Criminal Defense Attorney NY | Shoplifting Case Non Prosecution

The client was a young adult preparing for a competitive New York State civil service examination while supporting himself through temporary employment at a large distribution warehouse.

During a period marked by prolonged academic pressure, financial strain, and untreated anxiety symptoms, the client experienced an impulsive lapse in judgment while working on site.

He removed retail items including clothing and household goods from inventory, detached security tags, and stored the items in a personal locker without using or reselling them.

The conduct was not part of an organized theft scheme, nor was there any evidence of resale intent, financial gain, or prior misconduct.

Several days later, the employer’s internal security unit contacted the client after identifying irregularities through surveillance review.

Upon receiving the request to appear for questioning, the client experienced acute panic and sought legal counsel before engaging with investigators, fearing that any criminal charge could permanently bar him from public sector employment.

After reviewing the facts, a criminal defense attorney NY advised the client that delaying action or attempting to conceal facts could significantly worsen the legal outcome, including exposure to formal arrest and misdemeanor prosecution under New York Penal Law §155.25.

The attorney emphasized that early, voluntary disclosure supported by credible documentation could materially influence prosecutorial discretion.

Acting on counsel’s advice, the client committed to a structured self reporting strategy rather than reacting defensively to employer or police inquiries.

From the outset, the criminal defense attorney NY designed the case strategy around the legal reality that even low level theft convictions can trigger disqualification from New York civil service positions, particularly within the court system.

The defense therefore prioritized outcomes that would avoid conviction, plea admissions, or permanent criminal records.

The legal plan integrated four parallel components: substantiated voluntary disclosure, psychological context documentation, full restitution coordination, and comprehensive mitigation presentation tailored to prosecutorial standards.

The attorney prepared a detailed written statement establishing that the client voluntarily disclosed the conduct before any arrest, summons, or formal charging decision.

The disclosure included precise dates, item descriptions, estimated values, storage status, and confirmation that none of the items had been used or removed from the premises.

Consistency across written submissions and anticipated law enforcement questioning was meticulously rehearsed to preserve credibility and demonstrate genuine accountability.

To contextualize the conduct, the defense submitted medical records confirming that the client had been receiving treatment for anxiety related symptoms, including panic episodes, during the relevant period.

Supporting documentation included diagnostic summaries, medication records, and treatment plans establishing that the behavior was impulsive and situational rather than intentional or habitual.

This evidence was framed not as an excuse but as a mitigating factor relevant to prosecutorial discretion.

Although the employer maintained a policy against individual settlement agreements, the defense coordinated the immediate return of all items in original condition, documented chain of custody confirmation, and obtained written acknowledgment that the employer had no independent desire to pursue criminal charges.

This restitution process was fully documented and submitted as part of the mitigation package.

Beyond standard character letters, the criminal defense attorney NY assembled a comprehensive mitigation file including family affidavits, proof of ongoing exam preparation, enrollment records, anti theft education completion certificates, and a formal written commitment to continued mental health treatment.

The materials collectively demonstrated low risk of reoffense and a strong public interest rationale for non prosecution.

After reviewing the complete submission, the District Attorney’s Office exercised prosecutorial discretion and issued a declination of prosecution, concluding the matter without filing charges.

Under New York law, this outcome avoided arrest records, court filings, or criminal convictions, preserving the client’s eligibility for civil service employment and background clearance.