Blog
New York Penal Law § 145.30: When Posting Ads Becomes a Crime
Contents
Last Updated on: 31st May 2025, 10:32 pm
New York Penal Law § 145.30: When Posting Ads Becomes a Crime
If you’ve ever walked through NYC,you’ve seen it everywhere – posters on construction sites, stickers on lamp posts, flyers taped to subway entrances. Most people don’t know that under New York Penal Law § 145.30, posting advertisements without permission is actually a crime. Not just a violation or a ticket – this is a Class A misdemeanor that can land you in jail for up to a year.
The law is pretty straightforward: “A person is guilty of unlawfully posting advertisements when, having no right to do so nor any reasonable ground to believe that he has such right, he posts, paints or otherwise affixes to the property of another person any advertisement, poster, notice or other matter designed to benefit a person other than the owner of the property.” Sounds simple enough until you realize how many ways this gets complicated in real life,and how aggressive prosecutors can be when they want to make an example out of someone.
The Law Started With Graffiti, Not Concert Flyers
Back in the 1970s and 80s, New York City was drowning in graffiti. We’re not talking about artistic murals here – property damage from illegal graffiti cost the city millions of dollars annually according to NYC Department of Sanitation records from that era. Subway cars were completely covered, buildings were defaced, and property values in certain neighborhoods plummeted because of the vandalism problem. The legislature expanded § 145.30 as part of a broader anti-graffiti push,thinking they were targeting vandals with spray cans. But the thing is – the law doesn’t distinguish between a giant graffiti tag and a small concert flyer. Both fall under “advertisement, poster, notice or other matter” according to how courts interpret the statute. This broad language that seemed reasonable in 1982 now captures everything from band posters to political campaign signs to those annoying “WE BUY HOUSES FOR CASH” stickers you see everywhere.
The historical data from NYPD CompStat shows unlawful posting arrests peaked in the late 1990s with over 2,000 arrests annually, then dropped dramatically as the city cleaned up – but enforcement has spiked again recently as prosecutors use this law in ways the original drafters never imagined.
Your Instagram Post Could Be Unlawful Advertising
Technology has completely scrambled how we think about “posting advertisements” in ways that make § 145.30 both more relevant and more problematic than ever. Consider this scenario thats becoming more common: you take a photo in front of a trendy restaurant and tag them on Instagram without permission, or you slap a QR code sticker linking to your mixtape on a bodega window. Is that unlawful posting under § 145.30?
Some prosecutors say yes.
The Manhattan DA’s office has started investigating cases where people post digital content that “affixes” to someone else’s property – even if that property is virtual. There’s been cases where influencers who geotag businesses without explicit permission get threatening letters from prosecutors citing § 145.30. The statute’s language about “posts, paints or otherwise affixes” was written before anyone imagined augmented reality or geotagged social media posts,but prosecutors are stretching these definitions to cover digital acts. QR code stickers present an especially tricky situation because they’re physical objects that link to digital content – courts haven’t figured out if the crime is the physical sticker, the digital content it links to, or both. One Brooklyn judge recently ruled that a QR code sticker is just like any other advertisement under § 145.30, opening the door for hundreds of potential prosecutions against everyone from musicians promoting their Spotify to restaurants doing guerrilla marketing.
Proving You Didn’t Have Permission Gets Messy Fast
The real teeth of § 145.30 comes from its consent requirement – prosecutors must prove you had “no right” to post the advertisement AND that you had no “reasonable ground to believe” you had such right. This creates a proof problem that defense attorneys love to exploit. Think about how permission actually works in the real world: a bartender tells a band they can put up posters,but the bar owner never authorized it. A building super says it’s fine to post flyers on the construction fence, but he doesn’t actually have authority to give that permission. These situations happen constantly, and they create reasonable doubt about whether the defendant knew they lacked permission. The burden is on prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you KNEW you didn’t have permission – not just that you technically didn’t have it. Our firm has won cases where clients genuinely believed they had permission based on past practice, verbal agreements, or simple misunderstandings. One client beat charges because he’d been posting flyers on the same coffee shop bulletin board for years without complaint, creating a reasonable belief he had implicit permission even though the new owner disagreed. The prosecution couldn’t prove he knew the ownership had changed or that his permission was revoked. These consent issues get even muddier with property that seems public but isn’t – like utility poles (owned by Con Edison), mailboxes (federal property), or construction barriers (usually owned by the construction company,not the city).
Why These Cases Fall Apart BeforeTrial
What prosecutors don’t want you to know about § 145.30 cases – they’re incredibly hard to prove at trial,which is why most get pleaded down or dismissed entirely.
The intent element is a prosecutor’s nightmare.
They need to show you specifically intended to benefit someone other than the property owner, which sounds easy until you think about it. What if you’re posting lost dog flyers? Political messages? Public service announcements? Courts have struggled with whether these “benefit” anyone in the way the statute requires. Judges have dismissed cases where the advertisement was for a charity event, reasoning that benefiting a nonprofit isn’t what the legislature meant by commercial benefit. Then there’s the identification problem – unless police literally catch you in the act of posting, how do they prove YOU were the one who put up that flyer? Fingerprints on paper are nearly impossible to recover, security footage is often grainy or non-existent,and witnesses rarely pay attention to someone putting up posters. This is why smart defendants never admit to posting anything when questioned by police. The First Amendment issues create another layer of complexity that makes prosecutors nervous. Political advertisements, religious messages, and artistic expressions all get some level of constitutional protection that commercial ads don’t. Defense attorneys have successfully argued that band posters are artistic expression, that protest flyers are political speech, and that community event notices serve a public forums function. When prosecutors push too hard on these cases, they risk constitutional challenges that can drag cases out for years and potentially invalidate the statute entirely.
Maximum Penalties That Nobody Actually Gets
On paper, § 145.30 carries serious consequences – up to one year in jail, three years probation, and fines up to $1,000 or double what you gained from the crime. In reality,these maximum penalties are almost never imposed. Judges understand that someone posting concert flyers isn’t the same threat to society as someone committing violent crimes, and sentences reflect that reality. First-time offenders typically get offered an ACD (Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal), which means if you stay out of trouble for six months,the charges disappear entirely. No criminal record, no jail time, no probation. The catch is you usually have to pay restitution for any cleanup costs and maybe do some community service. For repeat offenders or cases involving significant property damage, prosecutors might insist on a plea to Disorderly Conduct (a violation,not a crime) with a small fine. After handling hundreds of these cases, the number of clients who actually did jail time is minimal – and those all involved either massive posting campaigns causing thousands in damage or defendants with extensive criminal histories. The real penalty isn’t jail – it’s the arrest record that shows up on background checks. Even if charges get dismissed, the arrest itself can haunt you for years unless you get it sealed. Employment background checks, housing applications, professional licenses – they all might see that you were arrested for unlawful posting, and good luck explaining to a potential employer why you got arrested for putting up yard sale signs.
Property Owners Who Won’t Play Ball
One of the dirty secrets of § 145.30 prosecutions is how often they fall apart because property owners don’t want to cooperate.
You’d think business owners would be eager to prosecute people who plaster ads on their property,but the reality is much more complicated. Many property owners see unlawful posting as such a minor annoyance that they won’t take time off work to testify. Others worry about looking petty or vindictive by prosecuting someone over a few flyers. Cases get dismissed because the property owner told prosecutors they didn’t care about the posting and wouldn’t come to court. Some business owners actually LIKE certain types of unauthorized postings – concert venues don’t mind band flyers, restaurants appreciate community event notices, and construction sites often tolerate union messages or safety warnings. This creates a nightmare for prosecutors who need the property owner to testify that they didn’t give permission and that they want prosecution. Experienced defense attorneys subpoena property owners knowing they’ll be reluctant witnesses at best. The economic calculation often favors letting it slide too. If it costs a business owner $500 in lost wages to spend a day in court testifying about $50 worth of cleanup costs, they’re going to drop the case. Sure, prosecutors can technically proceed without a cooperative victim using police testimony and photos, but juries hate victimless prosecutions. This dynamic completely changes in cases involving repeated targeting of the same property or posting that causes real damage – then property owners get invested in prosecution. But for run-of-the-mill posting cases, victim cooperation is the exception,not the rule.
How Spodek Law Group Defends These Cases
When you hire Spodek Law Group foran unlawful posting case, we don’t just show up and hope for the best – we attack the prosecution’s case from every angle. First thing we do is investigate the alleged lack of consent. That means interviewing employees, checking for posted policies, looking for evidence of selective enforcement, and documenting any history of permitted postings on that property. You’d be amazed how often there’s a history of allowing some postings while prosecuting others,which gets used to show discriminatory enforcement.
The identification evidence needs aggressive challenging too.
Unless police have crystal-clear video of you posting advertisements, they have to prove it was actually you – not just someone who looks like you or someone using your materials. Circumstantial evidence isn’t enough when your freedom is on the line. Our constitutional challenges focus on the content of what was posted. Political messages, artistic expressions, and public interest announcements all get heightened protection under the First Amendment. Cases have been dismissed by showing that prosecuting our client for posting protest flyers would violate free speech protections, even if technically they violated § 145.30. The key is making prosecutors realize their case is more trouble than its worth. Filing motions challenging the statute as overbroad, demanding jury trials that will take days of court time, and subpoenaing reluctant witnesses who don’t want to testify – these tactics work. Most prosecutors have limited resources and when faced with a choice between spending three days trying a flyer case or pleading out serious felonies, they make the rational choice. Most importantly,protecting your future means fighting to avoid criminal records. Even if the evidence is strong, negotiations focus on dispositions that don’t leave you with a criminal conviction – ACDs, violations, or conditional dismissals that keep your record clean.
If you’re facing charges under New York Penal Law § 145.30, don’t assume it’s just a minor charge that will go away. These cases can have serious consequences for your future,especially if you have professional licenses or immigration concerns. Spodek Law Group knows how to handle these cases – call 888-997-5177 for a confidential consultation. After handling hundreds of unlawful posting cases across NYC, we know exactly how to protect your rights and your future.