People v. Mattocks, 12 N.Y.3d 326 (2009)

Altering a MetroCard by bending it to fraudulently obtain free subway rides can constitute forgery under New York Penal Law, even if the alteration doesn’t add value, because it thwarts the intended computer processing and misuses the system’s “benefit of the doubt” design.

Summary

Mattocks was arrested for bending MetroCards to obtain free subway rides, a practice that exploits a flaw in the MTA’s system designed to give riders the “benefit of the doubt” when a card’s magnetic strip is damaged. By bending the card, he disabled a zero-value field, allowing the turnstile to read a backup field and grant entry. He was charged with criminal possession of a forged instrument. The New York Court of Appeals held that the bent MetroCards qualified as forged instruments, affirming the conviction. The court reasoned that the bending thwarted the computer’s ability to read the card’s true value, causing it to falsely appear valid. The court also addressed the interplay between the forgery statutes and a misdemeanor statute specifically targeting MetroCard abuse, clarifying that the existence of the misdemeanor statute does not preclude felony forgery charges in appropriate cases.

Facts

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) uses MetroCards with two magnetic fields to store value. The second field acts as a backup. Individuals discovered that by bending a MetroCard, they could obliterate the zero-value field. When swiped, the turnstile computer would then read the backup field, allowing a free ride. Mattocks was observed bending MetroCards, swiping them through turnstiles, and then selling swipes to riders for money. He was arrested with 14 MetroCards, 11 of which had zero value, and three that would yield a free ride because of the bends.

Procedural History

Mattocks was indicted on 14 counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree. The Supreme Court denied his motion to suppress evidence. At trial, the court submitted only one count to the jury, which convicted Mattocks. His motion to dismiss was denied, and he was sentenced to 2 to 4 years. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a MetroCard that has been bent to obtain a free subway ride constitutes a “forged instrument” under New York Penal Law article 170?

2. Whether the enactment of Penal Law § 165.16, a misdemeanor specifically addressing MetroCard abuse, precludes prosecution for forgery under article 170 for the same conduct?

Holding

1. Yes, because by bending the MetroCard, Mattocks thwarted the computer’s intended processing and misused the “benefit of the doubt” system, making a valueless card appear authentic.

2. No, because the Legislature did not clearly intend Penal Law § 165.16 to be the exclusive vehicle for prosecuting MetroCard-related offenses, and the forgery statutes are broad enough to encompass this conduct.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that a bent MetroCard qualifies as a “written instrument” under Penal Law § 170.00(1) and that it was “falsely altered” under Penal Law § 170.00(6) because the bending damaged the magnetic strip and thwarted the usual computer processing of the information. The court stated that by bending the MetroCards, Mattocks “successfully destroyed the zero-value information encoded on one of the fields in the magnetic strips… and was able to acquire free rides on what were worthless MetroCards.” The court found that the bends did not make the cards appear inauthentic but instead caused the turnstile to misread them as having value. The court cited existing law noting that the forgery statutes had been intentionally written in a broad fashion to encompass a wide range of conduct, and that “slugs” used in place of tokens had been upheld as forgery. Regarding the misdemeanor statute, Penal Law § 165.16, the court emphasized that the Legislature is presumed to be aware of existing law when it creates a new crime. Unless there is clear legislative intent to make a new statute the exclusive means of prosecuting certain conduct, existing statutes are not superseded. The court recognized prosecutorial discretion in choosing among different classifications of charges but expressed trust that felony forgery charges would be reserved for repeat offenders like Mattocks.