In April, Judge Michael Caruso of the Town of Patterson Justice Court in New York issued a ruling in People v. Lando, addressing a case charged as Harassment in the Second Degree under Penal Law § 240.26(3). The charge carries the status of a petty offense with a maximum penalty of 15 days in jail. The complainant outlined, on the basis of personal knowledge, that on May 30, 2025, around 5:30 p.m., the defendant halted her vehicle in front of the complainant’s driveway and blasted music at an excessive volume, which caused irritation and alarm. The complainant added that the music included the line “it’s the sound of the police,” and that this conduct appeared to be a response to the complainant’s prior report to law enforcement concerning the defendant’s alleged loudness. According to the narrative, the defendant then backed up her vehicle and yelled at the complainant, asking, “Why don’t you call them [the police] for me being too loud.”
The supporting deposition described an incident the day before, May 29, 2025, when someone identified as “Frank” drove past the complainant’s home and hurled crude and offensive insults, including the phrase “Fucking faggot!” Later that same day, this individual allegedly parked in the roadway, blocking the complainant’s wife from driving her vehicle while staring at her and her daughter. The deposition further alleges that on May 30, 2025, the same person again drove past the residence, uttering additional vulgar remarks such as “Gay fuck,” directed at the complainant. It is also charged that the defendant engaged in a longer pattern of conduct, including repeatedly parking her vehicle conspicuously near the complainant’s residence with the windows down and loud music playing—specifically, the KRS-One track “Sound of da Police”—and driving at unusually high speeds along the street.
The court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the charges. It ruled that the conduct alleged could meet the standard for second-degree harassment, defined as engaging in a course of conduct or repeatedly committing acts that alarm or seriously annoy another person and that serve no legitimate purpose. The court also determined that the defendant did not receive First Amendment protection for these actions.
The court acknowledged that playing music constitutes artistic expression protected by the First Amendment. It emphasized that it is not the court’s role to assess the expressive value or viewpoint of a given musical work. The song at issue, the court noted, is “Sound of da Police” by KRS-One, which is widely recognized as a form of constitutionally protected political expression that uses metaphor, hyperbole, and social critique. Accordingly, the court stated that the lyrics should not be treated as literal threats unless contextual evidence demonstrates such intent.
Nevertheless, the court explained that First Amendment protections do not prevent consideration of how the expression was used—its manner, context, and surrounding circumstances—in relation to the parties involved. The current inquiry focused not on whether the song and music, in abstract terms, are protected, but on whether the alleged repeated use, together with other conduct, could establish the necessary elements of the charged offenses. The court concluded that it could.
In particular, the accusatory instruments allege that on multiple occasions the defendant played the KRS-One track “Sound of da Police” at a high, disruptive volume from a vehicle while simultaneously directing offensive, suggestive, and threatening remarks toward the complainant near her home. While the act of playing music alone would not automatically create criminal liability, taken together with the asserted conduct, it could reasonably be interpreted as intended to alarm, annoy, threaten, or harass.
The court noted that the recording “Sound of da Police” (1993) is a well-known hip-hop work with a forceful vocal delivery, recurring chant elements, and a strong beat that distinguishes it from more subdued genres such as certain classical pieces or some types of jazz. The refrain “woop woop, that’s the sound of da police” is delivered in a loud, attention-grabbing manner. The court added that some portions of the song include lines about armed confrontation and violence, which, read in context, could be viewed as signaling intimidation or retaliatory force. While the court did not evaluate the song’s lyrics in isolation, it considered how a reasonable listener might perceive the volume, tone, and expressive content when directed at a specific person from a vehicle.
Accepting the allegations as true and giving them every favorable inference, the court could not conclude as a matter of law that playing such a recording, given its emphatic and high-energy quality, could not have produced the effects claimed by the People. The question of whether the recording was played at the stated volume and under the described conditions, and whether it had the impact attributed to it, are matters to be resolved at trial rather than on this motion. The court also recognized that hip hop and rap often employ figurative language and exaggeration, which should not be interpreted literally without proper context. Nevertheless, the court suggested that the song’s forceful and confrontational tone, when repeatedly amplified toward a specific individual in conjunction with alleged verbal confrontations and a visible presence in a motor vehicle, could plausibly contribute to an atmosphere of intimidation and fear.
Viewed as a whole, the repeated playing of loud, confrontational music, the defendant’s described close proximity to the complainant’s residence, and the accompanying offensive and threatening language create nonhearsay factual assertions of a kind that could support an inference of a continuing course of conduct aimed at the complainant.
The prosecution is represented by Andres Gil.
