Quoted Text

SCHENECTADY
SMHA bans smoking inside
3 housing facilities for elderly, disabled affected next April
BY KATHLEEN MOORE Gazette Reporter


Smokers will have to walk out into the rain and snow to enjoy a cigarette next year at three of the Schenectady Municipal Housing Authority complexes.
    Smoking will be banned indoors — even in the renters’ own apartments — in April.
    Executive Director Richard Homenick hopes to eventually expand the ban to every SMHA facility. For now, it will start at Ten Eyck, Lincoln Heights and Schonowee Village, the housing complexes for the elderly and disabled.
    While many residents have complained of smoke drifting into their apartments and filling the hallways of their buildings, the ban is not universally popular.
    “It sucks. Because I am a smoker,” said resident Kim Clark, as she stood on the sidewalk to smoke. “I feel it’s not right. Just because there’s non-smokers — what about us smokers? When you rented me an apartment, you didn’t say I couldn’t smoke. It’s not fair.”
    She argued that nonsmokers were oversensitive and exaggerated the amount of cigarette smoke they encountered. The halls aren’t “filled” with smoke, she said.
    “That’s not true. I know it’s not a true. Almost no one smokes in the hallway,” she said.
    Homenick said smoke from apartments flows into the hallways, particularly when residents prop open their doors, a common practice.
    But Clark quickly learned that some nonsmokers are no longer willing to put up with smoke. A friend who was keeping her company outside said he was fully in support of the ban.
    As she turned to him in shock, Miguel Oquendo said he was worried about the health effects of secondhand smoke.
    “I don’t smoke,” he said. “If someone smokes, the secondhand smoke hurts me more.”
    And, he said, the smoke hits him when he walks through hallways to his apartment.
    “It’s like it slaps me. I hate smoke,” he said. “I like the nonsmoking [rule].”
    Homenick said there are many more like Oquendo than Clark in the housing complex.
    “We held community meetings, more than one. I conducted them personally,” he said. “We found a majority are anxious to have it.”
    The ban was first proposed after a tenant complained about the smoke, he added.
    “Down here, we have common hallways and ventilation. It’s especially prone to drifting from one location to another,” he said. “They’re just tired of being exposed to secondhand smoke. It’s a common complaint.”
    He said the ban was “no more” than a rule against loud music — although this would be the same as banning music altogether.
IMPROVED SAFETY
    But he also said the ban would improve fire safety and reduce the cost of cleaning an apartment before renting it to a new tenant.
    “Smoking is a common source of fires and deaths,” he said. “And the maintenance turnover is very costly, to clean a smoker’s unit. There’s so many reasons for it.”
    Over the next six months, residents will be encouraged to take free classes on how to quit smoking. Homenick will also determine where residents can smoke — he wants to create an outdoor location, but he said an “elaborate” structure would be a waste of taxpayer money.
    “We want to take into account tenants’ mobility as much as possible,” he added.
    He could simply ban smoking from the property, forcing smokers to stand on the public sidewalks, he said.
    But he acknowledged that could lead to widespread disobedience during rainstorms and blizzards.
    He’s looking into inexpensive shelters, perhaps similar to a bus station shelter.
    “What I really hope is — and I know this will never happen 100 percent — is people saying, ‘You know what? I’m quitting,’ ” he said.
    For those who don’t quit, Homenick acknowledged that it won’t be easy to get smokers to stop smoking in their own homes.
    “It certainly will be somewhat of a challenge,” he said.
    But he and others emphasized that the ban will help nonsmokers.
    According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, exposure to secondhand smoke increases a nonsmoker’s chance of getting heart disease and lung cancer. The smoke can also trigger an asthma attack, and HUD says elderly residents are especially vulnerable.
    For nonsmokers, the smoke is also distasteful.
    “One of the chief complaints I hear from other tenants is tobacco smoke from neighbors seeping into their apartment, making it diffi cult to breathe and enjoy clean air in their own home,” said Joan Johnson, a resident of Ten Eyck Apartments and a member of the SMHA Board of Commissioners. “I’m thrilled that the authority is taking this step to improve our health.”
    In a press release, Mayor Gary McCarthy agreed.
    “For almost a decade now, New Yorkers have been able to enjoy working in smoke-free spaces. It’s only right that these residents can now breathe tobacco-free air in their own homes,” he said. ................................>>>>..............................>>>>..................http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r00103&AppName=1

Slowly America is changing from a society where 'smoking was a right' (regardless of the rights of others), to
a place where smoking is viewed for what it is... a cancer producing dangerous addiction.

Slowly US government bureaucrats are taking away any joy you get out of life by banning behavior they deem unacceptable.  The bureaucrats will manage your life and put whatever value they believe it should be - value as it pertains to the collective of course.  If you enjoy smoking and accept a shorter life expectancy as a consequence, if you are poor and even middle class, that isn't your decision to make; the government will tax it to the point where only the rich can afford it, and now we see they are banning it in public housing…That’s because they CARE!  Oh yeah….THAT IS FREEDOM!

Soda, smoking, the food we eat, the cars we drive, type of health-care we get, and who is allowed to cross our borders illegally, had enough yet if not re-elect Obama, he has a lot more transforming he wants to do.

Isn't SMHA apartments for "low income"

If they can afford $10 a day for a pack of cigarettes, they can afford to pay more for their rent which then can alleviate the tax burden we have.

Quoted from CICERO

Slowly US government bureaucrats are taking away any joy you get out of life by banning behavior they deem unacceptable.  The bureaucrats will manage your life and put whatever value they believe it should be - value as it pertains to the collective of course.  If you enjoy smoking and accept a shorter life expectancy as a consequence, if you are poor and even middle class, that isn't your decision to make; the government will tax it to the point where only the rich can afford it, and now we see they are banning it in public housing…That’s because they CARE!  Oh yeah….THAT IS FREEDOM!

LMAO @ FREEDOM!
America's FREEDOM to breath smoke free air in our own apartment supersedes others FREEDOM to pollute
the air we all breathe with a class A carcinogen.  

THIS will save the elderly

Quoted from Box A Rox

LMAO @ FREEDOM!
America's FREEDOM to breath smoke free air in our own apartment supersedes others FREEDOM to pollute the air we all breathe with a class A carcinogen.  

Make them illegal.

Quoted from Box A Rox

Slowly America is changing from a society where 'smoking was a right' (regardless of the rights of others), to
a place where smoking is viewed for what it is... a cancer producing dangerous addiction.

Only tobacco has been shown to cause cancer.

Safer alternatives exist.

But they are also banned, since all smoking is banned.

Quoted from Box A Rox

LMAO @ FREEDOM!
America's FREEDOM to breath smoke free air in our own apartment supersedes others FREEDOM to pollute
the air we all breathe with a class A carcinogen.  

Really, and what about producers of smog?

They get a free ride?

You breathe in more poisonous carbon monoxide every day from cars than from cigarettes.

Quoted from GrahamBonnet

THIS will save the elderly

For heavens sake, let's not let the social security recipients choose to die too quickly.

.......no smoke zones are fine......BUT

there are many other problems facing this country other than cigarette smoking....but since this thread is just about that...

I support non smoking zones....but in the privacy of your home.....that should be a freedom....what are they going to tell you next....what are people going to

complain about next???.....when living in MHA people should keep their doors shut....after all....they are steel NO???

and the way those buildings were constructed...nothing goes thru the walls...floors.....into hallways....except bad cooking odors....

frail seniors = unable without govt'

Wonder if Oquendo is a citizen yet or if he is staying out of trouble?

"But Clark quickly learned that some nonsmokers are no longer willing to put up with smoke. A friend who was keeping her company outside said he was fully in support of the ban.
    As she turned to him in shock, Miguel Oquendo said he was worried about the health effects of secondhand smoke. "







PEOPLE v. MALDONADO


The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Hector MALDONADO, Also Known as Hector Torres, Also Known as Augustine Molina, Appellant.




-- November 26, 1997

Before MIKOLL, J.P., and MERCURE, CREW, YESAWICH and PETERS, JJ.

Traci Kwiatkowski, Amsterdam, for appellant.Robert M. Carney, District Attorney (Alfred D. Chapleau, of counsel), Schenectady, for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Reilly, J.), rendered April 25, 1994, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of robbery in the first degree (two counts), burglary in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree and menacing.

Between 9:00 P.M. and 10:00 P.M. on November 21, 1992, three Puerto Rican males forcibly entered Lisa Santiago's apartment on Odell Street in the City of Schenectady, Schenectady County, directed the occupants to lie on the floor, took cash and jewelry from them, and ransacked the apartment looking for more cash and drugs.   One of the intruders was armed with a pistol with which he accidentally shot himself in the leg.   The intruders then fled.   Santiago reported the crime to the Schenectady police, describing the intruders as three Puerto Rican males, one of whom she recognized as a former boyfriend, Miguel, and indicating that one of them had shot himself in the leg.
The same evening, at approximately 10:40 P.M., defendant appeared at a hospital in the City of Albany for treatment of a gunshot wound in his left leg.   Defendant was in the company of his codefendant, Miguel Oquendo, and a third Puerto Rican man.   Defendant and his companions told hospital personnel that defendant's gunshot wound was inflicted when he was shot while at a pay telephone booth in Albany.   As required, hospital personnel notified Albany police that they were treating a gunshot victim.   When Albany police arrived at the hospital, they interviewed defendant and his companions and attempted to ascertain the location of the shooting.   Efforts to establish the location by driving the two uninjured men around downtown Albany were unsuccessful and, coupled with later developments, caused the Albany officers to be suspicious about the reported crime.

Subsequently, Albany police learned that Schenectady police were investigating a robbery in that City involving three Puerto Rican males, one of whom had shot himself in the leg.   Following receipt of this information, Albany police advised defendant of his Miranda rights and took a written statement from him.   The statement recapitulated that which defendant had told Albany police upon their arrival (and prior to his receipt of Miranda warnings) as to how he had sustained the gunshot wound;  he did not implicate himself in the Schenectady crimes.

Following telephone conversations between Albany and Schenectady police, during which each agency apprised the other of the facts and details of their investigation, Schenectady police proceeded to the Albany hospital and took over the case.   While at the hospital, the Schenectady police officer in charge received additional information that one of the victims of the robbery had identified two of the assailants by name, which names matched those of two of the men at the hospital, including defendant.   Shortly after the arrival of Schenectady police, defendant's two uninjured companions were placed under arrest by Schenectady police and charged with crimes relating to the burglary and robbery of Santiago.   Schenectady police also posted guards outside defendant's room pending his treatment, and defendant's physician informed him that he would be released into Schenectady police custody following his treatment.

Defendant's contentions on appeal all relate to the propriety of County Court's rulings on pretrial motions to suppress his oral and written statements, and physical evidence in the form of the bullet removed from his leg, his clothing and items recovered from a search of his clothing at the hospital.1

 We find no error in County Court's denial of these suppression motions.   The oral and written statements were given by defendant to Albany police prior to the arrival of the Schenectady police who arrested him.   When defendant arrived at the hospital, he presented himself as a crime victim.   The reason for the arrival of Albany police was that they had been notified by the hospital, as required by law, that they were treating a gunshot victim.   Albany police arrived to take a crime report and commence an investigation.   Defendant's oral statement to Albany police reiterated what he had told hospital personnel as to the circumstances of his being shot, i.e., that he was the victim of a robbery attempt and an unprovoked shooting.   Defendant was neither under arrest nor in custody at that time, nor is there any indication in the record that defendant believed himself to be in custody at this time.   When the written statement was taken, it was preceded by the required Miranda warnings and the record indicates that defendant waived his rights.   As noted, substantively the statement reiterated defendant's report of being the victim of a crime.   The record does not support defendant's contention on this appeal that he was subjected to “custodial interrogation” which resulted in the eliciting of involuntary incriminating statements.

 Defendant challenges the police “seizure” of the bullet removed from his leg during surgery, contending that the surgery itself was the result of “consistent pressure from the hospital staff, due to police presence, and not a concern for [defendant's] health”.   This contention is difficult to reconcile with defendant's testimony at the suppression hearing, wherein he acknowledged that while he initially declined surgery to remove the bullet, he made the decision to proceed after his physician advised him of the risk of developing gangrene.   He also acknowledged that he made the decision without police intervention or influence, as did the People's witnesses.   The intrusion into defendant's body to retrieve the bullet cannot therefore be characterized as a governmental or police intrusion so as to implicate the 4th Amendment protections.   As to the disposition of the bullet itself following removal, County Court found that the police came into possession of it lawfully, by virtue of a written consent agreement which defendant signed at the hospital's request, prior to surgery and without police pressure, authorizing the retention or disposition of any specimens removed from his body during the surgery.   There is no basis, in fact or in law, to disturb this finding.

 We turn finally to defendant's contention that the seizure and search of his clothing by Schenectady police following their arrival at the hospital was the product of his unlawful warrantless arrest.   County Court found that the search and seizure of defendant's clothing was justified as incident to his de facto arrest by Schenectady police upon their arrival at the hospital.   Neither party quarrels with the court's finding that a de facto arrest occurred when Schenectady police arrived at the hospital;  defendant's contention is that the arrest lacked the requisite probable cause.   We likewise reject this contention, finding as we do that the record adequately supports the court's finding of probable cause.

Examining the quantum of evidence possessed by the Schenectady police when they arrived at the hospital and before they effected the de facto arrest of defendant, we find that the police possessed the following information:  a robbery by three Puerto Rican males, one of whom shot himself in the leg, which occurred in Schenectady between 9:00 P.M. and 10:00 P.M., approximately one block away from the Schenectady addresses given by the three Puerto Rican males who had come to the hospital at 10:40 P.M., one of whom had a gunshot wound to the leg;  one of the men at the hospital stated that his name was “Miguel”, which is the name given by Santiago as that of her former boyfriend whom she identified as one of the perpetrators;  Albany police were suspicious about the crime reported by the three men based upon their inability to ascertain its location despite attempting to do so by driving the two uninjured men around various locations in Albany, and a second victim of the robbery had relayed information to another law enforcement agency that identified two of the perpetrators as defendant and Miguel Oquendo.   This information provided police with the requisite probable cause to effect a warrantless arrest (see, People v. Maldonado, 86 N.Y.2d 631, 635, 635 N.Y.S.2d 155, 658 N.E.2d 1028;  People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 553 N.Y.S.2d 72, 552 N.E.2d 608, cert. denied 498 U.S. 833, 111 S.Ct. 99, 112 L.Ed.2d 70;  People v. Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234, 508 N.Y.S.2d 163, 500 N.E.2d 861;  People v. Rivera, 210 A.D.2d 895, 620 N.Y.S.2d 652).   The search and seizure of defendant's clothing was properly found to be incident to his lawful arrest (see, People v. Magee, 208 A.D.2d 977, 617 N.Y.S.2d 227;  People v. Schobert, 93 A.D.2d 949, 463 N.Y.S.2d 277).   Although not necessary in view of our determination, we note that County Court's finding that defendant consented to the search of his clothing appears similarly sound.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Although defendant also challenges the police search of the van belonging to his employer which was used by defendant and his companions to travel to the hospital in Albany, since no evidence was seized therefrom or introduced at trial we do not address this claim.

MIKOLL, Justice Presiding.

MERCURE, CREW, YESAWICH and PETERS, JJ., concur.

Quoted from TakingItBack

Wonder if Oquendo is a citizen yet or if he is staying out of trouble?

Quoted Text

Miguel Oquendo, and a third Puerto Rican man.

If Oquendo was born in Puerto Rico, as the text states... HE WAS BORN AN AMERICAN CITIZEN!!!