Skip to comments.D.A. drops first SAFE Act charge in county (NY)
Posted on 05/24/2013 8:47:59 AM PDT by neverdem
District Attorney Paul Czajka dropped a state SAFE Act charge Thursday in county district court against Hopewell Junction resident Gregory Dean Jr., who was the first person charged in the county under the controversal law since it was enacted last month.
Czajka told Town Justice Jessica Byrne that he would not prosecute the SAFE act violation.
Although I believe that it is not for a district attorney to determine or make blanket policy, Czajka told Byrne, he said he would decline to prosecute the unlawful possession of ammunition feed devices.
There are a lot of factors that go into a decision that a District Attorney makes, Czajka said after the court proceedings. Given the circumstances of this case, it was my decision to exercise my prosecutorial discretion and decline prosecution of the charge until and unless a higher court rules on the law.
A planned protest of the prosecution of the SAFE Act charge resulted in eight protestors standing outside the New Lebanon courthouse.
But the protest was dissolved when Czajka announced he would not prosecute the SAFE act violation.
Czajka offered a reduction in the other charges against Dean, but Deans attorney, Jonna Spilbor, of Poughkeepsie, declined to accept the deal.
We were prepared to fight like hell on the SAFE act violation, she said in court, but we would decline the opportunity to plead on that.
They will return to Town Court in June.
Czajka told Byrne that there would be no need for a jury trial.
The case drew widespread media attention across the state.
Spilbor said she was glad members of the press were present.
The SAFE Act is something that I think a lot of us are unhappy about, Spilbor said. The D.A. took the legs out of the SAFE Act for this particular case.
Dean was stopped by state police May 12 in New Lebanon for a license-plate bulb that was out. During the motor vehicle stop, police allegedly found Dean in possession of a handgun with a magazine that contained nine bullets, instead of the legal amount of seven under the new law, which went into effect April 15. Dean has been quoted as saying that he was unaware of the law.
He was charged with being in possession of illegal ammunition feeding devices, as well as aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle, both of which are misdemeanors, and a traffic infraction for the missing light.
Dean said after court he was grateful for all the support hed received. Spilbor advised him not to answer further questions.
Outside the courthouse, Czajka was questioned about other laws he did not plan to prosecute.
Czajka replied that he make[s] a decision on each case, based on the circumstances.
He was, he said, not making a decision with respect to any particular issue, only a particular case. I consider every case on its own merits.
From a light bulb to a “show me your bullets?’
Was the guy targeted? Me thinks so.
I would want my weapon and mag back.
:: He was charged with...aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle ::
Stemming from an equipment malfunction stop? Really?
Ayn Rand becomes more vividly real everyday.
I agree, the search was illegal.
First of all, the officer had to find a pretense to pull out the magazine...which he may have done, for his ‘safety’.
But then - did he just happened to notice the round count? It was at night on the side of the road...I think he would have had to very deliberately used a flashlight to ‘inspect’ the magazine.
And there is the flaw in the law. Better yet, get a magazine that doesn’t have view holes. The officer can only strip the rounds out of the magazine, if he has probable cause to believe you have too many rounds...which he could never have.
I’m betting the gun was in the glove compartment to start with....and I’m also betting the magazine was separate....
The original story said it was in view, partially obscured by a sweatshirt.
Even if the magazine were out, the officer had no cause to count rounds. Heck, especially if the magazine were out...since the officer would have no need to touch it at all, to clear the weapon.
[[Was the search even legal?? Me thinks not.]]
The report said he was not liscenced to operate the vehicle, which technically gives the police the right to search the vehicle
To anyone trapped in this net of government corruption, demand a jury trial.
Even in NYS, it would be very difficult to find a jury without at least one person willing to participate in Jury Nullification.
Only someone with mafia and the communist democrat party backing pushes such infringements on a right which clearly states “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”.
There is no wiggle room in “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” for anyone who did not go to one of our nations Lie Schools like, Harvard Lie School or University of California-Irvine School of Lies, or University of La Verne College of Lies or University of Massachusetts School of Lies-Dartmouth.
What on God’s green earth makes us think we should elect a person schooled in the art of distorting the truth, or downright lies to win, to any political office?
Logic would dictate if you are going to give someone power over you, you would want as honest person as possible and that by definition excludes lawyers.
aggravated unlicensed means that his license was suspended or revoked for another moving violation ( i.e. DWI, or failure to pay a traffic fine)
So he’s still a dumb-ass for not having his vehicle up to regulation. An out lamp is enough to get you pulled over.