People v. Feerick, 93 N.Y.2d 433 (1999)

The crime of official misconduct under New York Penal Law § 195.00(1) requires a public servant to act knowingly in an unauthorized manner with the intent to obtain a benefit, which is not limited to pecuniary gain but includes any gain or advantage, including avoiding scorn, ridicule, or possible discipline.

Summary

Four New York City police officers were convicted of official misconduct, among other crimes, for illegally entering apartments to retrieve a lost police radio. The central issue was whether their actions constituted official misconduct, specifically whether they acted with the intent to obtain a “benefit.” The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the recovery of the radio, to avoid potential repercussions, qualified as a “benefit” under the statute. The court clarified that official misconduct encompasses flagrant abuses of authority, not merely good-faith errors, and that the required “benefit” extends beyond financial gain to include any advantage.

Facts

Defendant DeVito lost his police radio during a drug-related incident. Defendants entered two apartments without a warrant, searching for the radio. They restrained and threatened occupants, including Denise Jackson and Theresa Johnson. In one apartment, they found crack cocaine in Maribel Delgado’s possession. Defendants discovered Stokes in the second apartment and offered not to prosecute him for drug possession if he returned the radio. DeVito falsely documented the drug recovery. The radio was eventually returned by an unidentified person.

Procedural History

The District Attorney initially declined to prosecute. After Stokes changed his story, the investigation was reopened, leading to a 30-count indictment. A Kastigar hearing was held to ensure the prosecution didn’t use defendants’ compelled testimony. The trial court determined the prosecution’s case was based on independent sources. Defendants were convicted on several counts, including official misconduct. The Appellate Division initially held the appeal in abeyance, directing a further in camera review of IAD worksheets for Rosario violations related to the Kastigar hearing. After the Supreme Court found a Rosario violation and held a reopened Kastigar hearing, the Appellate Division affirmed the convictions. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for official misconduct, specifically whether the recovery of the police radio constituted a “benefit” under Penal Law § 195.00(1).
2. Whether the jury charges on lawful searches and unlawful imprisonment were proper.
3. Whether the defendants were entitled to a de novo Kastigar hearing based on a Rosario violation.
4. Whether defendant Rosario was immune from prosecution based on his grand jury testimony.

Holding

1. Yes, because retrieving the radio to avoid potential discipline constitutes a “benefit” under the statute, and the evidence supported the conclusion that the officers knowingly acted in an unauthorized manner.
2. Yes, because the jury charge was necessary for the defense to determine that the defendants had a reasonable basis for believing that they were authorized to enter and search the apartments. Also, the court noted that the jury verdict reflected that the officers were not