The criminal case against a Schenectady man whose July 6 arrest sparked widespread protests is winding down. Schenectady County District Attorney Robert Carney says criminal mischief charges against Yugeshwar Gaindarpersaud related to allegations of tire-slashing were dropped today for lack of evidence.
City police officer Brian Pommer was filmed placing his knee on Gaindarpersaud head and neck during the resulting arrest, setting off days of demonstrations.
Carney says the remaining resisting arrest charge was adjourned in contemplation of dismissal, meaning it will be dropped if Gaindarpersaud stays out of trouble for six months.
In a public agreement signed by Gaindarpersaud, his attorney and D.A. Carney, the parties agree that both Pommer and Gaindarpersaud made mistakes during the interaction, and that “mutual distrust and unhelpful assumptions” contributed to the mistakes.
Read the document:
RESOLUTION
In the matter of the People of the State of New York vs. Yugeshwar Gaindarpersaud, the parties have reached the following resolution, which they believe to be in the best interests of both Mr. Gaindarpersaud and the citizens of Schenectady County. All parties sincerely hope that this resolution will promote better understanding and cooperation between our citizens and the police officers assigned to serve and protect them.
In that spirit 1 the parties jointly state:
- Mistakes were made in this matter by both the responding police officer and Mr. Gaindarpersaud.
- Mutual distrust and unhelpful assumptions contributed to these mistakes.
- On the morning of July 6, 2020, the Schenectady Police Department received a 911 call from a resident of the 300 block of North Brandywine Avenue, complaining that his car tires had been slashed overnight, and that he suspected his next door neighbor, with whom he had an ongoing dispute. A single uniformed patrol officer, Brian Pomme r1 responded in a marked police car.
- Upon the officer's arrival, the complainant told him that the vandalism had been captured on videotape by another neighbor's surveillance camera, that he (the complainant) had personally watched the videotape, that it captured the crime in progress, that it showed "everything"1 and that the perpetrator was his next door neighbor, Mr. Gaindarpersaud. The complainant wanted Mr. Gaindarpersaud to pay to replace the slashed tires, or, if he refused, to be arrested. The officer believed that the complainant's description of the ongoing neighbor dispute, together with his claim to have watched a videotape showing Mr. Gaindarpersaud committing the crime, supplied a sufficient legal basis to detain or arrest Mr. Gaindarpersaud. The People understand that the defense disagrees. The officer went next door to try to convince Mr. Gaindarpersaud to pay for the tires. Before doing so, he did not attempt to get access to and view the neighbor's surveillance video.
- The brief_conversation between the officer and Mr. Gaindarpersaud did not go well, and ended with the officer attempting to detain and handcuff Mr. Gaindarpersa1.:1d. Mr. Gaindarpersaud fled instead, the officer pursued and caught him, and the two men wrestled on the ground for a little over 2 minutes, until backup police officers arrived and were finally able to handcuff Mr. Gaindarpersaud.
- The People maintain that the responding officer was legally authorized to detain and ultimately arrest Mr. Gaindarpersaud in reliance upon statements of personal observation made by the complainant, an identified civilian witness. The complainant's account supplied evidence of Mr. Gaindarpersaud's alleged motive, opportunity, and identity as the perpetrator of the alleged crime. The law permits a suspect to be temporarily detained upon "reasonable suspicion" that he committed a crime, and arrested upon "probable cause" that he did so, even if a subsequent, more thorough investigation undermines the original basis for suspicion, or even demonstrates the suspect's innocence. The People and Mr. Gaindarpersaud agree that "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" do not equal guilt, that even innocent people can sometimes be lawfully arrested, and that the law presumes the innocence of all arrested persons unless and until guilt is established in court.
- The People also recognize that the officer should have made a more thorough investigation of the facts before confronting Mr. Gaindarpersaud, and, had he done so, the officer would likely not have attempted to detain Mr. Gaindarpersaud. Although legally entitled to rely on the complainant's description of the videotape evidence, the officer did not himself go to the neighbor's house and request permission to view the videotape before confronting Mr. Gaindarpersaud. Had the officer viewed the videotape before confronting Mr. Gaindarpersaud, the People believe that he would have judged that the videotape was not sufficiently clear or complete to identify a perpetrator. In short, the complainant had substantially exaggerated the probative value of the videotape.
- The officer properly exercised his discretion to try to resolve the neighbor dispute, at the complainant's request, by offering Mr. Gaindarpersaud the chance to pay for the tires and avoid arrest. However, Mr. Gaindarpersaud became rapidly defensive and interrupted the officer's attempt to mediate, because he was being accused of a crime he maintains he did not commit. Here, both the officer and Mr. Gaindarpersaud could have responded in a more measured and productive way.
- For his part, the officer should have apprqached Mr. Gaindarpersaud i'n a less accusatory and dogmatic way, recognizing that, although the law allowed him to rely on the complainant's account, that didn't guarantee that it was true, or that Mr. Gaindarpersaud was in fact guilty. Had the officer's approach been more measured, Mr. Gaindarpersaud might have responded better.
- For his part, Mr. Gaindarpersaud's preconceived distrust of police officers in general contributed to an uncomfortable situation escalating to a dangerous one.
- Mr. Gaindarpersaud acknowledges that he should have complied with the officer's orders to submit to being detained and handcuffed, should not have run, and should not have continued to resist handcuffing once the officer caught him. Even though he maintains his innocence of the underlying vandalism, he now recognizes that his claim of innocence did not entitle him to refuse to comply with the officer's orders.
- Mr. Gaindarpersaud also recognizes that, although every defendant is entitled to see and confront the evidence against him, that right is properly exercised in a court of law, after an arrest. A suspect is not entitled to see the evidence against him before deciding whether to submit to a detention or arrest. Trials are not held in the street.
- Most importantly, both parties recognize that the unhelpful assumptions and mistakes made by both the officer and Mr. Gaindarpersaud contributed to a chaotic situation that endangered the safety of the officer, Mr. Gaindarpersaud, and nearby citizens.
Accordingly, once this Resolution is signed by all parties:
- The People will move to dismiss the charge of Criminal Mischief in the Fourth Degree, on the basis that the People deem the evidence as currently known to be insufficient to merit bringing this charge to trial; and
- The People and Mr. Gaindarpersaud will both consent that the charge of Resisting Arrest be adjourned in contemplation of dismissal; and
- Consistent with their hope to promote understanding and cooperation between the police and citizens, both parties consent to this resolution being made public.
