching motorists stopped at a traffic light and that she created a public disturbance/inconvenience in that her conduct disrupted the normal flow of traffic since, when the light was green, vehicles had to honk their horns or drive around the defendant.
Similar accusatory instruments charging loitering for the purpose of prostitution have been found to be facially sufficient. Those dismissed as insufficient contain considerably fewer factual allegations to indicate that the defendant's conduct was for the purpose of prostitution.
For example, in People v Koss, 153 Misc2d 68 (Crim Ct, NY County 1992), the court denied a motion to dismiss an information which alleged that police officers observed the defendants standing in the middle of the street in an area where there were no open stores, restaurants, bus or taxi stops, the defendant was beckoning to passing traffic and stopping a number of male motorists while not approaching any female passers-by or motorists, the locations were frequented by people engaged in prostitution, the promotion of prostitution and the patronizing of prostitutes, and that one defendant was wearing a black leopard bikini and high heels, another was wearing a white mini-skirt and white heels, and another was wearing a red tank top, jeans and brown shoes. The court stated that " lthough there may be disagreement as to what constitutes 'provocative' clothing, certain types of clothing may, when considered in conjunction with other facts alleged, provide circumstantial evidence that the observed conduct was for the purpose of prostitution." People v Koss, supra at 70.
Likewise, the information in People v Smith, NYLJ, Jan. 19, 1996, at 29, col 4 (Crim Ct, Kings County), was found sufficient where it alleged that the police officer observed the defendant on a street corner for ten minutes; and during that time, the defendant, who was wearing fishnet stockings and a tight dress, stood in the middle of the street, waved at male motorists, caused vehicles to slow down and obstruct the flow of traffic, approached three male motorists and had a brief conversation with each, and got into one of those vehicles. Further, the street corner was in an industrial area and no factories were open at the time. The deponent, an experienced trained police officer, was, moreover, familiar with the general attire and deportment of individuals involved in prostitution.
In People v Denise L., supra, the accusatory instrument alleged that a police officer observed the defendant for a period of twenty minutes, that there had been more than twenty arrests at that location in a two-week period, that the defendant stopped three vehicles driven by lone male motorists and carried on conversations with them, that this was not a livery location, and that the defendant's conduct obstructed vehicular traffic. Though these allegations were the type that could be facially sufficient, the court found the complaint defective for failing to include so-called "Dumas" language (see People v Dumas, 68 NY2d 729) to establish the officer's training and expe
Page 1 2 3 4 5 New York DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|