RISING STAR ! The ultimate source to ace your NYPD Sergeant, Lieutenant, and Captain Exam Visit www.RisingStarPromotion.com to subscribe to our mailing list and get info on the next Sgt, Lt. or Captain Exam!

OnTheFence · Member

RE: How many people will pass!!!!

Jimmy McNulty · Senior Member

Its petit larceny. If the card was sent to NYC, or any purchases were made in NYC with the physical credit card, it would have been grand larceny. But since they got super sneaky yet again, it came down to the final rule for online/telephone purchases which is.01 cents - 500.00 worth of purchases online is petit larceny, $500.01 - 1000 is ID theft, and anything north of a grand would make it a GL. Purchases were less than 500, it's PL. It's in the reference manual not the PG.

RumorMill · Veteran Member

My downfall seems to be that I studied the P.G. so much it was hard for me to break procedure. Of course I would give the guy with the sick kid off in real life. But the test has never been based on real life before. The term "needs of the department" is used so much in the Patrol Guide , that I went with what I thought the job would want me to say.

PatrolGuideismyBible · Guru

OkeeDokee wrote:
PatrolGuideismyBible wrote:
Yes it is petit larceny by the business that was ripped off but the complainant in the question was the woman, so I went with ID theft in her resident precinct. Anyone have a copy of the Crime Reporting Reference Guide to confirm or debunk this? Even in the ID Theft PG procedure it just tells you to fill out pages 1 and 2 on Lost/Stolen Property/ID theft form and refers you to the crime reference guide!!!
It is absolutely classified as a petit larceny. Almost verbatim from CCRS. Due to $ amount, petit larceny is top charge.

I am not disputing the value amount of the merchandise stolen from the store, that is a pettit larceny. But is it a pettit larceny form the lady who had her identity stolen who was the complainant in the fact pattern or is a pettit larceny from the store or the credit card company?

She was the victim of ID Theft from an out of state perp that made unauthorized charges on a credit card the lady never had and was opened unlawfully without her knowledge. The stuff was stolen and that is a pettit larceny, but the lady was the complainant.

So if that is not ID Theft, what is?

RumorMill · Veteran Member

OkeeDokee wrote:
sig226 wrote:
In uniform must have a letter.
Where does it say that anywhere?It should be in personnel folder.

Also, the truck & bus question---the car had a biohard plaque.
How about the ammended PAR question? It says in the P.G. to refer them with leaving the scene cases, but it also says give them a MV104 if they don't qualify for MV104an

-- Edited by OkeeDokee on Sunday 30th of October 2011 07:25:52 PM

-- Edited by OkeeDokee on Sunday 30th of October 2011 07:27:28 PM

A biohazard placard fits into the category of "Hazardous materials" placard. Doesnt it? Unless youre saying the placard literally has to say "Hazardous Materials". Any truck I've ever see has a specific material listed on it like Danger Oxygen tanks" or "flammable material". All Iam saying is they cant want us to go against patrol guide procedures in some questions by using our logic to answer them and then want us to answer other questions literally. Its all or nothing. At least say answer questions 17 through 35 based on the patrol guide and 36 to 100 on Analytical Thinking and Judgment & Decision-Making

unborn · Guru

PatrolGuideismyBible wrote:

I am not disputing the value amount of the merchandise stolen from the store, that is a pettit larceny. But is it a pettit larceny form the lady who had her identity stolen who was the complainant in the fact pattern or is a pettit larceny from the store or the credit card company?
She was the victim of ID Theft from an out of state perp that made unauthorized charges on a credit card the lady never had and was opened unlawfully without her knowledge. The stuff was stolen and that is a pettit larceny, but the lady was the complainant.
So if that is not ID Theft, what is?

The crimes committed were identity theft, misd. and petit larceny, misd. Of course, Penal Law 155 comes before Penal Law 190, therefore, top charge is petit larceny. Identity theft FELONY kicks in at $500, which would then be the higher charge. Grand Larceny would start at $1,000.

Nypdblue · Veteran Member

What was the missing answer ? Just want to be sure

PatrolGuideismyBible · Guru

unborn wrote:
PatrolGuideismyBible wrote:

I am not disputing the value amount of the merchandise stolen from the store, that is a pettit larceny. But is it a pettit larceny form the lady who had her identity stolen who was the complainant in the fact pattern or is a pettit larceny from the store or the credit card company?
She was the victim of ID Theft from an out of state perp that made unauthorized charges on a credit card the lady never had and was opened unlawfully without her knowledge. The stuff was stolen and that is a pettit larceny, but the lady was the complainant.
So if that is not ID Theft, what is?
The crimes committed were identity theft, misd. and petit larceny, misd. Of course, Penal Law 155 comes before Penal Law 190, therefore, top charge is petit larceny. Identity theft FELONY kicks in at $500, which would then be the higher charge. Grand Larceny would start at $1,000.

It was over $500 in merchandise in two separate purchases, but less than $1000.

RISING IDIOT · Senior Member

PatrolGuideismyBible wrote:
unborn wrote:
PatrolGuideismyBible wrote:

I am not disputing the value amount of the merchandise stolen from the store, that is a pettit larceny. But is it a pettit larceny form the lady who had her identity stolen who was the complainant in the fact pattern or is a pettit larceny from the store or the credit card company?
She was the victim of ID Theft from an out of state perp that made unauthorized charges on a credit card the lady never had and was opened unlawfully without her knowledge. The stuff was stolen and that is a pettit larceny, but the lady was the complainant.
So if that is not ID Theft, what is?
The crimes committed were identity theft, misd. and petit larceny, misd. Of course, Penal Law 155 comes before Penal Law 190, therefore, top charge is petit larceny. Identity theft FELONY kicks in at $500, which would then be the higher charge. Grand Larceny would start at $1,000.
It was over $500 in merchandise in two separate purchases, but less than $1000.

Thats why its ID theft no?

PatrolGuideismyBible · Guru

I still think its ID Theft, pct of residence... oh well

I remember two purchases being made which combined were over $500. I don't have the reference guide in front of me, does it have to be one incident or if you made multiple purchases that totalled more than $500 or more than $1000 it would be good also.

I remember the fact pattern had two purchases, neither by itself was over $500, but combined they were. Combined they were not over $1000.

Anyone advise? Two purchases, same card, over $500, isn't that ID Theft, Pct of residence? Or I am just not understanding it and should go read it myself? lol

-- Edited by PatrolGuideismyBible on Monday 31st of October 2011 11:39:39 PM

sig226 · Senior Member

Ok going back to the topic... I don't think list is going to be big. Remember for 06 test almost 5000 people signed up and it was ridiculously easy and yet little over 1000 passed. This list could augmented if they throw out busload of questions. We shall see

Mes018 · Senior Member

Any idea how many people took this test?

E D · Senior Member

Give E-Day, child with fever can die, if you don't take him to Hospital you will go to jail and get jammed up for failing to render aid which is also part of your job. ;)

-- Edited by E D on Monday 31st of October 2011 11:41:44 PM

E D · Senior Member

Judge: Why didn't you take your child to the Hospital, when you saw he had a 102 degree fever?

You: Because my Platoon commander said I have to come to work.

Judge: 15 years!!!!! You: Ouch! That's uncomfortable. (As you are getting ass raped in prison).

-- Edited by E D on Monday 31st of October 2011 11:50:41 PM

-- Edited by E D on Monday 31st of October 2011 11:51:43 PM

PatrolGuideismyBible · Guru

E D wrote:
Judge: Why didn't you take your child to the Hospital, when you saw he had a 102 degree fever?

You: Because my Platoon commander said I have to come to work.

Judge: 15 years!!!!!

-- Edited by E D on Monday 31st of October 2011 11:48:52 PM

If I remember correctly in one of the choices you don't actually deny him, you ask if he has any other family members that can care for the child and take him to the hospital. Problem solving? Isn't a big part of our job problem solving?

In another one you do flat out deny him and in another one you approve it.

So none are "incorrect", its an opinion.

Nypdblue · Veteran Member

No excusals .go sick

E D · Senior Member

Theres no answer then. All my family lives 3 hours away, my kid is dead by then.
He doesn't ask you he tells you have someone else take him. It's just stupid!

OkeeDokee · Veteran Member

PatrolGuideismyBible wrote:
unborn wrote:
PatrolGuideismyBible wrote:

I am not disputing the value amount of the merchandise stolen from the store, that is a pettit larceny. But is it a pettit larceny form the lady who had her identity stolen who was the complainant in the fact pattern or is a pettit larceny from the store or the credit card company?
She was the victim of ID Theft from an out of state perp that made unauthorized charges on a credit card the lady never had and was opened unlawfully without her knowledge. The stuff was stolen and that is a pettit larceny, but the lady was the complainant.
So if that is not ID Theft, what is?
The crimes committed were identity theft, misd. and petit larceny, misd. Of course, Penal Law 155 comes before Penal Law 190, therefore, top charge is petit larceny. Identity theft FELONY kicks in at $500, which would then be the higher charge. Grand Larceny would start at $1,000.
It was over $500 in merchandise in two separate purchases, but less than $1000.

It was under $500 if you added the purchases.

E D · Senior Member

I prob failed this test, but I'll put money on it, that it's the right answer when key comes out.

PatrolGuideismyBible · Guru

E D wrote:
Theres no answer then. All my family lives 3 hours away, my kid is dead by then.
He doesn't ask you he tells you have someone else take him. It's just stupid!

They don't say that though, you know nothing about the cop in question other than he has a sick kid and needs the day.

I picked "Inquire if he has family members that can take the child to the hospital" I really don't remember it actually saying you denied him in that choice, maybe it did but I am not sure.

Am I right? Who the hell knows other than the losers that wrote this joke of an exam...

RICH-PD · Senior Member

I think one of the unauthorized purchases was 400 bucks and one was 300... total 700 i pt ID theft pct of residence which was the 102...

-- Edited by RICH-PD on Tuesday 1st of November 2011 12:20:34 AM

OkeeDokee · Veteran Member

E D wrote:
Theres no answer then. All my family lives 3 hours away, my kid is dead by then.
He doesn't ask you he tells you have someone else take him. It's just stupid!

Your child will live at the convenience of the Department.

E D · Senior Member

This while god damn test is a freaking abortion!

oneadditional · Guru

I went with identity theft 102 precinct

NYPD231 · Senior Member

Does anyone remember the exact wording from the Penal Law question? I'm looking at the Crime Complaint Reporting System Reference Guide.

1- "Personal Identification Information used to obtain a credit card for which the victim did not apply. Credit card sent outside NYC and charges made in NYC via phone or internet then Grand Larceny if over 1000, petit larceny if 1000 or less or ID theft (determined by dollar amount) in the NYC precinct where the victim resides. When multiple purchases are made throughout NYC, said precinct will classify complaint report according to the aggregate dollar amount of all purchases in NYC."

2- "Personal Identification Information used to obtain a credit card for which the victim did not apply. Credit card sent outside NYC and charges made in NYC with physical credit card then Grand Larceny in NYC resident pct."

3- "Personal Identification Information used to obtain a credit card for which the victim did not apply. Credit card sent to NYC then Grand Larceny in NYC resident pct."

There are a bunch of others, do these three cover the scenario in the question? I don't remember the exact scenario of where charges were made and where they were sent to.

RumorMill · Veteran Member

NYPD231 wrote:
Does anyone remember the exact wording from the Penal Law question? I'm looking at the Crime Complaint Reporting System Reference Guide.

1- "Personal Identification Information used to obtain a credit card for which the victim did not apply. Credit card sent outside NYC and charges made in NYC via phone or internet then Grand Larceny if over 1000, petit larceny if 1000 or less or ID theft (determined by dollar amount) in the NYC precinct where the victim resides. When multiple purchases are made throughout NYC, said precinct will classify complaint report according to the aggregate dollar amount of all purchases in NYC."

2- "Personal Identification Information used to obtain a credit card for which the victim did not apply. Credit card sent outside NYC and charges made in NYC with physical credit card then Grand Larceny in NYC resident pct."

3- "Personal Identification Information used to obtain a credit card for which the victim did not apply. Credit card sent to NYC then Grand Larceny in NYC resident pct."

There are a bunch of others, do these three cover the scenario in the question? I don't remember the exact scenario of where charges were made and where they were sent to.

Were the charges made over the phone or did the perp come back to the city and do it?

OkeeDokee · Veteran Member

Choice #1. Charges made in NYC over the internet.

RumorMill · Veteran Member

OkeeDokee wrote:
Choice #1. Charges made in NYC over the internet.

Curses!!!

NextLtTest · Senior Member

Jimmy McNulty wrote:
Its petit larceny. If the card was sent to NYC, or any purchases were made in NYC with the physical credit card, it would have been grand larceny. But since they got super sneaky yet again, it came down to the final rule for online/telephone purchases which is.01 cents - 500.00 worth of purchases online is petit larceny, $500.01 - 1000 is ID theft, and anything north of a grand would make it a GL. Purchases were less than 500, it's PL. It's in the reference manual not the PG.

Staring at that damn poster in the 124 room I cannot figure out the proper charge. I am supposed to remember it?

NinoBrown · Veteran Member

PatrolGuideismyBible wrote:
OkeeDokee wrote:
PatrolGuideismyBible wrote:
Yes it is petit larceny by the business that was ripped off but the complainant in the question was the woman, so I went with ID theft in her resident precinct. Anyone have a copy of the Crime Reporting Reference Guide to confirm or debunk this? Even in the ID Theft PG procedure it just tells you to fill out pages 1 and 2 on Lost/Stolen Property/ID theft form and refers you to the crime reference guide!!!
It is absolutely classified as a petit larceny. Almost verbatim from CCRS. Due to $ amount, petit larceny is top charge.
I am not disputing the value amount of the merchandise stolen from the store, that is a pettit larceny. But is it a pettit larceny form the lady who had her identity stolen who was the complainant in the fact pattern or is a pettit larceny from the store or the credit card company?
She was the victim of ID Theft from an out of state perp that made unauthorized charges on a credit card the lady never had and was opened unlawfully without her knowledge. The stuff was stolen and that is a pettit larceny, but the lady was the complainant.
So if that is not ID Theft, what is?

wow, nice!!!!! valid point kid!!!

infinity · Senior Member

The note in thecrime complaint guide says if you use an ACTUAL CARD its always Grand Larceny .

check out the crime complaint reporting system page PG 35 of 63.. letter C..

-- Edited by infinity on Tuesday 1st of November 2011 08:06:58 AM

-- Edited by infinity on Tuesday 1st of November 2011 08:10:33 AM

infinity · Senior Member

Credit card not authorized by c/v.
Out of state perp
Charges were made in NYC Delivered in NYC. (the pct mentioned)
Perp used the MACYS CREDIT CARD.
= Grand Larceny

RISING IDIOT · Senior Member

Merchandise was never delivered to nyc. I think charges were made in brooklyn (over the internet??) but the card and merchandise were in New Jersey and Michigan. Not sure though...its all a blur

-- Edited by RISING IDIOT on Tuesday 1st of November 2011 10:28:25 AM

PatrolGuideismyBible · Guru

Merchandise was purchased over the internet form an out of state perp to a store in brooklyn I think. I think the monetary value was about $700+ when you combine the two purchases. The perp used a credit card he opened unlawfully without the lady (c/v) knowledge using her identity, SS#. I think that sums up the fact pattern as I remember it. I picked ID Theft, resident precinct of c/v, but I don't have a copy of the CRR guide in front of me to verify and I tried printing it off the fast track website, but it looks like they took everything down...

Hwoarang01 · Veteran Member

Question was perp opened a credit card in Michigan, purchased 2 items 1 for $400 the other for $30-35 in 81 pct through the Internet and had items mailed to New Jersey! Answers were either

81pct ID theft
102 petit larceny
102 grand larceny
102 Id theft

I picked 102 grand larceny! Prob wrong but this is how the question was asked!

PatrolGuideismyBible · Guru

The second item was only $30? I thought it was a few hundred?

NYPD231 · Senior Member

There is a reason that they created the Larceny/ID Theft matrix or flow chart (whatever you want to call it)- that crap is impossible to remember so they created it. The fact that they asked us one penal law question and it was on that matrix is complete bullsh*t.

OkeeDokee · Veteran Member

It's petit larceny in the 102. There's nothing to debate.

Stbpro · Member

A couple of points and i may be wrong as this test was simply a f$&@!ng abortion

In addition to what everyone is saying noone mentioned that only 1 (think it was the marijuana voucher) had security envelope numbers... And that was in the details section not in the column to the right of the items..

In the question with the paa's crying about the lt giving them more work to do they did not tell u who u were...

The par question on the bridge, correct me if im wrong but a truck with a mechanical defect and an accident becomes a highway unit investigation and therefore is dept towed... They completely effed up that question... The mechanical defect is a qualifying factor therefore 2 supps no reference marker

The in basket question with the 1 and 6 going to the house prty detail was a complete mind f#*k. I sent the crime and condiions guys cuz they were just getting off at that time. Mustve spent about an hour on that question alone.

The old man with the noise complaint, i chose disptch the next available car but do u not reprimand the previous t/s for not putting the job on the dispatch log? WTF?? Double answer

Im missing a couple other questiona but im beyond burnt over this abomination they called a lts test... Was that standard english??
A big F**K YOU to the housemice that wrote this test..

PatrolGuideismyBible · Guru

Stbpro wrote:
A couple of points and i may be wrong as this test was simply a f$&@!ng abortion

In addition to what everyone is saying noone mentioned that only 1 (think it was the marijuana voucher) had security envelope numbers... And that was in the details section not in the column to the right of the items..

In the question with the paa's crying about the lt giving them more work to do they did not tell u who u were...

The par question on the bridge, correct me if im wrong but a truck with a mechanical defect and an accident becomes a highway unit investigation and therefore is dept towed... They completely effed up that question... The mechanical defect is a qualifying factor therefore 2 supps no reference marker

The in basket question with the 1 and 6 going to the house prty detail was a complete mind f#*k. I sent the crime and condiions guys cuz they were just getting off at that time. Mustve spent about an hour on that question alone.

The old man with the noise complaint, i chose disptch the next available car but do u not reprimand the previous t/s for not putting the job on the dispatch log? WTF?? Double answer

Im missing a couple other questiona but im beyond burnt over this abomination they called a lts test... Was that standard english??
A big F**K YOU to the housemice that wrote this test..

I completely agree with you in the test being a sick joke, but I chose the marijuana invoice as the only one to sign as the others were all prepared improperly.

You are right, the envelopes were in the narrative, not the colums as they should be in the real world. But in the PG they still have you accounting for it in the narrative, not the captions in the columns, also PO's and Sgt's sign the bottom with their shield#'s and Lt's with tax number in the PG world, but not in the real world.

The old man with the noise complaint, I picked the same one. Why? You had to address the problem and the give a CD had you telling the rookie "We will get to the bottom of this"??? So now as a Lt, you involve rookies in disciplining his fellow cops? Maybe I was reading too much into it, but whatever, it was a judgement question. I figured addressing the old man's problem he has been waiting forever on should come first.

I also picked the crime/conditions guys getting off around the time of the detail, but again, you could not eliminate many of the other choices on many in basket questions.

Mes018 · Senior Member

Stbpro wrote:
A couple of points and i may be wrong as this test was simply a f$&@!ng abortion

In addition to what everyone is saying noone mentioned that only 1 (think it was the marijuana voucher) had security envelope numbers... And that was in the details section not in the column to the right of the items..

In the question with the paa's crying about the lt giving them more work to do they did not tell u who u were...

The par question on the bridge, correct me if im wrong but a truck with a mechanical defect and an accident becomes a highway unit investigation and therefore is dept towed... They completely effed up that question... The mechanical defect is a qualifying factor therefore 2 supps no reference marker

The in basket question with the 1 and 6 going to the house prty detail was a complete mind f#*k. I sent the crime and condiions guys cuz they were just getting off at that time. Mustve spent about an hour on that question alone.

The old man with the noise complaint, i chose disptch the next available car but do u not reprimand the previous t/s for not putting the job on the dispatch log? WTF?? Double answer

Im missing a couple other questiona but im beyond burnt over this abomination they called a lts test... Was that standard english??
A big F**K YOU to the housemice that wrote this test..

Not sure of specifics, but with the house party detail I think there was only one good answer. I think one of the choices had a sgt going eot at 2057 but the detail started at 2030. 2 of the other choices had 1 P.O. who was restricted or limited. The good answer had 3 or 4 cops who were rdo and 1 or 2 admin spot day tour guys.

sig226 · Senior Member

In old mans scenario, it was just past midnight. You can't berate a4x12 guy if he is not there. Just send rmp was my answer

PatrolGuideismyBible · Guru

Thats another thing, I didn't have time to eliminate the bad choices on the in basket, by the time I started the in basket I had about 1:20 left!!! I feel even worse for the guys that spent 2-3 hours on that in basket and couldn't finish the exam at all!!!

big guy · Senior Member

On the topic of the whole time factor with people not finishing-if you took the test in manhattan most of the classrooms did not have clocks. If u didnt have a watch there was no way for you to pace yourself or budget your time! Many people did not and this had to of hurt a lot of people in that regard. I took the sgt test there and they would write the time on the board so i did not bring a watch this time--several people asked if they can write the time on the board and they said they are not allowed to do that anymore and we are responsible on our own for it! But if thats the case a watch should of been a mandatory item to bring along with a calculator and pencils. Is this an area to bring up also to dcas to protest?? It def had to attribute to many people not finishing the exam there. And was this a problem for anyone here??

PatrolGuideismyBible · Guru

I brought a watch, utilized the stopwatch feature after the second bell. Why? I was planning on taking the the test and rereading each and every question as I did with my Sgt's exam. I only had time to do the test once and I saved the inbasket for last and rushed through it.

unborn · Guru

Mes018 wrote:
Not sure of specifics, but with the house party detail I think there was only one good answer. I think one of the choices had a sgt going eot at 2057 but the detail started at 2030. 2 of the other choices had 1 P.O. who was restricted or limited. The good answer had 3 or 4 cops who were rdo and 1 or 2 admin spot day tour guys.

Just because someone is eot at 2057 doesn't mean they can't do it. the 49 said ot was authorized, but didn't say mandatory. if you contrast it with the other 49 regarding excessive overtime, then in my opinion you want to use the guys that would use the least amount of OT. I didn't catch that some of the guys were limited/restricted, since I couldn't even find lots of those cops on the mish-mash of a command roster they gave us.

NYPD231 · Senior Member

I think that the OT 49 was regarding operational OT. This 1 and 6 detail had it's own OT code. Wouldn't that come from a different pot than the operational OT?

I would think that since he was asking about a detail later that night, getting in guys that were RDO was not likely, so that ruled out two of the choices. The remaining choices with the A/C and conditions guys had one choice with only 1 guy that was van qualified. The remaining choice had two van qualified guys. The question stated that you were taking two vans to the detail.

outat20 · Senior Member

NYPD231 wrote:
I think that the OT 49 was regarding operational OT. This 1 and 6 detail had it's own OT code. Wouldn't that come from a different pot than the operational OT?

I would think that since he was asking about a detail later that night, getting in guys that were RDO was not likely, so that ruled out two of the choices. The remaining choices with the A/C and conditions guys had one choice with only 1 guy that was van qualified. The remaining choice had two van qualified guys. The question stated that you were taking two vans to the detail.

If you figured all that out, I don't even wanna know how much time you spent researching that question...

unborn · Guru

NYPD231 wrote:
I think that the OT 49 was regarding operational OT. This 1 and 6 detail had it's own OT code. Wouldn't that come from a different pot than the operational OT?

I would think that since he was asking about a detail later that night, getting in guys that were RDO was not likely, so that ruled out two of the choices. The remaining choices with the A/C and conditions guys had one choice with only 1 guy that was van qualified. The remaining choice had two van qualified guys. The question stated that you were taking two vans to the detail.

Do you remember if it was the crime sgt or the conditions sgt that was going?

NYPD231 · Senior Member

I think it was Jensen, who I believe was the crime sgt, but don't quote me. My memory isn't as good as some of the people on the board in regards to the exact wording or choices for individual questions.