By LAURA ITALIANO
Last Updated: 7:47 PM, September 8, 2011
Posted: 3:59 AM, September 8, 2011

“I’m sorry! I’m sorry! I’m sorry!”

He’d killed thoughtlessly; he’d denied responsibility coldly. Only when the cuffs went on at sentencing did reckless thug David McKie — the petty-theft getaway driver who’d fatally mowed down a brilliant film editor on the Upper West Side — reveal something like a soul.

“I’m sorry,” McKie mouthed again and again yesterday, breaking into gasping sobs and turning toward the audience of a Manhattan courtroom where the friends of editor Karen Schmeer sat watching, themselves in tears.

McKie will serve five to 15 years for Schmeer’s January 2010 manslaughter. He’d struck Schmeer after blowing through four red lights on Broadway while trying to outrace cops after shoplifting a stash of cold medicines from a CVS at 86th and Amsterdam with a pair of buddies.

Schmeer was just 39 years old and at the height of her award-spangled career, having served as editor for such lauded documentaries as “Fast, Cheap & Out of Control,” and the Oscar winner “The Fog of War.”

A beautiful woman described as witty and warm by friends, she was carrying a bag of groceries across Broadway at 90th Street, just a block from her home, when McKie struck her. She was tossed into the air, bouncing off McKie’s car and a parked car before hitting the pavement.

“Her injuries were so extensive that no single cause of death could be determined,” lead prosecutor Peter Casolaro wrote in court papers.

“He looked me in the eye,” one of Schmeer’s friends, filmmaker Nina Davenport, said of McKie yesterday, after the emotional sentencing, sounding surprised.

Others among Schmeer’s friends, standing and embracing in a courthouse hallway, said the same thing — their dear friend’s killer had made a point of looking into the eyes of each of them before he was led away, his convulsive sobs audible even after he disappeared from sight.

“I’ll never know him; I’ll never see him again,” said Davenport, 45, of Brooklyn. “But at least he showed some sign of humanity,”

“I didn’t see it,” responded Maribeth Edmonds, 53, of South Hampton, one of Schmeer’s closest friends

“I hate him,” she said, in tears. “I’m just not open to it. Not yet.”

The defense lawyer had claimed during the sentencing that McKie, who had no criminal record, was a “salvagable” young man with a “brilliant future.”

Those words had stung Edmonds.

“He has a brilliant future?” Edmonds said, her voice choked by tears. “Karen had a brilliant future. We had a brilliant future together. We were going to grow old together.”

McKie was initially charged with murder under the legal theory that he had displayed a depraved indifference to human life. But a recent, precedent-setting state Court of Appeals reversal in a very similar Rochester case made it unlikely that a murder conviction against McKie could ever be sustained.

He was allowed to plead guilty in July, to manslaughter — leaving Schmeer’s friends grappling to understand how McKie’s actions could ever be construed as less than depraved, and as less than murder.

Schmeer’s work lives on, her friends noted. Her final film, Bobby Fisher Against the World, was lauded at Sundance. A fellowship for emerging young editors has been created in her name — the Karen Schmeer Film Editing Fellowship, the details of which are at KarenSchmeer.com.

Attorney for the defense: Matthew D. Myers

laura.italiano@nypost.com

Read more

By JOHN ELIGON
Published: July 19, 2011

A Columbia University student who was the main target of an undercover investigation of a ring that sold drugs from the campus will be sentenced to six months in jail after pleading guilty Tuesday to selling cocaine.

The student, Harrison David, is expected to begin serving his time on Rikers Island on Aug. 30, when he is formally sentenced.

Charges are pending against four other students — Christopher Coles, Adam Klein, Jose Perez and Michael Wymbs — who were arrested with Mr. David last December; their lawyers filed motions Tuesday as part of their requests for a drug-treatment resolution that could lead to their clients’ cases being dismissed.

Mr. David, 20, was charged with the most serious crimes of the five students, who were arrested under what the authorities called Operation Ivy League.

Mr. David will most likely be expelled from Columbia as a result of the guilty plea, and his felony conviction may compromise his efforts to get into a new university, said his lawyer, Matthew D. Myers.

“He has huge regrets about it,” Mr. Myers said. “I think he is taking responsibility for it. He is not being combative. He’s not disgruntled about the results.”

After he is released from jail, Mr. David will have to serve five years’ probation.

Mr. David left the courthouse without speaking. A spokesman for Columbia declined to comment.

The city’s Office of the Special Narcotics Prosecutor, which is handling the case, initially offered Mr. David a deal of one year in prison and two years’ probation. But William Novak, an assistant district attorney, said in court that the office believed the new arrangement served the interest of justice because it meant that Mr. David would have to be under supervision for a longer period of time after his release from jail.

The top charge against Mr. David, second-degree criminal sale of a controlled substance, carried a mandatory minimum sentence of three years’ incarceration and a maximum of 10 years. Instead, he pleaded guilty to third-degree sale of a controlled substance, which does not have a mandatory minimum.

Mr. David, dressed in a dark pinstriped suit, admitted in court that he had sold cocaine last August to an undercover officer. The sale took place at Mr. David’s apartment, according to prosecutors.

Mr. Myers, Mr. David’s lawyer, said he thought the plea “was a fair resolution.”

It would have been too harsh to send Mr. David to a state prison, Mr. Myers said. Mr. David had never been incarcerated before, Mr. Myers said, adding that he was respectful and “has a very bright future.”

“You’re talking about a brilliant kid,” Mr. Myers said.

Mr. Myers said Mr. David, who studied engineering at Columbia, would apply for a certificate of relief from the judge, which would loosen some of the restrictions on him as a convicted felon, like on his right to vote.

Attorney for the defense: Matthew D. Myers

A version of this article appeared in print on July 20, 2011, on page A24 of the New York edition with the headline: Columbia Student Admits Selling Cocaine on Campus.

By LAURA ITALIANO
Last Updated: 1:38 PM, July 19, 2011
Posted: 11:17 AM, July 19, 2011

The 20-year-old who’d faced the most serious drug sale charges in last year’s roundup of five Columbia University students is heading to Rikers for just 3 1/2 months under a deal struck in a Manhattan courtroom today.

Harrison David, son of a Boston-area plastic surgeon, had been a third year engineering student when he and four buddies were busted on charges they sold felony-weight quantities of coke, pot and pills out of their frats and apartments.

David — charged with selling just under an ounce of cocaine to an undercover on one occasion, and four grams in a second sale, for a total of just over $1,300 — pleaded guilty in Manhattan Supreme Court to criminal sale of cocaine.

He’ll turn himself in on August 30, and will be sentenced to six months jail and five years probation under a deal struck with the citywide Office of the Special Narcotics Prosecutor.

With good behavior and factoring in the two weeks jail he’s already served, he should be released after 3 and 1/2 months, said his lawyer, Matthew Myers.

Prosecutors has last month demanded David serve a full year of state prison and two years probation.

“While it will be less incarceratory time, an addition of three years of monitoring (via probation) will be in the interest of justice,” said lead prosecutor William Novak.

David has been suspended from Columbia since his arrest in December; he expects to be expelled now that he has entered a guilty plea, Myers said.

“It’s going to be difficult,” the lawyer said of David’s prospects in finding another school that will accept a student with a felony drug conviction. “And you’re talking about a brilliant kid.

“Hopefully, someone will take a chance on him at a smaller school,” the lawyer said.

Charges remain against the other four young men; prosecutors say they would agree to no-jail deals for them providing they still plead guilty to felony drug charges.

Reposted from: The New York Post

Attorney for the defense: Matthew D. Myers

By LAURA ITALIANO
Posted: 3:57 PM, December 21, 2010

Stuart Ross, the down-on-his heels septaugenarian who brought the Surfs to the U.S. in the ’80s, was sentenced to at least two years probation today for a bizarre, $11 million extortion scheme against his son-in-law, London private equity giant David Blitzer.

Ross had pleaded guilty in August to demanding $5.5 million from Blitzer in return for having no more contact with Blitzer’s wife, who is Ross’s daughter, and another $5.5 million from Blitzer for having no more contact with Blitzer or his firm, the Blackstone Group.

Ross has tried repeatedly since then to withdraw that plea and re-assert his innocence, claiming he only admitted guilt so he could be sprung from Rikers, where he was undergoing what he termed as inadequate treatment for double pneumonia.

Ross left the courtroom today vowing to appeal Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Bonnie Wittner’s decision not to let Ross take back his plea.

“The only alternative I had was to sign the plea and I could leave immediately,” Ross said, insisting he never intentionally extorted anyone back in 2008. Ross’s lawyer, Matthew Myers, today called the threats, “alcoholic ramblings.”

Ross will undergo alcohol counseling as part of his sentence, and can’t contact the Blitzers, or his grandchildren, for at least eight years.

Until his indictment two years ago, Ross’s claim to fame was owning the North American rights to the bouncy blue Belgian cartoon creatures. The former investment made him millions — now lost, his lawyer says. He had been unable to post $200,000 bail before being sprung today.
Ross, originally of Aventura, Fla., suffers lymphonic leukemia and heart problems, said his lawyer. His co-defendant, lawyer Stuart Jackson, was acquitted this month of charges he helped in the scheme.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/

We often come across cases in which the client was “in the wrong place at the wrong time”.  Perhaps the most glaring example of poor timing is being present in a location when the police issue a search warrant looking for contraband.  Assuming the warrant was not fraudulently obtained, the court has sanctioned the search. If the police find contraband while your client is standing there, he will likely be arrested. But is mere presence sufficient probable cause to justify the arrest in such circumstances?  And, if not, does your client have a viable false arrest claim?  Often, the answer will turn on specific facts, the foremost being whether the location is open to the public or private. 

 The threshold issue in any claim of false arrest, is whether the arresting officers had probable cause to arrest the Plaintiff.  That is, a person’s confinement is otherwise “privileged” when probable cause exists to arrest him. Covington v. City of New York, 171 F.3d 117, 122 (2d Cir. 1999).  The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the arrest was justified based upon probable cause.  Raysor v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 768 F.2d 34 (2d Cir. 1985).  To meet this burden, however, the defendant must demonstrate evidence which amounts to “more than a rumor, suspicion, or even a strong reason to suspect.”  United States v. Fisher, 702 F.2d 372, 375 (2d Cir. 1983) [emphasis added].  Moreover, the evidence of guilt must be particularized to the individual being arrested.  See, e.g., Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91 (1979).

 The fact that a client was arrested pursuant to the execution of a search warrant is not determinative on the issue of probable cause.  Barr v. County of Albany, 50 N.Y.2d 247, 255 (1980) (“while it can be said that a search warrant sanctions the entrance by law enforcement officers upon private property to conduct a search within the confines of the warrant, it by no means lends judicial approval to the arrests of those persons found thereon”).  That is, a search warrant does not authorize an arrest.  Id.  In Barr, the police executed a search warrant of a premise and arrested virtually all fifty persons present for marijuana possession.  The charges were dismissed against plaintiffs and they brought  subsequent claims for false arrest.  The court denied defendant’s motions for summary judgment holding that the search warrant did not immunize the officers for liability for false arrest.  Id.

 In Ybarra v Illinois, 444 U.S. at 85, the police obtained a warrant to search a tavern where the bartender was suspected of drug activity.  While executing the warrant, the police conducted pat-down searches of the tavern patrons, including Ybarra.  The police found drugs on Ybarra and arrested him.  The Court held that a “person’s mere propinquity to others independently suspected of criminal activity does not, without more, give rise to probable cause to search that person.” Id. at 91; citing, Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 62-63 (1968) [emphasis added]. 

 Likewise, in Flores v. City of Mount Vernon, the police officers executed a search warrant at a bar where the tavern owner was reportedly selling drugs.  41 F. Supp 439 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).  The police found certain patrons in possession of cocaine at the tavern.  One of these patrons was seen picking up a packet of what appeared to be cocaine from the bar.  The officers observed another patron dropping a packet of cocaine on the floor.  More cocaine and marijuana was found hidden in the basement of the establishment.  In addition to the patrons, the police arrested the bartender, Flores, who was present and working at the time the warrant was executed.  Ultimately, Ms. Flores was not charged and brought a claim of false arrest against the officers and municipality.  The Court found that the fact that half the patrons in the bar possessed cocaine did “not give rise to a reasonable suspicion that [Flores] was involved in drug activity, let alone rise to the level of probable cause”.  Id. at 443 [emphasis added].  Further, the fact that patrons dropped narcotics to the floor in plain view did “not admit the inference” that they obtained them from plaintiff. Id. at 444. 

 In Flores, the arrest occurred in a public forum.  What if your client was arrested in a private residence?  Assume your client was an invited guest watching television when the police executed a search warrant targeting the owner of the apartment.  The drugs found in the apartment were not in plain view and were not in proximity to your client.  Your client was not a resident of the apartment and there was nothing connecting him to the apartment.  Nor was there anything about his conduct which indicated a common scheme with the other occupants of the apartment. There is an argument to be made that the circumstances of Flores (cocaine literally flying in the air in the proximity of claimant) were far more egregious than those described above.      

 Pursuant to applicable New York search and seizure law, one may argue there was no probable cause for the police officers to arrest your client.  It is not alleged that your client directly possessed drugs.  The only remaining means to assert his “possession” are (i) the application of a “room presumption”; or (ii) the theory that he “constructively” possessed the drugs.  Since the alleged contraband was not in “plain view” the police were not permitted to arrest all the occupants based upon a permissive “room presumption”.  See, N.Y. Pen. L. 220.25(2) (the presence of a narcotic drug in “open view in a room other than a public place . . . is presumptive evidence of knowing possession thereof by each and every person in close proximity” to the drugs) [emphasis added]; see, e.g., People v. Martinez, 83 N.Y.2d 26 (1993) (drugs concealed between a couch and a wall are not in plain view).  Furthermore, it can not reasonably be argued that your client “constructively possessed” the drugs hidden in the apartment.  To demonstrate constructive possession it must be shown that a person exercised “dominion or control” over the property by a sufficient level of control over the area in which the contraband is found.  See, e.g., People v. Manini, 79 N.Y.2d 561 (1992).  There is no evidence that your client resided in the location; had keys to the location; or had any personal property in the location.  Further, since the evidence will likely show that other persons had access to the location and the drugs were hidden, a viable theory of constructive possession will not stand.  People v. Vasquez, 160 A.D.2d 751 (2d Dept. 1990) (constructive possession not established where defendant was watching television in the living room of an apartment where 4 ounces of cocaine and $150,000 in cash were discovered in a bedroom pursuant to a search warrant, despite the defendant having a loose key to the apartment in her possession); People v. Webb, 179 A.D.2d 707 (2d Dept. 1992); People v. Bailey, 159 A.D.2d 1009 (4^th Dept. 1990). 

 Based upon the foregoing, one can certainly make a viable argument that the search warrant and discovery of contraband does not confer probable cause to arrest a visitor on the circumstances described.  Still, it may not be a winning argument and one will find far stronger footing in a False Arrest claim if the “unlawful” arrest took place in a public, rather than private, forum.