A harassment charge rooted in the Sound of da Police prosecution of a Patterson, New York resident has survived a motion to dismiss, with Justice Court Judge Michael Caruso ruling that the repeated playing of a KRS-One track at high volume, combined with alleged verbal confrontations, provided sufficient factual basis to proceed to trial.
The defendant in People v. Lando, decided in April by the Town of Patterson Justice Court, is charged with harassment in the second degree under New York Penal Law § 240.26(3). That provision makes it a violation, punishable by up to 15 days in jail, for a person who, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another, ‘engage[s] in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legitimate purpose.’
The charge is a violation rather than a crime under New York law, placing it at the lowest rung of the state’s penal hierarchy.
What the Accusatory Instruments Allege
According to the information, on 30 May 2025 at approximately 5:30 p.m., the defendant stopped her vehicle in front of the complainant’s driveway and played music at excessive volume, causing annoyance and alarm. She then reversed the vehicle and shouted: ‘Why don’t you call them [the police] for me being too loud.’
The complainant identified the music as ‘Sound of da Police’ by KRS-One, and alleged the episode was retaliatory: it followed a prior noise complaint the complainant had made to law enforcement about the defendant.
The supporting deposition adds a broader pattern. On 29 May 2025, an individual identified as ‘Frank’ drove past the complainant’s residence and shouted homophobic slurs, including ‘Fucking faggot.’ Later that day, the same individual allegedly parked in the roadway, obstructing the complainant’s wife from driving while staring at her and her daughter. The following day, 30 May 2025, the individual again drove past and directed further slurs at the complainant.
The defendant is separately alleged to have parked near the complainant’s residence for extended periods with the windows down, playing ‘Sound of da Police’ at high volume, and to have driven at excessive speeds along the roadway.
The First Amendment Question and the Sound of da Police Prosecution
Judge Caruso acknowledged that the song is constitutionally protected political expression. Released on 6 December 1993 on the Jive label, ‘Sound of da Police’ was the lead single from KRS-One’s debut solo album Return of the Boom Bap, produced by Showbiz, according to Hip Hop Golden Age and AllMusic. The court treated its socio-political content as beyond reproach in the abstract.
The inquiry, however, was not whether the song is protected in isolation, but whether its repeated use formed part of a course of conduct capable of sustaining the charge. As Judge Caruso wrote: ‘the protections afforded to expressive content do not preclude the Court from considering the manner, context, and surrounding circumstances in which such expression is allegedly used.’
The court took judicial notice of the song’s auditory character, observing that it features ‘a forceful vocal delivery, repetitive chant elements, and a pronounced rhythmic beat’ that distinguish it from more subdued genres. The court also noted that certain lyrics, read in context alongside the alleged conduct, ‘could conceivably support allegations that Defendant’s actions, collectively, were intended to convey sentiments of antagonism.’
Judge Caruso was careful to frame this as a contextual assessment rather than a content judgment: ‘The Court makes this reference not to evaluate the speech, lyrics, or song itself, but to assess how a reasonable listener might perceive its volume, tone, and expressive content.’
On that basis, the motion to dismiss was denied. Whether the music was in fact played in the manner alleged, and whether it produced the effects attributed to it, are questions reserved for trial.
Andres Gil represents the prosecution. The case is before the New York State Unified Court System at the justice court level, where elected judges sit four-year terms. Judge Caruso’s co-justice on the Patterson bench is Hon. Robert Leader.
The trial, should the matter proceed, will require the fact-finder to assess whether a pattern of targeted conduct, including music selection and delivery, crossed the line from protected expression into criminal harassment under § 240.26(3).
