New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

The Grand Jury of the Special Narcotics Courts voted an indictment against the accused men charging them with criminal possession of a weapon and conspiracy in violation of the Penal Law. In summary, a New York Criminal Lawyer the court alleges that a confidential informant contacted one of the accused, offering him an opportunity to rob drug dealers of a valuable supply of narcotics and cash. The accused allegedly accepted the informant's offer and engaged the three accused men to be part of the robbery gang. The case detectives instructed the informant to tell the accused men the robbery location. It is alleged that the informant and the four accused men loaded two vehicles with a number of weapons and went to that Bronx location with the intention to commit a burglary and a robbery.

The accused men filed omnibus discovery motions, to which the court responded. The State also supplied the grand jury minutes to the court for in camera examination. After examining the grand jury minutes, the court ordered the parties to submit additional memoranda of law on two jurisdictional questions. To enable the parties to fully brief the issue, the court found that release of certain portions of the grand jury minutes to the parties was necessary to assist the court in making the determination on the motion.

The Crime Investigator testified in the grand jury. In summary, the informant testified that he had continuous conversations with one of the accused; however, his testimony is devoid of any references to where he or his co-accused was located when they had the telephone conversations. Furthermore, it is apparent from the grand jury minutes that none of the face-to-face meetings between the informant and the accused men occurred in Manhattan. The sole reference to Manhattan in the informant's testimony is contained in the informant's recitation of why he was at a certain place at a certain time.

The parties submitted legal memoranda to the court on the jurisdiction question. For the reasons which follow, the court finds that the evidence before the grand jury was insufficient to establish jurisdiction under any theory, and therefore the indictment is dismissed with leave to re-present.

The general rule in New York is that, for the State to have criminal jurisdiction, either the alleged conduct or some consequence of it must have occurred within the state. A Manhattan Criminal Lawyer said that because the State only has power to enact and enforce criminal laws within its territorial borders, there can be no criminal law offense unless it has territorial jurisdiction. Mere thoughts or plans do not meet the conduct requirement of Criminal Procedure Law.

Territorial jurisdiction refers to the power of the court to hear and determine the case, and is distinguished from venue, which pertains to the proper county or place of trial thus territorial jurisdiction goes to the very essence of the State's power to prosecute and may never be waived. The prosecution must prove territorial jurisdiction beyond a reasonable doubt.
An accused has the right under the New York State Constitution to be prosecuted in the county where the alleged criminal conduct was committed, unless the Legislature vests jurisdiction in some other county. The right to trial by jury incorporates the common law as it stood at the time of independence, and includes the right to be tried by a jury of the vicinage, the county where the alleged criminal conduct was committed.

Because of the importance of such right, New York courts have given the jurisdictional exceptions in Criminal Procedure Law called a restrictive interpretation and operation. Trial may be held outside the vicinage only if the Legislature has authorized it in clear and unmistakable terms. Such exceptions to the normal jurisdictional rules are to be applied only in accordance with necessity.

Upon the application of the assistant district attorney in charge of the special narcotics parts appointed pursuant to the plan, one or more grand juries may be drawn and impaneled for a special narcotics part upon the order of the justice assigned to such part, which grand jury may exercise all the powers of a grand jury in the county in which it is impaneled and may in addition exercise its powers with respect to the alleged commission of an offense in any county wholly contained in a city having a population of one million or more involving the sale or crack possession and any other offense that could be properly joined therewith in an indictment.

In other words, a Special Narcotics Grand Jury in New York County may exercise all the powers of a regular New York County Grand Jury. It means that the Special Narcotics Grand Jury, as any grand jury impaneled in New York County, must have geographic jurisdiction over the acts which they are seeking to indict. The Special Narcotics Grand Jury enjoys its expanded citywide jurisdiction only as to those offenses involving the sale or possession of a narcotic drug and any other offense that could be properly joined therewith in an indictment.
The State’s sole theory of geographic jurisdiction was explicitly presented to the grand jury. The entire substance of the Crime Investigator’s testimony before the grand jury on the issue of jurisdiction has previously been set forth. The State concedes that there is no other testimony on the point, although they argue extensively about the reasonable inferences they believe can be drawn from the sparse comments relating to jurisdiction.

In summary, it is uncontested that the sole references to Manhattan in the grand jury minutes, and the asserted basis of the grand jury's New York County jurisdiction, are the numerous phone calls from Manhattan made to the targets and that the targets understood that the drug location they are potentially going to rob was in Manhattan originally. The Crime Investigator's testimony is bereft of any references to any phone calls being made from Manhattan, but he does make a cursory reference to the plan which originally consisted of going to an apartment in Manhattan or in the Bronx with firearms, with guns, and it was to rob sixty kilos of cocaine. The threshold question, therefore, is whether this evidence met the minimal standard required to establish geographic jurisdiction in any New York County Grand Jury, irrespective of whether it happens to be designated a Special Narcotics Grand Jury.

When an accused challenges geographic jurisdiction before trial, the jurisdiction of the county seeking to prosecute must have been established before the grand jury. The indictment does not contain a single count charging sale or crack possession; therefore, the expanded jurisdictional rule of Judiciary Law does not apply. The court therefore begins with the sole basis of jurisdiction asserted in the grand jury, the alleged numerous phone calls from Manhattan which purportedly confer jurisdiction on New York County.

As to the conspiracy counts, special jurisdictional rules apply: geographic jurisdiction as to the conspiracy count is established in the county in which the accused entered into the conspiracy and in any county in which one or more of the overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy were committed by the defendant or one of the coconspirators. The Criminal Procedure Law provides that an oral or written statement made by a person in one jurisdiction to a person in another jurisdiction by means of a telecommunication is deemed to be made in each jurisdiction.

However, before the court can reach the question of whether Criminal Procedure Law properly apply in the case, it must first determine whether there is competent evidence of phone calls actually made in New York County, and if made, whether those phone calls were made in furtherance of the conspiracy. The analysis is guided by the familiar rules governing the motion to dismiss an indictment for legal insufficiency.

In determining a motion to dismiss an indictment for legal insufficiency, the reviewing court must consider whether the evidence, viewed most favorably to the State, if unexplained and un-contradicted would be sufficient to warrant conviction by a trial jury. Legally sufficient evidence is defined as competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish every element of an offense charged. Hearsay evidence does not constitute competent evidence. Pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Law, the same rules which govern admission of evidence at criminal law violation trials apply to grand jury proceedings, unless covered by an exception listed in the Criminal Procedure Law. While geographical jurisdiction is a question of fact and can be reasonably inferred from all the facts and circumstances, the evidence which is presented to the grand jury on geographical jurisdiction must be competent evidence; if the evidence is not competent, no inferences, however reasonable, can rescue the presentation.

The court finds that the scant evidence adduced before the grand jury was insufficient to establish geographic jurisdiction in any New York County Grand Jury. The Special Agent’s testimony regarding the numerous phone calls made to the targets was unacceptable hearsay evidence. The testimony, which the State generously characterized as of a general nature, was utterly devoid of any non-hearsay facts establishing that either party to any conversation was actually present in Manhattan, or that the subject matter of the phone calls was in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, both essential requirements of the Criminal Procedure Law. There was no testimony that the agent was a party to the conversation or that he was listening to the conversations on another line or on a wiretap, or even that he was with the Crime Investigator or one of the targets at the time they were having the conversation so that he could overhear some of the content. Therefore, his testimony about the phone calls, to the extent that it is credible and in the light viewed most favorably to the State, perforce was based upon someone else's explanation to him of what took place. It is therefore unacceptable hearsay.

Clearly, none of the charges, which relate to burglary, robbery, and weapons possession, involve the sale or possession of a narcotic drug. The State argue extensively that the statute must be read expansively, and urge the court to find that because the accused men’s intended to rob narcotics dealers, their conduct falls within the ambit of the statute. The court, however, cannot endorse such theory. The occupation of the intended victim cannot confer jurisdiction where it does not otherwise exist.
The legislation which led to the creation of the Special Narcotics Courts, and the special jurisdictional rules governing those courts, was motivated by the 1970s crisis in narcotics cases and the way that the numbers of those cases were overwhelming the criminal justice system. Narcotics dealers, like banks, are assumed to have large sums of cash. Robbers victimize sources of large amounts of cash. Jurisdiction cannot rest on such peripheral facts as the occupation of the victim. The indictment is dismissed with leave to re-present to a New York County Grand Jury, to the extent that the State can establish jurisdiction, or, alternatively, for re-presentation before a Bronx County Grand Jury.

The Law is continuously being scrutinized to make sure that justice is being served fairly. If you believe that you are a victim of the criminal law’s unfair judgment, or have been charged with robbery, sex crimes, or drug possession, consult a Bronx County Criminal Lawyer. For your drug-related lawsuits, feel free to contact a Bronx County Drug Attorney at Stephen Bilkis and Associates.

Facts:

A security officer, a retired member of the New York City Police Department which the court takes judicial notice of, at the Long Island Jewish Hospital, was instructed by his security supervisor, via radio transmission, to proceed to a Children's Hospital parking lot. He was told to locate a certain auto reportedly containing a handgun. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he was also informed that the New York City Police Department had been notified and would arrive shortly. When he located the auto, he observed the handgun in a holster on the front seat. He immediately radioed his supervisor who replied that the police will be on the scene. The security officer checked the auto door and found it locked. The defendant himself, a security officer at the Children's Hospital, arrived on the scene and saw the responding uniformed security officer standing by his auto. Defendant, without prodding, told the security officer that the auto was his. He then opened the auto door and gave the gun to the security officer.

Defendant then left the scene. The New York City police arrived within minutes, and the responding security officer reported his findings and handed the gun to the police. Defendant then returned to the scene. A New York City Police Officer asked the defendant if the auto was his; defendant replied affirmatively. The officer then asked defendant if he had a permit for the gun. Defendant replied he did not. The police officer then placed the defendant under arrest. While in a police car on the way to the police station defendant was read his Miranda warnings. He then told the officer that he had gotten the gun down south.
Defendant was charged with possession of a handgun without a permit (Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Third Degree), a handgun crime.

Parties’ Arguments:

For the prosecution - that any action by the hospital security officer is not subject to constitutional scrutiny under either the United States or New York State Constitutions; that even if the action of the security officer was subject to constitutional scrutiny, that the result should still be a denial of suppression of the gun and statements made to the private security officer and to the New York City Police (both before and after Miranda warnings).
For the defendant - seeks suppression of that gun seized by the private hospital security officer, and certain inculpatory statements made to the security officer and later to the New York City Police; that the seizure of the gun by the hospital security officer, and the pre-Miranda statements made by him to the security officer, and to the New York City Police were made while he was under custodial restraint; that the post-Miranda statement to the city police was improperly obtained, as it was not preceded by a probable cause to arrest.

Issue:
The issue here is whether or not the actions of the private security officer are subject to constitutional restraints.

Ruling:

A Westchester County Criminal Lawyer said that in order to determine the propriety of the seizure of the gun by the hospital security officer and the reception of the statements made in connection therewith (in the hospital parking lot), the court must initially address whether the hospital security officer was acting in a private capacity or as an operative of the Police Department. Such preliminary inquiry is necessary as, generally, statements made to private individuals, or an unauthorized search or seizure by such persons, does not render that evidence inadmissible, at a subsequent law enforcement proceeding.

On the Modern Development of Private Security:

Officials of the private security industry say their services save money and get around "red tape." However, critics of this rapid extension of private security into both the private and public sectors point to less strict training programs for those in private security, as compared to those for official police officers, the general nonexistence of regulation of the private security industry, and the fact that private security officers and personnel are not subject to the same constitutional scrutiny and control as public officers.

The popular press and legal periodicals are now discussing the problems posed by the fear of crime, the proliferation of private forms of security measure to protect against crime, and the fact that society has a legitimate interest in being safeguarded from potential abuses posed by private protectors or enforcers. In spite of this growing interest, very few courts to date have addressed the question whether private security personnel must give Miranda warnings to suspects whom they are questioning, and/or must they observe other constitutional restraints with respect to identification, search and seizure, etc.

On Miranda Safeguards:

No decision more rightly deserves the label "Landmark" than the case of Miranda v. Arizona. Its name echoes daily in almost every criminal courtroom across the United States. It has, without question, drastically impacted law enforcement for the past 20 years.
In summary, it was intended to place realistic teeth into the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. Miranda's main thrust was directed at the use by law enforcement agencies of statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, which stem from the custodial interrogation of a defendant, unless there is a demonstration that effective procedural safeguards were used to secure a defendant's privilege against self-incrimination.

On the Application of Miranda - to Private Law Enforcement Personnel:

The Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, which the Miranda safeguards were designed to protect, has been very cautiously applied to situations not involving interrogation by official law enforcement personnel.

The court has opined on coordinated private-public law enforcement involving the investigation of a crime or felony incident. Here, the parking lot investigation and response by the hospital security officer did accommodate police objectives. It should be contrasted with the traditional role of protecting hospital property or keeping order within the hospital, etc.

On the Application of Miranda - Tests to the parking lot confrontation:

Having found that the encounter constitutes coordinated law enforcement, which accommodated and furthered police objectives, it becomes necessary to apply Miranda standards to this parking lot confrontation.

The following inquiries must be made: Was the parking lot setting that kind of custodial environment proscribed by Miranda? Was the security officer's single question about the auto's ownership, and defendant's verbal and nonverbal response thereto, exempted from the necessity of Miranda safeguards? Were the limited on-the-scene questions by the New York City Police as to auto ownership and gun permit exempted from Miranda? Was the post-Miranda question and response contaminated?

Before such exploration, it would be useful to recall that Miranda was clearly directed at custodial interrogation, that is, on a case-by-case analysis, where one is in custody, where he is deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. Miranda was not meant to preclude police from carrying out their traditional investigatory function of investigating crime, including general on-the-scene questioning as to the facts surrounding a crime, and Miranda did not in any way bar volunteered statements of any kind.

The sole question asked by the hospital security officer regarding the auto's ownership was made openly in an on-the-scene setting, i.e., a hospital parking lot open to the public. Such type of confrontation does not approach the custodial environment or atmosphere envisioned by Miranda.

Further, the limited routine questions, although having the potential of producing an incriminating statement from a suspect, does not appear to be an interrogation as that term was addressed in Miranda.

Defendant's affirmative response concerning the auto's ownership and his opening of the car and his turning the gun over to the security officer, for whatever assigned reason, whether defendant was naive or trying to curry favor or understanding, etc., appears to have been voluntarily made and thereby exempted from Miranda requirements.

In summary: the parking lot setting was not of a custodial character; the security officer's inquiry was of a routine investigatory nature; and the defendant's response was voluntarily made (the court notes that the defendant himself was a security guard at the same hospital). Defendant should have been aware of the lack of custodial restraint concerning the confrontation in the parking lot, as he was allowed to leave the parking lot scene prior to the arrival of the city police.

For the purpose of determining when Miranda safeguards are required, i.e., when a custodial setting is in effect, which deprives freedom of action in any significant way, it is not a suspect's objective belief that is determinative but that of the perverbial reasonable man, innocent of any crime; what he would have thought had he been in the suspect's shoes. In applying this test, the court concludes that defendant's contention of being under custodial restraint was not substantiated by the facts, nor by what a reasonable man, innocent of any crime, would have thought.

On the Pre- Miranda Statements made to the Police:

On defendant's parking lot statements to the New York City Police, the court, with respect to statements made to the private security officer, also finds that the limited and routine inquiries and responses thereto are exempt from the necessity of Miranda safeguards.

When the New York City police arrived on the scene, they were handed the gun by the security officer. The New York City Police Officer asked the defendant the following questions: Was the auto his? Was this his handgun? Did he have a permit for the gun? The questioning represents routine investigative inquiries necessary in ascertaining facts.

According to the court, the inquiries are specifically exempted from Miranda requirements. Miranda excludes "general on-the-scene questioning as to facts surrounding a crime or other questioning of citizens in the fact finding process". Defendant's responsive on-the-scene statements were the product of a routine on-the-scene fact-finding inquiry. Until defendant's responses were made, he was not in custody and any of his statements were voluntarily made. The court notes that the officer, upon receipt of affirmative replies to his routine inquiries, arrested the defendant, he placed him in the police car and read him his Miranda safeguards.

Defendant's statement, after receiving his Miranda warnings, about having gotten the gun down south, does not seem improper or contaminated in any way as it was preceded by probable cause to arrest.

On the Seizure of the Gun by a Private Security Officer:

Here, the hospital security officer was involved in a coordinated law enforcement objective with the New York City Police and, therefore, his behavior must stand the muster of constitutional scrutiny. The court must now examine the defendant's turning over of the gun to him.

On the issue concerning the voluntarily made statements, etc., the court concludes that the seizure of the gun from the auto in the parking lot after the car was opened by defendant, it was made with defendant's full consent, the consent to the search and seizure by the security officer was given fully and voluntarily in all, and the seizure by the security officer was made incidental to defendant's lawful arrest by the police.

In conclusion:

Under circumstances evidencing a simple and brief but coordinated police-private investigation venture, involving hospital security officers and the New York City Police Department, the court concludes that the action by the hospital security officer should be subject to federal-state constitutional scrutiny.

Even though the action is found subject to constitutional scrutiny, it is determined by a showing of clear and convincing evidence that the seizure of the gun by the hospital security officer was not improper but rested upon defendant's consent freely and voluntarily made and was incidental to a lawful arrest made shortly after seizure by the New York City Police. It is further determined, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the limited on-the-scene investigatory questions (one by the security officer and three by the New York City Police) and defendant's responses thereto, were voluntarily made within the meaning of the rules and were not made in a custodial setting or under other circumstances requiring the administration of Miranda warnings. Further, that the post-Miranda question and response was properly made and was preceded by a probable cause to arrest.

Henceforth, the motions to suppress physical evidence and statements are denied.

To know more of the legal nuts and bolts on arrests involving Miranda issues, get in touch with a Queens County Arrest Attorney. Enlighten yourself of the legal remedies available in these types of situations by seeking legal advice with a Queens County Criminal Attorney. Whether you have been charged with theft, drugs or sex crimes, contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates for the assistance you need and have a free consultation with our lawyers.

The Facts:

Defendant, his brother, and another man entered the house of a woman and robbed her at gunpoint. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the woman identified defendant as the one who wielded the gun during the robbery. A police officer was on patrol when he saw three men run out of the woman’s house, followed by her screaming for help. The officer gave chase and managed to arrest the brother, who was found to have a loaded revolver in his front pocket. The brother provided defendant's name and stated that the defendant had placed the gun in his pocket while they fled the woman’s residence.

Thereafter, defendant was arrested at his home. Upon arrest, defendant stated that the arresting officers got nothing on him and that they got the gun of his brother.
The seized revolver was tested and found operable.

Defendant presented evidence to show that it was not him but a third man who displayed the gun during the robbery and then placed it in his brother's pocket.

Defendant was charged as principal and accomplice on six counts: 3 counts of robbery in the first degree – forcibly steals property armed with a deadly weapon, used or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, and displayed what appeared to be a handgun, respectively; 1 count of robbery in the second degree – forcibly steals property aided by another person actually present; grand larceny in the third degree – steals property taken from the person of another; and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree – possession of a loaded firearm, a handgun crime or felony.

Defendant was convicted on 1 count of robbery in the first degree, 1 count of robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. He was acquitted on the 2 counts of robbery in the second degree.

Defendant moved to set aside the guilty verdicts as repugnant to the acquittals on the 2 counts of robbery in the second degree.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the jury had been instructed not to reach a verdict on the grand larceny charge if they convicted on any of the first four counts of robbery and criminal possession, thus, no claim of repugnancy was made on the basis of that differing result.

The Supreme Court ruled that there was no repugnancy between the verdicts on the robberies but that a guilty verdict on count criminal possession was repugnant to acquittal on the 2 counts of robbery in the first degree. The trial court reasoned that each of the robbery counts involved different elements so that one could be found guilty or not guilty on the various charges without any inconsistency. However, that court continued, it is illogical to acquit on the 2 counts of robbery in the first degree, but finds that the defendant possessed a loaded handgun at the time.

Consequently, the jury's verdict was sustained except as to criminal possession, which was set aside.

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the decision, without opinion.

On appeal, defendant argues that the jury's acquittal on the two counts of robbery in the first degree, when considered with the conviction on the charge of criminal possession, must have been based on a determination that no "forcible stealing" occurred; that the verdicts on 1 count of robbery in the first degree and 1 count of robbery in the second degree would have to be rejected as an essential element of each crime would have been negated.

The Ruling:

The court finds that the defendant's argument is not persuasive.
The problem of repugnant, or inconsistent, verdicts has long plagued the common law. Many jurisdictions precluded any judgment of conviction if the verdicts were inconsistent. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer commented that American courts have divided on the question, with the majority accepting that the conviction is valid, albeit inconsistent.

Whether verdicts are described as "repugnant" or "inconsistent" is substantively inconsequential and so the two terms are used interchangeably here. The critical concern is that an individual should not be convicted for a crime on which the jury has actually found that the defendant did not commit an essential element, whether it is one element or all. Allowing such a verdict to stand is not merely inconsistent with justice, but is repugnant to it.

The genesis of repugnancy problems lies in the submission to the jury of alternative theories of guilt, in the form of different counts, based upon the same evidence. The problem often occurs when the jury convicts the defendant on one count and acquits on another, but the verdicts are illogical when viewed in light of the proof adduced. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that he difficulty stems from the jury's implicit finding that the essential elements of one crime were proven, while one or more of the same elements were not proven for the other crime.

Under the rules, there are two approaches for determining whether jury verdicts are repugnant. First, the court would review the record in toto so as to consider all the evidence and discover the underlying basis of the jury's determination, whereupon the reviewing court can determine the logic or illogic of the verdicts and remedy the repugnancy when it exists. Second, looking to the record only to review the jury charge so as to ascertain what essential elements were described by the trial court; then, the alleged inconsistent verdicts will be harmonized on the basis of the jury charge. Under this approach, a conviction will be reversed only in those instances where acquittal on one crime as charged to the jury is conclusive as to a necessary element of the other crime, as charged, for which the guilty verdict was rendered.
There is a compelling policy reason for preferring the second method of analysis. The first approach, by its very nature, requires the court to intrude into the jury's deliberative process by speculating on how the jury perceived and weighed the evidence. The court's reluctance to do so is generally reflected by limiting attacks on jury verdicts to showing improper influence, while excluding for purpose of impeachment "proof of the tenor of deliberations". The problems of second-guessing are compounded by the possibility that the jury has not necessarily acted irrationally, but has exercised mercy. When the jury has decided to show lenity to the defendant, an accepted power of the jury, the court should not then undermine the jury's role and participation by setting aside the verdict.

Hence, the record should be reviewed only as to the jury charge. Even that review of the jury charge will be restricted in its scope. It does not contemplate a consideration of the accuracy of the charge. The instructions to the jury will be examined only to determine whether the jury, as instructed, must have reached an inherently self-contradictory verdict.

Here, defendant's convictions for robbery can be affirmed only if there was a basis for distinguishing among the various "weaponry" elements of the 3 counts of robbery and criminal possession. The instructions to the jury closely matched the basic definitions provided by law. The only material discrepancy was that the court did not explain that a conviction on the sixth count would be inappropriate unless the jury found that the gun was operable. Once deliberations begin, the jury may freely reject evidence and exercise its mercy function. It could find, however illogically, that the gun's capability to fire was not proven. Not having been instructed that the capability to fire is also an essential element of the possession charge, there would be no inherent inconsistency in the acquittals on the 2 counts of robbery in the first degree, both of which require a finding of operability, and the conviction on criminal possession.

As each count is treated separately with the varying burdens and degrees of proof being taken into consideration, there is no incompatibility between the verdicts on the issue of operability. In considering the 2 counts of robbery in the first degree, the jury could conclude that the prosecutor failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the gun was capable of firing, and therefore acquit. The jury could also conclude without self-contradiction that the People had carried its burden in proving that defendant displayed what appeared to be a handgun, necessary to 1 count of robbery in the second degree, but that defendant had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it was inoperable.

In terms of the essential elements of the underlying charges, the verdicts on 1 count of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession are inconsistent when viewed in light of the convictions on another count of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second e. Implicit in the robbery convictions was a finding that defendant forcibly stole property. The acquittal on the first count of robbery in the first degree, then, would require that the jury concluded that the prosecutor failed to prove that the gun was either loaded or operable. Thus, a conviction on criminal possession would be legally inconsistent as the jury would have found that the gun was loaded and operable. However, as noted, the jury was not adequately apprised of the legal elements necessary to support a conviction on criminal possession. Henceforth, no actual inconsistency has been presented.

Accordingly, defendant was not entitled to dismissal of the robbery counts.

In addition, defendant argues error to the jury instructions. However, defendant admittedly failed to object to the instruction at trial. Consequently, that issue has not been preserved and the court cannot rule on it.

In all, the order of the Appellate Division is affirmed. When there is a claim that repugnant jury verdicts have been rendered in response to a multiple-count indictment, a verdict as to a particular count shall be set aside only when it is inherently inconsistent when viewed in light of the elements of each crime as charged to the jury. Review of the entire record in an attempt to divine the jury's collective mental process of weighing the evidence is inappropriate.

For assistance with issues similar to the above, contact a New York City Criminal Lawyer at Stephen Bilkis & Associates. We provide free consultations with our legal experts. A New York City Possession of a Weapon Lawyer from our firm is willing and ready to assist you with your legal problems.

Three men committed class B felonies involving narcotics and were sentenced to undetermined prison terms under the Rockefeller drug laws which governed sentencing of drug offenders. A New York Criminal Lawyer said two of them received sentences of 2 to 6 years and the other man was sentenced with 5 to 10 years. All were paroled but violated it and all of them were sent back to prison. After the enactment of the drug law reform act of 2009, the three men applied for resentencing.

Based on records, the drug law reform act of 2009 allows certain prisoners sentenced under the so-called Rockefeller drug laws to be resentenced. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the court hold that prisoners who have been paroled and then re-incarcerated for violating their parole are not for that reason to banned from seeking relief under the law.

Further, the drug law reform act of 2009 is codified. It permits people imprisoned for class B drug felonies committed while the Rockefeller Drug Laws were in force to apply to be resentenced under the current, less severe, sentencing regime. It was stated that any person in the custody of the department of correctional services convicted of a class B felony offense defined in the law which was committed prior to January thirteenth, who is serving an indeterminate sentence with a maximum term of more than three years, may except as provided in the law, upon notice to the appropriate district attorney, apply to be resentenced to a determinate sentence in accordance with sections of the penal law in the court which imposed the sentence.

The Supreme Court denied the applications of the three men, holding the relief under the criminal law that it was not available to re-incarcerated parole violators. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that on part of the two men, the appellate division agreed with the conclusion and affirmed. The appeal of the other man was reversed by the appellate division, holding that the drug law reform act of 2009 did not render parole violators ineligible to apply for resentencing.

The jury argues that the two men’s cases are also arguable but the court disagrees. Even if the first man’s maximum sentence for his original drug crime conviction has now expired, he was sentenced in another case involving a later crime while he was still imprisoned on the earlier charge. If he is resentenced on the earlier charge, that resentencing could affect the time credited toward his later sentence. As for the second man, the expiration date of his maximum sentence has not been reached. He has again been released on parole and that release does not defeat the application for resentencing that he made while still in prison. The court of appeals retains control with the two men.

The two men fit squarely within the text of the drug law reform act of 2009. Both were, when they applied for resentencing, in the custody of the department of correctional services and both were convicted of class B felonies defined in the penal law as offenses committed on controlled substances. Both were serving indeterminate sentences with a maximum exceeding three years and the exceptions do not apply to them. A New York Sex Crime Lawyer said the section excludes from the coverage of the drug law reform act of 2009 anyone serving a sentence, or having a predicate felony conviction, for a crime designated an exclusion offense, nothing in the subdivision of the law refers to the parole status of an offender.

Consequently, the appellate division orders that the two men’s case decision should be reversed. Further, the cases remitted to Supreme Court were for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion. The appeal of the other man is dismissed.

If you made unlawful actions and later realized that you wanted to change for the better, you can ask the services of the Bronx Criminal Attorneys. The team can offer immediate assessment of your lawsuit. If you wish to put your drug related cases behind you, you or your family member may seek the advice of Bronx Drug Lawyers at Stephen Bilkis and Associates.

The accused parties filed motions to dismiss the charges against them of criminal solicitation on the ground that there exists some jurisdictional or legal impediment to their conviction and on the ground that the accusatory instruments are defective. The Court grants the motions to dismiss the charges of criminal solicitation.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said all of the accused were arrested on various streets in the City of Rochester allegedly attempting to buy small amounts of marijuana. The place has become known as open-air drug markets where marijuana, cocaine and heroin can be purchased on the streets. In some areas cocaine possession and heroin possession with intent to sell are rampant. Those who live and work in those areas have become frustrated at the misuse of their neighborhoods for drug activity, that activity bringing with it increased public safety concerns for themselves and their families. The potential for violence in connection with the open-air drug trafficking was illustrated and underscored with the murder of a resident of the surrounding suburb of Penfield, New York. He was shot to death while reportedly attempting to purchase marijuana in one of the open-air drug markets.

In response to the public safety concerns of the neighborhoods, and in direct response to the murder, the City of Rochester Police Department began to station undercover police officers on the various streets with reputations for being open-air drug markets (drug possession). The officers then arrested individuals who approached them attempting to buy marijuana and other drugs. In the cases before the Court, all of the accused were charged with criminal solicitation in the fifth degree, a violation punishable by a maximum of 15 days in jail. The information alleges either that the accused were soliciting the officers to sell them marijuana, or were attempting to buy a marijuana-type substance or fake marijuana.

The activities of the Rochester Police in the so-called sting operations were highly publicized in the media and well received by the citizens of the city, particularly those in the neighborhoods most directly affected who had felt frustrated at the seemingly endless supply of individuals from throughout the rest of the city and suburbs who were venturing into their neighborhoods to buy drugs with no apparent consequences. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said the operation seemed to relieve the shared frustration of neighbors with very real concerns and fears about the atmosphere and actuality of danger that the drug markets bring and that of the police in their efforts to respond to the very real public safety concerns of citizens in the neighborhoods adversely affected. The police were responding as well to public safety concerns for those traveling to the neighborhoods to feed their habits, the very individuals who cause the open-air markets to exist and thrive.

The Court applauds the interest of the neighbors and the police and their determination to eliminate the open-air drug markets. Unfortunately, the laws of the State of New York do not include any statute or combination of statutes that would allow for the prosecution of these accused for the conduct alleged. On the contrary, the exemption statute in the section of the Penal Law that governs prosecutions for criminal solicitation states specifically that under certain situations, a person is not guilty of criminal solicitation. For such reason, the accused party’s motions to dismiss the charges of criminal solicitation in the fifth degree must be granted in the cases where the information alleges the accused solicited the undercover police officers to sell them marijuana. The cases in which the information alleges the accused were attempting to buy a marijuana-type substance or fake marijuana was dismissed because the information is defective. The law state that a person is guilty of criminal solicitation in the fifth degree when with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a drug crime, he solicits, requests, commands, importunes or otherwise attempts to cause such other person to engage in such conduct.

Criminal solicitation in the fifth degree is a violation. In order for a person to be found guilty of any degree of criminal solicitation, it is not necessary that the person solicited engage in any criminal law violation activity or even any preparation for any criminal activity. The gravamen of criminal solicitation is the request or other attempt by the accused to the person solicited to engage in criminal conduct.

The allegations are that the accused solicited the undercover officers to sell them marijuana the people have alleged the necessary elements, that the accused intended that the undercover officers sell them marijuana, and that they solicited the undercover officers to sell them marijuana.

The Court believes that a violation of criminal solicitation in the fifth degree is sufficiently pleaded in the cases. Unfortunately, the inquiry does not end there. The criminal solicitation section of the Penal Law contains an exemption provision that must be considered in determining whether or not an accused may be found guilty of any degree of criminal solicitation. That exemption is the result of a determination by the State Legislature that not all requests of another to engage in conduct constituting a drug crime would be punished as criminal solicitation. The exemption section states that a person is not guilty of criminal solicitation when his solicitation constitutes conduct of a kind that is necessarily incidental to the commission of the crime solicited. When under such circumstances the solicitation constitutes an offense other than criminal solicitation which is related to but separate from the crime solicited, the actor is guilty of such related and separate offense only and not of criminal solicitation.

The exemption statute mandates that a person IS NOT GUILTY when the conduct of that accused in the solicitation is necessarily incidental to the commission of the crime solicited. Therefore, the question is whether the requests by the accused to the undercover police officers to sell them marijuana are necessarily incidental to the sale of marijuana, since it is the sale of marijuana that is alleged to be the criminal conduct that the accused are trying to get another person to engage in.

The accused could have been found guilty of the related charge of attempted marijuana possession, though not criminal solicitation, if the amount solicited had been in excess of twenty-five grams, the amount necessary before marijuana possession can establish a criminal charge by volume alone. They were not charged with attempted marijuana possession, presumably because the amounts solicited were too small. The accused could not have been charged with the attempt to possess amounts smaller than twenty-five grams because such crack possessions would, by law, constitute only violations. Under New York law, an attempt to commit a violation is neither an offense nor a crime.

By definition, therefore, a sale involves two parties, the one actually doing the selling or exchanging and another who receives or is intended to receive the marijuana. In these cases a sale of marijuana, by virtue of Penal Law, requires the existence of another person--the person to whom the transfer is made. In these cases the required another person are the accused and their conduct in soliciting the sale is, the Court finds, necessarily incidental to the sales of marijuana they were alleged to intend the police officers to commit. The exemption statute of the Penal Law therefore prohibits, as a matter of law, any finding of guilt in the cases. They are dismissed, pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law and Penal Law.

It is every person’s duty to make our world a safe place for the children. In a community where drug sales tend be common activities, we jeopardize not only the children’s safety but the whole community as well. When you want to pursue a drug related action, call the New York Drug Crime Lawyers of Stephen Bilkis and Associates. Whether you have been charged with sex crimes, drug possession or theft, the most competent team of NY Criminal Law Attorneys can also provide you with your much needed guidance with regard to your crime related legal actions.

Issues surrounding search warrants can become complicated, especially if the court that issues the search warrant is not sure if they are even able to issue a search warrant. On September 25, 2003, an associate village justice signed a search warrant for a building inspector. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the building inspector was seeking to inspect a single family home in the Village of Westbury that he believed was being used as a multiple family dwelling. He had conducted several days of observation of the dwelling and noticed that there were two entrances, one entrance into the home in the front of the house and one entrance in the back.

There were eight bicycles parked in back, and six cars parked in front. The garbage was deposited on the curb in front of the house, and more was located at the back door. The estimated garbage load was four to five times the amount that the garbage collector stated that he collected from other houses. The building inspector had received several complaints from the neighbors based on the number of people who were living in the dwelling. The estimate was around 17. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the building inspector, who had previously worked in a different village, was familiar with obtaining search warrants in his previous village. He had attempted to inspect the property on numerous occasions and he had been denied entry. He counted the number of people going in and out of the residence. The cars were registered to that address, but they had owners with several different last names.

The justice authorized the warrant for a police officer of Nassau County. The warrant specifically detailed that the evidence to be collected was to be limited to photographs of evidence that the house had been converted into a multiple family dwelling. When the warrant was served, it was served on the house at six in the morning. Several of the people who were living in the house were only partially clothed. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the officers took photographs documenting the locks on each room that denoted private living quarters inside the single family dwelling. They documented exposed wiring, plumbing, and other dangerous additions that had been made so that multiple people could reside in the single family home. In these pictures were some of the residents of the house, some of them were only partially clothed.

The building inspector had notified the police department of the warrant. The building inspector was accompanied on the warrant by several uniformed police officers; some remained outside the residence during the search, others came inside the residence. The officers interrogated the residents of the house and took statements from them in reference to the amount of rent that they paid, and how many people shared a room. The owners of the house were cited for the violations and the officers left the location. When the case came to court, the Justice who heard the case was concerned for several reasons.

He stated that his first concern was if a village court had jurisdiction to create a warrant at all. If the warrant was not valid, then the search was not valid. He was expressly concerned about the plight of illegal Hispanics who are trapped into boarding houses that are run illegally and that force them to pay large amounts to reside in slum conditions. The Justice was concerned about all of the people being evicted from this house and where they would go.

Ultimately, the justice determined that since the offenses that were committed were building code violations, the violations fell into village court. The problem was that most of the village justices are not lawyers. The determination was made that any search warrants needed to be obtained by full time magistrates who had legal training and not by village justices. The evidence was suppressed and the case referred for processing.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates is a Criminal Lawyer with convenient offices throughout New York and the Metropolitan area our attorneys are available to help you, whether you have been charged with sex crimes, theft, or drug possession. Village Court issues are confusing. Our Nassau Criminal lawyers can provide you with advice to guide you through any situation.

One day a woman and her husband parked their automobile alongside a river. While picnicking in their car, two men in a light blue vehicle drove up beside them. One of the men exited their car, approached the couple’s vehicle, pointed a shotgun on the husband’s head and demanded money. The other individual, who wears a mask, approached the woman. The man opened the car’s door, grabbed the woman’s purse and pulled her out the vehicle.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the unmasked assailant then approached the woman and shot her in the face. The assailant left the scene and the woman eventually returned to their vehicle. The police and an ambulance arrived and brought the woman to the hospital for treatment.

A police investigation of the shooting proceeded. The police, however, failed to recover any physical evidence from the scene. A single latent fingerprint was recovered from the victims' car and subsequent analysis revealed that the print matched neither that of the victims nor of the attackers. The video surveillance of the area revealed images of a light blue vehicle approaches the couple’s car and later departed. Consequently, the woman initially gave a description of her attacker.

A convergence of investigative events eventually led to the assailant’s arrest. During the investigation, the police developed information connecting the assailants to a local robbery. A 20 gauge shotgun was stolen from the victims' home during the said incident. Additionally, the police connected the assailant’s to the recent theft of a car, allegedly stolen a day or two before the couple’s attack. The police found the vehicle abandoned near the assailant's home. The gun and the stolen car were similar to those used in the couple’s attack.

During the course of the investigation of another unrelated local home invasion, a police arrested a man. Following to that arrest, the man told the police that the alleged assailant and his brother were responsible on the couple’s robbery. The arrested man told police that the brother admitted that he shot a lady in the face for $25. Based on all the information, the detective arrested the man and his brother for the shooting. A county grand jury issued multi count charges against both brothers for crimes stemming from the incident.

The brother of the alleged assailant elected to plead guilty to the incident. On his statement, he said that along with another individual, they robbed the couple, then retreated to a house and divided the proceeds. The assailant, however, proceeded to trial. A Bronx Criminal Lawyer said the woman testified at the trial and she was unable to identify the man but she described the circumstances surrounding the incident. Her story matched the account of the brother on his statement. The trial court permitted to read a redacted version of the brother’s allocution into evidence. The court also called the arrested man from unrelated local home invasion to testify against the assailant. The arrested man indicated that he knew both the alleged assailant and the assailant brother, as friends. He testified that on the day of the couple’s shooting, he encountered both brothers at the house and the alleged assailant admitted that he shot a lady earlier that day.

The jury convicted the assailant man of attempted murder, two counts of robbery in the first degree, two counts of assault in the first degree, and one count of robbery in the second degree.

On appeal, the appellate division modified the assailant sentence and confirmed his conviction. Further, the court’s reverse the decision of granting the assailants leave to appeal. Consequently, the court of appeal ordered that the appellate division’s decision should be reversed and a new trial is also ordered.

If your love one suffered physical pain, emotional distress and mental trauma because of an incident arising from an individual’s unlawful action and you want to provide justice, feel free to call a NY Criminal Lawyer for legal assistance. Whether you your case involves theft, sex crimes or drug possession, our legal team can help!

A man was convicted of gun crime murder of another man whom he personally knew. The murder occurred one Sunday of March 1975 at two o'clock in the morning. A woman, who is a sole nonparticipant eyewitness to the gun crime, lived in a one-family residence on the north side of the crime scene. A New York Criminal Lawyer said she was in her early forties and did not wear eyeglasses. During the week she was a government postal employee and had a part-time job delivering newspapers every Sundays.

One Sunday morning, the witness planned to arise at 2:00 A.M. and set her alarm clock accordingly. Just before the alarm went off, she heard a noise that sounded like a fire cracker but when she got up and looked, she saw what it was. She turned off the alarm and walked to her front door, a matter of only a few steps. The interior of the house was in complete darkness.

An automobile was parked right outside her house, on the north side of the street, facing west. Illumination was provided by a mercury vapor overhead streetlight. The car was parked under the light. The witness viewed the killing from about 80 feet away.

She recognized the gun man from having seen him in the neighborhood on several occasions. A New York Criminal Lawyer said she was at first reluctant to admit to the police that she had recognized him, for fear of reprisal, but finally did admit it and testified against the accused at the trial.

She testified that she saw an individual standing alongside of a car firing a gun. She then pointed out the accused in the courtroom. She also said that a few minutes later, after she had dressed, she went out and saw the victim lying dead in the street. She notified the police immediately. In the course of the police investigation, the accused, in a signed statement, admitted to the police that he was present at the scene during the murder. In his statement, however, he claimed another man was the killer but no such person was ever found.

The accused was convicted and when he appeared for sentence he claimed that a fellow inmate at the Nassau County Jail was the real murderer. The accused said he knew his fellow inmate committed the crime when it first happened but that the fellow inmate admitted his involvement only after the accused was found guilty.

At the hearing on the accused man’s application to set aside the judgment, it was incumbent upon him to prove by a prevalence of the evidence every fact essential to support the motion. The accused called his fellow inmate, who testified that he came upon the deceased who was shot, for whom he allegedly harbored resentment because of some recent unpleasantness between them. The deceased victim was in the company of the accused. The fellow inmate shot the deceased man but missed then again fired three shots that killed him. The fellow inmate thereupon left the scene by going west to Brush Hollow Road. The fellow inmate claimed he knew the accused from the street and the accused knew his fellow inmate in the same way.

When asked by the defense attorney why he was trying to free the accused from blame and to take the blame for the killing, the fellow inmate responded that all he wants to do is just tell the truth and if telling the truth gets him hung, he wants to die telling the truth.

Shortly after voicing his lofty sentiments and on cross-examination, the prosecutor elicited the fellow inmate’s criminal conviction record. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that at the age of 43, with more than half of his adult life-time spent in jail, he had acquired convictions and sentences for grand larceny, three or four felony assaults, robbery and an attempted murder. He was in jail on an assault charge and his memory of the details of the killing incident and the geography of the scene was something less than convincing and at great variance with the testimony given by the witness and the statement of the accused himself.

As one example, the fellow inmate said that he came upon the deceased man’s car from the rear to the east. But at the trial, the homicide squad detective testified that he had been told by the accused that the man he mentioned had approached from the west. Then the fellow inmate said that after he shot the deceased man, the shot man fled to the west. Both the witness and the accused himself said he fled to the east, in which event he would have had to run right by the fellow inmate.

The fellow inmate didn't know the color of his victim's car, although it was bathed in a bright illumination. Nor did he know if the deceased man sported a beard at the time. But he claimed that after shooting at the accused once and at the deceased three times, two with telling effect, he left the scene by going west on Park Avenue to Brush Hollow Road, again at variance with the testimony of the others then concededly present.

The accused, testifying in his own behalf at the hearing, said that he never knew that his fellow inmate was the killer until the latter confessed. When asked to explain his statement that he knew his fellow inmate committed the murder when it first happened, the accused replied that the District Attorney was interpreting his statement incorrectly and reiterated that he never knew his fellow inmate did the shooting until he confessed.

Over intense objection, the court would not permit the District Attorney to examine the accused as to whether he saw his fellow inmate on the night of the murder. It was in accordance to its determination that any questions posed to the accused about the events on the day of the criminal act would violate his privilege against self-incrimination.

The accused set himself upon the horns of a dilemma. On two occasions, first in a signed statement to the police and second at the subject hearing, he had placed himself at the scene of the crime at the time of the crime. If he was there, then he must have seen what happened. First he said it was another man who committed the murder; and whether the man is factual or suppositious remains unknown and according to the fellow inmate it was him.

The fellow inmate had nothing to lose by coming forward with his seemingly noble gesture. As a practical matter, the District Attorney cannot dignify his testimony by taking any affirmative action against him. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the jury had already proved the case against the accused before a jury beyond a reasonable doubt on eyewitness testimony. For the District Attorney to go before a Grand Jury to seek an indictment against the fellow inmate would lend verisimilitude to the fellow inmate’s testimony that the accused had nothing to do with the shooting of the deceased man.

The fellow inmate’s own testimony placed the accused at the scene, in a position to know of the fellow inmate’s purported involvement from the beginning. More significantly, the accused acknowledged prior to the hearing that he knew of his fellow inmate’s involvement when the crime first happened. Despite the inmate’s close proximity to the accused, the accused apparently made no effort to investigate his fellow inmate’s purported involvement.

The jury, at the trial of the indictment charging the accused with the crime of murder, had before it the testimony of the witness and the statements given by the accused to the police. They elected to believe the witness, who appeared as a disinterested witness. They accepted her testimony that there were only two persons at the murder scene, the slayer and the slain.

The story concocted by the accused and his fellow inmate transcends belief and shows a definite lack of due diligence in bringing the issue to the attention of the police authorities.
When people become victims of criminal acts, it would be a blessing to find a witness who would stand and give time and effort to make sure that those who committed the crime would be punished. But when witness’ testimonies are jeopardized due to other people’s false statements, Nassau County Criminal Lawyers together with Nassau County Arrest Attorneys can help you explore your options with regard to your legal actions.

Two plainclothes police officers were sitting in an unmarked car which was parked near a high crime area just outside a bar. For the past two weeks prior to the incident, there had been hold-ups in the neighborhood. They noticed a car with African-American males in it slow down in front of the bar and stop their car briefly. A New York Criminal Lawyer said they looked around and all three occupants of the car stared at the bar.

The police officer followed the car. The car stopped at a stop sign. And the car went again and slowed down in front of another bar. They briefly paused in front of the bar and all the males stared at the bar. Then they went on their way. The police car still followed them for half a block and then the police officer stopped the car.

The police officer asked for the license and registration. The driver of the car got out of the car and tried to explain to the police officer that he had forgotten his wallet in the house. The other two passengers in the car bent down over their seats. The other two men didn’t have any IDs either.

The police officer began asking questions of the driver. He noticed that the driver had both of his hands in his pockets. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the police officer asked him to take his hands from his pockets. When the driver complied, the police officer noticed that something bulged in the driver’s pockets. He patted down the driver and felt that the bulge in his pocket seemed metallic. The police officer asked the driver to turn out his pockets. The driver had .25 caliber bullets. The police officers searched the car and found a gun under the front seat. The plainclothes officers arrested the three African-American men.

The men were charged and convicted of criminal possession of a weapon. The men pleaded guilty to a lesser offense and were sentenced to probation. The three men were tried separately. The driver moved to suppress the physical evidence obtained against him as a consequence of an illegal stop and an illegal search of his vehicle. But his motion was denied. The driver was consequently convicted. The driver appealed his conviction for criminal possession of a weapon as a misdemeanor on the ground that the physical evidence presented against him were fruits of a poisoned tree since the police had no probable cause to stop his vehicle.

The Court found that the initial stop was not valid. The plainclothes police officer who arrested the three African-American males testified that when he was following the three males in their car, he stopped them because he just had a feeling that a crime was about to be committed.
A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said there was nothing suspicious about driving slowly near a bar and staring into a bar. There is nothing from that act that would make a reasonable man think that a crime is being committed. The stop was then not valid as there was no probable cause. The subsequent pat down of the driver and the discovery of the .25 caliber bullets was also not valid. The .25 caliber bullets should not have been admitted into evidence. The subsequent search of the car after the .25 caliber bullets were found was also not valid. The gun discovered under the front seat should not have been admitted as evidence against the driver.

Since there is no admissible evidence against the driver that could prove his guilty beyond reasonable doubt, the criminal indictment must be dismissed. His conviction must be reversed and he must be acquitted.

Were you routinely pulled over by a police officer? At the routine stop, did the police officer pat you down and search your car? Did the police officer find a gun during his search of the car? Whether you have been charged with a gun crime, sex crimes or theft, contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice and a free consultation.

The police officers of the 32nd precinct in New York City were assigned to conduct surveillance over the corner of 128th Street and 8th Avenue because this was known as a high-drug crime area. Many arrests for cocaine possession and heroin possession have been made at this corner.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that tne police officer saw perched atop a condemned building, holding binoculars and observing the goings on at the street corner. His partner was near the street corner, waiting for a signal from his partner on the rooftop.

At 1:30 pm of February 26, 1977, the police officer on the rooftop saw one man at the corner. Most passersby hurry on by but that man stayed put. He kept having brief conversations with those who come by him but those people moved on. The man stayed. The officer observed the man for forty-five minutes.

At 2:25 pm, a man wearing a leather jacket came and spoke to the man standing on the street corner. After a brief conversation, he saw the man he had been observing for forty-five minutes reach into his right breast pocket and hand a small plastic sachet to the man in the leather jacket. The officer did not see money change hands.

The police officer radioed his partner who tailed the man in the leather jacket and arrested him. The police officer atop the building also came down from his perch and arrested the man standing at the street corner. After the man was placed under arrest, the officer patted him down and found more plastic sachets in the same right breast pocket.

At the station, the man admitted to the arresting police officers that he had on him sixteen plastic sachets. The police laboratory analyzed the contents of the sachets and found them to contain heroin.
The man was charged with drug possession and sale. He was arraigned and he immediately moved for the suppression of the plastic sachets as evidence. The man contended that when he was arrested, the police officer atop the building had no probable cause. And so the evidence obtained on occasion of a search and arrest without probable cause should be suppressed.
The trial court held a hearing and the judge ruled that there was probable cause and so denied the motion for suppression of the plastic sachets. The defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress.

The only question before the Court is whether or not the police officer had probable cause to approach and arrest the defendant after he saw just the passing of the plastic sachet.
A NY Criminal Lawyer said the Court held that while by itself the passing of plastic sachets is not enough to find that there was probable cause, the peculiar circumstances of this case favor a finding that there was probable cause.

First, the police officer was not a rookie cop. He had been a member of the 32nd precinct for seven years. He had collared 100 suspects and seventy-five of them had been involved in heroin possession and sale. Of these heroin arrests, forty took place at the same corner. Twenty-five arrests for heroin possession were made from personal observations he himself conducted using binoculars from a remote location.

Probable cause doesn’t mean that the officer was very sure that a sale of heroin had just taken place. He only needs to be reasonably sure that a heroin sale had probably taken place and his basis would be his personal experience.

The circumstance of the mere passing of a plastic sachet, taken by itself, in isolation, might not mean anything; but if this one circumstance were placed in context of the other facts observed by the police officer, then the totality of the circumstance shed light on the existence of probable cause.

Are you facing charges for the heroin possession, sex crimes or theft? You need to be represented by a New York City Drug Lawyer. You need the advice and assistance of a New York Drug attorney who can explain to you your legal options. At Stephen Bilkis and Associates, their NYC Drug lawyers are ready, willing and able to present evidence in your behalf. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates today, see their NY Drug attorneys at any of their offices in the New York area.

One early morning in August of the year 2000, a police officer and his partner were on patrol in uniform in a marked patrol car. The officer testified that he had been a member of the New York City Police Department for four years and had made approximately 10 arrests involving cocaine possession or marijuana possession, had received training with respect to narcotics and marijuana at the police academy, and been involved in over 100 criminal law and drug crime related arrests. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the officer also testified that he considered interaction with criminals as part of his training on the subject of narcotics, and that he had been involved with hundreds of suspects who were under the influence of alcohol or marijuana. Specifically, the officer testified that he had seen loose tobacco in piles in stairwells, on sidewalks, and most commonly alongside glassine envelopes, and based upon these experiences as a police officer, he had learned that the presence of loose tobacco was a result of an individual emptying out a Philly Blunt cigar and refilling it with marijuana and/or cocaine.

At approximately 4:00 A.M. on August 7, while in the patrol car, the officer observed the accused standing next to a parked automobile. The car was parked on the parking apron in front of a closed auto repair shop. The officer testified that the location is in the vicinity of a nightclub. The officer testified that the neighborhood near this club is patrolled more heavily because there are a lot of problems that stem from the said nightclub. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the the officer stopped at a red light, he saw the accused standing outside the open driver's door, throwing garbage over his shoulder which landed several feet behind him. The officer also observed a passenger in the front seat of the car.

The officer pulled his patrol car into the lot behind the accused man’s vehicle and approached the accused. The accused apologized for throwing the trash and began picking it up. The officer asked the accused for his license, registration and insurance. The officer asked the accused whose car it was and the accused responded that it was his car. The accused then gave the officer a New Jersey license which had the name and bore his photograph. The officer observed that the accused had glassy eyes, was unsteady on his feet, had trouble responding to the officer's questions, and had slurred speech. The passenger of the car had exited the car and began yelling at the officer.

While still standing outside the accused man’s car, the officer looked inside the open driver's side door of the car and saw loose tobacco strewn on the front passenger seat and on the center console between the two front bucket seats. The officer asked the accused if he could search the car and he said no. The officer entered the car, opened the center console, and found four bags of marijuana and one bag of cocaine. The officer did not search any other part of the car. The accused and the passenger were then placed under arrest. The officer asked the accused if the drugs belonged to him and he answered no and continued to deny that the drugs were his. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the accused also stated that the other person should be placed under arrest.

The accused and the passenger were taken to the precinct for processing. As the officer was searching the accused, he repeatedly stated to the officer that he wanted to talk to him. The officer told the accused it was too late whereupon he already stated that the drugs belonged to him and that they didn't belong to the other person in the car.

The officer recovered another driver's license during the arrest processing search of the accused. The accused had a second New Jersey license with his photograph and a different name. The officer stated to the accused to be straight with him and that there was an additional charge to lie. The accused stated that the first license bearing another name was the correct one. The officer testified that it didn't add up and asked the accused his date of birth and addresses, but he wasn't answering straight. The accused stated to the officer that the first license was not his and he told the officer that he had gone to New Jersey Motor Vehicles with his cousin's information and obtained that license.

The accused was processed through Central Booking and brought to the District Attorney's Office. The same day, the accused was read his Miranda warnings by the Assistant District Attorney to which he answered yes after each question. The accused made written and oral statements to the officer and the Assistant District Attorney regarding the drugs, the licenses, and the other man in the car.

The accused argues that his behavior and the subsequent observations of the tobacco-pile in the car are insufficient to establish probable cause for the police officer to search the car. The standard for probable cause justifying a search or seizure is not the same as that to establish guilt. Probable cause is defined as the body of information available to a police officer who would lead a reasonable person who possesses the same expertise as the officer to conclude, under the circumstances, that a crime is being or was committed. Since the Fourth Amendment's commands are practical and not abstract, they must be interpreted in a commonsense and realistic fashion.

Battlefield experience gained from the war on drugs has prompted the courts to change their view on what constitutes probable cause. The jurisprudence in the area of observations of street drug transactions, for example, has moved beyond such niceties as distinctions based on the color or degree of opacity of the envelope to the point where the visual identification of the object exchanged for money is merely one element in the totality of the circumstances to be considered in any probable cause assessment. The courts have applied evolving tests to determine the hallmark of a drug transaction. A glassine envelope went from a mere telltale sign of heroin to the hallmark of an illicit drug exchange. Similarly, the tinfoil packet was soon recognized as the cocaine analogy of the glassine. In the mid-1980's, with the advent of crack/cocaine, the plastic vial joined the glassine envelope and tinfoil packet as a hallmark of drug activity. Over these two decades of increased drug trafficking, the courts realized that they cannot operate in a vacuum and cannot ignore developing modes and techniques of drug trafficking and use.

For the court to analyze the street encounters and apply the fluid concept of probable cause necessary in the drug trade, the court must increasingly rely on an officer's expertise in narcotics cases as well as the nature of certain neighborhoods and changing trends in marijuana possession and narcotics use and sale. In the 1980's, the courts focused on three factors they felt were relevant in determining probable cause: the hallmark or telltale sign of a drug-prone area, and the officer's expertise; later, the courts added the aspect of the container to determine probable cause. More recent case law holds that in a probable cause analysis, the emphasis should not be narrowly focused on a recognizable drug package or any other single factor, but on an evaluation of the totality of the circumstances, which takes into account the realities of everyday life unfolding before a trained officer.

The initial encounter by the police with the accused was proper. The observation of the accused man’s car in the parking apron in front of a closed auto repair shop at 4:00 A.M., where no car should have been, coupled with the accused throwing garbage on the street gave the police the common-law right to inquire. In fact, the right of the police to approach a stationary or parked car is analogous to the right to approach a citizen on the street to request information. The officer's request for information from the accused like the request for information from a citizen on the street is a minimal intrusion on the individual's right to privacy. There was no restraint on the accused man’s freedom nor had his movement been significantly interrupted. The officer possessed an objective and credible reason for approaching the accused and making inquiry after his initial observations and at that point did not need to have any indication of criminality.

The officer’s request for the license, registration and other papers was proper inquiry based on his initial observations combined with the subsequent observations that the accused was unsteady on his feet, had glassy eyes and slurred his speech. The officer also testified that the lot and shop were located near a club; the officer stated that the area required increased patrol because it was a problem. While a more amplified record would have been preferable, the court recognizes and may even take notice that the common problem associated with a club notorious in New York, is excessive drug use as well as other antisocial activity.

Therefore, the officer's knowledge of the area combined with the accused man’s inebriated or high condition elevated the officer's suspicion and gave him the right to inquire. Therefore, it was proper for the officer to request identification from the accused.

Based on records, no search occurred when the officer looked into the interior of the car. Police officers may look through car windows. The purpose of the officer's action is irrelevant as to whether his gaze was by accident or decision, the conduct does not constitute a search. The pile of loose tobacco inside the car seen by the officer, combined with all the other factors, gave the officer reasonable grounds to believe that a crime had been committed, and a level 3 detention and a forcible stop was therefore authorized.

While there are no direct cases regarding piles of tobacco, the court finds that the fluid concept of totality of the circumstances in establishing probable cause allows the court to recognize the events as indication of drug activity as it is carried out. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the indication of drug activity recognized by the courts is ever evolving, and is based on the actual practices of drug trade and consumption as they too evolve. The officer’s subsequent search of the console's interior was based upon probable cause and was therefore proper.

When the accused was placed under arrest and taken to the precinct for processing, he stated that he wanted to speak to the police. The unprompted accused stated to the officer that the drugs were his and not the other person's. Although he was in custody, the statements were spontaneous and not the subject of custodial interrogation and are admissible. Once at the precinct, the police had the authority to search the accused incident to a lawful arrest. The court finds the statements admissible. Pedigree information is a recognized exception to restriction on inquiry. It is also essential, after arrest, for the police to be able to properly complete their administrative duties. The search which turned up the second license, as a search incident to an arrest, was also proper.

The law is made with equal consideration for everyone, regardless of who we are and what we are. However, one person’s rights ends when other person’s rights begin. Police officers who arrest suspected criminals are trying to protect private individuals from harm. If you need a NY Drug Crime Attorney to defend you from controlled substance related arrest, or a New York Criminal Lawyer for your crime-related actions, feel free to call or visit the office of Stephen Bilkis and Associates.

Issues surrounding search warrants can become complicated, especially if the court that issues the search warrant is not sure if they are even able to issue a search warrant. On September 25, 2003, an associate village justice signed a search warrant for a building inspector. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the building inspector was seeking to inspect a single family home in the Village of Westbury that he believed was being used as a multiple family dwelling. He had conducted several days of observation of the dwelling and noticed that there were two entrances, one entrance into the home in the front of the house and one entrance in the back.

There were eight bicycles parked in back, and six cars parked in front. The garbage was deposited on the curb in front of the house, and more was located at the back door. The estimated garbage load was four to five times the amount that the garbage collector stated that he collected from other houses. The building inspector had received several complaints from the neighbors based on the number of people who were living in the dwelling. The estimate was around 17. The building inspector, who had previously worked in a different village, was familiar with obtaining search warrants in his previous village. He had attempted to inspect the property on numerous occasions and he had been denied entry. He counted the number of people going in and out of the residence. The cars were registered to that address, but they had owners with several different last names.

The justice authorized the warrant for a police officer of Nassau County. The warrant specifically detailed that the evidence to be collected was to be limited to photographs of evidence that the house had been converted into a multiple family dwelling. A New York Criminal Lawyer said when the warrant was served, it was served on the house at six in the morning. Several of the people who were living in the house were only partially clothed. The officers took photographs documenting the locks on each room that denoted private living quarters inside the single family dwelling. They documented exposed wiring, plumbing, and other dangerous additions that had been made so that multiple people could reside in the single family home. In these pictures were some of the residents of the house, some of them were only partially clothed.

The building inspector had notified the police department of the warrant. The building inspector was accompanied on the warrant by several uniformed police officers; some remained outside the residence during the search, others came inside the residence. The officers interrogated the residents of the house and took statements from them in reference to the amount of rent that they paid, and how many people shared a room. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the owners of the house were cited for the violations and the officers left the location. When the case came to court, the Justice who heard the case was concerned for several reasons.

He stated that his first concern was if a village court had jurisdiction to create a warrant at all. If the warrant was not valid, then the search was not valid. He was expressly concerned about the plight of illegal Hispanics who are trapped into boarding houses that are run illegally and that force them to pay large amounts to reside in slum conditions. The Justice was concerned about all of the people being evicted from this house and where they would go.

Ultimately, the justice determined that since the offenses that were committed were building code violations, the violations fell into village court. The problem was that most of the village justices are not lawyers. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the determination was made that any search warrants needed to be obtained by full time magistrates who had legal training and not by village justices. The evidence was suppressed and the case referred for processing.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates is a Criminal Lawyer with convenient offices throughout New York and the Metropolitan area our attorneys are available to help you. Village Court issues are confusing. Our Nassau Criminal lawyers can provide you with advice to guide you through any situation.

The accused man and his accomplice as well as the two female complainants boarded a subway train at 125th Street. Once on the train, the accused man and his accomplice sat down near, although not immediately beside, each other and engaged in a conversation.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that thereafter, the accomplice began to verbally harass the complainants. The accused man did not join in and in fact eventually moved by himself to a different subway car. When the train arrived at Zerega Avenue, the complainants got off followed by the accused man’s accomplice. It was shortly after leaving the train that the complainants were accosted on the subway platform by the accomplice and robbed of various possessions at knifepoint. One of the complainants testified that while the accomplice relieved her and her companion of their possessions, the accused, who had apparently also exited the train at Zarega Avenue, stood some 65 to 75 feet away; he was situated at the top of the stairwell providing access to and from the platform. While the first complainant at first claimed to have observed the accused glancing alternately down the stairs and in the direction of the ongoing robbery, she later stated that the accused was simply standing at the top of the stairs--that she could not see his face and that she did not witness any communication between the accused and the accomplice while the robbery was in progress.

Once the robbery was complete, the accomplice joined the accused and the two fled the station together. A short time later, when they were apprehended in the vicinity of the station, the accomplice was still in possession of the items taken from the complainants; the accused, on the other hand, had no stolen property and disclaimed any relationship with the accomplice, stating that he don't know the guy and he was just asking him for directions.

The accused was convicted of robbery in the first degree on the theory that he had acted as the accomplice. He now seeks to have the judgment of conviction reversed and the indictment dismissed upon the ground that the evidence was insufficient to establish his complicity in the robbery or, alternatively, to obtain a new trial upon the ground that his request for a circumstantial evidence charge was erroneously denied.

In arguing that the evidence against the accused was not wholly circumstantial, the Jury point to the testimony indicating that the accused and his accomplice conversed shortly before the robbery and to the evidence of the accused man’s presence on the subway platform while the robbery was in progress. Manifestly, however, neither evidentiary component established more than a circumstance which in combination with the other circumstantial evidence might have lent support to an inference that the accused had in fact intentionally aided the accomplice in the commission of the robbery. Neither piece of evidence, nor for that matter any of the other evidence in the case, directly established the accused man’s commission of any element of the criminal act charged. Obviously, the accused man’s inaudible conversation with the accomplice prior to the crime cannot be adduced as direct evidence of the accused man’s participation in the robbery. While the accused man’s presence at the top of the stairway during the robbery might well, in combination with all the other circumstances to which the complainants testified, have supported the inference that he was acting as a lookout for the accomplice, there was no evidence establishing directly that the accused acted in that blameful capacity; he did not call out to his accomplice or in any other way unambiguously signify a connection between his presence and the criminal act transpiring some 70 feet away. Indeed, a Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer said the cases uniformly treat evidence unambiguously establishing no more than presence as circumstantial.

The majority, while conceding that the evidence bearing upon the accused man’s intent was wholly circumstantial, is apparently of the view that there was other evidence in the case, presumably bearing on the accused man’s conduct, possible to characterize as direct. The majority, however, notably fails to specify the evidence to which it suggests preferring instead to describe the evidence as developing entirely along the same linear plane.

Contrary to the majority's suggestion, the fact that the case rested on eyewitness accounts of the robbery does not render the proof against the accused man in any measure non-circumstantial. The issue is not whether the relevant events were directly perceived, but rather what the witnesses' perceptions, direct as they may have been, may be said to have established about the crime charged, and, more particularly, what they may be said to have established about the criminal act charged without the aid of intervening inference. The evidence, eyewitness though it may have been, established directly no more than that the accused man was present on the subway platform during the robbery; the connection between his presence and the robbery, while conclusive, was not patent to the witnesses and, as a consequence, was not directly proved by their testimony.

The accused man and his accomplice were observed by eyewitnesses at or near the crime scene acting in a manner possibly but not necessarily interpretable as that of a lookout. Of course, is not to say that the evidence against the accused, circumstantial though it was, was not strong, for as has often been observed circumstantial evidence may be every bit as implied as direct evidence and the evidence was at least sufficiently attributed to support the verdict. The accused man’s right to a circumstantial evidence charge, however, did not hinge on the ultimate strength of the evidence but upon its complete lack of unmediated valid significance. Unless there is some sound analytic and/or precedential basis for the conclusion that any portion of the evidence was directly significant of the accused man’s participation in the robbery, and certainly none has been identified, the accused was entitled, as per his request, to have the jury instructed as to the circumstantiality of the evidence and as to the high degree of certainty necessary to support any inference of guilt.

Finally, although the case against the accused was strong, it was by no means overwhelming. While the evidence showed that he had associated with his accomplice before and after the crime and that during the robbery he stood at a place which although distant from the spot where the robbery occurred was one from which he might have acted as a lookout or blocked the complainants' way, it also showed that he removed himself from his accomplice’s company during the man’s verbal harassment of the complainants and remained apart from him until the robbery was completed. The entirely plausible hypothesis that the accused was merely an associate of the accomplice who awaited but did not assist him during the commission of the crime might have militated against a finding of guilt if the jury had been properly instructed that an inference of guilt was not permissible while there remained reasonable alternative hypotheses consistent with accused man’s innocence. Given the state of the evidence, it was for the jury to consider and either accept or reject the reasonableness of any such alternative hypotheses supported by the evidence and, in the end, to determine whether the inference of guilt was sufficiently compelling. However, as the jury was not properly instructed it is not clear that the essential deliberative responsibility was discharged. Nor as a consequence, can it be said whether, if it had been, the accused would still have been convicted.

The judgment convicting the accused man, after a jury trial, of two counts of robbery and sentencing him as second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years, should be reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial.

If you are faced with legal actions and still not sure who to turn to, whether you have been charged with robbery, sex crimes or a drug charge, call the office of Stephen Bilkis and Associates and consult a Bronx County Lawyer. The team of Bronx County Robbery Attorneys can help you bring hope for your robbery related lawsuits.

The police officers of the 32nd precinct in New York City were assigned to conduct surveillance over the corner of 128th Street and 8th Avenue because this was known as a high-drug crime area. A New York Criminal Lawyer said many arrests for cocaine possession and heroin possession have been made at this corner.

One police officer saw perched atop a condemned building, holding binoculars and observing the goings on at the street corner. His partner was near the street corner, waiting for a signal from his partner on the rooftop.

At 1:30 pm of February 26, 1977, the police officer on the rooftop saw one man at the corner. Most passersby hurry on by but that man stayed put. He kept having brief conversations with those who come by him but those people moved on. The man stayed. The officer observed the man for forty-five minutes.

At 2:25 pm, a man wearing a leather jacket came and spoke to the man standing on the street corner. After a brief conversation, he saw the man he had been observing for forty-five minutes reach into his right breast pocket and hand a small plastic sachet to the man in the leather jacket. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the officer did not see money change hands.

The police officer radioed his partner who tailed the man in the leather jacket and arrested him. The police officer atop the building also came down from his perch and arrested the man standing at the street corner. After the man was placed under arrest, the officer patted him down and found more plastic sachets in the same right breast pocket.

At the station, the man admitted to the arresting police officers that he had on him sixteen plastic sachets. The police laboratory analyzed the contents of the sachets and found them to contain heroin.

The man was charged with heroin possession and sale. He was arraigned and he immediately moved for the suppression of the plastic sachets as evidence. The man contended that when he was arrested, the police officer atop the building had no probable cause. And so the evidence obtained on occasion of a search and arrest without probable cause should be suppressed.

The trial court held a hearing and the judge ruled that there was probable cause and so denied the motion for suppression of the plastic sachets. The defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress.

The only question before the Court is whether or not the police officer had probable cause to approach and arrest the defendant after he saw just the passing of the plastic sachet.
A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the Court held that while by itself the passing of plastic sachets is not enough to find that there was probable cause, the peculiar circumstances of this case favor a finding that there was probable cause.

First, the police officer was not a rookie cop. He had been a member of the 32nd precinct for seven years. He had collared 100 suspects and seventy-five of them had been involved in heroin possession and sale. Of these heroin arrests, forty took place at the same corner. Twenty-five arrests for heroin possession were made from personal observations he himself conducted using binoculars from a remote location.

Probable cause doesn’t mean that the officer was very sure that a sale of heroin had just taken place. He only needs to be reasonably sure that a heroin sale had probably taken place and his basis would be his personal experience.

The circumstance of the mere passing of a plastic sachet, taken by itself, in isolation, might not mean anything; but if this one circumstance were placed in context of the other facts observed by the police officer, then the totality of the circumstance shed light on the existence of probable cause.

Are you facing charges for the heroin possession and sale? You need to be represented by a New York City Drug Lawyer. You need the advice and assistance of a New York Drug attorney who can explain to you your legal options. At Stephen Bilkis and Associates, whether you have been charged with drug possession, theft or sex crimes, we are here to help.

Five men formed a gang whose only purpose was to prey on drug dealers. They targeted drug dealers who were always awash with cash and robbed them. They also took the drugs they found on the drug dealers and sold these on the street. One night, on February 12, 1997, all five men planned to rob a drug dealer who had a first floor apartment on Riverside Drive.

Of the five men, one was to be the driver and wait for them in the car while the others entered the apartment of the drug dealer. A New York Criminal Lawyer said their plan was to ring the doorbell and when they were buzzed in, they would force themselves inside the apartment of the drug dealer. The group came late and they missed the drug dealer who had already left his apartment. There was no one home. So the five men went their separate ways.

A few hours later four of the five men came together to see if the drug dealer had come back to his apartment; the driver did not go back with his four friends on the second robbery attempt. He went home.

When the four men arrived, they could see the drug dealer inside his apartment. They buzzed his apartment and the drug dealer opened the door for the four men. They robbed the drug dealer of all his cash; but the drug dealer had very little cash in his apartment at that time. They tied up the drug dealer along with the other occupants of his apartment and made them all sit in one room while the four men searched the apartment looking for valuables. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that one of the four men took one of the occupants of the apartment into another room and announced that he was going to force him to talk to tell him where they hid the cash. Moments later, a shot rang out. One of the four robbers came out and told his gang mates that he had shot one of their hostages by mistake.

The four men fled. They all stayed hidden in their usual hangout and had a meeting the next night. The driver came to the meeting and he was surprised to hear that they went a second time to the drug dealer’s house and pushed through with the planned robbery without him. He also learned that one of them had shot a man dead in the apartment in the course of the robbery.
Two days later, the driver was arrested by the police for some other charge and it was then that he tried to cut a deal. He volunteered to testify and waive his immunity in the robbery with homicide for a lighter sentence on the current charges for which he had been arrested.
At the trial, the owner of the apartment, the supposed drug dealer, and the driver were presented as witnesses during the grand jury hearing. From the outset, the prosecutor already told the jury that the driver was an accomplice but he assured them that he was not present when the actual robbery with homicide took place. He also assured the grand jury that his testimony would be corroborated by other evidence that would directly link the four accused to the commission of the robbery with homicide. One of the four men also agreed to be discharged as an accused in exchange for his testimony as state witness. The prosecutor instructed the grand jury that the driver’s testimony and the testimony of one of the robbers corroborated each other.

The grand jury returned an indictment of three counts of felony murder, two counts of robbery in the first degree and one count of burglary in the first degree.

The defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the two accomplices’ testimonies were not corroborated by independent evidence. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the trial court who held the motion dismissed the indictment without prejudice to the refilling of the same charges. The trial court ruled that the crime was not just one isolated incident. The gang had a continuing conspiracy: it was their livelihood to rob drug dealers.

The only question before the Court in this appeal by the people is whether or not the driver can be considered an accomplice such that his testimony needed independent corroboration, seeing as he did not participate in the actual robbery or homicide.

The Court ruled that the driver was not an accomplice. He may have been an accomplice to the earlier attempted robbery; he may have been an accomplice in the ongoing conspiracy to rob drug dealers, but for the crime charged of felony murder and robbery in the first degree in the indictment, clearly, the driver cannot be considered an accomplice as he had no knowledge that the other four would try to rob the same drug dealer later on that evening. He also was not physically present when the robbery or the homicide took place. He is not an accomplice to this crime of felony murder and first degree robbery. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said his testimony need not be corroborated by independent evidence. The dismissal of the indictment is reversed and the indictment is reinstated and remanded for trial.

Are you like this man who was charged with others for a robbery you planned but you were not present for? You need the assistance and advice of the New York City Robbery lawyer who can explain to you your defense. You need a New York Robbery attorney who can prove that you may have planned the robbery but your absence from the actual robbery negates your participation and guilt. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates today, speak and confer with any of their NYC Robbery attorneys so that you can know how you can defend yourself. Enlist the aid of any of the NY Robbery lawyers from Stephen Bilkis and Associates today.

In just one afternoon of April 7, 2009 a man snatched the purse of an old lady as she was about to enter a store inside a shopping mall. Later that afternoon, that same man walked into a bank. He walked up to the counter and grabbed a teller by her shirt and jacket. He pulled the teller onto the counter and made her give him money. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the teller gave the man the cash that was available to her in the sum of $1464. The man took the money and escaped running from the bank.

Two days later, the man came to a police station in Schoharie County and surrendered. He confessed to the robbery he committed. He was charged with first degree robbery, fourth degree grand larceny for the bank robbery and grand larceny for snatching the old lady’s purse. Because the man had voluntarily surrendered and confessed to the commission of the robbery and the larceny, he was tried without a jury. The trial was only to submit evidence other than the man’s confession that a crime had been committed by the man.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man was convicted of the same charges of robbery and grand larceny, He was later sentenced to concurrent prison terms. He was sentenced to serve ten and a half years for robbery and one to four years of grand larceny. But the trial court ordered that the prison sentence for the other grand larceny charge be served consecutive to the other grand larceny sentence. The trial court also ordered the man to pay restitution to the bank of $1500 plus a 5% surcharge. The man appealed his conviction.

In his appeal, he contends that his conviction for robbery in the first degree is not supported by the evidence and, in fact, he should not have been convicted at all. He claims that he should not have been convicted of robbery in the first degree as he did not use a weapon to forcibly take the property of another. He claims that the People failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he used a weapon during the robbery.

The indictment was a faithful restatement of the law that he forcibly stole money at the bank and he used or threatened to use a dangerous instrument. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the People rely on a bank security camera and a phone call that the man made to his wife where he told her that he had a letter opener with him. This letter opener is the supposed dangerous instrument.

The only question before the Court is whether or not evidence that the man used or threatened to use a dangerous instrument (the letter opener) is sufficient to convict him of robbery in the first degree which requires the use or threatened use of a dangerous weapon.

The Court ruled in the negative. A dangerous instrument is not the same as a deadly weapon. The elements of the crime of robbery in the first degree are precise: the accused must have used or threatened to use a deadly weapon, not a dangerous instrument when he committed the forcible taking of property.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said also, a review of the testimonies of the bank teller from whom he took the bank’s cash deposit in the amount of $1464 and the teller who was in the adjacent counter both agree on one point: that during the robbery, they did not see the man hold a knife or any dangerous weapon in his hands. They also testified that the man never issued any threats, he simply ordered the teller to give him her money.

The Court ruled that the evidence provided by the People is insufficient for a conviction for robbery in the first degree but it is sufficient for a conviction for robbery in the third degree. The Court remanded the case for re-sentencing in accordance with their ruling.

Are you facing charges for robbery in the first degree? You need the services of a New York City Robbery attorney who can present evidence that, you did not commit the crime, or that you committed a lesser offense. You need a New York Robbery lawyer who can explain to you the intricacies of your legal options. At Stephen Bilkis and Associates, their NYC Robbery attorneys are ready and able to advice and assist you. Call Stephen Bilkis today, speak to any of their NY Robbery lawyers and let them help defend you.

A manager was with another employee when they were on route in a company van to one of its nearby stores with a bag containing the cash receipts. A New York Criminal Lawyer said after noticing that a vehicle in front of his van pulled off onto the shoulder of the road, the van made a strange noise and lost power. As he pulled onto the shoulder, the manager observed the previously stopped vehicle reenter the roadway and stop in front of his stalled van. Two individuals (or defendants) in dark clothes wearing masks and brandishing shotguns approached the van from both sides and shouted orders to the manager and his companion. The manager, seeing the weapons, took the bag containing the cash receipts and held it out the open window. The robbers took the money, duct-taped the manager and the employee companion side-by-side on the floor of the van, and drove with them at gunpoint. When the robbers fled, the manager and his employee companion were left in the van. Ultimately, they acquired police assistance.

Notwithstanding an extensive investigation, police authorities were unable to solve the robbery until they received a telephone call from an individual (or the caller), whom they later identified. The caller met with the investigators and provided both the details and names of three individuals involved in the robbery.

Over the next few months, the investigation led to defendants' arrests.

Defendants were charged in a 12-count indictment with various crimes arising from the robbery of two employees.

At the trial of defendants, the People offered, inter alia, the testimony of 29 witnesses, many of whom testified concerning confessions or admissions made by one or more defendant.
None of the defendants testified at trial.

The jury returned a verdict convicting defendants of two counts of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and two counts of unlawful imprisonment in the second degree.

Each was sentenced and only two of the defendants appeal.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said defendants contend that pursuant to Bruton v United States, their rights under the 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution were violated by the introduction of testimony detailing a confession or admission of a co-defendant.

In Bruton v United States, the court held that a deprivation of a defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause takes place if his or her non testifying co-defendant's confession names him or her as a participant in the crime and such confession is introduced at their joint trial; a limiting instruction given to the jury will not be curative. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said in contrast, no Bruton violation will be found to occur when the confession is not incriminating on its face but becomes so only when linked with other evidence introduced at trial. An alleged violation of the Confrontation Clause is always subject to a harmless error analysis.

The court finds no Bruton violation of the admissions made. The statements were not facially incriminatory.

Also unavailing is defendants' assertion that their statements to one individual should not have been admitted because, at the time that they made such statements, the aforesaid individual was acting as an agent and confidential informant for the police. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the Court properly concluded that such individual acted independently of the police and provided information on his own initiative. While the disclosure to authorities might have been precipitated by self-interest, it was unsolicited and without promise or inducement. For these reasons, the court finds that he was not acting as an agent of the government as a matter of law.

Defendants also assert that County Court committed reversible error by failing to grant their motions for severance based upon the substantial prejudice which inured to each by reason of the inculpatory statements of co-defendants introduced at trial. Only one moved for a separate trial, while another moved for severance after the joint trial began.

County Court, in its discretion for good cause shown, may grant a separate trial based upon its determination that a joint trial will yield undue prejudice to a defendant. However, where proof against both defendants is supplied to a great extent by the same evidence, only the most cogent reasons warrant a severance.

Since defendants failed to demonstrate that their defenses were antagonistic, mutually exclusive or irreconcilable, or that their representation had been impaired by virtue of a joint trial, the court perceives no error.

As to the unsuccessful proffer by defendants of newspaper articles containing reports on the robbery for the purpose of demonstrating that rather than learning of details of the robbery through admissions of the participants the People's witnesses could have acquired such information from the news stories, the court again finds no error. Defendants neither testified nor established that any of these witnesses actually read such articles. Having failed to lay a proper foundation, the refusal to admit them was proper.

Defendants' remaining contentions lack merit.

Consequently, defendants' guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.

For the best legal representation, contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates. Our NY Criminal Lawyers are highly trained and skilled to handle any task before them. Years of legal practice in the field of criminal defense has led to the expertise our lawyers have acquired. For a free consultation, speak to our NY Robbery Attorneys, among

The plea that is entered in a criminal case is of great importance in how the crime and the person convicted of the crime is treated in the system of jurisprudence. Some people accept plea agreements without thoroughly understanding what these agreements entail. One of the most frequently misunderstood pleas that a defendant can enter is an Alford-Serrano plea. Most courts call it an Alford plea for brevity sake. An Alford plea is a plea that a person can enter without admitting guilt to the offense. A New York Criminal Lawyer said an Alford plea is in essence a way for a defendant to state that they are innocent, but that they believe that based on the evidence, a jury would find them guilty of the offense. A person will use an Alford plea as an attempt to reduce the overall jail time.

Some of the issues that most defendants do not understand as they relate to an Alford plea is that even though the person is proclaiming their innocence, they are considered by the court just as guilty as a person who enters a regular guilty plea. There is no difference in the treatment of an Alford guilty offender, and one that pleads just plain guilt. Sometimes, especially in the case of sexually based offenses, this can pose a problem for the defendant.

In one case, which occurred in Richmond County New York, in 1994, a man took an Alford plea in the rape case of his own fifteen-year-old daughter. The child is of limited intelligence and unable to process the experience, however, it appears that when the child was around 12 or 13 years of age, during a three-month period, he had sexual relations with his daughter. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant adamantly denied that he ever had sex with his daughter, however, everyone involved was concerned that the child would be overly traumatized by having to testify against her own father in court. In order to prevent her from having to endure any more trauma than she already had, her father took an Alford plea to one count of rape in the third degree. The prosecutors, the mother, and the child all firmly stand by the evidence that the father raped her. The rape had occurred approximately two years prior to the conviction under the Alford plea.

It was explained in detail to the man that under the Alford plea, he would be considered just as guilty as any other offender would. However, he maintained that because the nature of the Alford plea is that the person claims that they are not guilty, he should not be classified as a sex offender according to the Sex Offender Registration Act. The courts advised him that the Alford plea is still a guilty plea under the law. He accepted an Alford plea for a sexual offense and he will have to be registered as a legal sex offender. Further, the victim requested an HIV test be performed and the results provided to her.

Her father resisted this request. Although under New York law, the victim of a sexual assault that involves the exchange of bodily fluids has the right to request that an HIV test be performed. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the results of the test provide the victim with the necessary information so that she can obtain medical treatment as soon as possible if she has been exposed to the AIDS virus. Her father continued to refuse the test. One contention that he made was that it was an illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and that it is unreasonable to invade his body to take his blood. The Supreme Court disagreed with his contention.

His next objection to the test was that the test was not useful to his daughter at this date. Since the HIV test does not show the actual virus but rather the antibodies that are produced to fight the virus once it is inside the host body. These antibodies are not present in an infected person until between six months and one year following exposure to the AIDS virus. If a sexual assault victim finds out through a test that he or she has been exposed to the virus through the assault, they can order the test be performed and the results provided to them. They can then seek antibiotic therapy which may prevent the disease from forming in their bodies. However, that therapy must be started within the first six months of initial exposure. The father contends that since the assault took place two years earlier, the results of a test on him would be of no value. The better course of action would be for the daughter to be tested at such a late juncture to determine if she has the HIV Virus. The court maintained that they do not have the authority to order the victim of a sexually based assault to be tested for HIV. They do have the authority to require that the offender is tested and that the test results are provided to the victim for her ease of mind.

The father again raised the question of the application of the Alford plea and its possible relevance to the HIV test. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said he claims that if he is not guilty of the rape, it is ridiculous to require him to submit to an HIV test. The court ruled that while this was a novel concept, the Alford plea is still a guilty plea and he cannot have the best of both sides. As a guilty sex offender in the State of New York, the victim has the right to demand a test and the court has the authority to require that he submit to the test.

His next argument against submitting to the test was that his reputation would be sullied if the results of the test were to turn out positive. He stated that since his wife had put up signs in his neighborhood and the area where he worked accusing him of raping his daughter, he had no reason to believe that his HIV status would not be similarly broadcast. The court stated that while the victim has the right to request the test, and the court provides her with the test results, she is required by law to refrain from sharing the information with anyone outside of a small group established by law. She is allowed to tell her mother, family, her attorney, her doctor, and any therapist that she is seeing. She is prohibited by law from broadcasting the information or using it in any way that would affect the reputation of the offender who may have infected her with this deadly virus. With this understanding, the court again rejected the father’s motions to not be submitted to a blood test for HIV. The incidence of an Alford plea for a case such as this one proved to be unique. It is exposed the case to review in many different areas because the defendant so staunchly proclaims his not guilty status.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates has a group of experienced Queens Criminal Lawyers. They can help a defendant make a decision on how to plea and how that plea may affect him. They have convenient offices throughout New York and the Metropolitan area. A Queens sex offense lawyer is the best choice for your defense.

The plaintiff and appellant of the case is Jacqueline E. Morris. The defendant and appellee in the case is Albertson’s Inc. The case is being heard in the eleventh circuit of the United States Court of Appeals.

Case History

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on the sixteenth of October in 1980, around 5:15 pm, Thelma Powell, who was an employee of Albertson’s saw a young black lady opening the cellophane wrappers of cosmetics and placing the items in her purse (petit larceny). Powell continued to watch the woman throughout the store.

Around thirty minutes later at about 5:45 pm, Morris, another black woman came into the store. She went to the display of gospel albums and began to browse.

During this time, Powell went to her manager, Miles Durrant and told him about her observations of the young black woman that she thought to be stealing cosmetics. The two went to a section of the store to observe the woman so Powell could identify her to Durrant. They hid in an aisle and viewed the magazine aisle. Powell looked around the corner and told Durrant that the suspect was the black woman standing by a magazine rack. When he peered around the corner he was unaware that there was more than one black woman standing in the aisle. He only noticed Morris who was standing at the display of albums located near the magazine rack. The suspect had actually left the area.

Durrant took over the watch and kept surveillance over Morris as opposed to the real suspect. Morris bought some groceries and when she tried to leave, Durrant detained her and accused her of stealing. A Westchester County Criminal Lawyer said Morris was asked to come upstairs for questioning. Morris denied the charges, but agreed to go upstairs with him to avoid further embarrassment.

Durrant proceeded to call the police and then paged Powell to confirm that Morris was the suspect. Powell told Durrant that he had taken the wrong person. Durrant apologized to Morris and told her that she was free to leave. Morris refused to leave and called the police station to make sure they were coming. Morris also called her husband and they both discussed the case with the police. Morris then left the store.

Case Discussion and Ruling

Morris then brought a case for false arrest against Albertson’s. Albertson’s has denied liability in the case stating that it is immune from a suit based on the statute of Florida law 812.015. This particular statute protects merchants from suits pertaining to detentions when probable cause is at hand.

However, in this particular case there was no probable cause identified in the detainment of Morris. The only evidence was an eyewitness account given by Powell. However, she failed to tell Durrant that there were two black women in the aisle and did not give an accurate description of the suspect. In addition, Powell failed to stay with Durrant during this time and thus the wrong person was accused of the crime.

For these reasons, the court finds that there is a lack of probable cause for the detainment of Morris. We are reversing the previous order from the district court. We find in favor of the appellant, Morris, and move to remand this case to the district court for a ruling that will determine the amount in damages that the appellant shall receive for the wrongful detainment case.

With offices located conveniently throughout New York City, Stephen Bilkis & Associates can help you through your current legal situation, whether you have been charged with shoplifting, sex crimes or a drug offense. If you need advice from an expert lawyer, call one of our offices today to set up a time to meet for your free consultation.

The plaintiff and appellee in this case is the United States of America. The defendant and appellant of the case is Roy L. Schmidt, III. The case is being heard in the Fifth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals.

Appeal

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant, Roy L. Schmidt, III, is appealing the conviction that he is an Armed Career Criminal as defined by the Armed Career Criminal Act. Roy L. Schmidt, III in the original case pleaded guilty to the conspiracy of possessing a pipe bomb and of being a convicted felon with possession of the pipe bomb. He is challenging the sentencing from the district court. His reasoning is that the determination of his sentencing used a prior conviction of theft of a firearm was listed as a violent felony for the purpose of convicting him under the Armed Career Criminal Act.

Case Facts and History

Before the end of the year 2007, Schmidt made an agreement with another individual to buy the parts for and build a pipe bomb. A New York Criminal Lawyer said it was also agreed for Schmidt to receive this unregistered pipe bomb. He provided the necessary money to the individual for the bomb components to be purchased at Lowes and Home Depot, located in Jefferson, Louisiana. Schmidt and two other individuals constructed three pipe bombs at the one of the individual’s homes. Schmidt then took possession of one of the pipe bombs.

Schmidt was charged with the conspiracy to possess a pipe bomb that was unregistered in October of 2008. He pleaded guilty and did not enter a plea agreement. His sentence hearing was held in November of 2009. The United States Government produced documents to support his convictions of an attempted robbery that occurred in December of 1993, a simple burglary that happened in July o f1993, a possession of stolen items charge from August of 1996, and a simple burglary that occurred in August of 1996 as well.

Schmidt’s presentence report concluded that his previous violations and convictions were crimes of violence. The base level of 24 was given in his preliminary criminal history report. Additional enhancements were assigned for the use of a pipe bomb, use of a firearm, leadership role in offenses, and the involvement of a minor in the offenses. He received an adjustment downward for accepting responsibility for his offenses. The presentencing report determined that Schmidt was qualified as an Armed Career Criminal based on the convictions as listed above. The report set his sentencing at a range between 188 to 235 months imprisonment for the firearms charge and up to 60 months imprisonment for the charges of conspiracy.

Appeal Case

Schmidt argues that he should not be listed as an Armed Career Criminal because the theft that was from a firearms dealer was not a violent crime and he did not involved any minors in his offences. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the district court ruled in favor of the non involvement of the minor and lowered the sentence to 151 to 188 months imprisonment. However, the district court denied the argument that stealing from a firearms dealer is not a violent crime.

Conclusion

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said etermining whether or not a crime of violence qualifies for the Armed Career Criminal Act is determined by the outline of the act. In this case, we have determined under the act that the theft of a firearm from an arms dealer does qualify as a violent offense. For this reason we affirm the original decision and the sentence stands.

Anyone that has been in trouble with the law or currently finds themselves in need of legal advice should contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates for help. Our offices located in New York offer free consultations to anyone in need of advice. Call us today to set up your appointment.

The appellants of the case are Tynesha M. Rivers, Nikina D. Cunningham, and Stacy L. Rivers representing herself and as the parent/custodian of minor Tevon J. Elmore. The appellees in the case are James Donohoe, Linda Love, and a Florida Corporation, Dillards Department Store, Inc.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on the 20th of August in 1994, Tynesha Rivers, Nikina Cunningham, Stacy Rivers and her son Tevon all went to Dillards Department store to shop. Stacy and her son went to the upstairs part of the store and Tynesha and Nikina went to shop for shoes in the shoe department. The girls were waiting for a salesperson to bring them a pair of shoes to try on when they were approached by officer Donohoe, a security guard for the store. Officer Donohoe asked them for their identification, but did not tell them why he wanted it. The two girls gave him their identification and he took it and walked away. Tynesha continued shopping and paid for a pair of shoes.

When Donohoe returned he took the two girls to another area of the store. He placed his arm on Cunningham at one point and both girls said they felt like they had to go with him because of the authority he was showing. Stacy and her son arrived in the area as well and Donohoe took her identification as well. He offered no explanation as to why. He placed all four of them in an area and told them to sit and wait. While waiting they noticed a bulletin board that was labeled the “wall of shame.” After waiting for a while, Love entered the room and proceeded to take Rivers picture without her consent. The women were told that they were not welcome in the department store and if they returned they would be arrested for trespassing. Stacy asked to return the shoes that she had just bought, but was not allowed to do so. They were all evicted from the premises.

Appellants Case

According to testimony provided by all of the women none of them had any prior convictions for shoplifting and never been suspected of committing any type of criminal offense. Stacy Rivers stated that she had never had any problems in the store. Cunningham stated that Donohoe asked them to go with him, but never told them that they were being accused of shoplifting. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the women sued the store on the basis of intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, battery, libel, and an invasion of privacy.

Appellees Case

A salesgirl is the person who first called attention to the women. She stated that she had seen them in the store before and they showed the signs of shoplifters. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that they would immediately separate when they entered the store and then take clothes into parts of the store where they would not be seen. She called Donohoe and asked him to ask the women to leave. He said that it would have to be a manager to do this.

Previous Ruling and Court Decision

In the previous case, the civil court granted a summary judgment in favor of the appellees on all counts and charges. However, upon further review of the case we feel that there needs to be more consistent accounts of what happened on the day in question. Therefore we reverse the previous order and rule in favor of the appellants.

With offices located throughout the city of New York, Stephen Bilkis & Associates offers convenient access to great legal services. If you or a loved one is in need of legal advice,whether it is for petit larcency, sex crimes or theft, you may contact one of our offices at any time to set up a free consultation with one of our experts in the field.

A man was pulled-over by a police officer because the car he was driving was reported stolen. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the car did not turn out to be stolen, after all as the use of the car by the man was merely unauthorized. When the police officer arrested the man for theft of the car, the man was found in possession of a gun. He had with him in his car a loaded .25 caliber automatic pistol.

The man had the gun licensed in North Carolina when he purchased the gun there in 1973. He later moved to New York and brought the gun with him. He knew of the laws of New York regarding the possession of an unlicensed firearm but for seven years, he possessed an unlicensed firearm.

The man was charged with possession of a weapon in the third degree. But during his arraignment, the man entered a plea of guilt to the misdemeanor possession in the fourth degree.

The court allowed the man to plead guilty to a misdemeanor. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court judge took into consideration the facts regarding the man’s personal circumstances. The man was 46 years old; he had been married for 25 years and he has two children aged 14 and 21. He has never been convicted of a crime. He knew the licensing requirement to own and possess a gun in the state of New York but he never bothered to have his firearm licensed in New York. He claimed that he kept the gun in his possession because his business was located at a neighborhood with a high crime rate. He kept the gun for his own protection. Instead of punishing the man for one year imprisonment, the judge sentenced the man to be imprisoned for 30 days and to be placed on probation for three years. He also ordered that the imprisonment be a condition to his probation.

The man appealed the sentence of 30 days’ imprisonment. A Long Island Criminal Lawyer said he claims that since this is his first time to be convicted and since this is only a misdemeanor, he should get a lighter sentence. He claims that the 30 days’ imprisonment is a cruel and unusually punishment.

The only question before the Court is whether or not the imprisonment of 30 days for a misdemeanor is a cruel and unusual punishment that is prohibited by the constitution.
The Court first noted that the new gun law passed by the legislature is the toughest gun law in the country. It was enacted to stem the proliferation of unlicensed firearms. Another purpose of the law is to check the rise of gun-related crimes.

The new gun law has increased the penalty for possession and sale of illegal weapons. The new gun law mandates a one year minimum sentence upon conviction for possession of a loaded gun outside the home or pace of business.

The Court also noted that the same statute gave the trial court judge the discretion to impose a lesser penalty depending on the nature and circumstances of the crime and on the history and character of the defendant.

The Court found that the trial court judge committed no grave abuse of discretion in sentencing the man. Even if it can be said that the defendant does not seem to be a danger to society, nor can it be said that the man is in need of rehabilitation. The trial court judge was of the opinion that sentencing the man to imprisonment of 3 months even if this is only his first conviction, sends a message that deterrence of possession of guns is an overriding principle.

Are you facing charges of possession of a gun, sex crimes or a drug offense? Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates and speak to any of their New York City Gun Crime Lawyers. The New York City Gun Crime Attorneys at Stephen Bilkis and Associates are available at any of their offices located in the New York area. Their NYC Gun Crime Attorneys can represent you and argue your case in your behalf. Their NY Gun Crime Lawyers can present evidence in your defense. Call Stephen Bilkis today

The appellant of the case is Alma Davis. The appellee in the case is McCrory Corporation. The case is being heard in the second district of the District Court of Appeals in the State of Florida.

Appeal

A New York Criminal Lawyer said Alma Davis, the appellant, was accused and then arrested for shoplifting in one of the McCrory Corporation’s stores. She was acquitted of this crime. She then brought a lawsuit into action claiming malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and false arrest. She is appealing the decision by the district court that granted a summary judgment in favor of the defendant that dismissed the case.

Case History

In this case there are two very different versions of what happened while the plaintiff was in the store. According to the appellant, Alma Davis, she entered the store and was shopping. She picked out a pair of panty hose, which she placed in the outer pocket of her overcoat. She states that the panty hose remained visible throughout her time in the store. She claims that before she had a chance to go to the cash register to pay for items, she was apprehended and accused of shoplifting (petit larceny).

The version told by the employees of the store is very different. Testimony is given by two employees of the store as well as the manager. Each of them state that the appellant had put panties and/or panty hose into the pocket of the dress she was wearing under her coat and not in the pocket of her coat as she states. They all three state that she had a small paper bag that she had placed panties in as well. When Davis was confronted by the managers, the employees state that she denied pocketing the merchandise. However, when the threat of police involvement was given she produced the items from their hiding places. The employees and managers also state that she admitted to try stealing the items because she knew of other people who had gotten away with doing it. She bemoaned the fact that she was caught during her first attempt. It was the admissions that were given by Davis that caused the manager to have her arrested right then, rather than waiting for her to leave the store.

Previous Court Findings

The previous court determined that the plaintiff was observed by two employees and the manager taking items from the shelf and depositing them in a pocket or paper bag. The plaintiff also stated that she had intended to steal the items and was upset she got caught during her first attempt. An NYC Criminal Lawyer said the court found that the constraints used against Davis were not unreasonable and therefore ruled in favor of the summary judgment.

Conclusion

The difficulty in this case comes with the fact that two very different versions of the story are given. While the store has three witnesses to the fact that Davis admitted to trying to steal the items, this does not mean that her testimony and claims can simply be dismissed.

For these reasons, we feel that the district court’s ruling for summary judgment was unjust. We are reversing the original order for summary judgment as we feel that there are further proceedings necessary in order to fully prove probable cause in this particular case.

At Stephen Bilkis & Associates we offer free legal consultations to anyone who needs one. Whether you have been charged with shoplifting, sex crimes or drug possession, we will ensure that your rights are protected. We have offices located in the metropolitan area of Manhattan to make it easy to come in and discuss your case at any time. You may call us to set up a time for your free consultation at any time, we are happy to help.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the plaintiff and appellee of the case is the United States of America. The defendant and appellant of the case is Paul Darvin Lamm. The case is being heard in the Fifth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals.

Appeal

Paul Darvin Lamm, the defendant has been convicted and sentenced for a previous crime. The crime that is currently in question is a guilty plea to being a user of a controlled substance and possessing a firearm. This is referred to as the instant offense. His appeal is only in regard to his sentencing. He is contesting that the petty theft shoplifting charge not be included when determining his criminal history points for calculation of his prison sentencing. This appeal brings into question whether or not an offense of petty theft is similar to an insufficient funds check, which is excluded from an individual’s criminal history report under a set of specific conditions.

Prior Convictions

Before the instant offense of using a controlled substance while in possession of a firearm was committed, Lamm had been charged with four other criminal convictions. A New York Criminal Lawyer said these prior convictions included a petty theft charge, where there is no imprisonment involved under Texas law.

Presentence Report

The presentence investigation report has recommended a criminal history point for the conviction in the petty theft case. Lamm made an objection to this stating that petty theft and insufficient funds are similar crimes and therefore should not be included in the presentencing report. The officer that prepared the first report then added an addendum to the presentence report that differentiated between the two crimes.

District Court Rulings

Lamm took his objection to the district court and without giving any reasons; the district court ruled that the petty theft crime would be included in his criminal history report. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said he was then sentenced to 21 months in jail.

Case Discussion and Ruling

When determining this case it is necessary to compare two different offenses. Under Texas law, a person who writes a bad check will only be given a fine and no jail time is issued. In the petty theft case, the defendant was convicted of the crime, but only fined and not sentenced to serve any jail time for the offense.

The main differences between a bad check case and a shoplifting case is that a shoplifting case required confrontation. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said there is more of a risk of physical contact and harm coming to others. The other issue that arises from a petty theft crime compared to a bad check crime is that it is more difficult to detect and apprehend the person who commits a petty theft. Committing crimes that involve bad checks are easier to track down.

In this particular case we must also consider the past convictions of Lamm. He has had four convictions from the years 1997 to 2001. These recurring convictions indicate the likelihood of recurring criminal activities. In addition, the case that Lamm compares his to has no relevance in the case as it is for a bad check and requires ambiguity in the criminal statute.

After reviewing the facts of the case the court rules that the previous court’s judgment is upheld. The petty theft charge is included in determining the sentencing of Lamm and the current sentence will remain in place. The appeal is denied.

For anyone struggling with a legal situation, the law offices of Stephen Bilkis & Associates can help. We have offices conveniently located throughout the metropolitan area of Manhattan. You may contact us to set up a free consultation at any time. Our team of lawyers is ready to help you through any type of legal situation that you may find yourself in.

The complainant woman was hired by the City Department of Correction and was subject to a two-year probation period. A New York Criminal Lawyer said she is the mother of two pre-teenage children and a victim of abuse by her crack and alcohol addict husband who also happens to have a criminal history. The woman moved out with her children and went to live with a relative. Things did not work out and she was ejected from the apartment. The woman requested a vacation time to find a home and was granted a leave through April 4, 2002.

On April 5, 2002, the still homeless woman asked the Department's Health Management Division (HMD) for further time off to continue her search for a place to live. The Health Management Division put her on immediate sick leave due to stress. They also confiscated the woman’s identification and directed her to obtain a new one which reflected she was psychologically unfit to carry a firearm. At that same meeting, the Health Management Division demanded that the woman provide them with an address. When the woman told the Health Management Division that she was homeless and lacked an address, she was told she could not work at the Department without one. Faced with the threat even after she had explained her homelessness, she gave her husband's address.

The Health Management Division conducted a visit to the woman at her husband's address. When she was not found there, they required her to appear at the Health Management Division the following day to explain her unauthorized absence from home. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the woman was informed by her mother-in-law the woman appeared at the Health Management Division and at their request wrote a report explaining her circumstances and homelessness. Nonetheless, the Health Management Division made four subsequent visits to the husband's residence expecting to find the petitioner there. The petitioner remained homeless, sleeping variously in her car, hotels, shelters or friends' homes. The woman did return to her husband's home twice, but both times he assaulted her and she had to seek police intervention and leave again.

The woman finally obtained a stable residence upon her admission to a domestic violence shelter. According to the petitioner, the Health Management Division does not allow its residents to divulge their exact address to anyone who does not sign a confidentiality agreement, so when she called the Health Management Division to apprise them of her new address. The woman gave them the shelter's office address as the place to contact her. When the Health Management Division’s monitor attempted to visit the woman at the shelter, she was told by the staff that the petitioner's residence would not be disclosed unless she signed a confidentiality agreement.

The day after that visit, the woman went to the hospital for surgery and returned to the shelter on May 25, having been told by her doctor to stay out of work for six weeks due to the surgery. The Health Management Division approved the leave and scheduled the petitioner to return to work. After another abortive visit, the Housing Authority Division signed the confidentiality agreement at which time petitioner was told to return to HMD. It is unclear whether any further visits to the shelter were made after.

The woman went to her appointment at the Health Management Division. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said he was given a termination letter backdated without explanation, and her shield and identification were taken. Pursuing an unemployment claim, petitioner learned she was fired for being away from her residence while on sick leave.
The woman contends that her termination was illegal because it was solely based on the fact that, as a victim of domestic violence, she was unreachable while on sick leave due to the Health Management Division’s failure to sign the confidentiality agreement prior to the visit. The accused party’s position is that petitioner was a probationary employee and as such was dismissible without cause, and at any rate cause existed even without the sick leave violations.

Domestic violence, often fueled by alcohol and drugs, is blight on the American family—and society at large. Its victims come from all walks of life. The one thing they have in common is the experience of living in fear every day, for themselves and frequently their children. The combination of constant danger, fruitless vigilance, exposure to another's rage, physical and psychic injury and pain, and inability to infuse sanity into reality—all without surcease because it generally happens in one's own home, the one place that should be safe and sacrosanct—is at best crippling and at worst lethal. It is well established that the only sure solution is for the victim to escape the abuser. Formerly, the plight of victims of domestic abuse was generally addressed by the courts of the state in three disjointed contexts: Family Court proceedings, criminal actions and matrimonial.

In 2001, based on the foregoing public policy considerations, the City Council enacted an amendment to the City's Human Rights Law to prevent employers from discriminating against victims of domestic violence. A probationary employee can be dismissed without a hearing and without a statement of reasons in the absence of any demonstration that dismissal was for a constitutionally impermissible purpose or in violation of statutory or decisional law. Judicial review of such a determination is limited to an inquiry as to whether the termination was made in bad faith.

It is clear that the woman falls under the statutory definition of a victim of domestic violence. The dispositive issue is whether the Department's sick leave policy—or its implementation with respect to petitioner and those similarly situated—is impermissibly discriminatory.A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the City Correction had produced evidence that the woman’s job performance, especially in the first year, was not exemplary. She had excessive tardiness and absenteeism and had an altercation with a coworker. Clearly, had they chosen to fire her at that point, they would have been totally within their rights. However, they did not do so. They kept her on and it was only when she was living in a shelter for abused women with an apparent unverifiable address that they terminated her employment.

The City Correction may not have intentionally acted in bad faith, as the woman contends, but they did act in contravention of the Local Law and in that, they failed to make reasonable accommodations for the woman’s status as a homeless victim of domestic violence. The petitioner woman's loss of a job at the point when she was finally getting her living situation under control, is exactly the kind of fallout that Local Law was enacted to prevent. Fortunately, the law recognizes that the forms and guides of discriminatory conduct do not always fall neatly into readily identifiable packages and affords relief so long as the victim can establish that the conduct occurred under circumstances which give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.

Accordingly, the court ordered and adjudged that the petition is granted to the extent that the City Correction’s determination to terminate the woman’s employment based on her being unavailable when the Health Management Division monitors visited her is hereby vacated and the matter is remanded to the City Correction for reinstatement and back pay in accordance with the Court’s decision.

When an employee is bothered with domestic problem, his or her job performance will surely suffer. If any of your company employees is a victim of violence at home, advise them to consult a NY Domestic Violence Lawyer from Stephen Bilkis and Associates. If you know of any violence that resulted to crime, have them call the team of New York Criminal Lawyers for sound legal advice.

In New York, prior to January 13, 2005, it was common for people convicted of Class B felony drug crimes to be incarcerated with indeterminate sentences. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the trend at the time was to be tough on drug offenders by putting them in prison with no expectation of a final release date. In January of 2005, new trends and research into the problems presented by indeterminate sentences, caused New York lawmakers to rethink their policy. Class B felony drug crime offenders stopped getting indeterminate sentences. Since, the prisons were overrun with Class B felony drug crime offenders who had indeterminate sentences, CPL 440.46 was created to alleviate the problem. It states that any person who has been convicted of a Class B felony drug crime under article 220 of the Penal Law that was committed before January 13, 2005 might be eligible for resentencing under the new sentencing guidelines that did not include indeterminate sentences. They must have a maximum of more than three years to be eligible. The intent originally was to reduce the number of drug offenders on the streets. The problem with indeterminate sentences is that offenders behave worse when they do not have the hope of a definite end. The large number of drug offenders that were incarcerated was putting a strain on the system and taking space that was needed to house violent offenders. Sometimes, political notions of how to combat crime cause more problems than they solve. Indeterminate sentencing was one of those notions. The sentences were so severe that they were out of sync with the rest of the sentencing guidelines for other offences. Often, drug offenders received harsher sentences than violent offenders. There were other problems with the idea of indeterminate sentences that must be addressed by the New York legal system. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said one way is to go back through all of the cases where offenders are facing more than three years of an indeterminate sentence, and allow them to apply for resentencing under the new guidelines. In most cases, approval for resentencing means release into a drug treatment program and probation. There are exceptions to these resentencing guidelines. If a person was convicted in the ten years preceding this conviction with any violent felony offense described in section 70.02 of the penal law or any offense for which a merit time allowance is not available, then they are not eligible for resentencing under the new guidelines.

This ten-year period is figured from the date of the person’s resentencing motion and not from the date that he committed the present drug crime. A New York Criminal Lawyer said in one case, a man applied for resentencing under the new guidelines in October 2009. He had been convicted in March of 1984 for manslaughter in the first degree. Manslaughter in the first degree is a class B violent felony, which would otherwise make him ineligible for resentencing. He was also convicted in July of 1995 with manslaughter in the second degree which is an offense in which merit time allowance is not allowed. However, because both of these convictions occurred prior to the ten-year period from 2009, they do not disqualify him from resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46. Under the ten-year look back policy, this offender’s history before 1999 cannot be considered in order to disqualify him from obtaining resentencing to remove his indeterminate sentence. Additionally, he was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence that would last more than three years which does qualify him for resentencing under the new guidelines. This matter was remitted back to Queens County Supreme Court for new proceedings and a new determination of the motion. This means that the inmate will qualify for resentencing that will put his sentence in line with the sentences that drug crime offenders are presently getting.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said there are mixed arguments about resentencing drug offenders, but there is simply not enough room in the prisons to house everyone who has been convicted of a drug offense. It is important that the people who have been arrested for drug offenses, and given indeterminate sentences, contact a Queens Drug Lawyer. A Queens Criminal Lawyer can represent your interests and help you regain your freedom.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appellant of this case is the State of Florida. The state of Florida is being represented by the attorney general, Robert L. Shevin, and the assistant attorney general, Richard W. Prospect. The appellee in the case is Gregory Dean Bradley. He is being represented by public defender, Michael J. Minerva, and assistant public defender, Janice G. Scott.

The case is being heard in the first district of the District Court of Appeal in the state of Florida. The judge overseeing the case is Boyer.

Appeal

The appellant in this case, the state of Florida is appealing the order for dismissing information and the case against the defendant or appellant in this case. The basis for the appeal is that the case was a juvenile case and not a case that should have been subject to indictment as an adult.

Petition

In the original case there was a petition filed against the defendant for shoplifting and for possessing over five grams of marijuana. In addition, there was a petition of delinquency filed against the defendant. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the state made the motion to move the case to a circuit court and this motion was granted to the state of Florida. Afterwards, the state also filed additional information about the defendant that charged him with possessing over five grams of marijuana. At the time the state of Florida did not try to have the defendant tried as an adult in the case of shoplifting.

The shoplifting charge was tried in a separate procedure. In this case the judge convicted the defendant on the shoplifting charge and ordered him to serve time in a Youth Services Program. The defendant has made a motion to dismiss the charge of having more than five grams of marijuana. He basis this motion on the fact that he has made a commitment to the Youth Services Program and that he was amenable to treatment as a juvenile. He states that waiving his juvenile jurisdiction in the marijuana case was improper.

In the original trial case, a New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the court agreed with the defendant and dismissed the possession of marijuana case that was against him. The court stated that this interfered with the jurisdiction of the defendant as a juvenile by trying him as an adult. This is the judgment that the state is seeking to be reversed.

Court Decision

We will rule in favor of the state and reverse the previous order made by the circuit court. We find that the juvenile referral in the case of shoplifting did not automatically divest the interest of the court’s jurisdiction in the case of the possession of marijuana.

This court understands that the adult court may find that the reasonable rehabilitation is being made through the juvenile court and may consider waiving juvenile jurisdiction in this case. However, currently the only rehabilitation that has been shown in the juvenile court is that dealing with the shoplifting charge and not with the issue of using marijuana. A New York Drug Crimes Lawyer said evidence of drug rehabilitation is necessary before this charge may be dropped in the adult court.

When you find yourself in need of legal advice, Stephen Bilkis & Associates can help. We offer free consultations to help you decide what type of legal action you should take in your particular case. We have several offices in the metropolitan area of Manhattan for your convenience. Call us today to set up your appointment.

A patrolman was on patrol one evening when he was ordered to investigate a complaint regarding abandoned automobiles in the vicinity of 24 Max Avenue, Hicksville, New York. A New York Criminal Lawyer the building located at that address contains two factory establishments and an apartment on the first floor.

In the course of the investigation, the patrolman knocked on the front door of the apartment at about 9:15 that evening. In response he heard the voice of a very young child whom he later ascertained to be two years of age. He asked through the door if child’s father or mother is at home. The child answered in the negative. He then again asked whether anyone else was home and again the child replied in the negative. The door was not opened. It was locked. He peered through the curtained window and saw the lights on and a television set in operation. At this point, the police officer made a radio call for assistance from the Juvenile Aid Bureau of the Nassau County Police Department. Following the call, a detective of the Juvenile Aid Bureau along with a Sergeant and another Patrolman, operating a police ambulance, convened at the premises. They all approached the apartment. The Patrolman knocked on the door, and on this occasion, a different young voice answered. The patrolman requested the child to open the door. The door was opened and he was met by a five year old female. Thereafter, the police officer questioned the little girl as to the whereabouts of her parents. She told him that there was no one else in the apartment besides the two children. The officer ascertained at that time that the young girl was five years old, and that the child who first answered his knocking was a little boy two years of age.

In the course of being questioned the young girl admired the service revolver belonging to the patrolman and said, “defendant-man has a gun like that”. The girl then turned around and walked over to a cabinet and said, “See, here it is”. She had picked a loaded .38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver out of the top drawer and the police officers immediately took the gun from her before anything happened. The police asked her, “Has defendant-man any more guns?”, and she replied, “Yes, he has a lot of guns and he also has pot and speed”. She then went back to the same drawer and picked out a plastic bag which contained marijuana and also gave it to the police officers.

The officers then proceeded to search the apartment for other guns and narcotics. They found another bag containing marijuana and several empty glassine bags, and full glassine bags, which seemed to contain heroin, in the drawer of the cabinet from which the child retrieved the pistol and the first bag of marijuana.

As they proceeded to the apartment which contained a foyer, living room, bedroom and kitchenette, they also found more marijuana in a carved bowl in open view on top of a cabinet which was located on the side of the room opposite the safe. It also contained several glassine bags containing what appeared to be heroin.

At 1:15 A.M., the defendants (defendant-man and defendant-woman) entered the apartment. The police introduced themselves and then the Sergeant Carey asked them if they lived there, and they replied “Yes, we do”.

The defendants were then given their Miranda warnings, were informed that they were under arrest, and handcuffed the defendant-man.

Subsequently, the detective questioned the defendants was asked to open the safe. At first, the defendants refused but the police officers told them that they can get the safe while they get a warrant, thus, they opened it. A large plastic bag containing two pounds of marijuana, as well as several boxes of ammunition, was found in the safe. Bronx Criminal Lawyer under a table in the corner of the room in open view, there was a set of antique scales. They also found an old pepper box antique pistol hanging on the wall. It was stipulated by the People that this antique pistol will not be offered in evidence at the trial. There was no other conversation with the defendant-man.

The children were later found to be of defendant-women’s and that she is not married to defendant-man.

The Juvenile Aid Bureau had taken the two children to Meadowbrook Hospital at about 10 P.M. of the evening of the arrest.

Defendants are charged with the crimes of Criminal Possession of a Dangerous Drug in the Third Degree involving marijuana and hashish under the first count; Criminal Possession of a Dangerous Drug in the Fourth Degree involving cocaine and heroin under the second count (drug possession); Criminal Possession of a Dangerous Drug in the Sixth Degree involving methamphetamine under the third count; and Possession of a Weapon (gun crime), Dangerous Instrument and Appliance as a Misdemeanor involving a pistol loaded with ammunition, under the Fourth Count.

Are all the seized items admissible in evidence?

A search is reasonable if conducted pursuant to a legal search warrant, by consent, or incident to a lawful arrest. The instant case, however, presents a different dimension of the question of when and under what circumstances a police officer may legally enter a private residence.
Where danger, or even the possibility of danger exists, the finely honed rule of probable cause mandated by constitutional considerations, gives way to a rule of practical expediency which is demanded by the exigency of the conditions confronting the policeman.

The preservation of human life has been considered paramount to the constitutional demand of a search warrant as a condition precedent to the invasion of the privacy of a dwelling house.
It is of the greatest significance to this case that the police officer's entry was pursuant to his general obligation to assist people in distress, a purpose often independent of considerations affecting the criminal law. Police are expected and often required to investigate the unquelled crying of babies, sounds and blows in what turn out to be matrimonial disputes, to assist in child deliveries, and to resolve the causes of unusual sounds suggesting harm to persons, animals and property. Their functions are just not confined to criminal law enforcement, a matter frequently of great concern to those seeking to make limited police resources more effective. In this context, it has been suggested that an officer's entry is based neither on consent nor license and that even the refusal of consent may be of no avail.

It must be noted that when the patrolman knocked on the door for the first time and was informed from behind the closed door by the voice of a very young child that neither of his parents, nor anyone else was inside, he was justified in calling for aid. This justification is based on a possibility that the child might have been speaking the truth and was thus subject to injuries and dangers which might have befallen him when so unsupervised and unattended. In an emergency situation, a police officer need not patiently await definite proof of danger or peril. Where the possibility of danger or peril appears to exist, he may act. Under such circumstances, a reasonable possibility of injury to person or property invites the policeman's investigation.

Here, a period of about three to four minutes passed between the time when the patrolman knocked on the door for the first time and was informed by the younger child that nobody was home, and when he knocked again the second time and was admitted by the five year old girl. During this period, he could reasonably assume that this child was alone, or that a person in charge of the child could be disabled and, therefore, unable to respond to his knock on the door.
An unattended child is prone to all manner of injury. Courts have ruled that more care must be exercised towards children than toward persons of mature age. Children of tender years are entitled to care proportioned to their inability to foresee and avoid the perils that they may encounter. The duty to avoid doing them an injury increases with their inability to protect themselves and with their childish indiscretion, instincts and impulses.

Leaving one's child alone in the home or even on the streets unguarded, unattended and no provision made for its safety or protection is neglect.

Here, there was indeed more than sufficient justification not only to knock a second time but also to enter and investigate the situation when the five year old child later opened the door.
Following the disclosure of the loaded gun and the marijuana by the five year old child, the policemen went through the various rooms of the apartment, during the course of which, they saw in open view, the antique scales, the carved bowl containing marijuana and what appeared to be heroin, and, hanging on the wall, the antique pepper mill gun. They also found other narcotics in drawers, and when the safe was opened, they found two pounds of marijuana, and some ammunition.

Although the five year old child was legally incapable of giving the police consent to search the apartment for evidence of crime on behalf of the defendants, it is, however, the determination of the court that the loaded pistol and the plastic bag containing marijuana, which were taken from the cabinet, and brought into the view of the police officers by the child, is not the subject of a police search and seizure. These items comprising a weapon and contraband, insofar as the police were concerned, were in open view, and not the fruits of a search. The marijuana, and what appeared to be heroin observed by the police in the carved bowl, was in open view and, therefore, not the subject matter of an illegal search and seizure. It would have been necessary to go into the respective rooms to ascertain if there was anyone else in the apartment or a person in charge of the infants, and, if so, why such person had not responded to the knocking, and whether such person was incapacitated. In so doing, they had the right to seize any item in open view which may be contraband, or the paraphernalia utilized in the use or sale of narcotics, or a weapon.

The foregoing rule of law is based on the humane purposes sought to be effectuated by permitting the policemen to intrude into the privacy of a citizen's home for the latter's aid and protection.

However, when the errand of mercy is completed, the benevolent purpose of the intrusion may not be changed into one for a general exploratory search.

The privilege to enter to render aid does not, of course, justify a search of the premises for some other purpose. An arrest may not be used as a pretext to conduct a general search of one's premises for incriminating evidence, and it has been repeatedly said that where the right to conduct a search is obtained ostensibly for one purpose it may not be used in reality for another.

Thus, the officers in the present case could properly make only that kind of search reasonably necessary to determine whether a person was actually in distress somewhere in the apartment. They could not, for example, ransack the premises or rummage through desk drawers. On the other hand, in the course of conducting a reasonable search they did not have to blind themselves to what was in plain sight simply because it was disconnected with the purpose for which they entered.

The court has held that where the entry and search are proper and there is presently no element of trespass or fraudulent invasion of the rights of the citizen, there is no reason for excluding evidence of crime discovered in the course of the search.

After the children had been removed to a safe place for proper care at about 10 P.M., when the officer took them to Meadowbrook Hospital, the only proper alternatives confronting the police officers were either, (1) to leave the apartment with a police guard outside and obtain a search warrant based on the probable cause based on what the child had shown to them and what they had seen in open view during the investigation, or (2) to await the return of the defendants and perform the permitted search of their persons contemporaneously with their arrest. Such search would, of course, be limited to a search of the arrestee's person and the area within his immediate control, as mandated by the United States Supreme Court rulings, which construed that phrase to mean the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.

In this warrantless search, when the officers presumed to look into closed and hidden places in all parts of the apartment, they were not only clearly acting outside the scope of the original purpose of the police entry into the apartment, but also indulging in a general search of the entire house in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment.
In addition, more than three hours elapsed from the time when the mission ended and the children were removed to a place of safety at 10 P.M., and when the defendants returned to the apartment at about 1:15 A.M. A search made over three hours before an arrest is not what is contemplated in law to be a search made contemporaneously with an arrest within the meaning of the rules.

Accordingly, the marijuana and the revolver removed from the cabinet and displayed to the police, the antique scale, the marijuana, and what appeared to be heroin in the carved bowl, which were all in open view, are admissible in evidence; there was a valid warrantless search and seizure.

However, on the other items of marijuana, and what appeared to be heroin, found as the result of opening drawers and the contents of the safe which included about two pounds of marijuana and ammunition, they are not admissible in evidence. When the defendant-woman opened the safe, it was while she was in custody, and under arrest. Such act on her part was not by consent and merely her submission to police authority.

Submission to authority is not consent and one faced with authority has the right to submit and reserve his defense for the Court.

On the question of standing on the part of the defendant-man, it is the court's determination that inasmuch as he resided in the apartment, that he was present in the premises, and that he was charged with, and arrested in the apartment for possessory crimes involving cocaine, heroin, marijuana and a weapon, he has standing to contest the People's right to search and seize such material.

With respect to the Huntley-Miranda aspect of this hearing, the court finds that shortly after the defendants entered the apartment and identified themselves as the persons who resided there, they were in police custody.

The four-fold Miranda warnings were properly stated to the defendants; however, they did not expressly waive their constitutional rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments which is a mandated condition precedent for the admissibility of a defendant's statement under Miranda. In fact, they remained silent in this regard.

Consequently, none of the statements made by the defendants in answer to the detective’s interrogation may be used as evidence upon the trial hereof.

Only the words, “we do”, stated by defendants when they identified themselves as the occupants of the apartment as they entered are admissible as being threshold statements made before they were in police custody, and while in the identification process.
With respect to the oral statement made by defendant-man to defendant-woman, they are admissible for the reason that such words were not in response to police interrogation and were merely the spontaneous and volunteered utterances of the defendant-man.

Learn more of your rights. Consult with Stephen Bilkis & Associates. Whether you have been charged with a drug crime, theft crime or sex crimes, it is important to speak with legal counsel to ensure that your rights re protected. Talk to a Nassau County Criminal Lawyer from our firm to discuss a strong game plan for your defense. If the legality of an arrest is in issue, a Nassau County Arrest Lawyer is the competent person to advise you.

This is an appeal of a man from his judgment in the Supreme Court convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degree, upon a jury verdict. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appeal brings up for review the denial of the accused man's motion which was to suppress identification testimony and upon an order the court that reversed the above mentioned decision.

Contrary to the accused man's contention, the pretrial lineup identification was not improperly suggestive. The photographs taken of the lineup reflect that the slight differences in skin tone between the man and the fillers were not so apparent as to orient the viewer toward the man as the offender of the crimes charged. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that based on records, the skin tone is only one of the factors to be considered in deciding reasonable similarity and differences in skin tone alone will not render a lineup improperly suggestive. A the court does not find that the presence of a small tattoo on the side of the man's face rendered the lineup improperly suggestive.

The court found that improper remarks by the prosecutor during summation deprived the man of a fair trial. The prosecutor improperly vouched for a witness and implied that the witness faced retribution from the man when he stated that the witness testified not knowing what the consequence would be for herself and her family. A said that based on records, a prosecutor may not strengthen the credibility of a witness by making himself or herself unsworn witness and supporting his case by his own veracity and position.

The accused man was prejudiced by the prosecutor's inflammatory and unsupported implication that the witness was more credible because she testified despite some unspecified possibility of retribution for doing so. There is no support in the record of any threats to the witness or her family and the prosecutor's comments violated the rule that a prosecutor may not try to express to the jury, by implication, suggestion or speculation, the impression that the man is guilty of other crimes.

Additionally, the prosecutor made improper remarks relating to the man's tattoos. The man introduced evidence that he has tattoos on his arms in order to undermine the credibility of a witness who testified that she saw him at the crime scene holding a gun and wearing a t-shirt, but could not remember whether the man she saw had tattoos on his arms. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the man’s tattoos are described with a smoking gun, bullets, and the words gangster life may have posed some self-created prejudice to the man in and of themselves, a risk that the man had to bear by putting them in evidence. However, the prosecutor's summation crossed the bounds of permissible expression. Specifically, it was improper for the prosecutor to state his analogy that if it walks like a duck and looks like a duck then it's a duck. It argues that the violent nature of the man’s tattoos established his identity as a person seen in possession of the gun. Since there was no evidence from any eyewitness that the person seen at the crime scene had tattoos, the only possible purpose of the comments would have been to improperly argue that it was more likely that the man had committed the crime because of his bad character, which the prosecutor constructed for the jury from the violent nature of the man's tattoos.

Under the situation of the case, since it cannot be said that there is no significant probability that the decision would have been different absent the cumulative and damaging effect of those errors then the court cannot consider them harmless.

Because of the danger that we encounter in our everyday life, some of us seek security in bringing with us weapons such as gun. However, unwanted crimes can be committed while in possession of that weapon. If you need legal help for gun-related issues, you may consult a Nassau County Possession of a Weapon Attorney from Stephen Bilkis and Associates. For crime issues brought about by weapon possession, sex crimes or theft, a Nassau County Criminal Attorney can offer enormous legal options that you may consider in contemplating your legal action.

Computers are playing an ever increasing role in crime and criminal activity. In some cases, case law is still in a state of flux in determining how certain searches are affected by this technology. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the question of novel issues in court are more common because of this. In one such case, the question was raised of whether a warrant authorizing a search of text files that are on a computer for documentary evidence pertaining to one particular crime, authorizes a search of image files on the same computer that contain evidence of a different crime. In cases like this, the question of law relates to the plain view doctrine.

The plain view doctrine states that anything that an officer can see in plain view while he or she is legally in a location, can be seized without a warrant. The suspect can then be charged with whatever crime the item suggests they are involved in. There are many cases that have established the case law referring to the plain view doctrine. Recently, the plain view doctrine has taken on an entirely different arena. The plain view doctrine can now be applied to computer files that are opened pursuant to a search of the computer. In other words, in the old days, the plain view doctrine applied to anything that an officer could see that was physically in plain view. For instance, a New York Criminal Lawyer said if the officer was inside a house relative to a domestic violence call, and observed a marijuana plant growing in the room, he could seize it and charge the person with possession of marijuana. The reason that he could seize it without a warrant is that he was inside the house legally handling a call for service and observed the plant in plain view. Now, most of us do not think about the files in a computer being in plain view, but if you think about them in the following fashion, it can be understood.

If an officer is searching a file cabinet located in a home for child pornography, under a search warrant that entitles him to look for evidence of the crime of child pornography, he is looking through the file cabinet legally. If he then sees a file that references drug crime, he can seize that file and make the appropriate charges, because he was legally in the file cabinet under the search warrant when he observed the additional file in plain view.

Now, we apply this concept to a computer. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said if an officer is conducting a legal search of a computer for evidence of the crime of child pornography, and he sees a file that is labeled AB1, she is entitled to open that file to see if it contains evidence of the crime of child pornography. If when she opens the file, it is evidence of the crime of drug sales, she can seize the evidence in that computer file. She can arrest the subject and use the evidence against him in court. She can do this because she was looking through the computer under a legal search warrant. She could not have known what the file contained without opening it. She could not determine if it was evidence of the crime listed under the search warrant until she examined it. The fact that it contained evidence of a different crime does not negate the evidence because it was considered to be in plain view under this doctrine.

Now, let’s say that after the officer opened the file labeled AB1, and found the evidence of the drug sales. She then began to open all of the files to see if there was more evidence of drug sales. That additional evidence would be excluded under the Exclusionary Rule, because the officer would have been conducting an illegal search. As soon as the officer located the first file, which was legally obtainable under the plain view doctrine, she should have stopped the search. She should then have sought an additional warrant for the computer for evidence of the drug crime. Only then could she have proceeded to check the rest of the files for evidence of the drug crime.

In the case at hand, officers were working on a case involving an elaborate scheme to manufacture and sell devices that were capable of overriding cable television boxes so that the owners could obtain all of the premium channels for free. This type of conduct is providing the tools to commit the crime of theft of services. In New York, the crime for selling these boxes is criminal possession of forgery devices. The detectives prepared the case in an investigation that lasted one and one half years. They had witnesses, victims, they had even conducted a buy of the forged devices on at least two separate occasions.

They had information concerning three different names that were being used, but had only observed one suspect. That man drove a red Nissan 280Z. He had been recorded, and observed, on three different occasions, mailing boxes that were the right size and shape to be the forged boxes. The recipient had then received the forged boxes by mail carrier the following day. On the last buy, they had arranged for a planned purchase of ten of the forged boxes. When the suspect left his home with a parcel that was the right size, the officers stopped him. He was in his red Nissan backing out of the driveway that was listed as the return address on the boxes that had already been delivered.

When he was stopped, he had the closed boxes on the passenger front seat beside him. The boxes were in plain view. An officer has the legal authority to search any items that are within the immediate reach of any person who is arrested. That includes any closed boxes. The boxes contained the forged cable devices. At that point, the subject was searched incident to arrest. The keys to his house, which were in his pocket, were seized.

The officers obtained a search warrant for the house, and the post office box, that the subject had been using to take orders, manufacture, and sell the forged cable units. During the course of the search of the house pursuant to the search warrant, for evidence of the crime of manufacture and sale of forgery devices, the officers seized three computers that were believed to have been used to operate the forgery business. The officers then obtained a separate search warrant for text files documenting the operation of the forgery of illegal cable boxes. After the hard drive had been copied onto another computer, the forensic examiner began the search through the files for evidence under the search warrant. He observed a file that was labeled, “DSS.” In this folder was additional evidence of the crimes relating to the forged cable units. Since it was ambiguously labeled, the search of that file and the evidence that it contained fell legally under the search warrant that had been obtained. Shortly after locating that file, the forensic examiner located a file that was labeled, “fake I.D.” this folder was not ambiguously labeled. Given this subjects affinity for forgery, the examiner should have reasonably considered that the contents of this folder would contain evidence of an additional crime. At that point, the officer should have ceased his search and obtained a separate search warrant for evidence of the crime of forgery of I.D. Documents. At the very least, he should have obtained a warrant for evidence of any other illegal activity that may be present on the computer itself. However, the officer did not take either of these actions. He opened the file, it did in fact, contain evidence that this subject was also running a web site dedicated to producing, “novelty I.D.s.” Because these novelty identification cards were driver’s licenses, work identification cards, and social security cards, he was not convincing anyone that these would be used as novelties. He was charged with creating forged identification documents.

The defendant in this case, made a motion to the court to suppress the evidence that was located from the point where the forensic examiner opened the file that stated that it contained fake identification. The court ruled that the officer should reasonably have been able to determine that the file contained evidence relating to a different crime that was not covered under the warrant, that he should have stopped the search and requested an additional warrant based on this new probable cause to believe that the subject had committed an additional crime.

Additionally, the warrant specifically related to text files. The files that were in the fake identification folder were JPEG files indicating that they contained images and not text files. This in and of itself put this folder outside the scope of the search warrant. Because this file was outside the scope of the original search warrant and no additional warrant was obtained before opening it, all of the evidence obtained in that file and all other files after that one concerning the forged identification documents must be suppressed. They cannot be used in a court of law because they fall under the Exclusionary Rule. Since all of the evidence that was found after that first folder was fruit of the poisonous tree of an illegal search, it is all prevented from being shown to a jury in a court of law.

Another mistake that the detectives made in this case, related to the Miranda Warning Rule. At the time of his arrest, this defendant was in his vehicle pulling out of his driveway. He was stopped and arrested. The vehicle search was valid as previously discussed, however, the officer asked him a question after he removed the subject’s keys from his pocket. He asked the defendant if there was anyone else in the house, or anyone else involved in his scheme. The officer asked this based on the three different names that had been used. Later it was discovered that these names were all aliases of the same defendant. At the time that the question was asked, the officers did not know how many people were actually involved. The defendant answered by stating that there was no one else in the house and that there was no one else involved. The defendant moved to have his statements suppressed under the Miranda Rule.

Under the Miranda Rule, if a person is in custody and questioned, he is entitled to his Miranda Warnings to have an attorney present. This defendant was not advised of his Miranda Warning, however, since the search that found the keys was subsequent to arrest, he was clearly in custody. He was then asked a question. That violates the Miranda Rule. He should have been given his Miranda Warning. This failure makes all of the statements that the subject made after arrest and before his Miranda Warning, inadmissible in a court of law.

At Stephen Bilkis & Associates the ability to have a Queens Criminal Lawyer in convenient offices throughout New York and Metropolitan area. Whether you have been charged with drug possession, a theft charge or sex crimes, we can provide you with advice to guide you through difficult situations.

A woman and her partner went into a boutique where they obtained a talked with the owner. While the woman went through the process of trying on several dresses that none of which were purchased, the woman’s partner asked directions going to the bathroom which was located to the rear of the store and which he carefully surveyed for the purpose of accomplishing the upcoming burglary. Three days later at about 2:15 a.m., the woman together with her partner pulled into the rear alleyway behind the boutique and stopped the car with the car trunk facing the rear bathroom window. On the evening before, the man which was the woman’s partner had purchased an ankle holster for a gun he owned. Consequently, while the woman acted as a lookout, the man entered the boutique by the bathroom window and he then brought numerous articles of women's clothing, including 240 ladies' blouses, 16 pantsuits and 16 ladies' coats, into the bathroom and gave these articles to woman through the bathroom window. The woman then placed the articles in the trunk of the car. At that moment, an officer accompanied by another officer, who was on routine patrol duty saw the car in the alley and spotted the open bathroom window to the boutique. The officer’s promptly called for assistance. The officer’s also saw the woman hiding behind the car. The questioning by the officers took from one to three minutes and was limited to inquiry of what she was doing, however no arrest was then made.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said apparently, an officer who had just arrived because of the radio call went to the street to cover the front of the store. Simultaneously, the man broke out the front of the store. The officer, who had not drawn his gun, attempted to stop the man but at that point the man attempted to escape the scene and later shot the officer. The officer then died from the wound inflicted by the man.

The woman now contends that there should be a reversal in the conviction that the court made a mistake in refusing to charge the jury as requested by the woman. An NY Criminal Lawyer said the court stated that they found no error or deficiency in the court's main charge or its refusal to adopt the specific requests to charge. The woman willingly and voluntarily involved herself, and indeed fully participated in a burglary and by doing that she necessarily accepted all the consequences of the felony murder committed either during the course of the burglary or during the man’s immediate flight from the burglary. Based on records, it cannot be reasonably argued that the officer’s momentary intervention as the man was exiting the boutique and fleeing from the burglary, terminated either the burglary or the man's immediate flight there from. In previous cases, a unanimous court upheld the felony murder conviction upon facts significantly similar and really identical with the woman’s case.

An examination to the first request made by the woman made no mention whatsoever of felony murder liability in the event that the killing took place during immediate flight and if implied in the terms requested by the woman, it would have been an erroneous charge. The said request spoke only to an instruction that the jury were required to acquit if they found the burglary alone had terminated at the moment of the killing.

Based on records, both at common law and by statute in the state, a felonious homicide is considered murder by operation of the legal fiction of transferred intent, and the homicide is characterized as having been committed with malice prepense. The majority has not addressed the other assigned errors and all of which are without any merit.

Consequently, the court found that the woman's conviction of the felony murder of the police officer should be upheld and the order of the appellate division should be affirmed.

There are people who face financial difficulty in life and those problems trigger them to do something unlawful. In their aspiration to have money for their needs they don’t consider the consequences doing illegal actions. If you’ve been troubled because of a crime you committed, whether it was a theft, sex crimes or drug charge, ask help from the Nassau County Criminal Lawyers. If you happen to be a crime victim, the Nassau County Arrest Attorneys at Stephen Bilkis & Associates are always ready to give you competent legal advice.

When a person gets behind the wheel of a car, they are getting behind the wheel of a machine that is heavy enough to kill another person. It is a weapon when used offensively against another. When a person has already proven that they are incapable of using good enough judgment to continue to possess a driver’s license, is found to be driving a vehicle while under the influence, the crime is especially heinous.

However, justice has many steps for a reason. A New York DWI Lawyer said our justice system is an adversarial justice system. The adversarial nature is in place to prevent the mistakes that human beings make. The appeal process is not in place to provide a sounding board for every criminal. A New York DWI Lawyer said there must be a constitutional ground that makes the case worth reviewing once it is past the Superior court level. In one case that involved a habitual violator with a revoked license, a police officer pulled up behind a car that was parked on the side of the road. When the officer approached the vehicle, he noticed that the subject had a strong odor of alcohol about his person and that his eyes were bloodshot and glassy. His speech was slurred and the subject was unsteady on his feet.

Field Sobriety Tests are notoriously questionable. A Nassau County DWI Lawyer said that they are designed for failure, so it is rarely a surprise when a person who has been asked to participate in these tests, does not pass them. In this case, the subject failed two of the three tests, but it is not clear which ones or what the criteria was for the officer to consider the test to be a failure. The defendant maintained that his arrest was illegal because the officer did not see him driving and could not make a determination that his driving was impaired.

The court disagreed and cited the fact that police officers are trained to make determinations of guilt based on the facts surrounding a case. The could make the determination that based on the position of the car and the fact that the subject who was in control of the vehicle was intoxicated, that the person was guilty of DUI. The justices further noted, that the manner in which the subject drove his car was only one of the many factors that resulted in his conviction. Clearly, he was aware at the time that he decided to operate the motor vehicle that his license was suspended or revoked.

A person can be charged with DUI or DWI any time that they are in control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The term, in control of a vehicle, can be something as innocuous, as sitting in a parked car behind the wheel with the keys in the ignition. The person may even be passed out or asleep. If they are in control of the vehicle, it is DUI. The vehicle does not even have to be running, he just has to be in a position to make it run if he were to decide that he wanted to.

Many cases have been brought that demand that the practice of writing traffic violations based on behaviors that have never been witnessed by a police officer, be reviewed. Each time, the courts find that an officer does not have to personally witness the driver violating the law. If the officer can prove probably cause that the person acted in such a manner as to have violated the law, then the officer can write the citation. In this case, he had evidence that the vehicle had been driven. He had the subject behind the wheel of the car and in control of the vehicle. The defendant’s license was in revocation status and he appeared to be under the influence. The conviction was upheld.

It is important that anyone who thinks that they have been charged with DUI contact a contact a New York Criminal Lawyer. A New York DUI Lawyer can help protect your rights and ensure that you receive a fair trial.

An appeal was filed by a man from a judgment convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon as a felony upon a jury verdict and from a judgment of the same court upon his plea of guilty to violation of probation. The appeal also brings up for review the denial of the man's motion to suppress certain evidence.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the incident happened at about 11:30 p.m. when a detective was sitting in plain clothes in a parked car observing a bar and an officer was with him. Both of them observed a car with three black males passing by the bar at 5 m.p.h. The car stopped for about 1 to 2 seconds and the three men in the car turned their heads towards the bar. The car then continued down the street at 5--10 m.p.h. After making their observations, the police followed the car. Thereafter, the car stopped at a corner in deference to a stop sign and all three heads again turned to observe a bar near the corner. In half-way down the next block, the officers pulled the car over. As they were stopping, the detective observed that one of the man inside the car bend over in the front seat. The driver came out from the car and stated that he did not have the registration or his license because he had forgotten his wallet. The two other males were also unable to produce identification. The latter two were then asked to get out of the car. The officer began questioning the other man who he observed that the hands were in his pockets. When the officer instructed the man to remove his hands from his pocket, the officer observed a bulge in his right side pants' pocket. The officer conducted a pat down and the bulge felt like steel. The officer believed that the item was a blade, but when the man removed it from his pocket, it revealed that it was a clip with five .25 caliber bullets. The officer told his co-officer that there was probably gun around. The other officer quickly search for it and found it under the front seat.

The officer was aware when he stopped the car that there had been two gas station stick-ups and several office break-ins in the vicinity. The officer stated that when he observed the behavior of the car and its occupants as it drove by, he felt that a crime was about to be committed. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on cross-examination the officer stated that he could tell all three looked towards the bar as they drove past it, by observing the backs of their heads. When the gun was found, all three were arrested.
The trial court determined that the gun and the clip were acceptable as evidence. In an opinion, the stop of the automobile was completely improper and illegal and the evidence, including the weapon upon which the conviction in the said case was based, should have been suppressed.
At the proceeding on the motion to suppress the gun held pursuant to the initial stop, a New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the statement made by the man during the interrogation, the knife and coat, the court ruled that all the evidence was admissible. The judge found that the initial stop and arrest were justified.

Based on records, even though the facts differ from the case, the court fails to see any distinction in principle. Since the conviction is for the criminal possession of the weapon, the motion for the suppression of which should have been granted, the judgment should be reversed and the indictment dismissed.

Subsequently, a New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the court opposes and votes to reverse the decision. It further grants the motion to suppress, and dismiss judgment and to reverse the revised judgment and vacate the man's guilty plea of probation violation.

If you are troubled by wrong accusations of other people, ask the assistance of Nassau County Arrest Attorney. If you want to help your loved ones with their crime related case, the Nassau County Criminal Attorney at Stephen Bilkis and Associates are the appropriate persons that can provide what your loved ones deserved.

On March 30, 1985 at approximately 10:00 P.M., the accused and his accomplice entered a supermarket in Island Park and accosted the manager who was in the process of closing the store. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accused pointed a loaded pistol at the manager, cocked it and told him not to move, give the keys to the safe otherwise his head would be blown out. The two men forced the manager into the office where the safe was located. The accused heard footsteps so he gave the gun to his accomplice and left the accomplice to guard the manager while he investigated the footsteps he heard. On leaving the office, he observed the manager’s wife who had been in the store with her husband. The accused grabbed her and was pushing her toward the office when a loud shot was heard. The accomplice came running out of the office and told the accused that he had shot the manager accidentally, when the gun went off as the manager tried to free himself from a headlock. The accomplice took the keys from the manager’s body and they forced the wife to the rear of the store where they attempted to unlock the doors. Unable to find keys to all the locks they attempted to break them with a bolt cutter and some other tools they found in the store. At this point the night porter, who, unbeknownst to the accused and his accomplice, had been sleeping upstairs, came down and observed them trying to escape. He recognized the accomplice as a former employee of the store and he assumed that they had been accidentally locked in. He advised them that they would have to call a manager to unlock the doors. As the night porter, the accused and the accomplice began walking toward the front of the store, the night porter saw blood and part of the manager's body through the office door and he realized what had occurred. The accomplice drew a gun and told the night porter that if he said anything they would be back to kill him. The accused threw a shopping cart through the plate glass windows in the front of the supermarket. As the accused and his accomplice ran through the parking lot, they were observed by a cashier who worked in the store. Although she did not recognize the accused, she was able to identify the accomplice.

By talking with the night porter and the cashier, the police learned that the accomplice was one of the perpetrators. They also learned from another store employee that just before closing time, the accomplice was seen in the store talking to his cousin who worked at the supermarket. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the police interviewed the employee who initially stated that he had not seen his cousin since the early afternoon just before he left for work. Eventually he admitted that he had seen the accomplice and the accused after the incident when at their request he had driven them to a motel in Queens. Armed with this information and the assistance of the accused man’s brother-in-law, who was a New York City police officer, the police were able to arrest the accused and his accomplice less than 24 hours after the gun crime.

After their arrest, both the accused and his accomplice agreed to give statements to the police. The accused admitted that it was his idea to rob the supermarket and he described how he enlisted his accomplice’s aid. He also alleged that the supermarket employee had agreed to assist them in the plan by advising them when the store was about to close. He stated that the supermarket employee also consented to meet them after the robbery and hide the gun and any proceeds of the criminal act. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said he went on to describe how he and the accomplice attempted to commit the robbery and the resulting death of the manager. The accomplice gave a confession, fully implicating himself in the crime, which was remarkably similar to the accused man’s confession. The police then interviewed again the supermarket employee and he gave a second written statement in which he claimed that he knew that the accused and the accomplice were going to rob the store. He admitted that prior to the robbery he told them that the store would be closing in a few minutes and he conceded that he received and hid the gun after the criminal act.

Prior to trial, the accused moved for a severance of his trial from that of his accomplice on the ground that the admission of his accomplice’s statements would constitute a violation of his right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. The court denied the motion by finding that all the confessions were sufficiently interlocking to avoid any prejudicial effect. As each statement was admitted into evidence, the court cautioned the jury that the statement could be used only against the accused man who made it.

The accused man’s argument that his statements should have been suppressed because they were taken in violation of his right to counsel is without merit. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the record reveals that at the time of his arrest, the accused had a criminal charge pending against him in New York City. When questioned by the police regarding his prior arrests, the accused indicated that he had been arrested in New York City in 1984, but it had been all taken care of. Given the accused man’s representation that the charge was no longer pending, the police cannot be charged with either actual or constructive knowledge that there was a pending charge or that he was represented by counsel. Moreover, since the investigation of the current felony act was handled by the Nassau County police and the prior charge, for a relatively minor criminal act, was pending in New York City, it cannot be argued that the police displayed bad faith in accepting the accused man’s statement that the previous charge against him had been disposed of.

The court also reject the accused man’s contention that his conviction for the gun crime related act must be reversed because the jury delayed in turning over certain material which consisted of notes made by the officer who conducted ballistics tests on the gun which killed the manager. The record reveals that the accused man was not substantially prejudiced by the delay. The material was produced before the officer testified and the court offered the accused an adjournment if, after reviewing the notes, the accused wished to have his own expert examine the gun.

Prior to the start of trial, the counsel waived the accused man’s presence in order to discuss certain procedural matters with the court. At the end of the trial after deliberations had begun, the attorney noticed one of the jurors apparently taking notes during a recharge on the law. When the incident was reported to the court, it, with the agreement of all the attorneys, sent its head clerk to the jury room to collect any notes which the jurors may have written. The accused claims that he was deprived of his right to be present at all material stages of his trial. The proceedings which took place were not material since they did not bear any relation, reasonably substantial, to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charge.
The sentence imposed was not unduly harsh or excessive and did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion. The remaining contentions raised by the accused were considered and were found to be without merit.

Even how much planned any crime can be things could definitely become worst that expected. If you find yourself wanting to consult a Nassau County Arrest Lawyer for crime committed to you, call Stephen Bilkis and Associates in their offices all over the metro. You may also find a Nassau County Criminal Attorney that can guide you all throughout your lawsuit action.

Defendant and complainant are husband and wife. Immediately prior to his arrest, defendant and his wife were staying in separate cooperative apartments, each jointly owned by them, in the same apartment building in Manhattan. The larger of the two apartments was the couple's marital home, while the smaller served as the wife's office.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that as a consequence of severe marital conflict between them, the wife was temporarily sleeping in her office, but had access to the larger apartment during the day. The defendant husband continued to occupy and sleep in the larger apartment.

On 24 June 1988, defendant was arrested and charged with Assault in the Third Degree and with Harassment, on the complaint of his wife; defendant, with intent to cause physical injury and to harass and annoy his wife, had punched her in the face and knocked out one of her teeth. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the alleged assault and harassment occurred after the wife had returned to sleep in the larger apartment and refused to let the husband in.

On 24 June 1988, at defendant’s arraignment, he was represented by counsel and was released on his own recognizance with the consent of the People. A Temporary Order of Protection, effective until 17 July 1988, has been issued unless further extended by the court. No argument was heard, or testimony presented, either in support of or in opposition to the issuance of the TOP.

On 26 June 1988, two days after defendant's arrest, a New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the wife informed the police that defendant had threatened her with violence over the telephone and that she had a Temporary Order of Protection (TOP). The police sought to arrest the defendant for violation of the TOP, but apparently, following negotiations with defendant's counsel, they agreed to desist while defendant litigated the legality of such an arrest and of the underlying order of protection.

On 13 July 1988, defendant and his counsel appeared before the court and orally requested that the TOP be modified to allow the defendant access to one of the two apartments. A said the application was denied with leave to renew in writing.

A new TOP was issued, without a hearing, on the same terms as previously, and made effective until 1 August 1988, unless extended by the Court.

On 15 July 1988, by order to show cause returnable on 26 July 1988, defendant moved to vacate the TOP as based on insufficient evidence and issued in violation of due process of law. Additionally, and alternatively, a New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the defendant moved for a hearing to vacate the TOP as a condition of his recognizance. While this motion was pending, on 18 July 1988, defendant sought and was denied review of the TOP in the Supreme Court, New York County, on the ground that the law did not authorize such review.

On 20 July 1988, the defendant's written motion was disposed of by stipulation. The People and the defendant agreed in writing that a hearing would be held to determine defendant's claim that an Order of Protection should not have been issued in this case and that the police do not have probable cause to arrest the defendant for violation of that Order of Protection.

On 26 July 1988 the stipulation was approved by the presiding judge and the hearing was scheduled for 1 August 1988.

The issue here is whether there was sufficient evidence to justify the issuance of a TOP as of 24 June 1988, and whether there was a current basis for its continuation.

Although called for by the stipulation, no evidence was taken at the hearing to determine whether there was probable cause to arrest the defendant for violation of the TOP. Instead, with the defendant's consent, the People filed a "Superseding Amendment" to the information charging the defendant with Criminal Contempt in the Second Degree. The new count alleged that on June 26, in violation of the June 24 Temporary Order of Protection, the defendant telephoned his wife and told her that he had a gun and was coming to see her ( a possible gun crime). The provision of the Temporary Order of Protection allegedly violated by the defendant was that which required him to abstain from offensive conduct against the wife.

On 4 August 1988, the court orally ruled that the evidence supported the issuance of the initial TOP on 24 June 1988, and issued a new TOP excluding defendant from only one of the two apartments owned by him jointly with his wife.

Defendant's constitutional challenge would be treated as a motion to dismiss the added charge of Criminal Contempt in the Second Degree.

By an Order, without opinion, dated 28 April 1989, the Court withdrew its 4 August 1988 oral decision that there was on 24 June 1988 a sufficient basis for the issuance of a TOP; adhered to its decision to issue a new Temporary Order of Protection; denied defendant's motion to vacate the 24 June 1988 Temporary Order of Protection on constitutional grounds; and dismissed the charge of Criminal Contempt in the Second Degree. The Amended Order and Decision supplements the Order issued on 28 April 1989.

On the Issue of Scope Hearing Held to Review Issuance of TOP:
The TOP in question was issued as a condition of defendant's release on his own recognizance. A fundamental principle of the law governing securing orders is that a judge may not review a determination of bail or recognizance made by a judge of coordinate jurisdiction nunc pro tunc, and may only modify such a determination prospectively on the basis of new facts adduced. To the extent the Stipulation between the People and defendant provided for nunc pro tunc review of the 24 June 1988 determination of the arraigning Judge, it was invalid. The court's decision, pursuant to the stipulation, that there was a sufficient factual basis for issuance of the 24 June 1988 TOP, must therefore be withdrawn.

On the question of whether, subject to defendant's constitutional challenge, there was a sufficient evidentiary basis for the continuance of the June 24 TOP, the court rules that there was substantial evidence presented at the hearing to support the continuation of a TOP excluding the defendant from the marital apartment.

Sufficient evidence were presented including previously filed cases which established that there was a substantial danger of intimidation or injury to the complainant and supported the issuance of a new TOP on 4 August 1988.

On the Issue of Standing and Mootness:
The defendant has standing to maintain his constitutional defenses and that he has presented a live dispute appropriate for adjudication.

In determining whether defendant has standing to raise his constitutional challenge, it must be shown that his personal or property rights will be directly and specifically affected. In order to have standing to challenge a statute as unconstitutional, a defendant must demonstrate actual or threatened injury to a protected right and that he has been aggrieved by the unconstitutional feature of the statute.
Here, defendant's liberty and property interests were and are restricted by each of the various temporary orders of protection issued against him. He presently faces criminal prosecution, now based in part on his violation of the order which he claims to be unconstitutional. Each of the temporary orders of protection restricts defendant's liberty to go where he pleases; he may not go to the home, business or place of employment of his wife, as well as his associational liberty in relation to his wife. The orders also exclude him from real property in which defendant otherwise shares ownership and a right to possession.

Defendant's liberty is threatened by the criminal proceedings for violation of the June TOP, which proceedings are presently pending against him. The effect of the TOP and of the authorizing statute on defendant's liberty and property interests could hardly be more direct and specific.
Although the June TOP is no longer in effect, the controversy surrounding its issuance is not moot. Defendant currently faces prosecution for the violation of the June TOP. In addition, the temporary nature of short term orders may not be used to insulate them from legal challenge. A case will not be treated as moot where the problem presented is capable of repetition, typically evades review, and is novel and substantial.

On the Issue of Existing Procedures and Criteria for the Issuance of a TOP:
The law itself does not prescribe the procedure to be followed when an application for a TOP is made. However, the law provides that whenever a court is required to issue a securing order, whether for recognizance or bail, a defendant must be afforded an opportunity to be heard. By the express terms of the law, the determination whether to issue a temporary order of protection is a part of the process of setting bail or recognizance. The statutory right to be heard must be provided to a defendant with respect to the issuance of a TOP as well as to the literal fixing of bail or recognizance.
There is surprisingly little authority concerning the nature of a defendant's opportunity to be heard; an adversary evidentiary hearing is not required on an initial application for bail or recognizance.
On the other hand, a legislative history of the law demonstrates that a major purpose for its enactment was to enable the criminal court to protect victims of domestic violence from intimidation by the use of further violence and threats of violence. Therefore, "danger of intimidation or injury" to complainant is the appropriate standard to be applied by a court considering an application for a TOP as a condition of bail or recognizance. There must be a "reasonable foundation" for the court's determination, and the reasons for the court's determination should be stated or, at minimum, must be ascertainable from the record.

On the issue of Defendant’s Constitutional Challenge; Right to a prior evidentiary hearing:
Whenever state action deprives a citizen of his or her liberty or property, due process requires that he or she be afforded the opportunity for a hearing. The hearing must be provided at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Only in extraordinary situations may the hearing be postponed until after the deprivation has occurred. In the arrest and pre-trial detention phase of criminal proceedings, the Fourth Amendment likewise imposes hearing requirements as an aspect of fair procedure. However, the requirements of due process and fair procedure are flexible as to the timing and formality of the hearing called for by the particular situation.

Certain factors have consistently been considered in evaluating the adequacy of procedures both under Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and under the Fourth Amendment.
First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirements would entail.

Applying the foregoing, a TOP excluding defendant from the home is not an adjudication of title, and is not to be mistaken for a legal order of eviction. Nevertheless, the interest affected here is the defendant's use and enjoyment of his property interest in the home he owns jointly with his wife. Beyond its value as property, a person's special interest in his/her home as an enclave of personal security and privacy has repeatedly been recognized under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Being suddenly deprived of one's home, even temporarily, is a traumatic experience.

Clearly, the property interest of the defendant affected by exclusion from the home pursuant to a TOP is a substantial one. Before defendant may be deprived of such an interest permanently, or even temporarily, he is entitled to a hearing, unless extraordinary circumstances and an overriding state interest necessitate prompt action either without a hearing or without the appropriate evidentiary hearing until after the event. When no timely hearing is available to defendant with respect to the TOP excluding him from his home, it would indeed be unconstitutional.

The State's interest in the issuance of TOP is also a significant one. Domestic Violence has come to be recognized as a social scourge of the first order. Not only does the State have a strong interest in combatting domestic violence through criminal prosecutions, but that interest is severely undermined if victims of domestic violence are too frightened by further threats and acts of violence to participate in the criminal prosecution of their cases. Further, the State's interest in combatting domestic violence through criminal prosecutions is closely linked to the interest of courts, as state instrumentalities, in protecting the integrity of judicial proceedings. The great potential for violence and intimidation which is present when both the victim and the perpetrator of domestic violence continue to live under the same roof is self-evident. Where danger of injury or intimidation to a complainant can be shown to exist, the device of a TOP excluding the accused from the home, and otherwise restraining victim harassment and intimidation, is indispensable to the maintenance of a criminal prosecution.

Moreover, the state has an interest in the issuance of the TOP at the earliest possible time, since the danger of intimidation and injury to the complainant, if it exists, is an immediate one. In a very real sense, the issuance of such a TOP as a condition of bail or recognizance at the time a defendant is arraigned is an emergency decision.

The risk of error in determining whether a TOP excluding a defendant from the home should be issued is clearly greater when the determination is based only on the documents and arguments of counsel available to the Court at arraignment rather than on the testimony of live witnesses subject to cross-examination. The adversary process would better assist the Court in making the crucial assessment of the complainant's credibility, the extent of any injuries suffered and threats made, and the defendant's history of violent behavior toward the complainant and others.

Despite the strength of defendant's constitutional interest, and the evident if unquantifiable risk of error, the emergency nature of the decision, as well as the practical difficulties inherent in convening an immediate evidentiary hearing, mitigate against the imposition of such hearings as constitutionally required before a TOP may first be issued at arraignment.

The United States Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit have held that in the initial phase of criminal proceedings, the need for expeditious assumption of judicial control following a defendant's arrest outweighs the need to minimize risk of error through adversary procedures.

The requirements of due process do entitle defendant to a prompt evidentiary hearing after the TOP excluding defendant from the home has been issued. The importance of defendant's interest in his home, the severity of the deprivation imposed through exclusion from the home, and, typically, the need to resolve conflicting issues of fact and credibility as to the underlying family conflict require that a trial type hearing be provided. Presentation of witnesses and cross-examination are the most suitable means for assessment of veracity and credibility.

The fact that defendant will ultimately have a full trial of the underlying charges against him does not obviate the prompt hearing requirement.

The court concludes that the requirements of procedural due process and of fundamental fairness must be considered satisfied by the procedural safeguards available under New York law. Before a TOP may be issued at arraignment: a probable cause determination must be made by a judicial officer, based on a verified complaint containing facts of an evidentiary character providing reasonable cause to believe that a crime has been committed; defendant is entitled to a presentation of reasons for the issuance of such a TOP by the People and through counsel to be heard in opposition to its issuance; before issuing such a TOP as a condition of bail or recognizance the court must be satisfied that there is a danger of injury or intimidation to the complainant; and, the defendant has a right to a prompt evidentiary hearing following the issuance of the TOP.

The fact that the court, when issuing a TOP, is not statutorily mandated to state its findings of fact and conclusions of law on the record does not impair the constitutionality. Although a statement of such findings and conclusions is desirable, it is not constitutionally required in support of a bail determination, as long as the reasons for the determination are apparent from the record.

On the issue of Defendant’s Constitutional Challenge; Inadequacy of Standard:
According to defendant, the absence of a standard or of criteria for the issuance of a TOP makes the application of the law intrinsically arbitrary and violative of due process.

The absence of criteria or factors which the court must consider in making its determination was held not to impair the constitutionality of the statutes at issue. However, articulated statutory criteria enhance the responsible exercise of discretion. This court notes that subsequent to the entry of the TOP complained of here, the law was amended in part to list factors to be considered by the court in determining whether to issue a TOP excluding defendant from the home. These factors include "conduct subject to prior orders of protection, prior incidents of abuse, extent of past or present injury, threats, drug or alcohol abuse, and access to weapons, and whether the TOP is likely to achieve its purpose in the absence of a condition excluding defendant from the home. The specification of these factors should prove extremely helpful.

On the issue of Dismissal of Criminal Contempt Charges:
Violation of a provision of the TOP cannot support a charge of criminal contempt. As a rule, the order of a court, no matter how erroneous, must be obeyed unless the issuing court lacks jurisdiction or the order is void on its face. It is equally well settled that to support a charge of criminal contempt there must be a clearly expressed and definite order of the court and the contemnor must know of the order.

When the terms of an order are vague and indefinite as to what actions are required of or prohibited to a party, he or she may not be adjudged in criminal contempt for failing to take the required action or for taking the prohibited action.

Although the aforesaid precedents were established with respect to Judicial Contempt and not with respect to Penal Contempt, they apply with equal force to Penal Contempt. Both sections punish disobedience to a court's lawful mandate. The rationale for requiring a clear and definite order applies equally to contempt under both statutes. Since punishment for contempt for violation of an order jeopardizes a contemnor's liberty and property, as a matter of fundamental fairness such punishment should not be imposed unless the person affected had notice of what the order proscribes or requires.

The elements of the two forms of contempt are essentially the same, despite the procedural differences which exist between Judicial Contempt and Penal Contempt proceedings. While the Penal Law criminalizes intentional disobedience or resistance and the Judiciary Law proscribes willful disobedience, the terms intentional and willful are treated as interchangeable in the cases.
Accordingly, defendant cannot be prosecuted for Criminal Contempt in the Second Degree.
When one is faced with the same problems as the above, a highly competent legal representative must come in handy. Contact Stephen BIlkis & Associates for a free consultation. Discuss your situation with a highly trained, experienced, and exceptionally skilled Nassau County Criminal Attorney or a Nassau County Arrest Attorney from our firm.

Two women were working at a taco restaurant. Two men came in and held up the restaurant. At gunpoint, the two men took the two women employees to their car in the parking lot. They made the women ride in their car. They drove them to a dead end road in the next county and there they raped and sexually abused the two women.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that even while in the car, while they were still on the road going to the next county, one of the men pointed the gun in his possession at the women and fondled their breasts.

They were charged and convicted of robbery in the first degree, two counts of rape in the first degree, two counts of kidnapping in the second degree and two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree.

The two men appealed their convictions. They argue that they cannot be charged and found guilty of rape in Nassau County when the rapes occurred in Suffolk County.

The Court dismissed this contention of the two men. The Court held that it is sufficient for even if just one element of the crime of rape took place in Nassau County charges of rape may be brought against them in Nassau County.

The duty to prove that one of the elements of rape was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Nassau County falls on the district attorney. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the crime of rape occurs when a man engages in sexual intercourse with a woman by compelling her through force. Forcible compulsion is a physical force that can overcome earnest resistance. An express of implied threat that made the women fear immediate death or serious physical injury to themselves or to another person is forcible compulsion.

These elements of the rape occurred in Nassau County when at gunpoint the men took the women and made them ride in the car. It occurred when the men at gunpoint threatened to kill the women and their families if they reported the rape to the police. The men fondled the women’s private parts. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that lmost all of the elements of crime took place at Nassau County and continued uninterrupted all the way to Suffolk County. Thus, the territorial jurisdiction of Nassau County to bring the charge of rape in Nassau County was proved. The charges were properly brought.

It was also proved that when the two men took the women at gunpoint from the taco restaurant, they intended fully well to rape the women. When they forced them at gunpoint to ride in their car, they intended to rape them. When in the car as they were on the road, the men threatened the women they had the intent to rape them. When at gunpoint in the car and the men fondled the women’s breasts, they intent to rape the women was present. Thus, a New York Drug Possession Lawyer explained, the specific intent of rape was present even while they were in Nassau County and continued uninterrupted until they reached Suffolk County.
On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the convictions for two counts of kidnapping in the second degree and dismissed the kidnapping charge but all the other convictions were upheld and affirmed.

The Court held that the two men cannot be convicted separately for kidnapping because the kidnapping of the two women were actually not a separate crime but became one of the elements of the crime of rape. The kidnapping was incidental to the rape and it was the means by which forcible compulsion of the women could be accomplished.
Stephen Bilkis and Associates has conveniently located offices in the New York area. Their New York City Gun Crime Lawyers can help represent and assist you. New York Gun Crime attorneys can give you advice. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates today and ask to speak to any of their NYC Gun Crime attorneys. Confer with any of their NY Gun Crime lawyers and begin you build your defense today.

A couple co-owned two separate apartments in one building in Manhattan. A larger apartment was their family home and the smaller apartment was the office of the wife. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the couple was having marital problems and the wife moved out of their larger apartment and she had been living in the smaller apartment.

In May 1987, the husband slammed the wife into a wall and she injured her elbow. In October 1987, the husband knocked his wife to the floor and caused her to break her ankle. He forced her to walk on her broken ankle and threw books at her. On June 24, 1988, the husband punched the wife in the mouth and knocked one of her teeth out because she locked herself in the larger apartment and would not let the husband in.

The wife finally filed a complaint for domestic violence against her husband. She also filed a complaint for assault plus harassment. During the arraignment the district attorney asked for a temporary order of protection be issued effective until July 17, 1988. No argument was heard and there were no testimonies presented by the wife or the husband. The arraigning judge issued the temporary order of protection. The husband was released on his own recognizance.

On June 26, 1988, two days after the husband was arraigned, the wife asked police assistance. She reported that her husband had called her and told her that he was coming to see her and he had his gun with him. The police sought to arrest the husband but his lawyer asked to be given the opportunity to contest his arrest and the order of protection that he had allegedly violated since this was the basis for the second arrest for criminal contempt.
The husband appeared in court on July 13, 1988 and asked that the temporary order of protection be modified to allow him to stay in one of their co-owned apartments. His application for modification of the temporary order of protection was denied. The order of protection which was set to expire on July 17, 1988 was extended to August 1, 1988.

The husband filed an action to vacate the temporary order of protection on the ground that it was issued without sufficient evidence and in violation of his right to due process. A Suffolk Criminal Lawyer said he also filed a motion for review of the temporary order of protection with the Supreme Court of New York to review the issuance of the temporary order of protection.

Before the motion was heard, the district attorney and the husband stipulated that a hearing should be held to determine whether or not the temporary order of protection should have been issued. In accordance with this stipulation, the hearing was conducted. The criminal court judge ruled that there was sufficient factual basis for the issuance of the temporary order of protection.

The review of the constitutional grounds raised by the husband was separately heard by the Supreme Court. The only questions raised were: whether the judge who arraigned the husband on the charge of assault and harassment had the power to issue a temporary restraining order even without any evidence presented as to the need for it; whether or not the arraigning judge’s ruling to issue a temporary order of protection which was not in writing violated the husband’s right to due process.

The Court ruled that the State had a significant interest in issuing temporary orders of protection because the State considers domestic violence as a societal scourge. An NYC Criminal Lawyer said the State has declared it a public policy to battle domestic violence by criminally prosecuting those who engage in domestic violence. Victims of domestic violence must be prosecuted and they must feel secure enough to testify against those who committed domestic violence against them. To allow the victim and the perpetrator of the domestic violence to continue to live under the same roof would place the victim in danger of further injury and the perpetrator would be given a further opportunity to commit similar acts of domestic violence.

Thus, in accordance with the stated policy of the state, a judge did not violate the husband’s due process rights by issuing the temporary order of protection even without presentation of evidence of the domestic violence. It is enough that criminal charges for domestic violence have been filed and the district attorney prays for its issuance. But after the issuance of a temporary order of protection, the criminal court judge who will hear and decide the criminal case must schedule an evidentiary hearing to assess whether there is sufficient ground for the furtherance of the temporary order of protection.

A New York City Domestic Violence Lawyer can help you obtain a temporary order of protection for your safety. The temporary order of protection applied for by your New York Domestic Violence attorney will prevent any further acts of violence against you as you testify against your partner or spouse. The temporary order of protection secured by your NY Domestic Violence attorney will ensure that you do not have to share the house with your spouse or partner. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates today, speak to any of their NYC Domestic Violence attorneys. They are willing to assist you present evidence and argue your case against your partner or spouse. Stephen Bilkis and Associates have accessible offices located in the New York area.

The Supreme Court modified a special condition of a man's parole. The said condition forbade him from having any contact with his wife without the permission of his parole officer. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the modified order permitted the man to see his wife during non-curfew hours so long as the wife wished to see him.

On recent years, the man was released on parole subject to seventeen special conditions where he agreed to abide by a curfew established by his parole officer and agreed that he will not associate in any way or communicate by any means with his wife without the permission of the parole officer. While denying the man's application to vacate the curfew and to allow him to live with his wife, the Supreme Court held that although the condition was not itself a violation of the man's constitutional rights, it was subjective to deny the man’s visitation during non-curfew hours as long as the wife consented to it. In the ruling, the court noted the wife's desire to see her husband. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man's rape conviction occurred before and none of his domestic violence related arrests resulted in convictions. The court finds that the Supreme Court improperly substituted its judgment for that of state division of parole.

Based on records, the imposition of a special condition is discretionary in nature and ordinarily beyond legal review as long as it is made in accordance with law and no positive legal requirement is violated. If the condition is rationally related to the inmate's past conduct and future chances of recidivism, the Supreme Court has no authority to substitute its own preference for that of the individuals in charge of designing the terms of a man's parole release. Further, because there is no federal or state constitutional right to be released to parole supervision before serving a full sentence, the state has responsibility to place restrictions on parole release.

Consequently, the courts respectfully disagree. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the record provides no factual support for the accused party’s assertion that the special condition imposed as a condition to man's release to parole, is necessary to protect the man's wife from domestic violence. The record does not indicate the grounds for issuance of a temporary order of protection to the man's current wife.

The special condition has no rational relationship to the crimes for which the man is currently subject to parole. The crime for which the man was most recently imprisoned with second degree criminal possession of a forged instrument is economic in nature and does not indicate that the man will pose any danger to his wife or child. The man’s previous conviction of first-degree rape was for a crime that, while terrible and of the utmost gravity, was committed when the man was 19 years old, against a stranger, not a spouse or domestic partner, and there is no evidence of the man having committed any sex offenses in the 27 years since that conviction. For such reason, the court finds no rational relationship between the conviction and forbidding the man from having any contact with a wife who wants to see him. The court notes the special value of the marital relationship to parolees like anyone else, as a source of emotional support and well-being. In that situation, there is no evidence that the man's wife has a criminal record or would otherwise be a bad influence on him.

Accordingly, the court finds that the special condition is not rationally related to the crimes for which the man is subject to parole, or to the State's objectives of reducing recidivism and protecting the public. Further, the court would confirm the order.

A person with terrible past will always be hunted by it if the people around him would think that everything he does is associated with his previous shortcomings. If you want a good counsel to represent you with your legal issue, whether it involves sex crimes, drug charges or a theft crime, you can ask our New York Domestic Violence Lawyers. If you or a family member needs help from our New York Criminal Lawyers at Stephen Bilkis & Associates, our team is always equipped with excellent lawyers to defend your lawsuit.

A Jewish couple married in August 1973. At that time, the husband was 22 and the wife was 18. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the husband was in dental school and wife chose to keep house until after the husband finished his dental studies. When the husband became a dentist and had established a dental practice, it was the wife who took care of all the details of the practice including the hiring and firing of his employees.

The wife was able to finish four college degrees during the pendency of her marriage and had taken a licensure examination as a social worker. The wife also set up a foundation that aimed to help Jewish women who were victims of domestic violence get a Jewish divorce.

The couple had four children. At the time of the divorce proceeding in 2004, the two older children were already adults and married with children of their own. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the third child was 20 years old but still in college and was dependent upon the support of his parents. The youngest child was 13 years old.

The couple decided to emigrate to Israel and for that purpose, the husband bought an apartment and the child was enrolled in a Hebrew language class to prepare her for entering school in Israel.

When they were in Israel, the husband attended a Hebrew language school so that he can sit for the dental examinations and begin a dental practice in Israel. The wife also sat for her social work licensure examination.

The husband had not terminated his dental practice in New York and instead planned to travel from Israel back to New York every eight weeks to supervise the dental practice in New York.
On one of his scheduled trips to New York, the wife insisted on accompanying her husband. She also insisted on taking their youngest child with them back to New York even if at that time, the child was in the middle of her school term.

The wife insisted until the husband gave in and brought his wife and daughter back to New York. He bought two-way tickets for the three of them because all the while, he thought that their trip back to New York was just temporary.

On the day that they were supposed to return to Israel, the wife refused to return with her husband. She also told her husband that their daughter refused to go back to Israel and wanted to stay permanently in New York.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the husband, exhausted and frustrated with all the expense incurred in relocating to Israel at the express wishes of his wife, and was then confronted with his wife’s unreasonable refusal to return to Israel got so angry, he locked himself in their daughter’s room with his daughter. He had his gun with him and asked his daughter to decide where she wanted to stay. The daughter was terrified and screamed for help. The mother came and rescued the daughter.

Unknown to the husband, as soon as they arrived in New York from Israel, the wife had already applied for an ex-parte Order of Protection from the King’s County Family Court. Her refusal to return to Israel was because she had not yet finished the process of applying for the order of protection.

A day after the husband locked himself with his daughter in her bedroom the police came and served the order of protection. The wife and daughter went to live for seven months at the house of his in-laws. Later, the husband gave up his possession of the family home and his wife and daughter came to live in the family home. The wife later withdrew the application for an order of protection.

The husband brought a case for habeas corpus against his wife and mother-in-law alleging that the two women had kidnapped his daughter and refused to allow him to see his daughter. He also alleged that his wife’s actions and hysterics had caused his daughter’s affections to be alienated from him. The husband later withdrew this case for habeas corpus.

The husband then filed for divorce. In the wife’s answer, she claimed that she is entitled to sole custody of their daughter and a larger share of the distribution of the marital assets because she had been the victim of domestic during the 31 years of their marriage. The wife wants a declaration that the domestic violence in the marriage was egregious that it shocks the court’s senses.

The wife claimed that she was sexually abused by her husband who forced himself upon her four times during their 31 year marriage. She claimed that her husband verbally abused her and that he had problems controlling his anger. He claimed that he assaulted her, pushed her, and slammed the car door on her. She claims that she had broken her wrist and herniated a disk because of the domestic violence he had committed against her.

The Court found the woman’s claim and testimony of domestic violence and marital abuse as not credible. The Court found that the wife has not submitted any evidence of any injury whatsoever. Her injuries were largely self-diagnosed. The police reports she alluded to were non-existent. Their family therapist and marriage counselor who allegedly kept all the evidence of the abuse was deceased and no such evidence was found among his papers by his widow.
The Court found the marriage dysfunctional. The wife is controlling and always has to have her way. Her own therapist who testified in the divorce proceeding concluded that the domestic violence she complained of was largely in her mind. Her husband is withdrawn and has distanced himself from his wife, allowing her control in their daily life and when he has reached the limit of his patience was also prone to fits of anger.

The daughter’s alienation from the husband was brought about by the husband’s outburst and the incident where he locked himself in his daughter’s room while he was holding a gun. But the Court also noted that the wife had done her best to make their daughter a pawn in her marital discord with her husband. The wife has manipulated both her daughter and her husband.
The husband has consented to a divorce both in the civil courts and in the Jewish religious court. The only remaining issue in these divorce proceedings is the distribution of the assets.
The Court warned the mother that further attempts to alienate the child from her father will result in fines imposed upon her. Both the child and the mother have to submit themselves to therapy. The order of protection is withdrawn.

The Court recognized that some form of domestic violence occurred: verbal abuse and threats. But the Court also concluded that the level of domestic violence is not egregious and these scenes of domestic violence were not committed in front of the children or upon them. The acts of both the husband and wife were acts of rage in their marital tug of war as they haggled for control over the marriage and the assets of their marriage.

Domestic violence is a ground for divorce. If the domestic violence is proved to be egregious and shocking to the senses, domestic violence may be a ground for an inequitable distribution of the assets of the marriage during a divorce. NY Domestic Violence Lawyers can help you prove that acts of domestic violence occurred during the marriage. Whether you have been charged with domestic violence, sex crimes or assault, The NY Domestic Violence attorneys at Stephen Bilkis and Associates are here to help.

On 18 January 2011, defendant was arraigned in Buffalo City Court on one count of harassment in the second degree pursuant to Penal Law alleging an act of domestic violence by the defendant against the complainant.

A New York DWI Lawyer said on 26 January 2011, the People declared their readiness for trial and defendant served motions on the Erie County District Attorney on 1 February 2011. While this Buffalo City Court action was pending, three petitions were simultaneously pending in Erie County Family Court between the defendant, complainant and a third family member concerning the custody of the defendant and complainant's child. The pendency of these simultaneous criminal and Family Court matters with the underlying issue of domestic violence prompted a screening by the herein Court, the Supreme Court Integrated Domestic Violence (hereinafter IDV) Part, located in Erie County.
Accordingly, the Court determined that a transfer of the family's cases to the IDV Part was appropriate by finding that said "transfer of the case to the Supreme Court would promote the administration of justice" pursuant to the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts for Integrated Domestic Violence Parts.

By IDV transfer Order dated 24 March 2011, the Court then simultaneously transferred the defendant's pending Buffalo City Court violation level matter and the parties' pending Family Court matters to the Supreme Court IDV Part.

Was the transfer proper and did the court acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter?
It is well settled that the Chief Judge of the State of New York may establish standards and administrative policies for general application throughout the state, which shall be submitted to the Court of Appeals, together with the recommendations of the Administrative Board, and approved by the Court. A New York DWI Lawyer said the Court of Appeals stated that such a review prior to the implementation of a new administrative policy is an indispensable component of the constitutional scheme.

Moreover, the Constitution of the State of New York also specifically addresses the reassignment of cases to and from Supreme Court; the constitution provides that the Supreme Court may transfer to itself any action or proceeding originated or pending in another court within the judicial department other than the court of claims upon a finding that such a transfer will promote the administration of justice.

Furthermore, Judiciary Law also grants authority to the Chief Judge, in consultation with the Administrative Board and with the consent of the Court of Appeals, to establish standards and administrative policies for general application to the unified court system throughout the state, including but not limited to standards and administrative policies relating to transfer of judges and causes among the courts.

Based upon the aforementioned constitutional and legislative authority, the Chief Judge promulgated Part 41 of the Rules of the Chief Judge on 6 June 2004 that created the "Integrated Domestic Violence Parts of Supreme Court" and granted the authority to the Supreme Court IDV Part to transfer "a domestic violence case" pending in a criminal court and a simultaneously pending civil family case pending in Supreme or Family Court involving the same parties or family for disposition in the Supreme Court IDV Part.

The straight forward language of Part 41 of the Rules of the Chief Judge grants broad transfer authority to the IDV Part and does not limit the IDV Part's transfer authority to only misdemeanor and felony level offenses. A Nassau County DWI Lawyer said this rule applies to any "domestic violence case" pending in a criminal court as domestic violence cases inherently require serious review by the Court, regardless of the level of the offense charged given the difficult nature of these matters, especially if the allegations contained in the accusatory instrument are ultimately proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Any effort by the Legislature to abridge, limit or qualify' the broad jurisdiction conferred under would be unconstitutional and void.

The Supreme Court IDV Part possesses the power to transfer domestic violence matters to itself from a criminal court to promote the interests of justice pursuant to the Rules of the Chief Judge, Part 41, the Constitution of the State of New York, Article VI, Judiciary § 19 and the legislative authority of Judiciary Law §211(1)(a).

Once the matters have been transferred to the IDV Part the Court then possess the subject matter jurisdiction to hear all matters that it transfers by that same constitutional authority and the authority conferred upon the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court IDV Part's subject matter jurisdiction to hear and dispose of "domestic violence matters" most certainly includes stand-alone violation level offences that are transferred into the IDV Part by the issuance of a Supreme Court IDV Part transfer Order. A determination that the provisions of the CPL divest Supreme Court of its power to dismiss or try petty offenses and/or a determination that the CPL requires that a local criminal court has exclusive jurisdiction over a violation level offense, would render the provisions of the CPL unconstitutional and void. Such a determination would be inconsistent with the delegation of authority to the Supreme Court by the Constitution of the State of New York and the intent of the Rules of the Chief Judge, Part 41.

The Court finds that the Supreme Court IDV Part has the authority to transfer a sole count of a violation level offense charged in an Information to the Supreme Court IDV Part, and also has the requisite subject matter jurisdiction to dismiss or try the matter.

Several issues may arise out of domestic violence cases and an example of which is the above mentioned case. For advice on how to resolve these legal issues, contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates for a free consultation. You will be guided with the proper legal remedies by our brilliant New York Domestic Violence Attorneys or our New York Criminal Attorneys.

A woman commenced an action against her former fiancé seeking damages sustained from physical abuse and violence allegedly committed by her fiancé.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the woman initiated a suit in the district court while her case was pending in the federal court. Her asserting claims are in accordance to the federal violence against women act. The Supreme Court struck down the violence against women act. As a result, the district court dismissed the woman’s claims under the act however the woman commenced an instant action.

Based on records, the congress passed the violence against women act and created a private reason of action for victims of gender-motivated violence against their opponents. Consequently, the Supreme Court struck down the civil resolution provision of the act, holding that the constitution provided no basis for the provision and deferred the suppression of violent crimes and evidence of its victims to the police power resting in the states. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that three months after the decision, the council introduced the victims of gender motivated violence protection act to fill the void left by the Supreme Court's decision and provided a private right of action for victims of gender-motivated violence against their opponents.

The woman’s complaint asserts reasons of action sounding in common-law intentional torts, fraud, and acts of gender-motivated violence. Consequently, the fiancé brings the motion to dismiss the fourth, fifth and sixth reasons of action in the revised complaint for failure to state the reasons. The woman’s fifth reason of action seeks recovery in accordance to the victims of gender motivated violence protection act. The fiancé contends that the act cannot apply retroactively to the woman’s claims, which accumulated prior to the passing of the local law.
The woman further asserts that the intimacy, psychological dependency and patterns of abuse that existed throughout her relationship with the fiancé were of such a degree to warrant a claim for domestic violence. The domestic cruelty torts refer to torts committed as part of the cruelty, such as assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. There is no different tort of domestic violence that is a recognized reason of action. Since the complaint also fails to satisfy the elements of claim, the fourth reason of action is dismissed.

The woman's sixth reason of action, alleging that she was fraudulently induced to undergo an abortion in return for a promise of marriage, is also dismissed. The deceitful promise to marry claim is a disguised contract claim for breach of a promise to marry, which is prohibited under the law. A Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer said since the woman’s allegations also fail to satisfy the necessary elements of fraud, the sixth reason is also dismissed.
The court concludes that the lawmaking body intended local law to apply retroactively. It is evident that the City Council's intent was to fill the gap as soon as the lawmaker was decided by restoring the availability of a private remedy for domestic violence victims and that the overriding goal and purpose of local law was to provide a local solution as soon as the federal remedy was not available.

The court determines that the woman’s claims under local law would be contrary to the intent of the lawmaking body, contradict the purpose of the law, and leave the woman in the exact void created by the previous ruling that the law was clearly enacted to fill. Accordingly, the court finds that local law permits retroactive application of the woman’s claims, and the man's motion to dismiss the fifth cause of action is denied. Further, a Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said it is ordered that the fiancé's motion to dismiss is granted only to the extent that the fourth and fifth reasons of action are dismissed.

It is hard for any woman to commence an action against her partner. However, women do have their limitations and rights. If you are one of the many women who experienced cruelty in the hands of your loved one, be guided by a NY Domestic Violence Lawyer in determining what course of action to consider. If you require assistance with your criminal suit, the New York Criminal Lawyers of Stephen Bilkis & Associates are most competent to assess and handle your case.

Whenever evidence of a crime is discovered by police during an inventory search of a person’s vehicle, it is subject to scrutiny. Inventory searches are administrative searches. That means that the police department or agency maintains documents in their standard operating procedures manual that indicates that an inventory of an arrested person’s vehicle will be performed incident to that arrest. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the reason for inventory searches is that people often make allegations that items are missing from their vehicles. The inventory of the person’s vehicle incident to their arrest is to determine what exactly is in the vehicle. Anything that appears to be valuable needs to be removed and placed into evidence or property so that the person can re-claim their valuables upon getting out of jail. The police department is protected from allegations of theft, and all valuables are protected for the individual.

However, in many cases, illegal items, narcotics, open alcoholic beverage container, stolen credit cards, and other items are located during the inventory of a vehicle. It is at that point that the officer must be able to prove that the search was an administrative search and not a search for contraband. That is why it is important for police officers to have their procedures documented.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that in a case that was decided before the Supreme Court of New York County on November 18, 2009, a defendant who was charged with one count of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the second degree and with driving under the influence of alcohol. The man was arrested following a traffic stop. The officer stated that he observed a Lexus pulled up to a fire hydrant. There was a white male behind the wheel of the car. When the officer pulled up, the man got out of the car and approached the officer. The officer stated that the man’s eyes were glassy and bloodshot, he exuded a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage from about his person, and he was unsteady on his feet.

He was asked to take field sobriety tests and he refused. He was arrested for DUI. He also refused the breathalyzer test at the precinct where his car was inventoried. During the course of conducting the inventory search of the car, the defendant’s sister arrived at the precinct. She introduced herself to the officers. She identified herself as a Metropolitan Transit Police Officer and noticed that she had graduated from the police academy with the arresting officer in the case.

She accompanied him out to the car and he released many of the defendant’s personal items into her custody. While conducting the inventory, he moved to inventory the trunk. When he opened the trunk, he observed a closed bag. When he looked inside the bag, he located a firearm. The defendant was notified of the additional charge.

In court, the defendant maintained that the gun was the fruit of the poisonous tree under the Exclusionary Rule. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said the Exclusionary Rule states that any evidence of any crime that is obtained pursuant to an illegal search is inadmissible in court as evidence unless the police can show that they would have inevitably discovered the evidence anyway.

In this situation, the defendant claimed that he was not driving the car. He stated that he was already outside the car when the officer arrived. A Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said this would have made an impound of the vehicle pursuant to an arrest invalid and any proceeds from that search would have been illegal.

The court found that the search was within the guidelines set forth in the procedure manual and thus the search was upheld and the gun was ruled as valid evidence. Stephen Bilkis & Associates have Criminal Lawyers who can fight for you. Their New York DUI Lawyers are familiar with handling cases in criminal courts where the Exclusionary Rule is an issue. Many items can fall into the category of illegal searches when the case is DWI. At Stephen Bilkis & Associates, we have offices throughout New York and the Metropolitan area. Being able to defend the client’s interest is of the utmost importance to us.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on 15 March 199, petitioner spouse filed a supplemental petition has been, a Family Offense Proceeding, alleging that respondent failed to obey the modified order of protection issued by the court dated 15 November 1993; that respondent on 8 March 1994, upon release from incarceration for prior violation of the order of protection, arrived at petitioner's residence with police at approximately 1:00 a.m. attempting to gain entry to petitioner's residence and subsequently on 11 March 1994 that "a car belonging to a friend was towed from petitioner's driveway, and petitioner thinking the car stolen filed a police report and later learned where the car was towed, and upon inquiring found respondent had filed a complaint and stated to be the owner of the property and claimed that the car was illegally parked and had the car towed where the towing company is demanding payment for towing and storage fees."

A warrant was issued for respondent's arrest. Respondent was returned on the warrant on 21 March 1994. In April 1994, a hearing was held and at the conclusion thereof, the court made two findings beyond a reasonable doubt, to wit (1) that on 8 March 1994, respondent willfully violated the final order of protection by attempting to gain entry to petitioner's residence and (2) that on 11 March 1994, respondent willfully violated the final order of protection by having a vehicle lawfully parked on petitioner's property towed from that property with false representations by respondent that he was the owner of the property, that the car was unlawfully parked, all to harass and annoy the petitioner. The court’s decision was based on the prior history of family offense activity perpetrated upon petitioner by respondent; the fact that respondent had been committed previously by a court in Nassau County to incarceration for one hundred and eighty days; that respondent apart from that commitment, had been civilly committed by this court for willful violation of the order of protection to incarceration for six months; that respondent upon release from this most recent commitment had almost simultaneously violated the order of protection again on 8 March 1994; that respondent's behavior indicated an intractable design to continue to annoy and harass petitioner; and considering the welfare not only of petitioner, but of the two children, the court determined to civilly commit the respondent for each of the two willful violation to a term of incarceration of six months for the finding of violation occurring on 8 March 1994 and of four months for the finding of violation occurring on 11 March 1994, to run consecutively.

On 12 April 1994, respondent filed a motion returnable 27 April 1994 seeking re-argument of the dispositional order dated 7 April 1994.

In the respondent’s motion, he relies on recent appellate authority which holds that Family Court Act Article 8 does not authorize imposition of consecutive commitments.
The Third Department stated that in its view the aforesaid statute, on its face, prohibits such commitments. As there is no other reported appellate decision on this issue, this holding would normally be of persuasive authority. This holding is remarkable and has significant and broad impact on the public especially that element of the public at risk of domestic violence. Because of this over-riding public concern, the holding must be scrutinized.

In the recent appellate authority relied upon by respondent, the Family Court of Dutchess County’s holding, in a practical sense, constitutes a judicial fiat that regardless of the number of separate willful violations committed by a respondent under an extant order of protection, the respondent risks civil commitment under Family Court auspices for only up to six months. The potential absurdity may be illustrated in numerous ways. For example, a respondent having been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of willfully violating an order of protection may be civilly committed for six months, but the commitment may be suspended on condition the respondent not further violate the order of protection. Upon leaving the courthouse, the respondent hits the petitioner. Respondent returns before the court on this violation upon a new supplemental petition within a day or two of the prior order of commitment. Petitioner has elected to proceed before the Family Court. A Bronx Criminal Lawyer having been found guilty of this new violation beyond a reasonable doubt, the court imposes a further six month term of civil commitment, lifts the suspension on the prior commitment and directs they run consecutively.

Another scenario: respondent assaults petitioner in violation of an order of protection. Petitioner files a supplemental petition in Family Court alleging such violation. A summons is issued for respondent. Respondent is served. Before the return date, respondent assaults petitioner again. Another supplemental petition is filed or possibly petitioner amends the supplemental petition to allege this new assault. A warrant issues for respondent's arrest. Respondent prior to execution of the warrant hits petitioner a third time. Petitioner elects to bring respondent before the Family Court for all three violations. Because of the history of violence, the intransigence of respondent and petitioner's refusal to proceed criminally against respondent, the court determines to impose three terms of civil commitment to run consecutively. Respondent educates the petitioner and the court on its powerlessness by citing the recent case of Vitti (the recent holding relied by respondent). To state the obvious: if the appellate holding in Vitti is a correct proposition of law, Family Court's ability to extend safeguards and protection under Article 8 in the arena of domestic violence is seriously compromised.

Respondent argues that the Family Court Judge is powerless to impose consecutive civil commitments which will exceed a six month total.

Is the court empowered to impose consecutive commitments exceeding six months?
A study of the legislative history underlying Article 8 and the plain language of the statute as well as the public policy imbued therein prompts the conclusion that the appellate court in Vitti engaged in judicial legislation. Accordingly, the herein court is not bound by such holding.
As Family Court Act entitled "Petition; violation of court order" is a specific grant of authority to Family Court providing a civil remedy for violation of a Family Court Order of disposition in the form of an Article 8 order of protection, the supplemental proceeding to enforce the order of protection is not embraced within the traditional contempt powers of the Family Court. Family Court Act states in pertinent part that petitioner who has obtained a lawful order of protection of Family Court, may petition Family Court for enforcement of that order "requiring the respondent to show cause why respondent should not be dealt with in accordance with section eight hundred forty-six-a of this part". Section 156 authorizes Family Court to apply judiciary law civil and criminal contempt sanctions "unless a specific punishment or other remedy for such violation is provided in the act or any other law". Such provision "is meant to reflect the original intent to prohibit the Court from considering as a contempt a violation of an order of disposition." Accordingly, the contempt envisioned under Family Court Act which is embraced in "a finding that the respondent willfully failed to obey the order" and which "may result in commitment to jail for a term not to exceed six months" is a power distinct from traditional civil and criminal contempt as envisioned under and embraced by the judiciary law.

Family Court Acts were enacted to "establish a formal procedure (and specific remedies) for the willful violation of a lawful court order".

The State Legislature in liberalizing the statutes to effect greater protection to the victims of domestic violence is deemed cognizant that Family Court is a non-jury institution wherein the court sits as both finders of fact and of law. At the time of this statutory enactment, Family Court Act provided and still provides: "An assault, attempted assault or other family offense as described in section eight hundred twelve of this article which occurs subsequent to the issuance of an order of protection under this article shall be deemed a new offense for which the petitioner may elect to file a violation of order of protection petition, or a new petition or initiate a proceeding in a criminal court." This election is with the petitioner and not with the court whether at trial or appellate level. As noted: "This section gives to the petitioner a choice of remedies for a family offense committed after the issuance of an order of protection. The most important option it gives the petitioner is the right to reconsider the original election of a civil remedy and to initiate a criminal prosecution".

Evidently, the legislature has created a sui generis civil remedy for violation of a Family Court Order of Protection in Family Court, to wit a supplemental petition alleging such violation or violations, if more than one, under Family Court Act §§ 846, 846-a and 847. The authority specifically granted by the legislature to Family Court reflects a spectrum of powers much broader than that embraced within civil or criminal contempt as envisioned by the Judiciary Law. This is a unique grant of power and, as already elucidated above, is intended to bolster, not defeat nor impair, enforcement of orders of protection.

The plain reading of § 846-a discloses that for each separate finding of violation, for each separate failure to obey the order of protection, a guilty respondent may be committed to jail for a term not to exceed six months. The statute does not mandate that commitments be concurrent. Yet this is precisely the import of the holding by the Appellate Court in Vitti. By such declaration it would be unlawful for Family court to impose, for example, consecutive commitments of one week each. The only explanation for this tortuous conclusion is that the appellate court imposed a construction on the statute that consecutive terms may not exceed six months in total, albeit this is not what they specifically declared.

Since the plain and common-sense meaning of is that a respondent who commits separate and distinct violations, not incidental to a single transaction or event, is subject to civil commitment for up to six months on each violation, the grant of such authority implicitly invokes the power to make such commitments run concurrently or consecutively where appropriate. Guidance as to when such civil commitments should run consecutively or concurrently may be obtained from an examination of Penal Law entitled "concurrent and consecutive terms of imprisonment." Since the Family Court Act is silent as to strictures or tenets in this regard, the teachings under the analogue of criminal contempt (a crime) as delineated in the Penal Law are instructive. Study of these teachings discloses that under circumstances where the violations arose out of a single act or transaction, the commitments should be concurrent, but where the violations arose out of separate and distinct acts, consecutive commitments may be properly imposed.

Respondent's argument that Family Court has no power to impose two consecutive commitments of six months and four months each is not sustainable if predicated on the ground that the Family Court has no power to impose consecutive commitments regardless of the terms of such commitments. Rather, respondent's argument is viewed as articulate in the sense of urging that violation of a civil order of protection is criminal, not civil, contempt and imposition of consecutive commitments in excess of a total period of six months invokes his right to jury trial.
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides inter alia, that the accused in all criminal prosecutions shall enjoy the right to trial by an impartial jury. It appears that the United States Supreme Court views supplemental proceedings alleging violation of a civil order of protection as a species of criminal contempt.
In Family Court, a court of limited jurisdiction, the court sits as both finder of fact and law. The court has no power to impanel a jury. The legislature in enacting Article 8--Family Offense Proceedings--established a civil proceeding designed to protect family members from domestic violence, a major social problem. In authorizing Family Court to extend this protection, the legislature apprehended that jury trials are not institutionalized within Family Court. To reiterate, the issue raised on this motion is not excessiveness of commitment, but whether Family Court has the power to impose consecutive civil commitments for distinct separate acts of willful violations of a civil final order of protection, even though the cumulative term of those consecutive commitments exceeds six months. Recognizing the major social problem of Domestic Violence and the legislative response to this problem, Family Court would be remiss if it did not utilize the authority granted in that response in an appropriate fashion to protect the family and its individual members as warranted.

The circumstances herein are quite different and embrace a specific grant of power to a civil (non-criminal) court to enjoin violation of criminal law as specifically enumerated in a civil final order of protection. For violation of such court order an election is given, not to the state, not to the court, not to the respondent [the alleged perpetrator of the violation], but solely to the petitioner (the alleged victim of the violation) as to which remedy to invoke. This right of election which is vouchsafed the petitioner by legislative will cannot be revoked or rendered illusory by judicial fiat unless permeated by an aspect of unconstitutionality.

Clearly, the two individual contempts committed by the respondent herein are separate offenses for the Sixth amendment purposes. As such, they do not transgress or invoke jury trial relief. To hold otherwise, under the circumstances, does a vast disservice to the legislature's efforts to cope with domestic violence. Moreover it has grave implications for the victims of that violence. Judicial will educated by legislative sanctions and the social good must enforce a bright line where repeated violations of the order of protection are the norm and not the exception. There is after all, a difference between civil commitment for criminal contempt and a criminal sentence for the crime of criminal contempt.

Accordingly, the court does have the authority to issue consecutive civil commitments for willful distinct and separate violations of an order of protection, albeit the total term of such consecutive commitments exceeds six months.
In cases of domestic violence, incarceration is possible. If you are a victim of domestic violence, sex crimes or assault, contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates right away. You must protect your rights and ensure your safety by consulting with a lawyer of your legal options. Talk to a New York Domestic Violence Lawyer or a New York Criminal Lawyer from our firm. We offer free consultations.

The couple was married in December 1989 and had always resided in New York during their marriage and their only child was born in July 1990. The parties resided in the City of Glens Falls. The husband was employed by an architectural firm and the wife remained at home to care for their son.

A New York Crirminal Lawyer said in June 1991, after the husband was laid off, the couple moved in with the husband’s brother in Rensselaer County. It was uncontested that the brother has suffered mental illness for many years and being treated with tranquilizers and has been hospitalized on numerous occasions. The husband admitted that his brother’s apartment was cramped, dirty, dangerous and had fleas which bit the child. Marital problems by and between the parties were intensified by their living conditions.

In August 1991, the wife left New York and took their son to Puerto Rico with her. She testified that she escaped to Puerto Rico in desperation due to her inability to acquire a safe environment in New York and the necessary medical care for her son. Because her mother and father both resided in Puerto Rico, the wife contended that she needed to live there in order to receive the emotional and financial support of her family.

The wife contended in the custody proceedings that challenge her relocation, that her husband abused alcohol and marihuana and that she was the victim of continued domestic violence. She further alleges that she had entered a domestic violence shelter on one occasion. One expert forensic evaluator, a mental health consultant, opined that the wife was fit to have custody and that the husband should be afforded liberal visitation. The expert further opined that the husband’s violence toward his wife may well have been a result of an alcohol problem. A certified alcohol counselor conducted an alcohol evaluation and diagnosed the husband as alcohol dependent-provisional, subject to further evaluation which the husband chose not to complete.

The husband also denied going to bars on a regular basis, denied that he had an alcohol problem and denied that he had smoked marihuana since his college years. A Staten Island Criminal Lawyer said with regard to allegations of domestic violence, he admitted to striking his wife on only one occasion. In the context of forensic examinations, the husband admitted that it would be best for his wife to have the custody but the parties should remain in New York or within a reasonable geographic location so that the father/son relationship could be fostered.
At the time of the fact-finding hearing, the husband was unemployed and receiving approximately $256 weekly in unemployment compensation. If granted custody, the husband testified that he would support his son through food stamps and Medicaid in addition to his unemployment allowance. The wife testified that she was employed in Puerto Rico as a teacher earning approximately $1,000 per month and that she resided in a home owned by her father free of charge. In support of her contention that exceptional circumstances existed to cause Family Court to grant her custody and permit her to reside in Puerto Rico, the wife testified that she was unable to obtain a teaching position in New York because she lacked certification. She testified that she applied for positions in New York City, Albany, Rochester and Florida. The evidence clearly reflects that although her efforts to complete these applications were meager, she would have to complete additional courses and become certified before a teaching position in New York would be a viable career.

After a five-day hearing, the Law Guardian recommended joint custody with physical custody to the wife provided that she returned with the child to New York or to a contiguous state. Family Court found exceptional circumstances to exist which justified the wife’s departure to Puerto Rico and determined that because the wife offered a more stable, nurturing environment, she should have sole custody of the child.

After determining that the move to Puerto Rico would deprive the husband, the noncustodial parent, of regular and meaningful access and that extraordinary circumstances exist to permit such relocation, Family Court correctly determined that relocation was in the child's best interest. Noting that Family Court's determination should not be disturbed unless it is not supported by any fair interpretation of the evidence, the court find that such determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record. It is noted that the wife has been the child’s primary caretaker and, with the assistance of her family in Puerto Rico, she can ensure a stable home environment which is free from domestic violence, as compared to the uncertain and volatile living arrangements in place before the parties' separation. A NY Crimnal Lawyer said the court therefore, finds that the wife has made a sufficient showing that relocation was warranted, despite the contrary recommendation by the Law Guardian.
Whenever husband and wife fights, it is always the children that suffer the most. Any parent with sound mind would want a violence and crime free environment for their children. When you know of children who suffer from violence, feel free to call the office of Stephen Bilkis and Associates and speak with the members of NY Domestic Violence Lawyers. For your crime related actions, consult any member of the New York Criminal Attorneys.

On October 22, 1982 at around 2:00 am, car was parked in an alley near an apartment building. A man opened the car and sat in the car and slept in there. The man was able to get into the car because the car was owned by a friend of his.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said a resident in the apartment building called the police to report the man sitting in the car. When the police arrived at the scene, they found the car and they found the man sleeping in the car just as the resident of the apartment building described.

The police woke the man up and told him to get out of the car. When the man had gotten out of the car, the police checked and searched the car. Between the driver’s seat and the front passenger seat they saw a console. When they checked the console, they found a gun inside the console.

The police then arrested the man for criminal possession of a weapon. A New York Criminal Lawyer said charges were brought by the district attorney before the grand jury for felony possession of a weapon.
The man decided to testify for and behalf of himself before the grand jury. When he appeared before the grand jury, the members of the grand jury asked him questions as to whether he owned the car and why he was in the car. The members of the grand jury also asked whether the man’s fingerprints were found on the gun.

After the man’s testimony, the district attorney gave instructions to the grand jury. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said he told them that the Penal Law creates a presumption that a weapon found in a car is presumed to be possessed by all persons occupying the car.

The District Attorney did not tell the grand jury that that the presumption of possession because of the presence of a weapon in a car is not a conclusive presumption. The District Attorney did not inform the Grand Jury that the presumption may be disregarded in light of the evidence provided by the testimony of the man.

The Grand Jury returned an indictment charging the man with criminal possession of a weapon. The man pleaded not guilty at the arraignment and moved for the dismissal of the indictment on the ground that the indictment is fatally defective because the Grand Jury returned an indictment for criminal possession of a weapon only on the basis of the presumption that he possessed the gun because he occupied the car. He claimed that this violated his right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The only question before the Supreme Court was whether or not the indictment was fatally defective because it was not returned by the Grand Jury on the basis of a prima facie belief that the man guilty of criminal possession of a weapon but because of the presumption of possession.

The Court ruled that a presumption of an element of a crime is not constitutional. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the presumption contradicts the presumption of innocence. Also, when the District Attorney did not inform the Grand Jury that the presumption can be rebutted by evidence such as the testimony provided by the man, the District Attorney invaded the Grand Jury’s duty of fact-finding.

The members of the Grand Jury are not lawyers. They do not know that presumptions are not always conclusive but they can be overridden by evidence. If the District Attorney had told them that the presumption of possession was rebuttable, they could have considered the testimony of the man. The failure of the District Attorney to inform the Grand Jury that the presumption of possession is not conclusive misled the Grand Jury.

The indictment was dismissed by the Supreme Court and the District Attorney was given leave to submit this case to another Grand Jury.

A New York City Gun Crime Lawyer will tell you that if a gun is found in your car, you will be presumed to possess the gun. They will also tell you that you can present evidence to assail the presumption. You that you can present evidence that your fingerprints are not on the gun or that the gun was not registered in your name. At Stephen Bilkis and Associates, their lawyers are willing to sit with you and brainstorm defenses you can use. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates and speak with any of their NY Gun Crime lawyers at any of their offices in the New York area.

Two uniformed police officers were checking out an illegally parked car near the corner of 39th Street and 9th Avenue at 3am on June 15, 2005. One of them happened to look up and saw a man running. He was coming from the vicinity of 8th Avenue. When the police officers asked him why he was running, the man wouldn’t say. They stopped him and frisked him but found that he was not in possession of a weapon. When the police officers asked him what was going on, he said he had just been robbed. At that time, a New York Criminal Lawyer said the two police officers heard gunshots from the same area where the man had just come from. They reported over the police radio the gunshots fired.

At around the same time, two other police officers in an unmarked police car were in the vicinity of 8th Avenue when they also heard the gunshots fired. They then saw the white SUV they noticed on the street a while back. The SUV fired its engine and started speeding away. The two police officers followed the speeding SUV. They were tailing it when the SUV came to an abrupt halt because they came across the two other uniformed police officers.

The two uniformed police officers were standing on the street with their guns drawn when they heard the screeching of the tires of SUV and the unmarked police car that appeared to be chasing the SUV. A New York Criminal Lawyer said both the SUV and the unmarked police car were coming from the general direction of the area where the gunshots were fired.

When the SUV came to a stop, the two uniformed police officers approached the car and asked the driver and the person in the passenger side to come out of the car. They reluctantly came out of the car. They also asked the man seated in the back seat to exit the vehicle. The two uniformed police officers made these three men lie down on the ground and handcuffed them.
By this time, the two police officers in the unmarked car had gotten down from their vehicle and looked inside the SUV. The interior lights of the SUV were open and from the passenger door which was wide open, one of the police officers in the unmarked car saw a semi-automatic handgun with a fully loaded magazine next to it. It was in plain view in the middle of the rear bench seat.

The police officer from the unmarked car who saw the gun yelled out to the other police officers that the three suspects were in possession of a weapon. He then closed the rear passenger door of the SUV but did not take the gun. Later when their back-up arrived, the police officer in the unmarked car took the gun and held it up to show all that the gun had already been secured.
The three men were arrested and were taken to the precinct. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said one of the uniformed police officers read them their Miranda rights and they responded that they understood their rights as these were read to them. They signed the statement sheet next to each right as each right was read to them. During the custodial investigation that followed all the three men admitted that they were in the car where the gun was found.

The three men were charged with criminal possession of a weapon.

On arraignment, all the three men pleaded not guilty and they all moved for the suppression of their statement and the gun. They claim that the police officers who stopped their car on the street had no right to stop them as there was no probable cause to stop them. Therefore, according to the three men, the gun and their statements should be excluded and suppressed as fruits from a poisonous tree, the yield of an illegal stop.

The only question before the Court is whether or not the police had probable cause to stop the defendants’ SUV. For it the police officers had no probable cause for the stop then all that occurred after the stop and all the evidence obtained after the stop must all be suppressed and excluded as evidence illegally obtained.

The Supreme Court ruled to deny the motion of the defendants to suppress the evidence. The Court found that the police officers who stopped the SUV had probable cause to stop the SUV.
Probable cause is a reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed. A reasonable suspicion exists when there is knowledge of facts that lead an ordinarily reasonable and judicious man to believe that a crime is being committed.

Here, the two uniformed police officers themselves heard shots fired. Prior to this, they had met a man who said he had been robbed at or around the same area where the gunshots came from. They then saw an SUV coming from the same area. This SUV was speeding down the road toward them. They saw that an unmarked police car appeared to be pursuing the SUV. These circumstances led the uniformed police officers to believe that a crime involving possession of a weapon was occurring at that time. This reasonable belief constituted probable cause to stop the SUV.

It follows that since the stop was reasonable, then all the evidence seized during the search after the vehicle was stopped was legal. The gun seized from the SUV is admissible. The arrest was legal. The custodial investigation following the arrest was legal and the statements made by the defendants during the custodial investigation are admissible.

At Stephen Bilkis and Associates, NY Gun Crimes Lawyers can assist you moving for a probable cause hearing. The attorneys at Stephen Bilkis and Associates can help you argue to suppress and exclude any illegally obtained evidence and statements that may be used to prove your guilt in court, whether you are facing a weapons charge, sex crimes or theft charge. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates today. Speak with any of their New York Gun Crimes Lawyers and assert all possible defenses in your favor. Their New York City Gun Crimes Attorneys are available at any of their offices in the New York area.

Domestic violence cases are not stationary crimes. Frequently, one party will flee to a different state, when that happens it is important that the court orders that are in effect follow them. Prior to 1994, that was not the case. The federal government stepped in and issued the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 which requires that the states give full faith and credit to any order of protection issued by a court in any state. There are some restrictions though. Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America requires that Full Faith and Credit is given to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of all of the states. Congress is required to prescribe the manner in which the orders of the states are to be proved and given effect. With these orders, Congress made their intent to protect women who cross state lines, obvious.

Whenever a situation arises where the New York courts must make a determination regarding a domestic violence order from another state, they must take all of this into consideration. It is not enough to have a protection order in place from a different jurisdiction. The victim must also be able to prove that the person whom the order is against has been given due process under the law. That can be tricky. A New York Criminal Lawyer said when a person obtains an order of protection, it becomes important that they ensure that the court personnel handle all of the paperwork correctly. If the paperwork does not demonstrate that the person was served correctly and given the opportunity to address the order in court, there is not proof of due process and the order may not be valid.

In one case out of Richmond County, in April 7, 1997, a woman was in Staten Island when she noticed that her estranged father was following her. There was a protection order in place in New Jersey stating that her father was not allowed to harass, stalk, or follow her mother or any other member of the family pursuant to a domestic violence problem within the home. Her mother took out the order, but she was named as a secondary party of the protection order.

The question before the court was whether the order from New Jersey could be enforced in the New York venue. Several problems presented themselves. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the first problem was that the crime committed was different in New York than the one that would have been committed if the man had committed his offense in New Jersey. The crime that was named on the protection order was the one that he would have been guilty of in New Jersey.

When addressing this issue the New York court decided that according to the federal statute, New York could enforce the order that was written in New Jersey. However, the crime would have to be the one that the elements of his actions made him guilty of in New York. That information aside, in order to charge the man with anything, they would need to ensure that New Jersey had afforded due process. However, when they reviewed the paperwork, the section on return of service was not completely filled out. It had been marked that he had been served in person; however, the information on who had served the paperwork had been left empty. Ultimately, the court could not determine that due process had been afforded in this case and the court dismissed the charges. The prosecutor contacted New Jersey and obtained an affidavit of validity. He then re-filed the charges and the case was accepted. The man was arrested for the offense.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates have lawyers are well versed in the intricacies of enforcing orders of protection. We have convenient offices throughout New York and Metropolitan area. Do not risk your life! Our Family lawyers will help you protect your family from domestic violence, sex crimes or assault.

The responsibility of the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) is to protect children in the state of New York from emotional or physical harm. This is the agency charged with stepping in to ensure that the home lives of children in the state of New York are safe. There are several laws that give authority to the ACS to conduct home examinations, require drug and alcohol testing, and even authorize the removal of children from their natural parents if it is necessary. However, because people are only human, the fact remains that sometimes mistakes happen. Unfortunately, when an employee of social services or children’s services makes a mistake, there are dire consequences. A New York Criminal Lawyer said in one case from August 2007, an infant girl child was killed at the hands of her mother’s companion. The case alleges that ACS employees were aware of the danger that the infant was in and did not take action to protect her.

The case states that because Brooklyn Family court had charged ACS with supervising the child’s home; and because ACS was familiar with many incidents of domestic violence in the home, the estate of the deceased child is due compensation for her death. The attorneys for ACS claim that since the child was killed by her mother’s companion, who is an outside party, that they are not responsible. The issue involved is whether the infant’s death was due to the gross negligence of ACS or was an unforeseeable event caused by an outsider.

In order to determine who is at fault for the infant’s murder, one must understand the laws that apply in this case. There are two arguments that affect the decision in this case. The first argument is that the representative for the little girl’s estate wants to serve interrogatories to determine who the estate will depose in this action. Under CPLR 3130, a party in a negligence action is not allowed to serve interrogatories and conduct depositions of the same party.

The estate for the little girl, claims that because his claim is based on a wrongful death action under 42 USC§ 1983, he should be permitted to conduct depositions. Interrogatories provide the identities of witnesses to be able to narrow down the list of people who need to be deposed. ACS claims that because the infant was murdered by someone who was not in the employ of ACS, and that she was not physically in ACS custody, that the claim based on a violation of her constitutional rights cannot be valid. ACS further claims the immunity that is promised to government agencies absent a special relationship that would constitute a predicate for liability.

A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer representing the estate of the child maintains that a special relationship did exist because ACS voluntarily created an assumption of duty when they accepted the supervision order issued by the Family Court. Under these circumstances, the estate attorney says that a viable claim exists for negligent supervision and wrongful death. The estate attorney further contends that ACS is not entitled to the judicial immunity that they claim because the obligations involved were not an integral part of the judicial process. The estate recognizes that it is not reasonable to expect the Bronx court to recognize the federal rights violation of due process at that court level. Therefore, the third cause of action under 42 USC § 1983, the absence of due process rights under the 14th Amendment of the US, is dismissed.

Under the governmental immunity doctrine, a municipality and its agents cannot be held liable for any act of negligence that occurs in the exercise of a governmental function unless a special relationship exists or is established between the governmental agency and the person filing the complaint. Under this doctrine, there are three ways to establish a special relationship. A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said the first is that the municipality violates a statutory duty enacted for the benefit of a particular class of persons. The second is when a municipality voluntarily assumes a duty that generates justifiable reliance by the person who would benefit from the duty. The third is when the municipality assumes positive direction and control in the face of a known, blatant, and dangerous safety violation.

In this case, the elements to create a special relationship existed because the Family Court’s supervision order triggered specific, mandatory duties on the part of ACS which the employees neglected to perform. It is alleged that the ACS employees were well aware of the dysfunctional and potentially dangerous environment of the home where the infant lived. The court ruled that because ACS had contact with the infant and the family situation in which the infant lived, it is reasonable to imply that a special relationship existed under the law.

The court also found that the doctrine of judicial immunity is not applicable in this case. The court cited Mosher-Simons v County of Allegany (99 NY2d 214, 2002) in which the social services employee was not given judicial immunity because of a lack of appropriate action taken. In this case, the supervision of the infant’s environment was not a judicial function. It was a prerogative of the Family Court Act that enabled it to direct ACS to protect the child from harm, ACS (not the Family Court) was bound by the obligations that were presented to supervise the home environment. In this case, there was no immunity affordable to ACS or it’s representatives because discretionary municipal acts are not a basis for tort liability, but ministerial acts are libelous when a special duty is found. ACS was required to perform very specific actions to make sure that the child would be safe. These actions were not discretionary by nature. That is why immunity does not attach to them.

As far as the CPLR 3130(1) which states the earlier mentioned requirements that a party is not permitted to serve interrogatories on and conduct a deposition of the same party pursuant to rule 3107 without leave of the court. In a personal injury or wrongful death action to recover damages, the court was concerned that wealthy litigants might use their greater resources to bury poorer adversaries in interrogatories and other paperwork in order to avoid responsibility for monetary damages. In this case, the court determined that there is no intent to misuse the court and leave given by the court to authorize this type of investigation under CPLR 3130 would be reasonable. Basically the court determined that although the estate has the right to conduct all of the interrogatories that it wants, the ACS management has the right to determine which of its representatives are the most knowledgeable about the incident. Those employees are the one who will appear in court, so they are the ones who need to be deposed.

Domestic violence can certainly affect everyone in the home. Many women, who think that they cannot escape, find the strength to get out when the fight is for the lives of their children. This mother let her child die rather than get away from her abuser. At Stephen Bilkis & Associates our Domestic Violence Lawyers, have convenient offices throughout New York and Metropolitan area. Do not risk the life of your child! Our Family lawyers will help you protect your family from domestic violence.

The family court released a decision upon a fact-finding reason that a mother neglected her three children and now released two of the children to the custody of their father with 12 months of supervision by the Administration for Children's Services (ACS). A New York Criminal Lawyer said the mother ordered by the court to comply with the terms of an order of protection. Based on records, the administration for children’s services protects the children from abuse and abandonment or even neglect. The administration for children’s services also provides neighborhood-based services with the help of the community partners, to ensure the children to grow up in safe, permanent homes with strong families

Majority of the evidence supports the court's finding that the mother neglected her children below eighteen years of age, by committing acts of domestic violence against the children's father in the children's presence. Through such actions, the children’s physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of the parent to exercise a minimum degree of care.

The out of court statements made by one of the children regarding the mother's attacks on the father were supported by the father's testimony, the responding police officer's testimony, and the out of court statements of the mother's daughters. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that based on records, no expert or medical testimony is required to show that the violent acts exposed the children to an imminent risk of harm. Evidence also supports the court’s finding of educational neglect as to one of the children. The record shows that, for the 2008–2009 school year, the child missed 64 out of 181 days of school and was late 38 out of 181 days. It shows excessive unexcused absences from school that supports a finding of neglect. The child's guidance counselor testified that he had contacted the mother on numerous occasions regarding the child's absenteeism, and there is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations.

The court properly determined that it was in the best interests of the children to give their custody to their father. However, the court placed the father under the supervision of a child protective agency and he must meet the terms and conditions of such supervision. The mother failed to cooperate with the agency or address the domestic violence issues that led to the removal of her children. Consequently, the father had taken steps to cooperate with family services and to create a stable home for his children.

Given the court's finding that the mother committed acts of domestic violence against the father, which was supported by evidence, it providently exercised its judgment in issuing an order of protection prohibiting her from contacting her children for one year.

During the pending period of the neglect proceeding, the mother never moved for a hearing pursuant to prevent the relocation of the children to another authority. Accordingly, the mother’s argument that the court improperly permitted the children to relocate to another country with the father is unpreserved, and the court decline to review it in the interest of justice. A preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the father's relocation to another country is in the children's best interests. The father informed the administration for children's services that he wanted to move to another country to live in his sister's home in order to improve the children's lives. The said other country’s child protective services assessed the sister's home and found it to be appropriate and safe. In addition, the children's expression of a clear preference for remaining in the father's care in the said other country is entitled to some weight.

Children in the family usually experience difficulty whenever their parents get into a troubled relationship. They are the one who suffered the most and sometimes violent actions may arise. If you been charged with domestic violence, sex crimes, or a theft charge, contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates.

A man moved for an order requiring his opponents to produce for an in camera inspection of employment and civilian complaint review board records for two police officers. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the opponent’s city opposes the motion and moves for an order to dismiss the complaint against it.
It started in a complaint report prepared by a police officer involving the man’s mother who stated that the man got upset and broke her cell phone when she presented him with a P.I.N.S. warrant. The man’s brother also stated that the man smacked/slapped his mother in the face with a notebook. No injuries were reported, nor arrests made but a domestic incident report was prepared. The police officer classified the incident as harassment.

Two hours after the incident, the mother was signed and swore to the incident report, on which the notation no offense was scratched out and replaced with harassment as offense description.
On the evening of the same day, another police officer came and arrested the man for criminal mischief with intent to damage property and harassment. The police officer prepared an arrest report which reflects the man did damage/destroy his mother’s cell phone causing annoyance and alarm to his mother. Consequently, in court the complaint signed by the officer, the man was charged with criminal mischief and harassment. The complaint was based on his mother’s report that the man had yelled and screamed at her, grabbed her cell phone, twisted it, and broke it.

The man initiated an action against the police officers, asserting claims for false arrest, malicious prosecution, violation of his constitutional rights, and negligent hiring, training, and supervision of the arresting officers.

The police assert that they had responded previously to other complaints involving the man’s family. Formerly, the mother reported that his other son became angry and started throwing and destroying property in their apartment. However, a New York Criminal Lawyer reported that his son was not arrested. After a month, the mother alleged that his son came home late and threw a fit when she refused to give him money. However, the responding police officer found that no offense was committed. After several days, the mother again reported that she and her son had an argument and again, the son was not arrested as no offense was committed. Consequently, several other complaints had been reported.
At the trial, the man testified that when police officers first came to the apartment on the morning of his arrest, they told him and his brother to call their father to pick them up in order to give everyone time to calm down and return to the apartment. In the evening, he was sitting in the lobby when two officers approached him and told him to come with them to his mother's apartment as they were going to arrest him, spoke to his mother, and expressed their intent to arrest him. The man walked toward his mother and the officers grasped him and shoved him to the ground. He later learned that his mother never told the officers to arrest him, and recognized the two officers from their prior home visits.

The arresting police officer testified that at the time of the incident, she was employed as a domestic violence officer. They were required to conduct home visits, effect arrests, and follow up on domestic incident reports. The officer visited the man's home to follow up on the domestic incident report signed by the man's mother and on the police officer's complaint report. During the visit, the mother told the police officer that his son had broken her cell phone and showed her the broken phone. Further, the arresting officer also asserts that the man tried to leave the apartment and together with another officer, they restrained the man. The officer also testified that the man was arrested because of the broken cell phone and the family's domestic violence history, at mother's request.

It is certain that the man's arrest was not made pursuant to a warrant and that the charges against the man were dismissed before trial. The city argues that the man's arrest was based on probable cause of the incident report, signed and sworn to by the mother. It also contends that the negligent hiring, supervision, and retention claims must be dismissed against the officer because they were acting within the scope of their job.

The man argues that there is a triable issue as to whether his arrest was based on revenge or familiarity with the family's domestic violence history rather than on probable cause. He further contends that relevant discovery remains outstanding, including the police officer’s employment records which are relevant to his negligent hiring, supervision and retention claims.

The city then argues that the man failed to disprove its showing that the officers had probable cause to arrest him and that the man is not entitled to the additional discovery. The city further contends that the man's failure to plead and prove that his alleged injuries arose out of an official city custom or policy eliminate his constitutional claims.

Based on the record, probable cause arises when the arresting officer has reasonable or probable grounds for believing that the arrestee had committed an offense or it is in the grounds which would cause an ordinary and cautious person, under the situations, to believe the arrested person guilty. Generally, information from an identified citizen accusing another individual of committing a specific crime is enough to provide the police with probable cause to arrest. Dismissal of the criminal charge is some evidence of a lack of probable cause, but it is not dispositive, and the opponent's motives, in good or bad faith, or malice or lack thereof are immaterial as to whether she had probable cause to arrest the man. Further, a person is guilty of criminal mischief when, having no right to do so nor any reasonable ground to believe that he or she has such right, he or she intentionally damages another person's property. A person is guilty of harassment when he or she, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person, engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legal purpose.

Moreover, the elements of a false arrest claim which includes that the opponent intended to confine the man, that the man was conscious of the confinement, that the man did not consented to the confinement, and the confinement was not otherwise privileged. A warrantless arrest gives rise to assumption that the arrest was unlawful, and thus the man establishes a claim of false arrest upon proof that his arrest was made without a warrant. In order to avoid liability for the arrest, the police officer must establish that he was legally justified to make the arrest based on evidence that at the time of the arrest, the arresting officer had probable cause to believe that the man had committed a crime.

The court decided that the man’s motion to compel the officer’s is denied. It is further ordered that the city’s cross-motion for an order granting a request for judgment without trial is granted and the complaint is dismissed against the city. The action is dismissed entirely.

There are times that we encounter misunderstanding towards other people that cause us or our family member trouble. If troubles resulted in unexpected violence, ask help from our New York Domestic Violence Attorneys. If a criminal suit is filed against you for drug possession, a theft charge or domestic violence, you may find a New York Criminal Attorney at Stephen Bilkis & Associates to give you the best defense in court.

Custody issues are never pleasant; however, they are often complicated by differing parenting styles and volatile relationships between the parents. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the court is responsible for determining what if anything will improve the child’s emotional and physical development. In some cases, these decisions are complicated further by domestic violence and poor choices that have been made by one or both parents who are involved in the custody case. In New York, the law is very concerned with the child involved being given the best opportunities. It is because of this outlook that New York courts appoint the child their own attorney to represent their best interests in a custody case.

This is the situation that one couple found themselves in. In May of 2002, a thirty-two year old man met and married a thirty year old woman in New York. The father was a first grade teacher at the time and the mother was an interpreter. They had only known one another for a short time prior to the marriage was in part decided due to the fact that the woman had become pregnant. During the pregnancy, the couple had a violent argument. The father threw his pregnant wife down a flight of stairs in front of her sister. When she attempted to call the police for assistance, he grabbed the phone and pulled it out of the wall to prevent her making the call. Her sister witnessed the incident.

The wife moved out of the house and was living apart from the man at the time that she gave birth to their son in December of 2002. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the couple admit that during the time they were together that a large amount of the time was marked by violence and arguments. During the next few years, the mother raised the son herself with little interaction with the father.

At one point during this time, the father spent two years in the army fighting in Iraq. When he returned, he showed little interest in the child until the mother left New York and moved to California. It is alleged that she make the move to California to hide the child from the father. This contention lacks validity. The fact that she was living only two blocks from her family in California leads the court to believe that he could have located her and the child if he had attempted to reach them.

When the child was five years old, the father met another woman whom he made plans to marry. He filed for full custody in New York and told the courts that he had just located the child. The court gave him full custody of the child because the mother was not present in court to defend the accusations. The father went to California, served the mother with the papers, and removed the boy. He returned to New York where he moved the boy in with his fiancé, her son, and her new infant which had been fathered in their union.

The mother returned to New York and petitioned the court to revisit the custody appointment and give her full custody of the boy. Her reasons were because this was just another power play by the father to control her contact with her own son. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said there were several telling incidents that were reported to the court. Not the least of which was the fact that the militaristic parenting style of the father was harsh and unrealistic for a five year old child.

The father was known to stand over the boy while he ate to ensure that he did not fidget at the table. Food was removed from the child if he did not eat it fast enough. The father expected the five year old to show more advanced maturity than his age in several other incidents. He was to run his own bath and bathe without adult supervision. The father was ambivalent when the matter of his son’s education was involved.

The mother had the child enrolled in a school for gifted children. He is her only son and she lavished attention on him. He is emotionally extremely close to his mother, and he has spent the vast majority of his young life in her care. The father only intervened in the son’s life in the past year. While the two have begun to build a relationship, the father made no provisions for the boy’s emotional adjustment from being removed from his mother. In fact, the court found that the father had a problem with any kind of empathy for his son’s emotional well-being.

In light of the situation, the court requested the child’s advocate to determine if the child had a preference for living arrangements. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the child stated that he would prefer to live with his mother, but that he still wanted to maintain a relationship with his father. The court found that while the mother had made some mistakes in reference to fleeing with the child to California, the father had made some poor choices as well. The court determined that the father had not been interested in obtaining custody of the child until it was convenient for him.

The court also determined that the father only sought health care for the son when it was convenient for him. His controlling behavior that was exhibited when he threw his pregnant wife down the flight of stairs was being played out again because he was attempting to remove the boy from her care. The court was also concerned with the father’s behavior when he pulled the phone out of the wall to prevent the mother from calling the police. Later, when the father had custody of the boy, he had refused the mother’s sister any access to the child when she was in New York and wanted to see him. Both parents have refused visitation to the other at different times. The court impressed upon both of them that this type of behavior would not be permitted in the future.

Taking all of this in to consideration, the court determined that the mother would be the best choice as permanent full time custody parent. The mother agreed to relocate back to New York in order to be given custody and she agreed to allow visitation to the father on a schedule. The court believes that the mother will not be so intimidated as to flee the jurisdiction again. Further, they feel that her appreciation of the child’s advanced intellect will ensure that the child has a better opportunity to blossom to his full potential under her care.

At Stephen Bilkis & Associates our Domestic Violence Lawyers, have convenient offices throughout New York and Metropolitan area. Do not risk losing custody of your child! Our Family lawyers can provide you with advice to guide you through court hearings. Without an Order of Protection Lawyer, you could lose precious time with your child. This time cannot be retrieved. Once the child is removed from your custody, it becomes more difficult to reverse the custody decision. However, just like this case demonstrates, it is not impossible. Do not give up hope, get the best attorneys to help you get your child back.

A 22-year old black woman became pregnant by her 23-year old boyfriend. At that time, the mother was teaching at a Christian school by day and she was studying at a community college to earn a degree as a medical assistant. Her boyfriend was working for a large retail company but he was working toward a degree in automotive mechanics.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said both the woman and the man lived with their families. The woman had a two-year old daughter who lived with her and the man had a three year old son who lived with his ex-girlfriend but the man enjoys joint custody and regularly paid child support for his son.

While the woman was pregnant, she responded to a personal advertisement in a newspaper placed by a single woman who wanted to adopt a baby. The woman and the pregnant lady spoke to each other over the phone and they met several times. Both the pregnant woman and her boyfriend liked the woman and were willing have their baby adopted by the single woman.

The single woman had an adoption lawyer who recommended that the pregnant lady and her boyfriend also retain the services of their own lawyer. Their lawyer’s fees will be paid for by the single woman. The lawyer the couple chose went through the adoption process with them. He explained to them what they were giving up and explained to them the legal consequences of the consent they were giving to the adoption.

The couple fully understood what they were giving up when they signed the consent. But when the woman gave birth, she held the baby in her arms and the baby spent the night with them in the hospital. The baby’s father was there and he assisted in bathing her and changing her. Both of them felt that they had made a mistake putting up their baby for adoption. They still turned over their baby to the adoptive mother who brought the child from Maryland where the baby was born to Brooklyn, New York where she lived. From that time, the parents revoked their consent to the adoption within five days from executing it and filed a case in New York to revoke the adoption.

At the trial, the adoptive mother testified and it was found that she was more than able financially to take care of the baby. She rented an apartment and had a successful career. However, the family court discovered that there had been undisclosed marijuana use and an undisclosed diagnosis and treatment for mental illness which would affect a determination of her fitness to be a mother to the baby she adopted.

On the other hand, the biological father of the baby also testified and candidly disclosed that he had been involved in a domestic violence dispute with his former girlfriend who was the mother of his son. He testified that he and his girlfriend had an argument and the argument ended up with physical violence being inflicted by the two of them against each other. The police who arrived in response to a 911 call had to physically pull them apart. Mutual orders of protection had been issued in their favor against each other.

The ex-girlfriend of the biological father of the baby testified also. A Westchester Criminal Lawyer said she portrayed the biological father as abusive and violent and cast aspersions on his person and fitness to be a father. She claimed that he assaulted her several times. She claims that she filed police reports about these separate incidents but there was evidence only of one incident.

The neighbor of the biological father testified as to the domestic violence incident. She claims to have also testified in the criminal court as to what really transpired during that one documented domestic violence incident. She claims to have been alerted when she heard two people arguing just in front of her house on the street. She saw the girlfriend of the biological father take things out of the car of the biological father. The biological father then started taking things out of his girlfriend’s car. She saw the girlfriend run toward the biological father and jump on him from behind, biting him on the shoulder and clawing him on his back. The boyfriend tried to push off the girlfriend from his back so that she fell on the pavement. She then got up again and jumped on the biological father again and slammed him down. The police came and pulled the two apart.

The Court ruled that the revocation of the consent shows that the written revocation was timely made and that it was received by the adoptive mother within the time required by the law. There is no question that the consent signed by the couple was valid. A Queens Criminal Lawyer said the only issue for determination before the family court is the best interest of the child.

It shows that from the evidence presented, the couple decided to give up their baby for adoption because they were convinced at the time that it was in the best interest of their baby to be adopted. They had no financial means by which to support another child and they did not enjoy the support of their parents.

The Court also noted that they were attentive parents who spent time, money and effort to see their baby in New York every week during the pendency of these proceedings. They were both concerned and diligent parents who worked hard to give both their children the love and support they need. They seemed to come from stable and supportive homes with the presence of extended families (grandparents and great grandparents) who all extend support for the raising of both their biological children.

The Court notes that the adoptive mother, while she is financially more able to care for the baby is a lot older and has had more time to earn and to save up for her future. The Court however did not find the adoptive mother’s non-disclosure of her past drug use and her past diagnosis for mental illness a good indication of her moral fitness to raise the baby. She should have been forthright with the Court.

The Court compared this with the candidness with which the biological father disclosed his conviction for assault. He testified truthfully about the circumstances surrounding his domestic violence misdemeanor conviction. The Court was impressed with his lack of bitterness and vindictiveness against his former girlfriend. The Court also noted that he expressed regret that his son had witnessed the domestic violence.

The Court compared his behavior with that of his former girlfriend who displayed animosity toward him and refused to admit that the assault inflicted upon her was precipitated by the assault committed by her against her boyfriend.

The Court determined that the best interest of the adopted baby was to remain in the custody of her biological parents who are granted joint custody of their baby.

A domestic violence conviction has consequences that affect your fitness to be a parent or an adoptive parent. A New York City Domestic Violence lawyer should be able to help present facts that show, as in this case, that the assault relative to the domestic violence t mutually inflicted between you and your partner. A New York Domestic Violence attorney can present evidence in your favor and argue your case to show that you were as much a victim as a perpetrator of the domestic violence. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates today. Go and speak to any of their New York City Domestic Violence attorneys at any of their offices in the New York Area.

On March 11, 2007, two police officers were on motor patrol in an area known for gang activity. At around 11:30 pm, a man walked in front of the police officers’ unmarked car. The man was walking slowly, impeding the smooth flow of traffic on the street. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that as he passed the police officers’ car, one of the police officers noticed a shiny object glinting at the rear right pants pocket of the man who passed by.

As the man was walking slowly, the officer noted that the glinting object appeared to be metallic and it was inside his rear pocket. Only the clip was showing outside and the top part of the object was protruding from the pocket.

The police officer has had the experience of making 50 arrests for weapons possessions and he believed that the glinting object clipped to the man’s pocket was either a gravity knife or a small-caliber handgun.

By the time the officers in their car caught up with the man, he had already boarded his car. The officers stopped the man’s car and asked him to exit his vehicle. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the police officers were standing two to three feet behind the man as he exited his vehicle and they could well see the metal clip on his right rear pocket.

The police officer did not frisk the man and did not ask him a question. The officer simply took the clipped object from his right rear pocket and found it to be a gravity knife as he had suspected.

The police officer arrested the man for criminal possession of a weapon. While handcuffed in the police officer’s car, the man told the police officers that he only had the knife because he believed that someone he knew was going to try to kill him.

The man was charged and arraigned for criminal possession of a weapon. At trial, the arresting officer was the sole witness for the prosecution. The man objected to the admission of his statement in the police car after he was already arrested that he only had the knife on him because he was afraid that someone was out to kill him. He also sought that the knife not be admitted into evidence as fruit of an illegal search. The trial court granted the man’s motion and suppressed the man’s statement to the police officer and suppressed the admission of the confiscated weapon, the gravity knife.

The People appealed. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the only question before the Supreme Court was whether or not the arrest of the man and the seizure of the concealed knife were proper such that evidence obtained as a result of the man’s arrest and the seizure of the weapon ought not be suppressed.

The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the trial court. The Court held that the arresting officer was a seasoned veteran who has made 50 arrests for possession of concealed weapons. He had a familiarity with weapons such as knives or handguns. Although at the time that the officer first noticed the man he was not engaged in any suspicious activity as he was only crossing the street, the officer saw a metallic glint that gave him a reasonable suspicion that the crime of felony possession of a weapon was being committed. The officer acted property when he secured the suspicious object by removing it from the man’s pocket. The seizure made visible and only confirmed what the officer knew and believed: that the man was carrying an illegal weapon.

The arresting police officer had extensive training and experience in concealed weapons. Merely seeing the clip could not have given the police officer the certainty that the object in the pant pocket was an illegal weapon or a handgun, but it did give him a reasonable suspicion that the object which was secured by a clip was indeed an illegal weapon. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the officer had a reasonable suspicion of illegality.

A New York Gun Crime Lawyer will advice you that carrying concealed weapons is a crime. Further, a New York City Gun Crime Lawyer will tell you that an officer may stop you on the street even if he only has a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates today, speak to any of their NYC Gun Crime Lawyers and ask for their assistance and advice. You may speak to any of the NY Gun Crime Attorneys at any of the offices of Stephen Bilkis and Associates in Nassau County.

A man was charged on one count of harassment in the second degree alleging an act of domestic violence against the complainant. Consequently, the man served an action on the district attorney while the court action was pending. The three petitions were concurrently pending in the family court between the man, the complainant and a third family member concerning the custody of the man and complainant's child. The pending decision of the criminal and family court matters with the underlying issue prompted a screening by the Supreme Court and its integrated domestic violence (IDV) part in the county. After the screening, the court determined that the transfer of the family's cases to the IDV was appropriate by finding that it would promote the administration of justice.

The man moved for dismissal of the charged on one count of harassment in the second degree alleging an act of domestic cruelty against him and asserts that Supreme Court lacks an essential subject matter authority citing criminal procedure law. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man also argued that irrelevant offenses charged as a sole count in a legal document may not be tried in the Supreme Court unless the offense is charged in an allegation that also charges a crime. The man further relies on the recent Court of Appeal’s decision that supports his dismissal request.

The man also claims that to understand the provisions of the constitution to grant the transfer of authority to the Supreme Court IDV part and to transfer a sole count of a violation level offense would support an improper use of the court's resources and gives the court's unarguable subject matter authority over more serious offenses.

The court stated that the article in the constitution provides that the Supreme Court shall have general original authority in law, equity and the immense geographical authority power of the court. A Long Island Criminal Lawyer said it has been characterized as original, unlimited and unqualified. It is well settled that the chief judge may institute standards and administrative policies for general application, which shall be submitted to the Court of Appeals together with the recommendations of the administrative board approved by the court.

Based on records, the Supreme Court IDV part possesses the power to transfer domestic cruelty matters to itself from a criminal court to promote the interests of justice. Further, once the matters have been transferred to the IDV part, the court then possesses the subject matter authority to hear all matters transferred by that same constitutional authority and the authority presented upon the Supreme Court in accordance to the constitution. The Supreme Court IDV part's authority to hear and dispose of domestic cruelty matters most certainly includes stand alone violation level offences that are transferred into the IDV part by the issuance of a Supreme Court IDV part transfer order. A New York City Criminal Lawyer said the determination that the provisions of the criminal procedure law remove the Supreme Court of its power to dismiss or try irrelevant offenses and a determination that the procedure law requires that a local court has exclusive authority over a violation level offense, would render the provisions of the law unconstitutional and void. Such a determination would be inconsistent with the delegation of authority to the Supreme Court by the constitution and the intent of the rules of the chief judge.

The court determines that the Supreme Court integrated domestic violence part has the authority to transfer a sole count of a violation level offense charged in information to the Supreme Court IDV part. The Supreme Court has the essential subject matter authority to dismiss or try the matter. Consequently, the man's motion to dismiss the charged on one count of harassment in the second degree alleging an act of domestic cruelty is accordingly denied.

Different individual do have their own insights and sometimes those differences can turn out into violence. If you suffered cruelty against your partner and you want to take an immediate legal action, you can call our New York Domestic Violence Attorneys to fight with you. If someone made unlawful actions against you or a family member, feel free to ask guidance from our NY Criminal Attorneys at Stephen Bilkis & Associates.

A New York Criminal Lawyer says that domestic violence comes in all shapes and sizes. Fifty years ago, domestic violence cases were not recognized. In many cases the victims of domestic violence were ignored. It was a dirty family secret that few people talked about. The victims were ignored. It was not until the late 1980s and into the 1990s that the psychology of domestic violence was finally studied. Now, courts often hear evidence related to the fear associated with being battered in domestic violence. Several syndromes are common place in court rooms today: battered child syndrome, battered wife’s syndrome, and battered women’s syndrome. Crimes against the elderly do not get as much attention. In fact, it has only been in recent years that some states have begun to recognize that the psychological issues associated with being battered are not gender specific. Their wives or their children can batter men. In fact, many states have enacted additional statutes that are designed to protect the elderly from being battered by their children by changing the language of their battering laws to make them non gender specific.

In New York, in 1999, there had never been a case that involved a father being battered by his child. On June 21, 1999, a man who had been arrested for the murder of his adult son, filed a CP: 250.10 notice to the court that he would be offering a battered defense at trial. He requested that his medical expert on the subject be allowed to testify on his behalf. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the District Attorney assigned to the case stated that the state of New York did not recognize a defense of Battered Parent Syndrome. The District Attorney further stated that even if Battered Parent Syndrome did occur, a medical expert would not be necessary because most jurors have the ordinary training and intelligence to evaluate if the person is suffering from that syndrome.

The defense argued that since battered parent syndrome is not normally referred to by the general public, it is necessary to have an expert explain the correlation between battered parent syndrome and other battered syndromes. By showing the jurors that other states have already begun to recognize this condition as non-gender specific, it becomes easier for them to relate to the defendant.

Since this defendant is asserting a claim of justification for killing his adult son, a jury must decide if his actions were reasonable under the circumstances. Since the defendant in this case is claiming that his state of mind was an issue in the commission of the crime, the jury must be able to determine reasonableness within the context of the defendant’s subjective belief rather than their own. It is up to the court to decide if expert testimony is admissible at trial. It usually hinges on three questions: first, is the medical knowledge recognized as true in the field so as to permit a reasonable opinion of an expert in the field; second, does the expert have knowledge or skill that is not within the ordinary training or intelligence of the average juror; third, is the testimony relevant.

The court recognized that other jurisdictions have already accepted that being battered is non-gender specific and that there are somewhat predictable patterns to the behavior of the person who has been battered. Because the perception of a person who has been battered may rely on past experiences with the batterer, it is important to be able to admit this evidence at trial. The trial court agreed and allowed the testimony to be presented by the expert witness.

Whether you have been charged with a sex crime, theft, or drug possession, contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice and a free consultation.

In New York, there are several different remedies which may be applied in the case of a family dispute. The couple, especially if they are in government housing, may proceed with an illegal lock out complaint to be reinstated to the apartment through the housing authority. However, if a complaint to address these issues has already been filed in Family Court, the Housing Court will generally refer the case back there. Family court has more liberty to pursue different remedies than does Housing Court. In order for a person to get reinstated to an apartment, they must be on the housing authority paperwork as a tenant or co-tenant. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the couple may also pursue a domestic violence case in either Family Court, or Criminal Court, or both. In a case where there are other issues pending in additional courts, Housing Court will generally refer the housing issue to be handled by the other court.

In one case, a man and his wife who lived in a housing authority apartment had a verbal argument one night that was so heated that the police were requested to come to the residence. The wife informed the police that during the argument, her husband had told their children that he was a member of the “Bloods” gang and that women were not to be respected. He told the children that women were supposed to be under the foot of the man. A New York Criminal Lawyer said his wife had a previous order of protection that had been in effect in 1998 and it had barred the husband from the apartment. The police told the man to go out for a walk and cool down. He left the apartment. The police took a police report and left.

The man claims that when he returned, his belongings were out front and the locks to the apartment had been changed so that he could not get back in. The wife claims that she did not put his belongings out, nor did she change the locks. She stated that she obtained an order of protection for herself and the children. That order of protection declares that the husband is barred from the apartment until the hearing of the case in August of 2004. Since there is an order in effect in Family Court that prohibits the husband from going back in to the apartment until after the hearing in August, it is a moot point to have a hearing in Housing Court. Clearly, there is no way that the housing court could overrule the order of Family Court to allow the man to move back in to the apartment before the hearing in August. It is because of this that the petition to allow the man to move back in to the apartment was dismissed.

Co-tenants of the New York Housing Authority are not allowed by law to lock one another out of the apartment. The person who does, must be ready to explain that it was done only to protect themselves or others in the dwelling from violence.

Situations of this nature occur on a regular basis in New York. If the wife had not already gone to family court and gotten an order of protection, it is likely that the Housing Court would have allowed him back in to the home. This couple ultimately filed for a divorce in Supreme Court and all issues were transferred to that venue to be handled. In this case, although there was no domestic violence between the parties, the argument was so heated that the wife and the police feared that it would become physical if the two remained together in the same residence. The domestic violence laws are as much about preventing future violence as they are about stopping immediate violence. Stephen Bilkis & Associates Domestic Violence Lawyers are well versed in the handling orders of protection. Whether you are dealing with drug possession charges, sex crimes, theft or domestic violence, we are here to help. We have convenient offices throughout New York and Metropolitan area. Whether the police were called to your home for a verbal or physical argument, our Family lawyers will help you protect your family from domestic violence.

The police received a 911 call from a woman who claimed to being beaten up by her husband. The police arrived at the scene within one minute of the 911 call and found that a husband was yelling and berating his wife. The man was standing over his wife who was cowered and hiding in between the furniture, hiding her face which appeared freshly bruised. She was crying.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said when the responding police officer asked her what happened, she said that her husband had punched her repeatedly in the head, the face and the back. She appeared to be bleeding from her left ear. She was in pain.

The police officer who responded executed a sworn statement stating the circumstances of his response to the 911 call. He stated that he found the couple in their home with the man standing over his wife who appeared to be in stress. She was crying and seemed to be in fear. When he asked what happened to her, she replied that her husband hit her and beat her up.
The police officers brought the woman to the hospital where the doctor asked her questions in the effort to establish a medical history. The woman reported that she was punched in the face, the head and the back. The doctor wrote up his diagnosis in the woman’s medical record as: domestic violence victim, it was unclear if any sex crimes had occurred. The doctor also wrote his recommendation for treatment: referred to a domestic violence center for psychological treatment.

The investigation by the police yielded the result that this is not the first time that the wife had made a complaint against her husband. This latest incident of domestic violence was the second within the last six months. The woman’s statement was taken by the police at the first time. She received medical treatment for her injuries and her medical records indicate that the diagnosis was also for assault due to domestic violence.

The husband was arrested and charged with two counts of misdemeanor assault in the third degree. After the husband was arrested, the wife recanted her statements. She refused to testify against her husband. Upon arraignment, he moved that the criminal information against him be dismissed because it was based on hearsay. He claimed that since his wife refused to testify against him, the police report and the police deposition as well as the medical records were all hearsay evidence and should be excluded.

The only question in this motion is whether or not the police report and the medical records of the wife are excluded evidence because they are hearsay.

The Court decided to deny the motion finding that the police report, the police officer’s deposition and the attending physician’s medical diagnosis were not hearsay as they were exceptions to the hearsay rule.

The Court ruled that the medical diagnosis of the attending physician at the emergency room were business records: they are records in writing which were entries in a book or form which was made as a memorandum or record of an event. The event was the woman’s appearance at the emergency room. Her responses which were noted in the medical records that her husband assaulted her were utterances that were elicited from her to determine the nature and extent of her injuries. The attending physician needed to know the factual events when and where the woman sustained her injuries. The woman’s utterances that she was assaulted are admissible under the exception of business records because her utterances were germane to the diagnosis. The attending physician diagnosed the woman to be suffering from domestic violence or domestic abuse for which he recommended not only the physical treatment of the woman but also her psychological treatment.

The police officer’s deposition statement that he heard the woman state that her husband beat her up is also an exception to the hearsay rule because it was ann excited utterance. The woman made those statements to the police officer at a time when she was in shock, when she had just experienced an emotional upheaval which was a startling or upsetting event. The woman had not yet had time or opportunity to reflect or fabricate a story. She was found by the police officer to be cowered on the floor being yelled at and berated by her husband who was standing over her.

The Court denied the husband’s motion for dismissal of the two charges for assault.
A New York City Domestic Violence lawyer will advice you that just because the victim of domestic violence refuses to testify does not mean that the charges for assault will be dropped. A New York Domestic Violence attorney will also advice you that the victim’s utterances to the police and to the attending physician at the emergency room can be used against you. At Stephen Bilkis and Associates, NYC Domestic Violence Lawyers are willing to advice and assist you to make sure that the assault charges are not dismissed even if the victim fails or refuse to testify out of fear or due to the nature of the injuries sustained. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates if you have been charged with domestic violence, drug possession, or a theft crime, we are here to help.

At around 9pm on September 26, 1985, a police officer was on radio motor patrol. As he was driving around the area of the corner of 204th Street and 113th Avenue, the police officer observed two men standing at that corner and one of them handed to the other a plastic bag containing smaller plastic packets. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the plastic packets contained a white powder-like substance. This was not the first time the police officer had seen plastic packets with a powder-like substance in them. He knew from experience that this is the common packaging for angel dust or heroin.

The police officer parked his patrol car and exited it. As he approached the two men, he saw the one who received the plastic bag stuff the bag in his shirt pocket. He also smelled something burning. The police officer had prior experience and instantly recognized the smell of burning heroin.

As the officer approached, the two men walked away. The police officer called out to the man who received the plastic packets. The man turned around and walked back to the officer. At this time, the officer observed that the man walked stiffly as though his legs couldn’t be bent at the knees. He was uncoordinated and walked like a tin man. A New York Criminal Lawyer said his previous experience with heroin addicts signaled to him that the man was exhibiting behavior common to people under the influence of heroin.

The police officer frisked the man and found the plastic bag. It contained 27 other smaller individually wrapped packets of heroin. A gravity knife and the sum of $115 were also taken from the man’s person.

The police officer read to the man the Miranda warnings and arrested him for drug possession (heroin). The man waived his right to have a lawyer present and gave a statement to the arresting officer. He told the officer that he was not selling heroin; he used heroin. He bought the heroin and that is why he was caught in possession of it.

At the trial, the judge suppressed the police officer’s testimony, the plastic packets and the defendant’s statements. He ruled that the police officer’s demeanor during his testimony was not credible. He also ruled that the police officer was intent on arresting the defendant for heroin possession from the time he exited his police vehicle.

The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court judge committed an error in suppressing the officer’s testimony, the physical evidence which was seized and the statements made after the arrest. The Court ruled that the police officer had a reasonable suspicion that the crime of heroin possession was being committed. The reasonable suspicion was triggered first because the area was known to be a high drug traffic area; he saw two people exchange money for a packet filled with smaller packets of individually wrapped white powder; the small plastic packets of white powder looked like heroin sold on retail; he saw the defendant stash the plastic packets into his pocket; he smelled burning heroin as he approached the two men; he saw the defendant’s gait which was uncoordinated and robot-like.

At the time that he approached the man, he already had probable cause to stop the man and frisk him. At that time, the man’s behavior and demeanor was similar to other heroin users he had observed in the past. The smell of burning heroin was familiar to him because he had smelled burnt heroin in the past. The appearance of the white powder in individual plastic packets was similar to heroin clandestinely sold on retail on the streets.

When the police officer stopped the defendant and frisked him, therefore, he had probable cause. When the frisk yielded a concealed gravity knife, the sum of $115 dollars and the individually packed white powder, the police officer arrested the man. The physical evidence was then legally seized because it was seized upon probable cause. There was no reason for the physical evidence to be suppressed. The statements given by the defendant to the police officer were knowingly given despite the Miranda warnings. They ought not to be suppressed either.

Given the totality of the factual circumstances of this case, the Court ruled that there was sufficient information which led the police officer to believe that the crime of heroin possession was being committed. The frisk that yielded the physical evidence and the subsequent statements made to the police officer are all admissible.

At Stephen Bilkis and Associates, New York City Drug Crime lawyers are ready and willing to assist you. Their New York Drug Crime lawyers will advise you that evidence obtained without probable cause cannot be admitted as evidence against you. Their NYC Drug Crime attorneys will also advice you that statements given to the police without being given the Miranda warnings are not admissible evidence against you. Whether you have been charged with sex crimes, drug possession or a theft charge, contact our office for legal advice and a free consultation.

A New York Criminal Lawyer says that New York Statutes relating to the removal of children from their natural parents is clear. The state will do everything possible to keep families together. Often the attempt to reunite natural families does more harm than good. Being a parent is more than bringing a child into the world. It is a big responsibility. It takes maturity and strength of character. People who are addicted to drugs or alcohol do not have the ability to care for children. Their addiction can lead to a hazardous home environment for children. Unfortunately, addicted individuals often lack control over their emotions and actions. This lack of control may lead to domestic violence. A home where the parents are violent toward one another is a home filled with fear. Children are generally unsupervised and often neglected entirely.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that New York authorities will remove the child or children until they feel that it is safe for them to be returned to their parents. The parents are required to attend parenting classes and often drug and alcohol treatment before the children are returned. However, sometimes the children are returned during the classes. In some cases, the parents are unable to resist the pull of their addictions and chose their addictions above the lives of their children. In these cases, the New York Family court Act §1089 details the steps that are required to free the children so that they can be adopted by parents who are capable of caring for them.

In some cases, the children are removed, and reunited numerous times over several years before the state petitions to free the children for adoption. One case of this nature began with the parents of seven young children. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the entire family lived in a one room shelter apartment together. The children, ages nine, eight, four, one ½, and five months, were born to parents who were addicted to drugs and alcohol. The father was a convicted batterer of the mother. For the following ten years, these children were removed and replaced five times. Each time, the parents would claim that they were going to take the classes. They never did. The father was enrolled in counseling for batterers, but he never attended the classes. The parents were drug tested repeatedly. Each time that they were tested, they either failed the tests or the urine samples showed that they were tampered with. Most likely when they switched urine from a child for their own in an attempt to pass the test.

Each time that the children were returned to the mother, an order of protection was issued prohibiting the father from harming either the mother or the children. When those orders were repeatedly ignored, the state began to issue orders that prohibited the father from returning to the apartment at all. The father and mother who would allow him to return also ignored these orders. The constant refusal of both parties to comply with court orders was creating a situation where the family was facing forced removal from the shelter. Yet over a ten-year period, the father never attended a batterer’s intervention program. Neither the mother nor the father ever attended mental health, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, or domestic violence counseling.

When the social services would attempt to check on the welfare of the children, they often found the door locked and were refused entry in the shelter room. When they were admitted into the room, they would often find that the children were without food. The children did not attend school regularly in one year, one of them was absent from school 78 days out of the year. Eventually, when the two older female children were in their middle teens they were returned to the parents and stayed until they reached the age of maturity. By then, the damage of their childhoods had become apparent in their lives. One of the girls was incarcerated for weapons charges. Shortly after the arrest, the families case was turned over to the Jewish Child Care Agency. The family was assigned a new foster care agency and the relationship appeared to be improving. The parents were complying with the agency during home inspections. They were communicative to their new case agency and the reports were looking good. The children were returned one last time. The five younger siblings were returned. The two older girls reached maturity and were released from family court supervision. The younger children experienced differing degrees of trauma from the ten years that they were shuffled between foster care families and their addicted parents.

In April 2010, they were returned for the last time. They were removed again by June of that year. The infant who had spent his entire life mostly in foster care was experiencing severe issues. These issues were mainly associated with an inability to manage or control anger. His brother who had only been one and ½ years old when he was first removed from the parents was also experiencing these issues. The three middle children, all girls, were having fewer issues than the two boys and seemed to be adjusting well in their foster families.

The youngest boy was determined to be a threat to the safety of himself or others after he attempted to harm his foster parents. He was admitted to the facility along with his brother in June of 2010. The parents did not visit their sons. The parents rarely visited their sons or the girls. After one scheduled visit where the parents did not show up and all of the children were present, the boys became violent and the littlest one threw himself from the foster parent’s car. He was taken to the hospital and received a psychological evaluation. The doctors called his mother the following day and she refused to go to the hospital to meet with the doctors or to see her child. This was devastating to the child. He was ultimately released and then readmitted when he was unable to adjust to the repeated neglect of his parents.

Ultimately, the court determined that it was not realistic to assume that these parents were going to change. The original attempts to comply with the new governing agency had been short lived. They were soon back to their old ways of refusing to allow the case workers in to the room. They were not visiting the children and that was causing severe stress and trauma to the children. Toward the end of 2010, the ACS gave the parents $4000 to purchase furniture for the shelter room. The furniture was not purchased, and the money was spent. They refused to account for the disposition of the money. They did report for a court-ordered mental health evaluation. When they appeared in court in November of 2010 they were issued an in-court drug and alcohol test which was negative. The court was finally convinced that these parents were not going to provide a stable and loving home for the children and ordered the permanent removal of the child from their custody. The children were freed to be adopted. The younger two boys were housed in a mental health facility.

Thankfully , this story is not always the case. In some cases, parents do change. These parents want to do the right thing by their children. If you have been charged with domestic violence, sex crimes or assault it is important to get legal advice as soon as possible. At Stephen Bilkis & Associates our Child Custody Lawyers, have convenient offices throughout New York and Metropolitan area. Do not risk losing custody of

A man had applied for and was granted target pistol licenses for his two pistols since May 1967. In 2001 the License Division of the NYPD converted all target pistol licensed into Premises Residence Licenses. Accordingly, man’s the pistol license renewal applications were converted into renewal applications for Premises Residence Licenses. On September 10, 2004, the NYPD License Division approved his renewal application and issued him a new Premises Residence License.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that in June 2006, the NYPD received a notification that the gun licensee was arrested for a domestic dispute. The NYPD confiscated the licensed firearms. When they came to his apartment, they found two rifles in his residence which were not licensed. These were confiscated by the NYPD as well.

The police were called to the home shared by the gun licensee and his wife. The wife testified that she and her husband had a verbal dispute and as a result of their argument, the gun licensee assaulted his wife by punching her and kicking her. The wife also retaliated and assaulted her husband by punching and kicking him as well.

A month later, the gun licensee’s Premises Residence Licenses were suspended pending investigation of the domestic violence incident between the gun licensee and his wife.
TA New York Criminal Lawyer said that two months after the domestic violence incident, a family court in King’s County issued a temporary order of protection was issued against the gun licensee. After the issuance of the temporary order of protection, he and his wife had a loud verbal dispute while inside a restaurant. The gun licensee was arrested for violating the temporary order of protection. This arrest was voided later.

In the meantime, the investigation of the special investigator for the Licensing Division of the NYPD discovered that the gun licensee had not disclosed his prior domestic violence arrests and complaints. He had not reported his arrests or his receipt of orders of protections. He also had a history of possessing long arms in his home without the appropriate licenses. The investigator recommended the suspension of his license but the Licensing Division did not follow the investigator’s recommendation and instead revoked the licenses issued to the gun licensee.

They revoked his license because he violated the terms and conditions of the issuance of the licenses; he failed to notify the Licensing Division that the police had confiscated his unlicensed firearms and his licensed pistols; he failed to notify the Licensing Division that an order of protection had been issued against him; he failed to notify the Licensing Divisio in that he was arrested; he failed to notify them of the domestic violence incidents in the past.

The gun licensee filed a case in court questioning the validity of the revocation of his licenses. He contends that the revocation was arbitrary and capricious.

The only question before the court is to determine whether or not the Licensing Division of the New York Police Department gravely abused its discretion by revoking the gun licenses. The Court must find that the NYPD had a rational basis for the revocation in order to sustain the revocation of the licenses.

First the Court noted that the Licensing Division had a broad discretion to grant or revoke licenses. The courts must respect the decision of the Licensing Division especially when there is an issue of public safety. The only way that the revocation may be assailed is if the revocation was disproportionate to the offenses committed. The circumstances of the revocation must be shown to be shocking to the sense of fairness of the court.
The gun licensee makes much of his good moral character and he claims that his arrest for domestic violence and his arrest for the violation of the temporary order of protection were voided. He has been a licensee for 43 years and he has never been arrested for a gun crime, except for the assault charge relative to the domestic violence dispute he had with his wife.

The Court found that the petition was without merit. The reason for the revocation was not the arrest but the failure of the licensee to notify and inform the Licensing Division of his arrests and of the issuance of an order of protection against him. This is a rational basis. The revocation of his gun licenses is upheld.

A NYC Domestic Violence attorney will inform you that an arrest for domestic violence and a conviction for assault consequent to a domestic violence or sex crimes, incident has consequences beyond the sentencing and the penalty. A NY Domestic Violence lawyer will advise you that licenses that require a spotless criminal record may be revoked as a result of your arrest and conviction. Contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates today. Speak to any of their New York City Domestic Violence attorneys who can explain to you all the implications and consequences of a domestic violence conviction. You may speak to any of their New York Domestic Violence lawyers at any of their offices in the New York area.

On November 22, 1965, a Supreme Court judgment was handed down convicting a man of robbery in the third degree. He pleaded guilty and was given a sentence in accordance with the fact that he was a second felony offender. He later appealed on August 9, 1965 requesting that certain evidence should be suppressed. That motion was over ruled.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said on September 30, 1965, he attempted to have his alleged confession excluded and attempted that again on November 22, 1965. Both motions to exclude his confession and to withdraw his guilty plea were reviewed. The motion to exclude his confession was denied, but his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and substitute a plea of not guilty to the indictment was granted and the case was sent to trial. On September 30, 1965, the justices reversed the conviction on the law and then agreed to exclude his confession.

The defendant in question was arrested in the act of attempting to burglarize a closed and locked business at approximately eleven o’clock at night. He was seen standing on the roof of a garage, attempting to gain entry through a closed window. The defendant refused to answer questions at the scene and a search of his person revealed that he was carrying a knife that was partially broken apparently while trying to force open the window. Also on his person, were identification cards and papers that belonged to a pharmacist who had recently been robbed.

The defendant was arrested and transported to the police station. Two hours later, he was identified by the robbery victim as the man who had held up the drug store. The defendant claims that he was beaten during questioning until he confessed to the drug crime. Following a hearing into the interrogation, the court found that the defendant had not been beaten. The defendant had made an immediate request for counsel while still on the scene of the burglary. However, the request was made to a uniformed officer on the scene and was not repeated to the detective who handled the case. There is no evidence that the detective was ever aware of the statement that the defendant would not say anything unless he talked to his lawyer about it first.

The defendant later changed his plea from not guilty to a plea of guilty to a lesser offense in order to have less time in prison. Before the sentence was passed, the defendant made his motion to withdraw the guilty plea. A Westchester County Criminal Lawyer said that was the first motion that was denied. The justices in their review of the case found that the it did not matter that the police officer did not notify the detective of the request. It was the duty of the officer to relay the request. His failure in telling the detective rests on the state. The justices decided that the confession should have been omitted from the trial because the defendant had requested an attorney and was not provided one. He was not given access to a telephone to contact an attorney himself until 6:30 the following morning.

The state contends that the request for counsel was made in connection with the burglary and that it had no bearing on the robbery charge from the drug store. The state contends that they were not bound by any regulation to re-advise the defendant of his rights under Miranda before questioning began about the robbery since the evidence of the connection to the robbery was part of the search of his person subsequent to the burglary.

The defendant contends that the search of his person was illegal and should be suppressed. The justices found that the search of an arrested person who commits a crime in the presence of an officer is legal because of the portability of the subjects person effects. Therefore, the subject’s motion to suppress is not granted. Whether you have been charged with theft, sex crimes, or a drug offense, contact us for advice. Stephen Bilkis & Associates has Queens Criminal Lawyers, with convenient offices throughout New York and Metropolitan area. Our Queens Drug Lawyers represent you with knowledge and experience of the law.

On December 5, 1975, an elderly woman was living alone in her home in forest Hills, New York. A New York Criminal Lawyer said her home was attached to another home on the side of it and she had difficulties getting along with her neighbor. On December 5th , burglars broke in to her home and tied and gagged her as they rummaged through her home and stole her belongings including several fur coats. A piece of cloth was shoved into her mouth to work as a gag. During the robbery or shortly thereafter, the gag that was in her mouth cut off her oxygen supply and she suffocated.

On December 12, police arrested a 58 year-old used furniture store owner in Manhattan. He was not connected to the victim by any obvious means. The police also arrested two employees of the furniture salesman. One was a man with a lengthy criminal record for possession of stolen property and the other was a seventeen year-old female who was also an employee of the shop. The trio was transported to the 106th precinct where they were Mirandized. The seventeen year old girl had a history of drug usage and the police suspected that the events of that night were fueled by the prospect that the crime might be drug related.

However, when the trio was Mirandized, the defendant store owner stated that he understood his rights and that he did not want to make any statements. He did not request an attorney. After four and a half hours, the defendant called the detective to his cell and informed him that the wanted to speak to a District Attorney about a deal in his case. The officer informed him that the District Attorneys had already gone home for the day. The detective asked him if he wanted to tell him anything and the defendant did not respond.

The detectives then spoke to the other man who had been arrested with the defendant. He gave then a statement and took them to his apartment where he surrendered several furs that had been stolen during the home invasion. When the team returned to the precinct, the detective put the furs down in front of the cell where the defendant was being held. He retreated to a different area in the precinct with the other man. In court, the detective testified that he had done this so that the defendant would know that they had the evidence.

The defendant grabbed the side of the cell and began screaming that he wanted to talk to a District Attorney. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said he stated that he wanted to talk to another Italian. One of the detectives not assigned to the case went to him and told him that he was Italian. The defendant stated that he could not do a lot of time and wanted a deal with the District Attorney. The detective told him that he could not give him a deal and that no promises could be made.

After that, the defendant told the detective that he had been introduced to the woman who lived in the house adjoining the victims. He stated that the neighbor had told him that the victim was bothering her and that she wanted the woman to be robbed. He told her that he was not interested and she asked him if he knew of anybody who would be interested. The detective told him that he had not told him anything relative to the investigation and the defendant again stated that he could not do a lot of time. The interview ended at that point. The defendant was taken to central booking at around ten in the evening.

The defendant made a motion to suppress the statements that he made following the deposit of the furs outside of his cell. He stated that the deposit of the furs outside of his cell constituted questioning and that it caused him mental anguish that was tantamount to coercion. However, the most damning testimony in the case was from the seventeen year-old girl who testified that the defendant was present at the scene at the time of the commission of the crime. She also testified to admissions that were made by the defendant to her. The defendant was convicted of felony murder.

Felony murder is a crime in which during the commission of any felony crime a person dies. The death does not have to planned or intended. In fact, the death can be the result of a natural health failure such as a heart attack brought on by stress. The result is the same, the person dies during the commission of the felony act and the crime is Felony Murder.

The defendant filed several motions to review for appeal. Only one stood any ground that could be reviewed. He stated that the fact that the furs were put outside of his cell constituted a subtle form of psychological coercion that would fall under the protections of Miranda. He stated that because he was questioned in this manner without the presence of an attorney, that the act would constitute a reversible error of the verdict and the demand of a new trial. The justices did not agree. They stated that the man was properly Mirandized by the detectives as soon as he was in custody and being questioned per the law. They stated that when he invoked his Miranda rights under the law, that the detectives ceased to question him. The coats in and of themselves bore no connection to the defendant and so did not constitute any form of coercion to get a statement from an otherwise not guilty person.

The defendant chose to focus on the portion of Miranda warnings that refer to any actions of the police that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. Because this sections deals with the perceptions of the defendant, he claims that he perceived the actions as a coercion. The Justices do not agree. They maintain that the police officer Mirandized the subject correctly. The defendant then stated that he did not want to make any statements. The officers did not question him after that time.

The defendant then called the officers to his cell in order to make a voluntary statement of the events that had occurred. The officers in no way coerced the subject. In fact, the officers were strictly in compliance with the Miranda ruling and did not fail to repeatedly comply. At any time, while the defendant was clearly upset and ready to make a statement, it would have been reasonable to say that the officers could have pressed the issue and gotten a confession. They did not take this advantage. The court, in light of these actions believe that the police showed a large amount of restraint by not eliciting a confession from the man when he was in this state. The request is not granted and the verdict is upheld.

Whether you have been charged with robbery, sex crimes, or a drug offense, contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice. We will provide you with sound legal guidance and a free consultation. We have offices thorought New York for your convenience.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said sometime in 1980, two police officers were sitting in an unmarked police car conducting surveillance of a street corner where there had been reports of crack possession and sale.

The police officers observed a man sell a tinfoil packet to another man. The police officers exited their vehicle and approached the two men. They tried to run but the officers apprehended them. When they were frisked, the officers found 23 other tinfoil packets thought to be crack in the man’s possession. The packets contained the controlled substances of phenycyclidine and methaqualone pills.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the man was arrested and charged for criminal possession of ecstacy, a controlled substance in the fifth and seventh degrees. The man pleaded not guilty to the charge and took the witness stand as a witness in his own behalf. He interposed the defense of mistaken identity and that of frame-up.

During the trial, the arresting officer was presented. He not only testified as to the events he observed during the surveillance he conducted, the ecstacy sale he witnessed, and the events leading to the apprehension and arrest of the man. The District Attorney also asked him questions relating to his experience as a police officer.

Over the man’s objection, the police officer testified that he had participated in over 35 ecstacy and crack possession arrests in the same area where the man was arrested for drug trafficking. He testified as to the pattern of a typical drug sale.

The man objected to this part of the officer’s testimony on the ground that the police officer was already testifying not as to specific facts in his personal knowledge but he was testifying as to his opinion on what a typical drug sale looks like. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said in other words, he was testifying as an expert. He also objected to this part of the officer’s testimony on the ground that it prejudiced the jury against him.

The trial court judge ruled that the testimony was admissible but only to demonstrate the arresting officer’s background and experience as a police officer. When he instructed the jury, he stressed to them that the testimony is only to be considered to prove the arresting officer’s ability to observe and perceive.

The man appealed not only his jury conviction but he also assailed the admission of the testimony of the police officer regarding the 35 other crack possession and ecstacy possession arrests in that same corner as an error on the part of the trial court judge. The only question before the Supreme Court is whether or not trial court judge committed an error.
The Supreme Court ruled that the arresting officer’s testimony regarding the 35 other drug crime arrests in the same area is irrelevant. The arresting officer’s testimony as to the standard surveillance procedure is also irrelevant.

A Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said the Court held that the testimony is antecedent and independent of a crime. It may be admitted only when there is an ambiguity in any material fact of the case. The testimony constitutes background evidence which cannot be admitted if the events and elements constituting the crime are not ambiguous.

Also the Court held that admitting that part of the officer’s testimony tended to prejudice the jury against the defendant making him appear guilty by mere association. It was damaging to the defendant who is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The police officer’s testimony regarding the 35 previous drug crime arrests in the same street corner as well as his testimony interpreting the defendant’s behavior as typical of drug traffickers smacks of opinion testimony. In effect, the police officer was no longer testifying as to what he had seen and heard of his own personal knowledge, but he gave an opinion that the defendant was guilty.

According to the Court, only the jury can determine whether the defendant is guilty or not. The jury must make this determination only on evidence that tends to prove the crime charged and they must not be influenced by irrelevant and prejudicial facts and circumstances. The judgment of conviction was reversed and a new trial was ordered.

A New York Drug Crime Attorney from Stephen Bilkis and Associates will advice you that if you are charged with possession of drugs or sale of drugs, the arresting officer can only testify as to facts he himself personally observed. A New York City Drug Crime Attorney will advise you to object to the admission of testimony that gives an opinion of your guilt. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates today. See any of their NYC Drug Crime lawyers at any of their offices conveniently located around the New York area. The NY Drug Crime lawyers as Stephen Bilkis and Associates are ready and willing to assist you.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said on 11 March 2007 at 4:58 A.M., a police officer who was trained to estimate the speed of a moving vehicle observed defendant traveling at about 90 miles per hour on the Long Island Expressway. The officer confirmed that estimate by a laser device and by his speedometer during the subsequent pursuit. The officer stopped defendant and noted that defendant exhibited several indicia of intoxication. Defendant admitted having had "one drink." The officer administered a series of field sobriety tests, all of which defendant failed. The officer arrested defendant at 5:23 A.M. and transported defendant to the Nassau County Police Department's Central Testing Unit, where defendant again failed a series of sobriety tests and consented to a chemical test of the alcohol content of his blood. The test, conducted at 7:24 A.M. by an Intoxilyzer 5000 EN breath test instrument, produced a reading of.11 per centum by weight.

Defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI) and speeding under the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Defendant appeals the decision with the herein court.

Defendant sought to introduce expert testimony as to the range of individual variation within the general population from the 2, 100:1 "conversion" or "partition" ratio used in the Intoxilyzer 5000 EN to derive the concentration of alcohol in a person's blood from the quantity of alcohol vapor detected in a breath sample. A New York DWI Lawyer said the defendant did not challenge the instrument's reliability, but sought to lay the foundation for a jury argument that defendant's individual ratio might differ so significantly from the mean as to diminish the evidentiary weight to be accorded the test results. The District Court precluded the evidence, apparently on relevancy grounds.
Is the defendant correct? Is the defendant’s individual ratio so different that the evidentiary weight accorded to the results must be diminished?

The scientific accuracy of "breath testing instruments" approved by the New York State Department of Health (New York State Department of Health Regulations) is "no longer open to question", and the Intoxilyzer 5000 EN is one of those approved instruments (New York State Department of Health Regulations). A consequence of the general acceptance in the scientific community of the reliability of the results of blood alcohol testing by such instruments is that it is no longer necessary to establish, through foundational evidence, the reliability of the test results by means of expert testimony. The presumption of reliability extends to the scientific premises underlying the operation of breath test instruments, including the validity of the partition or conversion ratio.

Although the fact, if not the magnitude, of conversion ratio variability is well established, defendant challenges the use of Breath Tests for Drunk Drivers based upon claim that partition or conversion ratio between measured breath alcohol and actual blood alcohol is inaccurate. A Nassau County DWI Lawyer said as a general rule, evidence of such variability may not be introduced to challenge the reliability of instruments that determine blood alcohol levels from the analysis of breath samples.

Absent proof by defendant that his personal conversion ratio differs so significantly from the mean as to materially undermine the weight to be given the test result, it cannot be said that the test so erroneously recorded his blood alcohol content as to render his conviction wrongful. Evidence, although technically relevant, will be excluded if it is too slight, remote, or conjectural to have a legitimate influence in determining the fact at issue. Thus, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting defendant's offer of proof which, while involving matters not theoretically irrelevant, was not shown to have probative value above the "slight, remote, or conjectural" and amounted to little more than an invitation to speculate.

Police department personnel responsible for calibrating and maintaining breath test machines are not independent of law enforcement, and the business records rule may not be employed to shield from scrutiny records calculated for use essentially in the courts, not in the business. Further, while in New York, law enforcement agencies constitute businesses for purposes of court use, business records lose their exemption from the hearsay bar if the regularly conducted business activity is the production of evidence for use at trial. The test is, first, whether the documents qualify as business records and then whether they are also non-testimonial; whatever the state law definition of business records and the specifics of the foundation rules necessary to admit such records may be. While the purpose of accurate breath-alcohol measuring machines is to produce evidence that may be used at trial, the calibration and maintenance documents in relation to the machines are not testimonial. Calibration and maintenance records are created in recognition of their necessity in the event of litigation and constitute a part of the foundational predicate for the admission of BAC test evidence. However, such records do not result from structured police questioning, they are not created in response to any effort at gathering incriminating evidence against a particular accused, they reflect objective facts without discretionary aspect, they do not involve opinions or conclusions relevant to a particular investigation, and they do not constitute a direct accusation of an essential element of any offense. Additionally, such records satisfy the criteria to the extent that they were not "prepared in a manner resembling ex parte examination. In light of the purpose of creating the documents, there is no reason to suspect a preparer's motive to accomplish anything other than to fulfill the official mandate that the machines be maintained in working order.

Defendant's argument that the blood alcohol test result was inadmissible because the presence of numerous persons moving between the observing police officer, seated 5 to 10 feet from defendant, prevented the officer from maintaining a "continuous observation" of defendant for the 15-minute period prior to the test, is also without merit.

A Queens County DWI Lawyer said the proof of the requisite "continuous observation" is not a predicate condition to admit breathalyzer test results; rather, it goes only to the weight to be afforded the test result, not its admissibility. Moreover, the observation requirement is not strictly construed. The statute, the regulations or the exercise of reason don’t call for a constant vigil, and defendant does not claim that during the 15-minute period prior to the test, he placed anything in his mouth or that any other event occurred that implicated the test's accuracy.

On defendant’s remaining contentions, the court finds them unpreserved or without merit.
The court, in fulfilling the responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence, must accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony and observe demeanor. Weight of the evidence review requires a court first to determine whether an acquittal would not have been unreasonable. If so, the court must weigh conflicting testimony, review any rational inferences that may be drawn from the evidence and evaluate the strength of such conclusions. Based on the weight of the credible evidence, the court then decides whether the trier of fact was justified in finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, upon our review of the record, the herein court is satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.

Driving while intoxicated poses various threats to road users. Thus, to protect the road users, the government has implemented traffic regulations that must be strictly followed like any other law. If you were involved in a situation related to cases of driving while intoxicated, contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates. Talk to an NY DWI Attorney from our firm for a free consultation. In addition, you may also consult with an NY Criminal Attorney from our firm to discuss the pursuit of criminal prosecution in detail.

A former wife commenced a Family Court proceeding alleging that her husband argued with her, cursed at her and destroyed her property. The wife also alleged that on prior occasions, her husband had assaulted and threatened her. She requested and received an order of protection from the Family Court that directed her husband shall not assault, menace, harass, recklessly endanger or engage in disorderly conduct toward her. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the wife brought a second petition before the Family Court alleging that her husband violated the temporary order of protection by forcing his way into her home and by menacing her with a knife and by calling her on the phone and by continually threatening to kill her. After the fact-finding hearing, the Family Court found that the wife had met her burden of requisite quantum proof.

After a dispositional hearing, the Family Court placed the husband on one year probation and required him to attend a batterer's program. The Family Court issued a final three year order of protection after finding the presence of aggravating circumstances under Family Court Act.
While the Family Court case was pending, the husband had been arrested and charged with various crimes. The husband was indicted for burglary, assault, attempted assault, criminal possession of a weapon and criminal contempt, criminal mischief, aggravated harassment all alleged to have occurred on April 1995. The accused party’s motions contend that the Supreme Court prosecutions are barred by constitutional and state statutory double jeopardy protection. The husband contends that the Family Court proceeding against him was a prosecution for the same conduct or offense as charged in the respective indictment against him. Moreover, he contends that the disposition or sentence imposed by the Family Court constituted criminal punishment.

The Family Court Act and the Criminal Procedure Law both provide the criminal court and family court with concurrent jurisdiction for certain enumerated criminal offenses when committed by one family member against another. A Queens Criminal Lawyer said that athough the Family Court proceeding for certain criminal conduct among family members is deemed to be a civil proceeding, the Family Court may, with the consent of the complainant, transfer a proceeding to the criminal court in the interest of justice. Moreover, the Family Court upon its own motion or upon motion of the petitioner transfer a proceeding to the criminal court alleging that the accused has failed to obey a lawful order of the court.

The constitutional protection against former jeopardy protects individuals against successive prosecutions for the same offense after an acquittal or conviction. Multiple punishments for the same offense are also proscribed. Double jeopardy protection may be extended to proceedings that are not nominally criminal. It is settled that a sanction in a civil or non-criminal proceeding may constitute punishment for double jeopardy purposes. The Court of Appeals has held that an Article 10 proceeding under the Family Court Act to determine whether a child has been neglected or abused does not bar subsequent criminal prosecution for the same conduct under double jeopardy principles.

A child protective proceeding can take place in the Family Court while a criminal prosecution goes forward arising out of the same conduct because of the different purposes of these courts, different standards of proof and dispositional alternatives. There is no double jeopardy bar to a criminal prosecution after an Article 10 Family Court proceeding. Significantly, a neglect or abuse finding can result in the possibility of the child's placement outside the familial home, not a penal sanction against the accused. The desired end of the article 10 proceeding is to ensure the expeditious protection of the child's welfare, not to secure a conviction against the accused.
When couples fight, they sometimes end up hurting each other physically. If you are a victim of physical harm committed by your partner, sex crimes, or other domestic violence matters call the office of Stephen Bilkis and Associates and consult a NY Domestic Violence Attorney together with a New York Criminal Lawyer.

A woman and his partner both filed for child custody petition in Court. The woman was born and raised in Florida where she lived with her mother and father until her parents divorced. She continued to live with her father until she was 22 and got her own apartment. The woman’s partner was born in Puerto Rico and was raised in Bronx. He has been living in New York for the past 10 years. The parties met on line in 2002 and they actually met in person when the woman came with a friend in New York for vacation. A New York Criminal Lawyer said in May 2004, the woman invited the man down to Florida for the weekend and their relationship became intimate. At some point during their relationship, the parties made the decision to have a child together.

In October 2004 the woman learned she was pregnant and that same month, the man took his two-week vacation and went to Florida to be with the woman. He brought his daughter with him and they discussed the possibility of him moving to Florida. While he was there, he looked for a job by posting his resume on a Web site and checking the local newspapers. The father got a couple of calls but when he went to be interviewed with the County school for a job as a locksmith, he was told that he was overqualified for he was making $17 an hour at his job in New York and they were offering only $10 an hour. A Westchester County Criminal Lawyer said that alhough he said he would start at any entry level, he was not offered the job.

At the end of 2004, the woman was terminated from her job as a general claims clerk in Florida for taking more time off than her allotted annual leave would cover. Although the father admitted they had plans to move, after she lost her job, he told her they would live better in New York since he had a stable job and stable home. The man’s mother would provide childcare, and he does not want anyone but family to care for their son. The woman never wanted to move to New York but agreed to do so because she felt that it would be only temporary until they have saved money for a house and move back to Florida. The woman admitted that her partner never gave her an exact time frame but she assumed that it would be within a few years.

In 2005, the woman moved to New York and began living in her partner’s apartment with his seven-year-old daughter. In 2005, she brought her 11-year-old daughter to live with them. In July 2005, their child was born. As the woman was not working, the household was supported entirely by the man’s salary, money from her income tax refund, and the money that her father sent to her. The man worked on weekends to earn overtime pay while the woman was unemployed. The man acknowledged that at the time the woman moved to New York, the plan was to pay up his bills and save money so they could buy a home in Florida. Because of their expenses, they never started a savings account, were unable to put aside money for a house and the plan never materialized. Since the woman gained employment, the man testified he only worked overtime once in a while because he did not need to earn as much money to support them and preferred to spend time with his son, daughter and family.

When the woman started working, the paternal grandmother took care of all the children, as she had done for her other grandchildren. The man’s mother took care of the man’s daughter with his former wife since she was little while both of the child’s parents worked and after the child’s father obtained custody. The woman and her partner have an indefatigable and infinite resource in their child’s grandmother who comes to their home at 6:30 A.M. and leaves at 7:00 P.M. during the school year as well as the summer recess.

The woman has been in New York since 2005 and other than an older half-sister who lives in Massachusetts, she has no family in New York. The woman and her sister are not close as they did not grow up together and they met for the first time when the woman was 17. She does not have any friends in New York and besides her partner and her child she has no one here to turn to for emotional support. The man acknowledged the woman’s friends were in Florida but said for reasons he did not know, she didn't stay in contact with them. After she came to New York and became homesick, the man portrayed her as sad and withdrawn. The stress of being pregnant and later trying to find a job caused the woman to become withdrawn. Over time, the relationship faded.

The man offered to introduce the woman to people and his family even offered to take her out but she did not want to. When asked about her relationship with the man’s family, she admitted that she felt accepted, was never criticized by them and was welcomed into the family when she came to New York. She agreed the man’s family invited her and her daughter to attend family gatherings, holiday celebrations, birthday parties and remarks that although she gets along with everybody, she generally just keep it to herself by just going to work and coming home. She explained that she does not seem to have adopted them as a surrogate family.

Other than going to work, the woman does not have any outside interests or hobbies nor does she participate in any recreational activities or classes. She also never used the Internet to look up free or low cost activities for herself and the children because she does not know her way around New York. The woman admitted she would ask her partner to watch the baby if she wanted to go out and was sure her partner would not refuse to watch the baby but she never asked him since she did not actually have the opportunity to go out.

In contrast to the lonely and isolated life she leads in New York, all of the woman’s relatives reside in Florida—each of her parents and stepfather, two uncles, an aunt, a grandmother, first cousins and their children. According to both parties, the woman speaks to members of her family on the telephone everyday particularly her mother, stepfather and father. Although the woman professes to have a close family, none of her relatives have ever come to see her in New York. Only once did one of her best friends come to see her in New York. When the man was visiting her in Florida in October 2004 she never took him to meet her family. According to him, the only time they visited the woman’s home was on the day they decided to leave.

Because the woman is homesick, she wants to leave New York with her child and return to Florida to be with her family where she would live for free with her mother and stepfather. The home is located on one acre of land that is fenced in and has a big backyard, which her apartment in New York does not have, where her son could play. The woman expects to find employment in Tampa which would be a 30-minute drive. Once she gets a job, childcare would be provided to her without cost by her stepfather who is retired and her mother who works at night.

In addition to being reunited with her family, the woman’s other reasons for wanting to move to Florida are to have a better environment to raise the child in, to have the support of her family, to get a better paying job and advancement in a company as opposed to the job she has now, to be able to go at night to career advancement programs and to be able to afford a three-bedroom apartment. She claimed to have found such an apartment for a monthly rent of $750. In contrast to the figure, the apartment she and her partner live in presently costs $1,165 per month, which they presently divide. Because the woman does not know where anything is in Brooklyn and in Florida, she would have her own vehicle. The woman believes there are more recreational opportunities for her and her children and she would be able to take them more places in Florida. When asked if she planned to look for a job in Florida, the mother replied that she had job offers already but on cross-examination she admitted that she actually had only offers of interviews which she was not able to go to while residing in New York.

The woman testified that her wish to return to Florida was absolutely not motivated by a desire to deprive her partner of meaningful access to the child. She said that when she and her partner broke up, she just felt that the only place she could go is home. She denied starting up a new relationship with someone in Florida and she acknowledged that if she was allowed to have the child and move to Florida, it would make it difficult for her partner to have access. She expressed her willingness to permit her partner to have significant visitation with the child by giving him a large chunk of time to spend with him including holidays and summers. She said she would be very flexible and allow him to spend as much time as he can. She volunteered to pay the cost of her plane ticket and half of the baby's to bring the child to New York for visitation. She would not oppose her partner calling the child every day to talk on the telephone and she would provide a video cam for her partner and child to communicate visually with each other over the Internet.

Having made a thorough examination and inquiry into the facts and circumstances of the case and into the surroundings, conditions and capacities of the persons involved in the proceeding, and having given serious consideration to the various factors at issue in this custody/relocation request, based on the best interests of the child, the court finds that the father proved that relocation should be denied. The court finds there is a sound and substantial basis in the record to grant joint custody of the child to both parties, with physical residence to the mother and regular and frequent contact between the father and the child. In addition to day and overnight visitation, the father may speak to the child by telephone at reasonable times with reasonable frequency.

The Court must also consider the effect of domestic violence upon the best interests of the child if a party makes a sworn allegation that the other party has committed an act of domestic violence against the party making the allegation or a family or household member of either party and such allegations are proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

The present custodial arrangement, the child's wishes and the existence of domestic violence are not at issue. The evidence shows that the respective home environments, the needs of the child, each parent's past performance and relative fitness, each parent's ability to guide and provide for the child's intellectual and emotional development, and each parent's financial status and ability to provide for the child, the parents are relatively equal.

Based on the child's chronological age and developmental stage, the parties should establish a visitation schedule for the father that will not create separations of more than two or three days. Overnight visitation should be included in the schedule the parties create. The parties should develop a plan in which they share or alternate holidays and have the child during their respective vacations. Each parent shall provide the other with a current address and telephone number and will notify each other within 72 hours of any changes to the information. Each parent will immediately notify the other regarding any emergency involving the child. Neither party may remove the child from the jurisdiction of the court without the written permission of the other party. Neither party with custody of the child may relocate beyond a 25-mile radius of where they presently reside without the written consent of the other party.

When couples decide to break apart due to a lot of reasons, their children’s sake should not be jeopardized. It is unusual for couples to agree on something once they consider to get separated. If you are in these kinds of situation, or have been the victim of assault, sex crimes or other domestic violence matter, make sure to discuss your options on domestic violence related cases with the New York Domestic Violence Lawyers. You may also request to be represented by a NY Criminal Attorney at Stephen Bilkis and Associates for your crime-related lawsuits.

Defendant was charged of the felony of possessing a quantity of a narcotic drug, heroin, or heroin possession, with intent to sell; a drug crime. A New York Criminal Lawyer defendant had pleaded guilty to an attempt to commit the crime charged (criminal law) and, with the court's consent, had withdrawn such guilty plea and substituted a plea of not guilty. Defendant was then convicted by a jury in Queens County Court.

Although defendant as his own witness at the trial denied his guilt, he does not now dispute that the People's proof was enough for conviction. However, defendant does press on the herein court the point made by the dissenting Appellate Division Justices that it was injustice and error to lay before the jury as evidence of his guilt his earlier plea of guilty which the court had allowed him to withdraw.

The issue here is whether or not a plea of guilty withdrawn by leave of court is admissible against the defendant on the trial of the issue arising on a substituted plea of not guilty.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said the court concludes in the negative.

The weight of reason is against the introduction in evidence of a plea of guilty withdrawn on order of court granting leave and permitting the substitution of a plea of not guilty. As noted by one Justice of the Court, a plea of guilty differs in purpose and effect from a mere admission or an extra-judicial confession; it is itself a conviction. Like a verdict of a jury, it is conclusive. More is not required; the court has nothing to do but give judgment and sentence. Out of just consideration for persons accused of a crime, courts are careful that a plea of guilty shall not be accepted unless made voluntarily after proper advice and with full understanding of the consequences. But, on timely application, the court will vacate a plea of guilty shown to have been unfairly obtained or given through ignorance, fear or inadvertence. The court, in the exercise of its discretion, will permit one accused to substitute a plea of not guilty and have a trial if for any reason the granting of the privilege seems fair and just. The effect of the court's order permitting the withdrawal was to adjudge that the plea of guilty be held for naught. Its subsequent use as evidence against petitioner was in direct conflict with that determination. When the plea was annulled it ceased to be evidence. As a practical matter, it could not be received in evidence without putting petitioner in a dilemma utterly inconsistent with the determination of the court awarding him a trial. The withdrawal of a plea of guilty is a poor privilege, if, notwithstanding its withdrawal, it may be used in evidence under the plea of not guilty.'

The question is not whether a plea of guilty is a confession of guilt and provable as such. Of course it is. However, the inquiry is into something quite different. It’s the question of whether it is lawful in New York for a court, after allowing a guilty plea to be set at naught, to allow the jury to use that same plea as proof of guilt. Such a distortion of purpose should not be allowed. The State of New York should scorn to make use of it. As the Federal Court of Appeals put it, 'When a court allows a defendant to withdraw a plea of 'guilty', it is because the court finds that circumstances exist which make it unfair to hold him to it. Such circumstances make it equally unfair to use it against him as an admission.

The danger and injustice of the affirmative use of a withdrawn guilty plea could not be better illustrated than by the herein record. Not only was the former plea allowed in evidence on the People's case over objection but the court's charge discussed it at length and referred to the plea as in the nature of a confession and to a confession as being a direct acknowledgment of guilt. With this proof admitted, defendant was in effect forced to take the stand. Defendant swore that he had pleaded guilty on his lawyer's advice, although protesting innocence, because the lawyer had promised to get him a suspended sentence. The dire impact on the defendant of all this discussion of his previous guilty plea was then made worse by the prosecution's use as a witness of the lawyer (not trial counsel) who had acted for defendant at the time of the guilty plea. Defendant objected to his former lawyer's taking the stand but the court held that defendant by giving evidence as to his dealings with the lawyer had waived the attorney-client privilege. So the lawyer was allowed to testify that the defendant had admitted to him the possession of the narcotic drug. The herein court need not pass on the correctness of the court's ruling as to waiver. The court need not go so far as one Justice opined: “Using a guilty plea as evidence forces a defendant in substance, if not in form, to testify against himself”. The court should say flatly and finally that a plea so allowed to be withdrawn is out of the case forever and for all purposes.

Accordingly, judgment is reversed and a new trial is ordered.

Drug possession crimes are rampant these days and the government has been trying very hard to prevent or lessen its occurrence. As we all know, drugs corrupt the minds of its users and sometimes leads to the commission of other crimes, including theft, or sex crimes. However, those charged with drug crimes aren’t stripped of their rights. They are entitled to all the rights available to an accused. To know more, have a free consultation with Stephen Bilkis & Associates. Talk to a Queens Drug Lawyer or a Queens Criminal Lawyer from our firm.

A man applied to the license division of the police department for a premises pistol permit. As required by the application, the man answered numerous questions pertaining to his qualification. The questions include as to whether he had ever been arrested and was an order of protection ever issued against him. The man answered yes to the abovementioned questions. The man also submitted notarized statements describing the circumstances of his two arrests.
The man's first arrest happened when he was in college. He states that he fraudulently applied for and received unemployment benefits. He pled guilty to petit larceny, paid full compensation and was awarded a certificate of relief from civil disabilities.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man's second arrest occurred at a random traffic checkpoint. When the officers checked his license, the officer discovered that it was suspended in accordance to a family court child support enforcement unit order. The man states that it was an error because he had already appeared before in the family court judge and made all the payments. The man obtained the necessary documentation to verify his claim.

Consequently, the man received a notice of disapproval which listed three reasons for the disapproval. Those reasons pertain to the aforementioned undisclosed arrest and discharge, his arrest for grand larceny and his three domestic violence incidents.

The man filed an appeal of the decision which addressed each of the three reasons for the disapproval. By letter, the man was informed that his appeal was denied because he failed to disclose his complete arrest history on his application and because of his history of domestic violence incidents. The letter also stated that the man's recourse was to seek review by way of an article proceeding in the Supreme Court and consequently filed a petition.
The man argues that he already explained the misunderstanding regarding the juvenile arrest and he denies any history of domestic violence incidents.

The police department argues that law provides support for its denial of the man's application. It states that all applicants are warned that false statements are grounds for disapproval. The police department further argues that the instruction form for the application states that even sealed arrests must be disclosed. In its answer, the police department concedes that the man accurately answered the application questions that pertain to the orders of protection. It states that it does not rely on the evidence of domestic issues as support for it denial of a pistol permit. A Westchester County Criminal Lawyer said the police department investigator's case summary report concludes based on the circumstances of the above arrests and the applicant's domestic incidents cast grave doubt on the moral character, judgment and fitness of the applicant to obtain a handgun license. The police department argues that despite the acquittal of the previous arrest and the plea to lesser charges in the other arrest, and the man's failure to report one of them, provided the license division with sufficient good cause to deny the man's application for a pistol license. The police department urges the court to uphold its decision as rational.

The man’s compliance with the application directions regarding his other two arrests sufficiently demonstrates his understanding of the instructions. Moreover, it disproves his claim that he did not read the directions closely or think that they applied to his particular situation.
Based on records, the law requires that a pistol permit may only be issued to an applicant after a finding that all statements in a proper application are true. The application itself warns that false statements are grounds for disapproval.

Thereafter, the court decided for the petition to deny and the proceeding is dismissed.

A lot of incidents arise from simple misunderstanding and sudden increase of voice by a person in an argument. If you have problem related to domestic violence, sex crimes, or drug or theft charges contact our office for guidance. If you also need an expert from criminal issues, you can speak with New York Criminal Lawyers at Stephen Bilkis & Associates.

A woman charged a man with criminal action of various felonies arising from alleged domestic violence. A non-profit corporation has moved to quash a subpoena issued by the District Attorney to provide the address and telephone number of the complainant of the criminal action. The non-profit corporation asserts that in accordance to the Social Services Law and the regulations promulgated under it, the non-profit corporation is prohibited from releasing to the District Attorney the actual address where the resident is being sheltered. In addition, it argues that the information sought is also shielded by a common-law victim-counselor privilege.

A New York Criminal Lawyer the motion to quash is denied. Section of the Social Services Law states that the street address of any residential program for victims of domestic violence applying for funding pursuant to this article shall be confidential and may be disclosed only to persons designated by rules and regulations of the department. At the same time, section of the State Code of Rules and Regulations provides for the confidentiality of facility addresses as each program must maintain a business mailing address separate and distinct from the actual address where residents are sheltered. When releasing the address of any resident, programs must release only the business address of the program and not the actual address where the resident is being sheltered.

On the other hand, section of the State Code of Rules and Regulations provides for access to confidential information pursuant to an order by a court of competent jurisdiction. The non-profit organization argues that the specific prohibition of the State Code of Rules and Regulation limits the broad disclosure permitted pursuant to a section of the said Code.

The Court persuasively argues that the interpretation of the regulations is inconsistent with the Legislative intent. A Manhattan Criminal Lawyer said the bill jacket indicates that the purpose of article of the Social Services Law is to insure a stable and secure funding source for shelters and programs, and to provide for the first time a statutory recognition of domestic violence programs and shelters as what they are--services and programs for the victims. Thus, the bill was meant to fund shelters to provide for the safety of domestic violence victims.

Unquestionably, the safety of domestic violence victims requires that the locations of shelters be kept confidential so as to protect the victims from their abusers. As the ability to maintain confidentiality is impaired by disclosure to anyone (including a court or prosecutor), the court attempted to avoid the disclosure called for by the subpoena by negotiating alternative means to secure the complainant's appearance. The attempts have failed. The negotiations were perhaps doomed from the outset by certain philosophical differences between the non-profit corporation and the District Attorney over whether clients should be forced to testify. The differences involved attitudes toward the personal empowerment of victims as well as whether their safety is best secured by the total confidentiality for which the non-profit corporation argues or by the successful prosecution of criminal charges. Neither the Legislation nor the regulations promulgated thereunder reflect any view that the secrecy of shelters is meant to replace or supersede the use of criminal prosecutions to further the goals of personal and community safety.

Contrary to the arguments in behalf of the non-profit corporation, the Federal public policy does not favor the provision of confidential services to victims at the expense of legitimate law enforcement purposes. Section of The Family Violence Prevention and Services Act requires that funding for state programs is contingent upon a respect for confidentiality. However, the provision cannot be read in isolation. The Family Violence Prevention and Services Act defines a family violence shelter as the provision of temporary refuge and related assistance in compliance with applicable State law and regulation governing the provision, on a regular basis, of shelter, safe homes, meals, and related assistance to victims of family violence and their dependents. As defined by the statute, the term related assistance includes legal advocacy to provide victims with information and assistance through the civil and criminal courts, and legal assistance.

Moreover, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act specifically address the confidentiality of domestic violence shelters and abused persons' addresses. While the section requires the United States Postal Service to promulgate regulations to secure the confidentiality of domestic violence shelters and abused persons' addresses. It further provides that such regulations shall not prohibit the disclosure of addresses to State or Federal agencies for legitimate law enforcement or other governmental purposes.

The argument that the addresses and phone numbers of domestic violence victims are protected by a common-law privilege is also rejected. New York has, by statute, created privileges for a number of confidential relationships. However, no privilege exists between a battered woman and her counselor. In the absence of a statute creating a privilege between two particular parties, no communication is privileged. In any event, addresses and telephone numbers do not normally come within the scope of statutory privileges.

Ultimately, the question of whether to pursue a criminal prosecution is a matter of prosecutorial discretion. That discretion may not be defeated by a court, let alone a complainant or a social services agency. The non-profit corporation may be advised to develop procedures to cope with the realities of ongoing court proceedings, but must comply with the court's subpoenas.

Victims of any violence would find it hard to trust people around them and their initial instinct would be to protect themselves from further harm. When they turn themselves into shelters, they are putting their trust to that shelter. If you know of women and children who were victims of home-related violence and crimes, feel free to call the New York Domestic Violence Attorneys, together with the NY Criminal Lawyers of Stephen and Bilkis and Associates, they can pave the way for justice that the victims deserve. Whether you have been been involved in a domestic violence matter, or sex crimes, theft or drug charges, contact our office to ensure that your rights are protected

Whenever evidence of a crime is discovered by police during an inventory search of a person’s vehicle, it is subject to scrutiny. Inventory searches are administrative searches. That means that the police department or agency maintains documents in their standard operating procedures manual that indicates that an inventory of an arrested person’s vehicle will be performed incident to that arrest. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the reason for inventory searches is that people often make allegations that items are missing from their vehicles. The inventory of the person’s vehicle incident to their arrest is to determine what exactly is in the vehicle. Anything that appears to be valuable needs to be removed and placed into evidence or property so that the person can re-claim their valuables upon getting out of jail. The police department is protected from allegations of theft, and all valuables are protected for the individual.

However, in many cases, illegal items, narcotics, open alcoholic beverage container, stolen credit cards, and other items are located during the inventory of a vehicle. It is at that point that the officer must be able to prove that the search was an administrative search and not a search for contraband. That is why it is important for police officers to have their procedures documented.

In a case that was decided before the Supreme Court of New York County on November 18, 2009, a defendant who was charged with one count of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the second degree and with driving under the influence of alcohol. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said he man was arrested following a traffic stop. The officer stated that he observed a Lexus pulled up to a fire hydrant. There was a white male behind the wheel of the car. When the officer pulled up, the man got out of the car and approached the officer. The officer stated that the man’s eyes were glassy and bloodshot, he exuded a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage from about his person, and he was unsteady on his feet.

He was asked to take field sobriety tests and he refused. He was arrested for DUI. He also refused the breathalyzer test at the precinct where his car was inventoried. During the course of conducting the inventory search of the car, the defendant’s sister arrived at the precinct. She introduced herself to the officers. She identified herself as a Metropolitan Transit Police Officer and noticed that she had graduated from the police academy with the arresting officer in the case.

She accompanied him out to the car and he released many of the defendant’s personal items into her custody. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said while conducting the inventory, he moved to inventory the trunk. When he opened the trunk, he observed a closed bag. When he looked inside the bag, he located a firearm. The defendant was notified of the additional charge.

In court, the defendant maintained that the gun was the fruit of the poisonous tree under the Exclusionary Rule. The Exclusionary Rule states that any evidence of any crime that is obtained pursuant to an illegal search is inadmissible in court as evidence unless the police can show that they would have inevitably discovered the evidence anyway.

In this situation, a Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said the defendant claimed that he was not driving the car. He stated that he was already outside the car when the officer arrived. This would have made an impound of the vehicle pursuant to an arrest invalid and any proceeds from that search would have been illegal.

The court found that the search was within the guidelines set forth in the procedure manual and thus the search was upheld and the gun was ruled as valid evidence. Stephen Bilkis & Associates have Criminal Lawyers who can fight for you. Their New York DUI Lawyers are familiar with handling cases in criminal courts where the Exclusionary Rule is an issue. Many items can fall into the category of illegal searches when the case is DWI. At Stephen Bilkis & Associates, we have offices throughout New York and the Metropolitan area. Being able to defend the client’s interest is of the utmost importance to us.

In cases that involve more than one victim, juries, and sometimes judges can become confused and issue verdicts that are not in accordance with the law or with good common sense. A case that was adjudicated in the Supreme Court of Nassau County on September 3, 1975 is one such case. The incident was fairly straight forward. This incident occurred on October 22, 1969 at a jewelry store that was owned and operated by one man.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said he frequently purchased items from other people and sometimes took in items on consignment. On the date of this incident, he had in his safe a diamond ring valued at $12,500 that he had taken in on consignment for another man. While he was in the shop that day, two men came in to the store to look at watches. They left without making a purchase. They had seen the owner go to the back of the store to retrieve a watch to show them from the safe. On his way back out to the front of the store, he failed to shut the safe or re-secure the dividing door that was usually locked between the front of the store and the office where the safe was located.

A while later, the two men returned to the store and produced a .45 caliber gun and ordered the owner to comply. A said the owner fought with the men and was struck on the head during the altercation with a hard object that he could not identify. He fell down near the panic button for his alarm. He pushed the alarm and passed out. When he came back to consciousness, he was handcuffed an in the back of the store. The attackers beat him again. He struggled to get free and he reached for the gun. Somehow the gun was fired and the jeweler was knocked unconscious again.

This time when he regained consciousness, a New York Criminal Lawyer said he saw the assailants running out of the store. The police arrived shortly after that. The jeweler was transported to the hospital where he was admitted. The police discovered that the men had stolen all of the jewelry out of the safe in the office. It was an estimated $250,000 to $375,000 worth of diamond and gold jewelry. Among the items that were stolen was the client’s diamond ring that was on consignment in the store.

The owner of the diamond ring filed a lawsuit to recover the value of his ring. He claimed that the jeweler was at least partially responsible for the theft of the ring because he was negligent in leaving the office door unlocked and the safe open. The original trial court agreed and ordered that the jeweler was 50% culpable for the theft. The jeweler filed an appeal with his insurance company as co-appellate.

The jeweler and his insurance company maintain that it is not the jeweler’s fault that two men came in and robbed the store. They cite that the owner of the ring had his own insurance on the ring and has already recovered the value of the ring from that company. There is not cause to attempt to recover the damages from the jeweler.

The court of Appeals agrees. They state that it is not reasonable to place culpability on the jeweler because he was robbed. Even though the initial trial jury felt that a robbery was a foreseeable incident in the jewelry business, especially in a small family jewelry store. The court disagrees. They state that since the assailants were armed that the jeweler would probably have unlocked the door and the safe anyway. That puts the proximate cause of the robbery back with the robbery. They state that the gun was the cause of the loss and not the jeweler leaving a door unlocked and a safe ajar.

At Stephen Bilkis & Associates a Nassau County Criminal Lawyer can help you if you are improperly held responsiblem whether you are involved in drug possession offense, a theft charge or a domestic violence matter. They have convenient offices throughout New York and Metropolitan area. A Nassau County Arrest Lawyer can provide assistance if you if you are arrested for a gun crime or similar act of violence.

A man indicted for drug crimes such as cocaine possession with intent to sell, denied that he had sold cocaine, but testified to his crack possession of three vials for his own use. A police officer testified that he observed the accused man receive money from an unidentified woman and then drop a vial of crack cocaine, which the woman picked up from the ground. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the officer further testified that he arrested the accused man within five minutes, finding four dollars and crack possession.

The accused man testified that he received the vials from three guys whom he knew. When asked to name the three men, he inquired whether he could speak to his lawyer. He was permitted to do so and replied that the guys are not really involved in what he was accused of. A New York Criminal Lawyer said when the question was repeated, the accused man answered without further consulting his attorney. Presumably in an attempt to establish that the accused man’s cocaine possession with intent to sell, the assistant district attorney asked him how he obtained the money. The man testified that he received welfare, had saved some three hundred dollars while in a program of work release from State prison where he had been until three months beforehand, and also received money from his family. At one point in the accused man’s testimony, the assistant district attorney inquired whether the money he spent to go to movies was welfare money.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the assistant district attorney reviewed the accused man’s prior criminal law violations that include four felony and seven misdemeanor convictions. In detail the convictions include four robberies, one invalid use of a credit card, a fare beat, a trespass, and criminal possession of controlled substances. The assistant district attorney repeatedly emphasized the robbery convictions. The assistant district attorney then asked the accused man to tell the grand jury what happened on the occasion of his arrest for marijuana possession. The accused man explained that he was arrested when he took a bag of marijuana out of his pocket to give to a friend whom he owed money. The assistant district attorney finally asked him to tell the grand jury what he had been arrested for on the occasion in 1990 when he pled guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance.

When the accused man was asked for the reasons of his previous guilty pleadings, he generally replied that he pled guilty to those crimes because he committed them.

He volunteered that he did not stay in one place long because the police lock people for anything. The assistant district attorney was prompted to ask whether the accused man had ever been locked up for a crime that he did not commit. The accused man’s answer was incoherent.

The assistant district attorney began another question, which he interrupted with an admonition to the defense attorney to not talk to the accused man while being asked questions. The assistant district attorney continued to question the accused man about his guilt on all other occasions when he was arrested. The assistant district attorney requested to reflect on the record that the defense attorney is instructing the client how to answer the questions.

After the accused man testified, the assistant district attorney recalled the officer who had initially testified. The assistant district attorney paraphrased the accused man’s testimony and asked the officer if it was the accurate testimony. The officer replied that the man’s testimony was not accurate.

The law provides, in pertinent part that any person who appears as a witness and has signed a waiver of immunity in a grand jury proceeding, has a right to an attorney. The attorney for such witness may be present with the witness in the grand jury room. The attorney may advise the witness, but may not otherwise take any part in the proceeding. The statute represents a balance between concern for fairness to the potential accused before the grand jury and concern that the presence of counsel for the accused would interfere improperly with the grand jury's proceedings. The balance was achieved by limiting the role of counsel to being present with the witness to advise the witness, but otherwise to not participate in the proceedings. Such advice as counsel gives the witness before the grand jury may not interfere improperly with the proceedings of the grand jury.

The role of counsel before the grand jury in protecting against harmful conduct by the prosecutor is necessarily limited by the statute which inhibits the defense counsel from taking any role in the proceeding beyond giving advice to the client. Unlike a trial, where the defense counsel can raise objections, the accused before the Grand Jury is not in a position to object, and, under these circumstances, nor is his attorney.

When the prosecutor does engage in abuse of the defendant before the grand jury, or otherwise oversteps the bounds of propriety by asking questions improper in form or in their connotation to the grand jury, or calling for irrelevant, privileged or otherwise improperly prejudicial answers, the defense counsel must seek the assistance of the court supervising the grand jury proceeding.

Even though the witness has counsel present in the grand jury room, the presence of counsel for the witness does not relieve the prosecutor of the duty of fairness to the witness. Because the statute explicitly limits counsel's role within the grand jury to advising the witness, the witness is placed in the unenviable position of being at the prosecutor's mercy.

Apart from the assistant district attorney's characterization of communications between counsel and client within the grand jury as providing answers, the court does not find that the accused sought improper assistance from his attorney. On each occasion when the assistant district attorney noted the consultation on the record, it appears to have been proper. However, accused man’s counsel failed to seek the assistance of the court when appropriate, and failed to advise the accused man to decline to answer the questions that may have been immaterial to the investigation, or have called for privileged answers.

When the accused man was asked to name the men from whom he obtained the cocaine found in his possession, he reasonably may have asked his counsel whether the question was within the scope of the grand jury inquiry as he understood it at the time he waived his privilege against self-incrimination. When the defense counsel apparently consulted with the accused man, the accused man was asked whether he had been arrested for criminal sale of a controlled substance prior to his pleading guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance. The question was an improper, insofar as witness may be properly impeached only on the basis of bad acts or convictions, and not upon the unsubstantiated allegations of an arrest. The defense counsel could have properly advised the accused man not to answer the question until a ruling could be obtained from the supervising judge.

When the assistant district attorney admonished counsel not to speak with the accused man while being asked also involved an improper question, which was whether the man had ever been jailed for a crime that he did not commit. The question was simply immaterial to the grand jury's investigation into the man’s alleged vial of cocaine possession with intent to sell. Again, counsel could have properly advised the accused man not to answer the question until a ruling could be obtained from the supervising judge as to whether it was a proper question about matters material to the investigation.

The Queens Criminal Attorneys from Stephen Bilkis and Associates are well-versed with criminal laws that would enable you to win your crime related lawsuits. Whether you have been charged with a drug offense, sex crimes or theft, we will ensure that your rights are protected. Working with a Queens Drug Lawyer gives you better chances of finding justice that you deserve for the drug crimes committed against you.

In January 2004, the Chief Judge of a State promulgated the establishment of Integrated Domestic Violence (IDV) parts in Supreme Court. The rule directed that the specialized part be devoted to hearing and determination, in a single forum, of cases that are simultaneously pending in the courts if one of them is a domestic violence case in a criminal court and the other is a case in Supreme or Family Court that involves a party or witness in the domestic violence case; or if one is a case in criminal court, Family Court or Supreme Court and the other is a case in any other of these courts having a common party or in which a disposition may affect the interests of a party in the first case.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the intent of the IDV directive was to allow matters involving a single family to be resolved in one court by the same jurist, thereby eliminating fragmented judicial adjudication and relieving the parties of the burden and costs of having multiple actions pending in different courts. In addition to streamlining the litigation process for litigants and providing better access to community services for families, the new IDV parts also increased judicial efficiency by avoiding duplication of effort by multiple courts, reducing scheduling conflicts and avoiding inconsistent outcomes.

Soon after the Chief Judge issued part of the IDV, the Chief Administrative Judge implemented the new rule by adopting part of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts, which defined those IDV-eligible cases subject to transfer to Supreme Court. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that under the rules, cases that meet the criteria are sent to an IDV part where, within five days, the cases are screened to determine whether transfer will promote the administration of justice. If so, a formal transfer order is issued and the case is retained by the IDV part for disposition. If not, the case is returned to the originating court.

In January 2007, a man was charged by misdemeanor information filed in the County Criminal Court with multiple counts of aggravated harassment after he contacted his former partner by telephone 62 times in one evening and repeatedly threatened her with physical harm. The man and his former partner had been involved in multiple prior family court cases regarding disputes about their two children. After his arraignment in the Criminal Court, the case was transferred to the IDV part of the County Supreme Court where a non-jury trial was conducted. The man was convicted of three counts of attempted aggravated harassment and sentenced to concurrent terms of one year probation. He was also directed to participate in a variety of domestic violence accountability and other programs.

Although the man raised no objection in the trial court to the transfer of his case, in his appeal to the Appellate Division, he argued that the IDV Part — an arm of Supreme Court — lacked the authority to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over his misdemeanor case because it was prosecuted by information rather than an indictment or superior court information issued after waiver of indictment. The man also contended that the Chief Judge and Chief Administrative Judge exceeded the scope of their authority when they issued the IDV directives. In addition, he sought reversal based on an asserted evidentiary error. The Appellate Division unanimously rejected the man’s arguments and affirmed his conviction. A Justice of that court granted the man leave to appeal.

About nine months after the IDV directives were issued, the Chief Judge promulgated the next part of the Rules of the Chief Judge establishing a criminal division in the County Supreme Court. The new part — denominated the County Criminal Division, was vested with the authority to adjudicate cases commenced in the County Criminal Court when at least one felony or misdemeanor offense was charged. The intent was to permit cases originating in the Criminal Court to be reassigned to the County Criminal Division for trial in order to alleviate a trial backlog that had developed in the Criminal Court. The Chief Administrative Judge adopted the rule directing, with specified limitations, that certain felony and misdemeanor cases pending in the County Criminal Court be transferred to the County Criminal Division Part in Supreme Court following arraignment, if the cases were not resolved at arraignment. By order of the County Administrative Judge, the County Criminal Division directives were implemented on November 5, 2004.

In October 2005, another man was charged in misdemeanor information with various classes A misdemeanors and harassment, a violation, resulting from an altercation with his wife. The charges were filed in the County Criminal Court. After arraignment, his case was transferred to the County Criminal Division and a non-jury trial was conducted. The man was acquitted of the misdemeanor offenses but convicted of the harassment charge and sentenced to 15 days in jail.
Another man was charged with the misdemeanor offenses of obstructing governmental administration and assault, as well as harassment, a violation resulting from disruptive behavior during a parole hearing. Following his arraignment in the County Criminal Court, the man’s case was transferred to the County Criminal Division for a non-jury trial. He was convicted of attempted assault and harassment for which he received 90-day and 15-day jail sentences, respectively.

Both men appealed and, in their initial briefs, neither of them protested that the trial had been conducted in the County Criminal Division part of the Supreme Court. However, the Appellate Division requested that the attorneys in each case brief the additional issues of whether the establishment of the County Criminal Division of the Supreme Court under a part of the Rules of the Chief Administrator is consistent with the Constitution and statutes of the State and whether the Supreme Court possessed jurisdiction over a criminal case absent the filing of an indictment or superior court information.

In response to the inquiry, the defense counsel filed supplemental briefs asserting that unified court system (UCS) administrators exceeded the authority granted them under the Constitution and relevant statutes when they issued the County Criminal Division directives and that the Supreme Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to try misdemeanor offenses prosecuted on an information. Relying on the Criminal Law Procedure, the accused men contended that the Supreme Court has the power to adjudicate misdemeanor offenses only when the Grand Jury has included them in an indictment or an accused has waived indictment and agreed to be prosecuted by Superior Court Information (SCI). The Court countered that various provisions of the Constitution and the Judiciary Law expressly allowed Unified Court System administrators to issue the rules relating to transfer of misdemeanor cases to the County Criminal Division Part and, as an arm of Supreme Court, the County Criminal Division possessed the requisite jurisdiction to try the accused parties’ unindicted misdemeanor cases.

In February 2009, in a divided opinion, the Appellate Division reversed a conviction and dismissed the accusatory instrument, crediting the accused man’s jurisdictional arguments. In his dissent, the Judge disagreed with the majority, finding ample constitutional and statutory basis for the issuance of the County Criminal Division directives and concluding that, as a court of general, concurrent jurisdiction, the Supreme Court is empowered to adjudicate misdemeanor cases, regardless of whether the charge is contained in information, an indictment or an SCI. In a separate decision, the four justices that comprised the action, majority reversed one related conviction and dismissed the misdemeanor information, citing the decision in the case. In each case, the Judge granted the Court leave to appeal.

The Justice System is continuously finding ways to protect women and children who become victims of home-related violence and crimes. Whether you have been accused of domestic violence, sex crimes, or other criminal offense, it is important that you seek legal guidance. Stephen Bilkis and Associates will see to it that any updates on the law would make women and children well-safeguarded.

A man was arrested during the execution of a search warrant in his reported residence. The search warrant was based in part upon an undercover police officer's sworn allegations that on 13 separate occasions the man, while acting in concert with co-accused sold cocaine and heroin. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accusation charges the man and his companion, with felony conspiracy for cocaine and heroin and conspiring to commit Criminal Sale of Controlled Substance.

The Criminal Procedure Law defines those accused persons who are eligible for Judicial Diversion as ones charged with certain Class B, C, D, and E felony drug offenses, or those charged with specified nonviolent offenses as long as they do not have a disqualifying condition listed in the law. If the District Attorney consents, a non-eligible accused will be deemed eligible. The list of eligible crimes is specific and does not include every nonviolent felony.

Robbery in the Third Degree and felony DWI, both nonviolent offenses, are not specified eligible crimes. Disqualifying conditions include convictions within the past ten years for felony or a violent felony; those who have a prior second violent felony or persistent felony offender adjudication; and those who are presently charged with certain violent felony offenses. Prior adjudications for disqualifying crimes may also be considered by the court in determining eligibility.

The case was referred to the Treatment Court on the man’s request for Judicial Diversion. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the Judicial Diversion Program for Certain Felony Offenders grants authority to judges to determine which nonviolent accused persons, whose criminal activity is the result of substance abuse or substance dependence should have the opportunity to avoid a jail sentence by agreeing to complete court monitored treatment.

The statute is silent as to whether the presence on an accusation of nonviolent, non-specified crimes along with specified eligible charges precludes eligibility. Judges have reached different conclusions on the issue. Two courts have held that, as long as an accused is charged with an eligible offense and is not otherwise disqualified by the Criminal Procedure Law, the presence of a neutral charge on the accusations will not preclude participation. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the courts reasoned that, since the Legislature chose to list disqualifying charges, the clear intent was that omitted charges are not disqualifying. Two other courts have determined that the list of eligible charges is exhaustive and anyone charged with neutral charges is ineligible for Judicial Diversion. The courts reasoned that if the Legislature wanted those charged with neutral offenses to be eligible, it would have included those offenses in the list of eligible charges.

The Jury contends that the accused herein is not eligible for Judicial Diversion because the accusation charges him with Conspiracy which are not specified as either eligible or disqualifying offenses. The Jury argue that to permit those charged with neutral crimes to be eligible, would have the absurd result of finding those charged with drug felony or Criminal Use of a Chemical Weapon or Biological Weapon, a felony eligible.

The accused man contends that he is eligible for Judicial Diversion because he is charged with specified felony drug crimes, has no prior disqualifying convictions, and no pending disqualifying charges. He argues that to exclude those charged with neutral crimes along with specified eligible charges from eligibility for Judicial Diversion would have the illogical result of excluding those whom the Jury chose to charge with neutral lesser-included misdemeanors and/or conspiracies to commit specified eligible offenses.

Given that the underlying purpose of the statute, as stated in both the Senate and Assembly Memoranda in Support of Legislation, is to significantly reduce drug-related crime by addressing substance abuse that often lies at the core of criminal behavior, and to accomplish the goal by returning discretion to judges to tailor the penalties of the penal law to the facts and circumstances of each drug offense and authorizing the court to sentence certain nonviolent drug offenders to probation and drug treatment rather than mandatory prison when appropriate, a more expansive interpretation of the statute favors the underlying legislative purpose.

Given the Legislature's failure to include any misdemeanors among the eligible offenses, it must have intended that such crimes would not automatically disqualify an accused from Judicial Diversion. To find otherwise would result in the absurd conclusion that an accused charged with an eligible felony drug possession offense would be disqualified by the inclusion of the lesser-included misdemeanor of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance. The reasoning leads to the ineluctable conclusion that lesser-included crimes, though not specified, are not disqualifying.

By the same reasoning, while a conspiracy to commit a completed crime is not a lesser-included offense of the completed crime, it embraces all of the overt acts and substantive crimes in the particular criminal enterprise, and is integrally related to the commission of the completed crime. Since the neutral charges of Conspiracy embrace and integrally relate to the specified eligible charges of Criminal Sale of Controlled Substance, the Court concludes that the accused man is not disqualified from eligibility for Judicial Diversion as a result of the inclusion of the charges in the accusations.

Having determined that the accused man meets the statutory definition of eligibility, the Court must determine whether or not he should be referred for an evaluation. The statute does not require that every eligible accused be guaranteed an evaluation to determine if he should be offered diversion for treatment. The accused man’s request to be evaluated is denied. Diversion into treatment is designed for those who not only have a history of alcohol or substance abuse or dependence, but whose abuse or dependence is a contributing factor to their criminal behavior. The purpose of diversion of such accused to substance abuse treatment is that, once drug abuse is overcome, the criminal behavior will also stop. When an accused person’s untoward behavior is motivated by greed or profit, rather than a need to obtain money to purchase drugs for immediate use, drug treatment may have no effect on the behavior.

The accused man was the subject of a long-term investigation into the sale of controlled substances in the State public housing development. Acting with another person, he is alleged to have sold a quantity or cocaine or heroin to an undercover officer on 13 occasions. The sales were allegedly negotiated by the accused in advance over the phone with the undercover and involved substantial amounts of drugs. At the time of the search warrant execution in the accused man’s residence, he is alleged to have been in possession of drug packaging and scales. Based on the allegations, even if his claim of alcohol and substance dependence were to be credited, the Court is not persuaded that such dependence is a contributing factor to his behavior. The allegations are not indicative of the kind of criminal behavior that results from substance abuse or dependence. The crimes are not the crimes of someone who compulsively needs to obtain money to purchase drugs for immediate use. Rather, the allegations describe the actions of a businessman selling drugs to make money.

Accordingly, having considered all of the arguments presented, the Court finds that the accused man is an eligible accused as defined in the Criminal Procedure Law despite the presence of neutral charges on the accusations nevertheless the court also finds that the accused man is not a suitable candidate for the Judicial Diversion Program.

Taking alcoholic drinks prior to driving and using prohibited drugs have nothing good to offer. If you find yourself in an alcohol and prohibited substance lawsuit that led to serious crime, or have been charged with sex crimes, or a theft charge, let the Stephen Bilkis and Associates New York DWI Attorneys together with the New York Criminal Lawyers help you explore your legal options.

A woman had a boyfriend since she was 14 years old until she reached the age of 20. They broke up and went their separate ways living separate lives. Years later, the boyfriend and the woman met up again. The boyfriend did not have a place to live. So for old time’s sake, the woman allowed her old boyfriend to stay in the spare bedroom in her apartment.

The old boyfriend paid rent to the woman. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the woman saved up the money he had been paying as rent and she planned to give it back to him when he has finally found a suitable place to live.

During the course of their living arrangement, the old boyfriend needed to break his five dollar bill into quarters so that he can do his laundry at the laundromat. He took five dollars in quarters from the coin purse of the woman and put in a five dollar bill. Later, he told the woman what he had done. The woman got upset because she suspected that her old boyfriend was going through her personal belongings.

The old boyfriend’s temper flared. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he strangled the woman with her own scarf and then when he found a leather belt, he assaulted her by spanking her repeatedly with the belt. The woman was finally able to free herself from her old boyfriend and called 911. When she came out of her bedroom, she saw that her old boyfriend had fled.
She then took all of the old boyfriend’s belongings and brought his things to her old boyfriend’s brother’s house for safekeeping. By the time she arrived at the apartment, the police had also arrived. The police officer found the old boyfriend crouched and hiding in a dark corner of the woman’s apartment.

The police officer noted the disarray in the apartment and saw the bruises on the woman’s body and arrested the old boyfriend and brought the woman to the hospital. When she was there, her medical history was taken. She was asked what happened to her and how she sustained her injuries. She was also asked who inflicted the injuries upon her. She told the medical personnel that she was strangled by an old boyfriend who used a leather belt. The attending physician at the emergency room put his diagnosis as domestic violence and asphyxiation.

The boyfriend was charged with assault and a temporary order of protection was issued against him at his arraignment. Days later, the old boyfriend telephoned the woman several times and showed up at her apartment door. A few days after the old boyfriend came to her apartment and attempted to kick her front door in. Days after that, the old boyfriend stalked the woman, he followed her from her apartment and approached her on the street. When she got off from the bus after her work, the old boyfriend approached her and talked to her. He threatened her and told her not to testify against him. He also told the woman that he had a razor in his pocket and that he will not hesitate to kill her.

The old boyfriend was charged with attempted murder in the second degree (for his attempt to strangle her). He was charged and convicted of assault in the second degree; and also convicted of attempted assault in the second degree; criminal possession of a weapon; four counts of criminal contempt for the violation of the order of protection; two counts of criminal contempt in the second degree; one count of intimidating a victim or witness; aggravated harassment and harassment.

The old boyfriend appealed his convictions but the Appellate Division affirmed all his convictions. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the Appellate Division ruled that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion when it allowed the medical records and the testimony of the attending physician to be admitted into evidence. The attending physician testified that the woman was subjected to domestic violence inflicted by an old boyfriend.

The Court affirmed the assailed decision of the Appellate Division noting that even when the man and the woman were not having sexual relations at the time, they were sharing one house and that they had a former relationship. The medical records which reflected the nature of the crime as domestic violence and that the perpetrator of the violence was an old boyfriend are all entries in medical records which are included under business records which are an exemption to the hearsay rule.

New York Domestic Violence lawyers at Stephen Bilkis and Associates can advice you that a couple need not be married or having sexual relations for injuries to be categorized as domestic violence. Whether you have been charge with domestic violence, sex crimes, or a theft crime, our office can help. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates to speak with any of our attorneys. They are willing to assist you and advice you.

The parties were married in August 1973. The wife is presently 52 years of age and the husband is presently 56 years of age. On the date of their marriage, plaintiff was 22 years of age and a college graduate. Defendant was then 18 years of age and a high school graduate. During the course of the marriage, four children were born to the parties, the two youngest children, remain unemancipated. During the course of the litigation the youngest son resided in Israel or was a resident student at a university. It appears the youngest son is fully and voluntarily supported by the father and does not permanently reside with either party, although he does reside with the mother during the summer recess from school.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the husband commenced this action in December 2004 after the wife withdrew an action commenced in November 2004. The parties litigated in Family Court from 10 November 2004, through January 31, 2005. The husband also brought a writ of habeas corpus under a separate index number against the wife and her mother which was dismissed. The Family Court action was consolidated into the Supreme Court action, on consent. The wife was granted a divorce, on consent, after proof, on 10 June 2005, on the grounds of constructive abandonment and shortly thereafter the husband gave the wife a Jewish divorce. A law guardian was appointed for the youngest daughter, and a neutral forensic evaluator, was appointed by the court.

On 29 November 2005, the day set for trial on the issue of custody, all issues of custody and visitation were resolved by stipulation on the record. The agreement inter alia provided that the parties would share joint decision making of the youngest daughter, age 13, that the wife would have physical custody, there would be a parent coordinator and that the husband, the wife and child would separately enroll in therapy. An NYC Criminal Lawyer said that the wife voluntarily, without prejudice, withdrew her request for a temporary order of protection and same was vacated, on consent. The agreement further provided for supervised visitation and a mechanism for the child and father to re-establish their relationship.

The issues before this court which were tried are: equitable distribution, maintenance, child support, and counsel and expert fees.

The gravamen of the parties' dispute is as a result of the bifurcated custody agreement entered into by the parties on 29 November 2005, and the adamant refusal of the child to visit the father.
The wife requests that the court grant her a disproportionate share of equitable distribution based upon egregious conduct by the husband.

The father requests that the court take into account, in its financial decision including the maintenance, child support and equitable distribution, the child's refusal to see him and the mother's support, encouragement and manipulation of events. The father alleges that the mother's acts of encouraging alienation constitute egregious conduct.

Here, the court is called upon inter alia to make certain decisions based upon a dispute involving allegations that a mother, through her actions, actively and passively alienated and influenced a child to the point that the child may no longer have any inclination or desire to see her father again. As equally important, the court must also determine the credibility of claims of egregious domestic violence during a long-term marriage of 31 years alleged to have been perpetrated against the mother, herself an advocate for the rights of women in divorce actions.

One of the most difficult decisions a Judge has to make is that which impacts upon the life of a child. The law has long recognized the special place and role of the court in deciding issues relating to children and the long term impact that our courts have on the life of a child
The court painstakingly heard testimonies from the parties and their witnesses and conducted three separate in camera interviews with the child, the last being at the request of the child which was made one day after the conclusion of the second in camera interview.

The court, in refusing to grant the father economic relief because of the refusal of the child to visit with him, does so at this juncture in the hope that the mother will immediately take the steps to realize that her actions can and will have serious consequences. This court does not believe that there is a generally accepted diagnostic determination or syndrome known as "parental alienation syndrome". Each case must be reviewed on its own merits. The court is well aware that it cannot just accept the opinion of an expert and must evaluate it and then determine its efficacy or application to the case before it. This is especially true where there are allegations of domestic violence which must be considered in the context of a custody dispute.
The court cannot ignore the fact that these parties (who have agreed to joint decision making) have entered into a stipulation settling that portion of the divorce action. This stipulation provided that not only would they engage in individual therapy21 but that the child will engage in therapy that the father cannot have any input related thereto at the specific request of the child. This child, it has become increasing clear, has been empowered in this divorce action and has adopted (in a rather public fashion by writing newspaper columns) the mother's cause without limitation. A child cannot be in charge of the other parent's custodial rights.

After careful consideration, the court has not economically penalized the mother or the child because it appears to the court that she was not, until now, truly aware of the nature of both her active acts of alienation and her passive acts by educating the child as to the process and her own concerns by making the child part of her own crisis. This does not mean that a future application of the interference continues which may not be the basis for a suspension of maintenance or support nor does the court ignore that body of case law that hold that -- where the interference is both a “deliberate frustration” and "active interference", suspension of support may be warranted.

This court believes, though, that the true amount of child support and maintenance should be set before a suspension is considered so that the party that would be economically penalized will fully know and understand that which is at risk. The court also believes it would be unfair to make such a determination without both parties having had the benefit of knowing the court's findings and decisions which will now be the law of the case. After reading such opinion, they both will have had a full and fair opportunity to have had the matter adjudicated. Now, with that knowledge, violation of the court's order will be dealt with appropriately.

Pending resolution of the post-trial applications, the mother is enjoined and restrained from discussing this litigation at any time when the child may be within 1,000 feet of her; that includes her economic concerns, concerns about the father and his relationships with others, the role of therapists in a divorce, domestic violence and orders of protection, and this opinion; nor shall the mother take the child to members of the community or her parents for them to discuss the case or the parent-child relationships.

The 1,000 feet restriction is to insure that the mother is not on the telephone within earshot of the child or that the child can pick up a phone and listen in. This direction must be scrupulously enforced especially in light of the fact that while this matter has been sub judice, the father has moved for a change of custody based upon the fact that he has been totally cut off from the child and that subsequent to that application, the child, who is 13 years of age, has sent the court two typed letters by certified mail, the law guardian has been discharged, a new law guardian has been appointed and a formal application has been made by the child for an order of protection, even though they have not spoken in months. She has apparently seen him in her school and the neighborhood they share.

The mother has absolutely no right to attempt to limit access to the parent coordinator that both parties agreed to in the stipulation. This methodology was adopted by the parties in this agreement. In order for the parent coordinator to understand the nature of the parties' relationship with the child, he must be granted unfettered access to the parents and the child forthwith.

The court will adopt the methodologies approved by the First Department and will impose a series of fines upon the mother if she continues to prevent even one visit with the child's therapist or she fails to sign a retainer and fully and completely cooperate with the parent coordinator she agreed to forthwith. The mother and the child must understand that mother and the father have placed their own and their minor child's mental and physical health at issue in a custody / visitation dispute. The issue is still ripe based upon the apparent post trial continuation of the litigation and the fact that the court is not bound to accept the agreement of the parties.

Moreover, the application by the child for an order of protection, which if granted, would further restrict access of the father to the child. As one doctor testified, the effect of the continuing great length of time that the child has not seen the father is of great concern. The father must recognize that this child is truly afraid of him. Restoration of his relationship with the child must be based upon a restoration of trust. His underlying acts of rage and the "tug of war" described herein and the mother's acts will leave an indelible mark on the child.

Plaintiff must also recognize that this court does believe there has been some level of domestic violence in their marriage. While not finding it was egregious nor did it occur in front of the unemancipated children or upon them, based upon the testimonies presented, it did happen and is acknowledged.

On the financial aspect, the wife has been credited with or has received $2,967,321.79 in assets and/or cash and the husband has received $2,952,724.44 in assets and/or cash. The wife therefore has received or been credited with $14,587.00 more than the husband. In order to equalize the distribution so that each party receives one half of the marital estate pursuant to this decision, the wife owes the husband $7,298.50. The husband may offset such monies from monies due and owing directly to the wife.

To see a family broken because of domestic violence is saddening and when custody issues with a child result, it is heartbreaking. In situations such as these, or if you have been charged with sex crimes, theft or drug possession, consult with a lawyer to know what legal steps you should take for the child’s best interest. Call Stephen Bilkis & Associates and talk to our NY Domestic Violence Attorneys or our NY Criminal Attorneys if you wish to pursue criminal actions.

What defines good moral character? How long after a youthful infraction, has good moral character been restored? Is it ever possible to know? What types of jobs are appropriate for someone who committed a felony, served their prison sentence, and completed college? How long does the smear of a felony conviction ruin a person’s name? All of these questions are valid ones. There are no set answers. So when a convicted violent felon is released from prison, completes college, and then law school, passes the New York State Bar Exam, the problem becomes one of moral character. The New York Bar rules state that no one will be admitted to the bar who is not of good moral character to practice law. So what establishes his moral character. Even though his crime was violent and drug related, is it enough that the offense occurred thirty years ago?

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the question at hand is best illustrated using a case that was heard in New York. A man was convicted 30 years ago of running a Quaalude sales ring. At first, he was making large sums of money and living a lavish lifestyle. But, as the police began to close in on his operation and his life was falling apart, he took a gun and convinced his girlfriend that he wanted to see her. Once he was with her, he took her captive and held her at gunpoint. He told her that he was going to commit suicide and she believed that he intended to kill her as well. In an attempt to save her own life, when he went to the bathroom, she jumped from the second story window to the ground below. She was severely injured, but survived. As she was running from the location, he fired several bullets at her. He did not hit her with any of them.

He was arrested for the ,offenses and went to Federal Prison first. He was also convicted at the state level and served his sentenced concurrently. Unbelievably, he was released after only seven years on a 12 ½ to 25 year sentence. He completed college and law school. He took the bar exam and passed it. He applied for acceptance to the bar in several states. In all but New York, he was accepted. After all, his crime was committed more than thirty years before he passed the bar. Since that one infraction, he has not committed any crimes and has led an exemplary life.

A Suffolk Criminal Lawyer said in this petition, it is the third time that he has attempted to get New York to accept his bar application. He maintains that he has been reformed. He just wants to practice law. The main opinions of the justices was that after thirty years, he has earned the right to apply for any job he wants to without prejudice. Dissenting opinions state that he should never be allowed to get out from under the stigma that has built up from his arrest and incarceration. The majority of the justices determined that he has served his time. He is ready to move forward with his life.

The dissenting opinions claim that while he has made some improvement, he is just not quite ready to be allowed to practice law in New York. The dissenting opinions claim that the man is not quite there yet, which created friction between him and another neighbor. The majority question when he will ever be able to get there if thirty years is not even enough?

Stephen Bilkis & Associates have Criminal Lawyers who can fight for you. Their New York Criminal Lawyers are familiar with handling cases in criminal courts, whether the charges involve domestic violence, sex crimes or theft. Many items may fall into the category of illegal searches when the case is Criminal. At Stephen Bilkis & Associates, we have offices throughout New York and the Metropolitan area. Being able to defend the client’s interest is of the utmost importance to us.

In 1999, petitioner was arrested for rape in the first degree and thereafter convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of sexual abuse in the first degree. The victim, who was his girlfriend at the time and is a petitioner in this proceeding, later married petitioner while he was serving a subsequent prison term in connection with a 2004 conviction of burglary in the second degree. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the petitioners participated in Family Reunion Program visits three times between October 2006 and October 2007.

In November 2008, petitioner appeared before the Board of Parole, which issued a decision setting the conditions for his anticipated release from prison. In light of the sex crimes committed by petitioner against his wife, as well as evidence of a history of domestic violence between the two, the Board imposed several conditions, including the requirement that petitioner refrain from "associating in any way or communicating by any means with his wife without the permission of" his parole officer.

Petitioners requested the removal of the aforesaid special condition with the Division of Parole but were, thereafter, denied. Hence, petitioners commenced the instant proceeding challenging the condition.

Was the special condition imposed upon the petitioner’s parole release proper?

The decision to impose a special condition upon the release of an inmate is discretionary in nature and beyond the review of the courts so long as made in accordance with law.

Petitioners concede that respondent had a compelling interest in supervising petitioner upon his release, and that respondent parole officer has the discretion to impose conditions restricting contact between spouses. They argue, however, that the special condition at issue is unlawful, arbitrary and capricious. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that specifically, petitioners assert that the special condition restricts their fundamental right to maintain a marital relationship, but is not narrowly tailored to the state's interests in supervising petitioner and protecting his wife, and serves no legitimate penological objective. The court disagrees.

The right to marry is a fundamental right that remains constitutionally protected in the penological context. To be valid, a restriction of that right must be reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. Reasonableness is determined by considering, among other things, whether there is a valid, rational connection between the regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it, and whether there are obvious, easy alternatives that accommodate the right to marry while imposing a de minimis burden on the pursuit of security objectives. Moreover, a special condition will not be deemed arbitrary and capricious if it is rationally related to the inmate's criminal history, past conduct and future chances of recidivism.

In the instant case, petitioner's decades-long criminal record includes an arrest for rape in the first degree and a conviction upon a guilty plea of sexual abuse in the first degree against his wife. Petitioner was also classified as a sex offender, violated an order of protection in favor of his wife when released on probation in connection with that crime, and has a history of domestic violence perpetrated against his wife. In addition to his past conduct with his wife, we note that petitioner received 20 disciplinary infractions while in custody, and has a long history of both substance abuse and orders of protection issued in favor of his parents. Although petitioners enjoyed three conjugal visits in a highly regulated setting, they have not had unsupervised time together since at least 2004.

Under the circumstances, the court concludes that the special condition imposed, which is essentially a five-year ban on contact that is not supervised by a parole officer, is reasonably related to legitimate penological objectives and rationally related to petitioner's history and potential recidivism. Moreover, petitioners' suggested alternatives would impose more than a de minimis cost on the state in pursuit of its concededly legitimate goals. Indeed, even if a heightened level of scrutiny is warranted because a fundamental right is being burdened, there is a direct relationship between petitioner's criminal history and the challenged condition, which does not impose a complete impediment to petitioners' fundamental right to family life.

Accordingly, the court finds that the special condition is not unlawful, arbitrary or capricious.
A history of domestic violence is part of the factors to be considered in determining the conditions for a parole release. If you have been charged with a criminal matter such as a drug possession, assault or theft, contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates for a free consultation.

Recently, a good deal of attention has been given to the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana. Some states have legalized medicinal marijuana use. Some states have decriminalized the private use or possession of less than one ounce. In New York City, it is still illegal to use, possess, or purchase marijuana. While drug possession is still a crime, other less obvious issues surrounding marijuana are being played out in courts all over the United States.

A New York Criminal Lawyer says that people believe that is they are good parents and take good care of their children that no one can take them away. What they do not realize is that sometimes, even good parents are scrutinized by a judicial system that has the power to remove their children from them. This is a terrifying situation. No one wants to believe that the state would come in and take away their children. That is something that happens to other people, bad people, not to the average parent. That image of people who have to fight the system to keep their children is not accurate. Sometimes, there are people who are lousy parents. People can be cruel and people can be clueless when it comes to the welfare of their children. The laws of the state of New York clearly detail that if a parent misuses alcohol or drugs to the extent that it places their children in in actual or imminent danger of impairment to the physical, mental, or emotional condition of the child. The Family Court Act § 1046 also states that there must be a showing of a threshold of serious and ongoing substance abuse. The object of this law is to protect children from serious harm or potential harm. It was not designed to punish parents for behaving in an undesirable manner.

It is possible, that a parent who uses marijuana only once can have their children removed. A New York Criminal Lawyer said it seems unconscionable that the state would take away a person’s children for testing positive for marijuana on one occasion, but it has happened. In fact, one such case was decided in Kings County Family Court in Kings County, New York on January 26, 2012. The incident surrounded the petition from the Administration for Children’s Services to find a mother guilty of child neglect because on the date of her child’s birth, she and the child tested positive for marijuana. The toxicology report was not specific as to when the marijuana had been consumed, if the mother had endangered her child by consuming it, or if the mother had even become intoxicated at the time that the drug entered her body. Interestingly enough, this case brings up the question of what would happen if the drug had entered the mother’s body through second hand smoke. For instance, the mother was passing through a closed in area where other people were smoking marijuana. It could conceivably enter her body in that fashion. She may or may not feel any effects of the drug, but she would probably still test positive on a toxicology report for the drug. That question will have to be answered in a different court case.

The case that came to court in January of 2012, involved a mother who delivered a healthy, full-term infant of greater than average weight. The routine toxicology report showed that the mother and child tested positive for marijuana. ACS responded to the case by charging the mother with child neglect. They interviewed her and asked when and how she had gotten marijuana in her system. The mother stated that she has never used drugs to the point of intoxication. She stated that she consumed a small amount of marijuana orally in the form of tea during prayer as a religious practice. She stated that it has never had an intoxicating effect on her and that she has never smoked it. She stated that it has never affected her children or her care of them. She further pointed out by statements made by doctors that there was no evidence that her consumption of marijuana two weeks before the delivery of the baby had caused any ill effects on the child at all. The doctors pointed out that alcohol or cigarettes during pregnancy were both more damaging than the consumption of the marijuana.

ACS interviewed her five other children. They determined that the mother, grandmother, and the children had recently moved to New York from Washington, DC. The home was tidy and well kept. The children had adequate housing and rooms to themselves. All of the children were well adjusted and healthy. Each of the children were interviewed and stated that they had never seen their mother drink alcohol or use any drugs. They stated that their mother never struck them. They were doing well in school and seemed happy.

Still, ACS brought charges against this mother. The petition claimed that she neglected the children by using marijuana and that the children had not been immediately enrolled in school in New York after the family moved there. There were five petitions of neglect. In court, ACS was forced to withdraw one of the neglect charges immediately since the sixteen-year-old daughter that was named in the allegation did not even live with the mother. She was still living with her father in Washington, DC.

ACS was also required to remove their neglect petitions that were based on the allegation that the children had not been enrolled in school in a timely fashion. The mother produced the school registration documents that proved that the children had been enrolled in school as soon as possible after their move. The mother then produced a very credible expert on the effects of drugs on the physiology of a person. In fact, this expert witness was a doctor of neuropsychopharmacology in the Psychiatry Department of Columbia University. He had even completed his Postdoctoral Fellowship in Substance Abuse at the Department of Psychiatry at Yale University and at the University of California. He is a tenured Associate Professor in Psychiatry at Columbia University and the Director of Undergraduate Studies for the Department of Psychology. This expert testified that the effects of marijuana when it is consumed as opposed to smoked are fairly different. Smoking intensifies the chemical reaction in the body that causes the THC to become psychoactive. By consuming the marijuana in the form of a tea, it is not metabolized until it reaches the small intestines where it may or may not cause a less intense affect. There is no way to determine from the toxicology report if the woman consumed enough to make her intoxicated in any way.

Certainly the testimony of the children showed that they were not harmed in any way by the mother consuming marijuana to heighten her prayers. The mother is a certified ordained minister in Washington, DC. Although, the court documents do not mention her religious preference, there are some religions in the world that condone the use of marijuana during prayer. In this case, it becomes an issue of if the children were harmed since ACS has chosen to prefer charges of neglect against a woman with no other evidence of any kind of abuse except that she and her infant tested positive for marijuana on one occasion.

Thankfully, in this case, the legal aid society acquired the services of an excellent expert witness and the courts were compelled to reject the case in its entirety. Whether you have been charged with sex crimes, a drug offense or domestic violence, it important to seek legal guidance. Stephen Bilkis & Associates Domestic Violence Lawyers are familiar with handling cases in family court; we can offer the client the representation that they need. We have offices throughout New York and the Metropolitan area. Being able to defend the client’s interest is important to us. We can negotiate on your behalf in order to obtain a positive outcome.

Often, questions of law arise in family violence situations that are unique because they are involving a domestic situation that is volatile and fluid in nature. Families are rarely stationary. The question of jurisdiction and venue become relevant when a family primarily resides in one state, but encounters a violent episode while out of state visiting relatives or on vacation. The law is expected to draw a line that determines who is responsible for protecting the victim or victims as the case may be. The law in New York has a long history of struggling with this concept.

In 1962, New York had a family court law that stated that the victim of domestic violence would have to have their case heard in the family court. This decision was designed to decriminalize family violence. However, the effect that it had was far from the one intended. Rather than providing additional options for handling abuse and domestic violence, it created a situation where criminals could elude criminal prosecution. In 1977, the state revised this law. This revision stated that the Family Court and the criminal court would have concurrent jurisdiction. In 1978, the law was revised further to include the three day rule. It stated that the victim had three days following an incident to decide if they wanted to pursue the case in either criminal court or family court. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the complainant’s choice of either criminal or family court became final after the three days. These amendments were an attempt to provide more effective relief to victims of domestic violence. The idea was that they would provide more remedies to the victims of domestic assaults. In 1994, the state legislature created the 1994 Act. It eliminated the three-day choice of venue. The 1994 Act allowed true concurrent jurisdiction to exist. There was no longer the chance that an offender could escape criminal punishment if the victim chose to have the case handled by family court. Since it is a true concurrent jurisdictional provision, a victim can proceed in both criminal and civil court at the same time.

In 1999, amended the Family Court Act 812 and the Criminal Procedure Law § 530.11 to enable a complainant to proceed in family court and have the criminal court continue to hear the criminal offense that was involved. This legal amendment was created to clarify the intent of the 1994 Act. It is generally assumed that the legislative history of domestic violence laws in New York demonstrate a desire to expand the jurisdiction of Family Court and strengthen the remedies available to the victims.

The issue then becomes one of territorial limitation. A Long Island Criminal Lawyer said that criminal law is distinct to the state and geographic boundaries that apply to that particular legislative body. Do those same constraints apply to the reach of Family Court? The state of New York contends that it does not. The jurisdiction of Family Court has been determined to extend beyond the territorial boundaries of the state of New York. The reason is that the intention of Family Court is to ensure that the families that reside within the state are safe from violence. Therefore, if that family is victimized in another state, the victim can still proceed in New York Family Court upon their return to the state. The state is concerned that the protection against future violence is only ensured if the Family Court of New York is allowed to have a longer reach than criminal court. According to the State Constitution and the Family Court Act § 812, or even the Family Court Act article 8, requires that the family violence offense has to occur in any particular county, state, or country in order for the Family Court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction.

An example of this jurisdictional question arose in February of 2009 on the island of Anguilla. A family that resides in New York in an apartment in the Bronx, was vacationing on Anguilla. At some point on February 19, 2009, a family argument broke out between the grandmother and her daughter, the mother. The grandmother pushed the mother to the floor twice causing injury to her back and head. The grandmother was also accused of screaming, yelling, and using profanity at the mother during an assault that extended to the two children that were with them. The mother claims that the grandmother used a glass bowl to strike one of her grandson’s on the head, causing injury. She also allegedly chased her other grandson with a meat cleaver and threw and ashtray at him. The ashtray struck him in the back.

On March 4, 2009, the mother and her two sons filed three separate family offense petitions asking the court to enter orders of protection for them against the grandmother. The mother and sons alleged that the grandmother during the altercation committed the family offenses of assault, harassment, and menacing. They also stated that all of the parties live together in an apartment in Elmont, Nassau County.

On March 6, 2009, the grandmother filed three family offense petitions seeking orders of protection in her favor against the mother and her sons. She alleged that on February 14, 2009, also in Anguilla, the mother and her sons committed the family offenses of aggravated harassment in the second degree, harassment in the first degree, attempted assault, and menacing in the third degree. During the first appearance in Family Court, the grandmother’s family violence attorney objected to the court’s jurisdiction over the offenses because the offenses occurred in Anguilla. The Family Court maintained that the fact that the offenses occurred in the West Indies is no different from it happening in Pennsylvania, Virginia, or Vermont. The judge maintained that they are all residents of Nassau County and are entitled to protection from any future incidents of family violence while at home in Nassau County. The judge stated that Family Orders of Protection are enacted to prevent future hostility and assaults, not just handle those that have already occurred.

On June 24, 2009, following a hearing of the case, the Family Court determined that the mother and her sons had proved their case with clear and convincing evidence. In contrast, the grandmother had not. The court issued three two-year orders of protection against the grandmother. It detailed that the grandmother would not be allowed to go near or interact with the mother or the two sons for a period of two years. The grandmother appealed the decision because it was her home that she was being forced to leave. She stated that she did not believe that the Family Court had jurisdiction over the case because the incidents occurred in the West Indies. The Court of Appeals disagreed. The Justices stated that it did not matter that the incidents occurred in Anguilla, because the family lives permanently in the County of Nassau. The appeals court upheld the protection orders of the mother and two sons. It rejected the protection order requested by the grandmother.

At Stephen Bilkis & Associates, a Domestic Violence Lawyer can protect your rights if you have been injured in another state or country, as long as you and the offender live in the state of New York. Whether you have been involved in a domestic violence dispute, or have been charged with sex crimes,assault or negligence, contact us. We have convenient offices throughout New York and the Metropolitan area. We also have Criminal Attorneys who can protect your rights if you are charged with a crime.

Domestic violence issues are complicated. For many years, it was easier for the American judicial system to simply not deal with it. The political climate has changed and with it, the domestic violence laws have changed. We now understand that domestic violence is about control. Sometimes, an abuser cannot accept that the control over the other person has been removed by the state. In some cases, the aggressor attempts to control the court by manipulating the legal system. This type of behavior offensive to the judges and will turn the judges favor away from that person.

In one case like this, which was heard in the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County on October 1, 2010, the situation began on May 5, 2010. A man filed a petition to the court on June 30, 2010 claiming that his wife had illegally locked him out of their apartment located at 1880 Valentine Avenue in the Bronx. However, neither party appeared in court and the petition was dismissed. On July 12, 2010, the man filed a second petition alleging that his wife had illegally locked him out of the apartment. This time he claimed that the lock out had happened in February of 2010. This time, the wife appeared in court, but the husband did not. The court dismissed the man’s petition again.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man filed a third petition to the court. This time he claimed that his wife had illegally locked him out of the apartment on July 16, 2010. In this petition, he stated that he had called the police. When the police arrived, they ordered him to leave. Both parties appeared in court on July 23, 2010 in reference to this petition. At that time, the court was notified that on July 16, 2010, Bronx County Family Court had issued each party a Temporary Order of Protection against the other. The wife’s Protection Order directed the husband to stay away from the wife and the three minor children who live with her at 1880 Valentine Avenue. These orders expressly stated that the husband was excluded from that residence. He was also ordered to stay away from the wife’s place of work and not to have any communication with any of the people who lived in the apartment. This is most certainly why the police ordered the husband to leave when they were called to the apartment. Family Court did order that the father could have visitation with his infant child at a location away from the apartment. At that time, the court order for visitation listed the husband’s address as 1160 Wheeler Avenue in the Bronx. The court determined that Family Court was the best resolution to the dispute and dismissed the petition that the husband had filed.

On the afternoon of July 23, 2010, the husband went to Housing Court and filed a petition that the Family Court petition did not accurately state his address. He claimed that his address was still Valentine Avenue and was not Wheeler Avenue. On July 30, 2010 the Housing Court denied his petition because of improper service. He then waited until August 4, 2010, when he filed yet another petition with Housing Court. He again stated that he lived on Valentine and that Family Court had written his address mistakenly on the form. On August 13, 2010, the motion was postponed until September 7, 2010. On September 7, 2010, the man again did not appear in court and the motion was denied. On the afternoon of September 7, 2010, the man filed another motion, this time in Civil Court. He stated that his address was 1880 Valentine Avenue in the Bronx and that he was being illegally locked out of his residence. A Manhattan Criminal Lawyer said that te court noticed that the Visitation petition that he was presenting stated that his wife had gained custody of their infant child on July 1, 2010. He stated that the illegal lockout this time, occurred on July 1, 2010.

In reviewing the case, Civil Court noticed that the couple had a Family Court history that started in July of 2009. It was at that time that the wife filed a family court petition against the husband. On July 31, 2009, the wife was issued a Temporary Order of Protection against the husband and he was ordered to stay away from the residence on Valentine. The order was in effect until October 1, 2009. On August 3, 2009 the husband filed a Custody and Visitation petition against the wife. He withdrew both petitions on October 19, 2009. On November 2, 2009, the husband filed another petition in Family Court which was dismissed. Then in February of 2010, both the husband and wife filed Family Offense petitions against each other. On June 3, 2010, both petitions were dismissed because they failed to appear in court.

On July 16, 2010, both parties filed cross-Family Offense petitions against each other and obtained Temporary Orders of Protection against each other. It was at that time that the husband also filed a Custody and Visitation petition. On July 22, 2010, Family Court granted the husband a Temporary Order of Visitation that allowed him to visit with his infant daughter under supervision on Saturdays between noon and 5:00 PM. The Family Court scheduled a trial date as October 22, 2010. The court again notified the husband that the appropriate venue for his complaints was in Family Court and not Criminal, Civil, or Housing. In fact, it was pointed out to the husband that the complaint is moot because the Family Court had already set forth that the wife and children were to live in the apartment on Valentine. That order was signed on July 22, 2010. It clearly defined that the husband was not to reside in the apartment with the infant daughter and could only have supervised visitation with her at a different location. Because this order is already in effect, it prevents any other court venue over the situation. That means that this court cannot restore the Valentine residence to the husband because he is expressly prohibited from being on that premises for the protection of the infant daughter.

The court further noted that at the time of this new July 23, 2010 petition filed by the husband there was already in effect a Family Court Order of Protection that expressly prevent the husband from being on the premises of the apartment on Valentine. There was also a notation by the court that at the time that the husband had filed the July 2010, petition, he stated that he had been locked out of the apartment in February of 2010. The court is left to question why he would have waited a full five months to file this petition.

The court noticed that there is an extensive history of domestic violence between the husband and wife which resulted in the husband being excluded from the apartment on Valentine. The court reviewed multiple domestic incident reports and Orders of Protection that have been issued by Family Court and the Criminal Courts against the husband. It also noted that the current wife is not the only woman who has filed criminal charges against the husband. He has numerous cases in the past involving various other women.

In this case, the court noticed the pattern of domestic violence that this man was responsible for involving many women in his past and his current wife. The court recognized the pattern of an aggressor who is trying to manipulate the legal system in an attempt to inconvenience and intimidate his current wife. In this case, the Housing Court dismissed his petition again.

It is critical to point out that this man’s continued efforts to control his wife and the children has resulted in numerous court appearances. Women who find themselves in situations involving someone who is demonstrating this level of obsession need to consult with a family violence lawyer. Stephen Bilkis & Associates has a Domestic Violence Lawyer who can represent you. Whether you have been charged with sex crimes, assault, or are involved in a domestic violence matter, it is important that you call us. Because there are convenient offices throughout New York and the Metropolitan area, it is easy to locate one of these attorneys close to you.

The discretion of Family Court in New York to handle incidents that have occurred in other states or even other countries has led to many courtroom discussions. The Family Court laws in New York are clear in that they do not limit jurisdiction to events that simply occur in New York. In these laws, New York Criminal Court has concurrent jurisdiction with New York Family Court. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the deciding factor becomes whether or not the family resides in New York. In a case where the entire family no longer resides in New York, the person who is being served with the New York Family Court Documents must be served in New York. The reason for this division is that if the offender is not in New York, there is no imminent threat of further domestic violence to the family. However, if all parties are in New York long enough for the alternate person to be served, then the threat has continued. If the threat has continued, then jurisdiction relies on New York to protect the family from violence.

On December 21, 1989, a New York family who had moved to Florida had an altercation in Florida. During the altercation, the victim claims that the abuser, her husband, grabbed her by the hair pulling it out, slapped her and threw her onto the back patio of their house. The victim claims that also in Florida on January 16, 1990, the husband beat their six year old son, bruising his back, legs, and buttocks. The victim also claims that during the week of January 21, 1990, that her husband watched as she tried to close a window for the second time. He told her that she will never live to do it a third time.

The victim advised the court in New York that she and her family had moved to Florida in July of 1989. She stated that she had been afraid that if she did not move with him that he would take her children away. On February 1, 1990, shortly after the last incidence of violence, the victim moved back to New York with her children. She was afraid for her safety, so she moved into a shelter in Monroe County. On February 16, 1990, while she was living in the shelter, she was granted a temporary order of protection. It was later extended to April 27, 1990. A Long Island Criminal Lawyer said the husband was served in New York since he has weekly, supervised visitation with the children.

The husband, through his attorney claimed that the Family Court of New York did not have jurisdiction over this case because the criminal acts were committed in Florida. Since the criminal acts were committed in another jurisdiction, he maintains that there is no New York Family Court claim to concurrent jurisdiction. The court disagrees because the orders were served in New York. Had the orders been served in Florida, they would agree. However, the threat to the wife and child is still valid if the husband can be located in New York to be served. The court maintains that if the husband had remained in Florida and the wife had remained in New York, she would have had no remedy in the state of New York. The husband’s motion to dismiss the case against him was denied.

Cases like this one can go different ways depending on the location of each of the parties involved and the scope of the offenses. Domestic violence issues are considered more important now than they were ten years ago, so the scope of the interpretation of the legal precedence is going to be interpreted more fluidly.

Rules of law are complicated. Criminal Attorneys spend years studying the way that law is applied. Whether you have been charges with sex crimes, assault or domestic violence, speak to Stephen Bilkis & Associates. We have convenient offices throughout New York and the Metropolitan area. If you have been charged with a criminal offense, we also have Criminal Attorneys who can protect your rights.

Sometimes, the stories that create law are so horrendous that they speak directly to our hearts. It is at that time that you realize how important the law is. It is also when you realize how important another person’s job can be to the lives of others. In many cases, overworked and underpaid civil servants lose sight of how important their calling is. When that happens, they can drop the ball and cut corners. Cut corners always lead to a bad ending.

In New York, the job of the Clinton County Department of Social Services encompasses the assessment of homes to determine if children are deprived or neglected. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the primary goal of the social worker is to work with the parents to keep the child in their natural born home, if at all possible. Sometimes, it is not possible. Sometimes, the social worker does not keep the paperwork as meticulously as it should be kept. Sometimes, it is not possible for the social worker to predict that the parents who are not beating their children or leaving them without food might be the biggest risk to the children in their care.

On March 31, 2010, a set of twins was born to a young couple in Clinton County, New York. One was a boy named Zachary and the other, his twin sister, Zoe. On July 26, 2010, the New York State Central Registry received a complaint that the twins were being abused or mistreated. The department sent a social worker to the home and discovered that the couple engaged in domestic violence in the direct presence of the twins. There was no information recorded about how this information was received, and no documentation of any steps taken to council the parents. The documentation states that the caseworker recommended that the couple engage in mental health counseling and substance abuse treatment. However, there is no documentation about why these steps were recommended. There is no documentation of any mental health problems or substance abuse associated with the report.

On August 31, 2010, the social services report states that caseworkers attempted to gain entry into the home of the couple and the twins. It states that after knocking repeatedly on the doors and windows, they obtained entry by force with the assistance of the New York State Police. The report does not explain why force was deemed necessary or what information the social workers had to determine that the children may have been in distress. What they found upon entry was that the parents were sleeping upstairs. The twins were awake and downstairs. Zoe was unattended and propped on a sofa. Zachary was in a swing. A Westchester Criminal Lawyer said the report states that the parents’ were informed that this was inadequate supervision and demonstrated a flaw in their parental judgment. The social worker advised that the infants were at risk of physical harm. There was no further information recorded in reference to this incident or the actions that were taken to ensure that the children would be better cared for. Following this incident, the social services department noted that the mother was recommended to attend traumatic brain injury counseling. There is no reason given as to why this recommendation was made. In fact, there is no exact date given that would determine when the assessment was made. There was no evidence that any counseling or assessments had been completed.

On September 26, 2010, the New York State Central Registry was called again to the home in reference to child abuse or maltreatment of the twins. Upon their arrival, they discovered that Zachary had been left unattended downstairs, propped in the corner of an overstuffed chair at 2:30 that morning with a bottle of water propped up for him. At 9:00 a.m. when the parents woke up and checked on him, he was unresponsive and later determined to be dead. The cause of death was positional asphyxia. Twenty four days after Zachary died, the social services department filed a petition claiming that as a result of the parents’ flawed parental judgment, Zoe should be regarded as neglected and removed from their care.

According to the State of New York, before social services can remove a child from the care of their parents, they must show that they made reasonable efforts to keep the family united. The supervisor in charge of the case workers later testified before the courts that caseworkers went out on three separate occasions after July 26, 2010. As a result of those home visits, they recommended that the couple attend parenting class and other preventive services. There were no exact dates recorded of those visits and no evidence that either parent ever attended any of the parenting classes. The supervisor reported in court that caseworkers had seen severe deficits in parenting and had addressed those I the home visits. She stated that the recommendations involved counseling about bottle propping, safe sleeping, safe positioning of infants, and age appropriate developmental milestones. When questioned by the judge, the supervisor testified that she could not specify when the recommendations were made, only that they were made on at least August 31, 2010.

The supervisor testified that after Zachary died on September 26, 2010, the caseworkers had developed a child care plan for the safety of Zoe. The supervisor indicated that the voluntary child care plan that the parents agreed on involved Zoe going to live with a friend of the family. This never happened and Zoe remained in the care of her parents. The supervisor claimed that on October 17, 2010 the Department met with the parents and again recommended that they engage in parenting classes and undergo a parenting assessment. She claimed that preventive services were again discussed. The supervisor claimed that caseworkers returned to the apartment on October 18, 2010 and made additional recommendations for services including mental health screening, substance abuse treatment, traumatic brain injury assessment, parenting assessment, parenting classes and preventive services. The supervisor indicated that they made contact with friends and relatives concerning the welfare of Zoe. The supervisor stated that the parents refused preventive services and would not cooperate with the recommendations. The court noticed that social services did not file any actions in court against either parent for failing to comply with the recommendations until the case that was filed on October 20, 2010 requesting the removal of Zoe from the home for her safety. There was no documentation of any services offered to the parents relating to domestic violence which was the one documented incident that was made.

The judge was disappointed with the lack of documentation that was present in this case. The transcript of the case states that he stated that the law does not create a presumption that the department of Social Services made a reasonable effort to eliminate the need for placement of Zoe. Unfortunately, the burden of proof on the issue of removing Zoe for her safety is on social services who must establish that reasonable efforts were made. The judge stated that in this case, assuming that the allegations in the petition are true and accepting that the testimony of the supervisor who signed the petition is credible, then they failed to meet their burden of proof for two reasons. First, they failed to show that recommended services were tailored to address the problems in that home. Second, assuming that removal was not required earlier to prevent the death of Zachary, the department should have filed an Article 10 petition demanding that the parents comply with services that were tailored to their needs. Based on the testimony given, the court could not determine that any services recommended were necessary. There was no evidence that the neglect was caused by anyone abusing substances, mental illness or that either parent had suffered from a traumatic brain injury. The court chastised the department for not taking the steps that would have protected Zachary. The judge stated that just providing the parents with a list of services did not meet the requirement of reasonable efforts.

Zachary’s death was unnecessary. The inability of the Department of Social Services to remove Zoe to a safe place is unconscionable. However, if the information provided by the Supervisor is not correct, then it is possible that the department of social services is just as much at fault for Zachary’s death as the parents. Criminal Attorneys evaluating this case would first notice that the department had ample opportunity to notice that these parents did not know how to care for infants. If the wife was battered, there are services that could have eliminated the problems in the home before Zachary died. Whether you have been charged with domestic violence, sex crimes or a theft charge, Stephen Bilkis & Associates can represent you. We have convenient offices throughout New York and the Metropolitan area. If you know anyone who is dealing with spousal abuse and needs help, think about the effects on the children. Was that mother too afraid to leave the husband and go downstairs and care for the children? There is no way to know for sure. Suggest that they consult with a NY Domestic Violence Lawyer.

Domestic violence is a popular topic these days. Better and stronger domestic violence laws have gone in to effect. The truth about domestic violence is that it is cyclical. It follows a regular cycle that begins with a honeymoon phase where everything is wonderful. The abuser is loving and attentive. Then the abuser begins to pick at the other party. They begin verbally abusing them. From there the cycle heats up until violence breaks out. After the violent episode is over, the abuser tends to go back to the honeymoon cycle again. They promise that they will never abuse their spouse again. However, they do, the cycle continues to repeat itself. Each time the cycle completes, it becomes shorter. The honeymoon phase doesn’t last as long and the abuse phase lasts longer. That is the normal progression. Experience also tells us that the most dangerous time for the victim is shortly after they decide to leave. As soon as they separate, the victim should begin to take steps to protect themselves and any minor children. Unfortunately, many victims do not know what danger they are in.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer on early April of 1998, a wife and husband filed separation papers in Spafford, Onondaga County, New York. Apparently, the wife did not recognize the danger that she was in during this separation stage. The couple continued to reside in the same house following the signing of the separation agreement. On April 21, only a couple of weeks after they separated, they had a heated argument. It was early in the morning just before dawn when the argument became physical. The later investigation revealed that the husband beat the wife about the head with an aluminum baseball bat in front of her two small children. Evidence revealed that during the beating, the wife told her children to call the police because their father was trying to kill her.

After the wife collapsed with a visible indent in her temple, he called his parents and not an ambulance or medical help. When his parents arrived they brought the husband’s brother and a family friend who was a doctor. The police were finally notified and when they arrived, they found the wife lying on the kitchen floor writhing around in her own blood and moaning unintelligibly. The husband had some scratches and minor cuts. A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer they were taken to different hospitals for treatment.

The husband later admitted to police that he had cut himself and come up with a story about the wife being the primary aggressor by coming at him with a knife. He stated that he had cut himself with a nail while he waited for the police to arrive. He also admitted to striking his wife with the bat while she was unarmed. He stated that after everything was over, he had taped a section of garden hose to the tailpipe of his car and decided to gas himself. He told officers that he changed his mind when he saw the rosary hanging in the car.

The husband was indicted in June of 1998 for the assault. The children went to live with their maternal grandparents and aunt and orders of protection were obtained to keep the husband away from the children and the hospital where the wife was trying to recover. The hospital noted that the wife had been struck at least four times in the skull with the aluminum bat. She had surgery to remove a blood clot from her brain. Over the next six months, she was confined to the hospital. She battled life-threatening infections, her brain swelled several times, and she was in a coma for a while. Finally, in October of 1998, she was showing signs of recovery. She was able to speak the names of her children. Her speech was very limited but she was able to say simple words again.

Her mother notified the court that her daughter was regaining her speech. Shortly after that, a nursing assistant noticed a strange man entering the wife’s hospital room. She followed him in and asked him if she could help him. He appeared to be trying to pass himself off as a hospital janitor, but the uniform was not correct. He told her that he was just visiting the wife and left. One week later on October 27, 1998, several members of the hospital staff saw a mysterious man. He was walking around in the hospital. He appeared to be wearing a wig, glasses, a false nametag, and carrying a mop. The hospital was closed to visitors by then. Just after 10:00 P.M., a nurse noticed a strange, strong odor in the wife’s hospital room. She realized that the wife was having difficulty breathing and had an odd waxy-looking substance on her chest. When she touched the wife’s gown, it burned her skin. Hospital staff tried fruitlessly to revive her. She died the following morning. An autopsy revealed that she had been poisoned with potassium cyanide delivered through her mouth or feeding tube. It did not take long to identify the husband as the man who had been in the hospital disguised as the janitor. He was promptly arrested.

A search warrant was executed at the husband’s residence. It produced recovered data from the hard drive of the husband’s computer showing Internet searches on the words “cyanide” and “ordering potassium cyanide.” They also discovered several forged letters composed on the computer that were falsely suggestive that they had originated from an East Syracuse company called General Super Plating. They were sent to a company called Bryant Laboratories placing orders for potassium cyanide. They also recovered a half-burned wig and a bottle of potassium cyanide. The bottle was concealed in a cinder block in the corner of the shed near the rear of the property. Police also located eyewitnesses who saw the husband in July of 1998 intercepting a delivery of cyanide in the area of the General Super Plating business.

On November 19, 1998, the assault charges were still pending. The grand jury indicted the husband for two counts of first degree murder and other related offences. One count was actually murder in the first degree for intentionally murdering the wife to prevent her from testifying at the trial of the assault case. The second count of murder was in reference to him intentionally murdering his wife in the course of and in the act of committing a burglary. He was also indicted for burglary, aggravated criminal contempt and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.

On December 30, 1998, the District Attorney filed notice of intention to seek the death penalty in this case. He also requested that the court allow him to consolidate the murder and assault indictments. The motion was granted in January of 1999. Because this case was a death penalty case, the jury trial was conducted in two phases. The first phase was to determine guilt. The second was to determine the penalty. The jury returned unanimous verdicts of guilt for both first degree murder counts. The husband was issued the penalty of death. He appealed this verdict.

The husband appealed his conviction based on 38 points. Only three of those points were relevant to the decision that was made by the Supreme Court. Those three issues were considered primary issues to the sentence. The first was a discrepancy in the jury selection. The second was that the weight of the evidence supporting first degree witness elimination murder was legally insufficient to support his conviction. He made the same argument about the first degree murder chase based on the burglary. The reasons that were brought before the court to discuss were straight forward.

The first problem arose in jury selection. Two prospective jurors were not included in the jury pool in a manner in which the defense felt harmed their case. One juror was accepted into the pool even after he repeated on numerous occasions during voir dire that he was not sure that he could determine the facts of the case fairly. He cited an incident early in his marriage when he had shoved his wife in anger and that it still haunted him years later. He was also quite adamant about supporting the death penalty. The second juror was one that was not retained, but was released. She had stated during voir dire that she would do her duty if she had to, but that she had serious reservations about voting for the death penalty.

Secondly, the defense makes the argument that the state failed to support their argument for witness elimination murder. They claim that there were other motives that provoked the husband to intentionally murder his wife while she lay in the hospital that had nothing to do with preventing her from testifying against him. He claimed that he murdered her because he could not stand the fact that his family had been destroyed.

Lastly, the defense maintains that the state failed to sufficiently prove their case for first degree murder based on burglary. In order for this charge to be valid, the burglary would have to be a separate and distinct crime from the murder that was committed. In New York, burglary is an aggravated version of criminal trespass. If the defendant had entered into the building with the intent to rape, rob or commit another felony other than the murder, had committed this offense and then murdered the wife, it would have been a proper charge. Since, the felony act that was being used to support the burglary was the murder, the defense did not think that the state had met their burden of proof.

The Supreme Court agreed with the defense. They overturned the convictions for first degree murder; however, they upheld the one conviction for second degree murder as well as numerous lesser charges. They did not feel that it was necessary to re-try the husband since the matter of guilt had already been sufficiently determined. They did, however, return the case to the lower court in order to determine a new sentence of punishment. The death penalty is not considered an option for second degree murder.

The court also determined that the trial court had erred in their allowances as they dealt with the jury selection in voir dire, however, they also felt that it had no impact on the guilty verdict that was passed down. They felt that it would only have affected the penalty phase of the trial since the only problem that the defense had with the release of the one and the retention of the other was their ability to vote on the death penalty.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates are attorneys who believe that the legal system is in place to protect the rights of all citizens. If a person is charged with a crime, whether it is murder or sex crimes, they need to hire a NY Criminal Attorney to represent them. Our firm has convenient offices located throughout New York and the Metropolitan area. Any time that you find yourself in contact with the law in a family violence case, contact us to have a New York Domestic Violence Attorney assist you.

Domestic Violence situations are difficult for everyone who is involved in handling them. Family dynamics can be extremely volatile. When domestic violence occurs, there are many people involved. Family Violence Laws encompass past or current spouses; children or step-children, parents and children, foster parents and foster children, siblings, and anyone who has ever lived or is living in the same residence. This is a broad definition of the relationships that are included in the definition of the domestic violence statutes. Domestic violence laws are created not just to deal with crimes that have already occurred; they are expected to intervene to prevent future assaults from happening. However, whenever a law is created that is expected to prevent future offenses before they have occurred, abuses to that law often follow. Many people are arrested in domestic violence situations who did not need to be arrested. Many are arrested who do need to be arrested, but still deserve a fair hearing in a court of law.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that often police officers are called upon to enter a home and restrain one or more of the parties involved in the altercation. When this happens, it can be a dangerous situation for the police officers. In April of 2006, a New York City police officer responded to a domestic violence call in Albany County. During the course of that call, the officer had to struggle with and restrain a male subject. The officer in question and his partner ended up against a table which collapsed under the weight of the three people. The subject had pushed one of the officers onto the table before the officer in question was able to hand cuff him. The officer sustained a debilitating injury to his right shoulder. In July of 2007, he applied to the New York State and Local Police and Fire Retirement System to obtain accidental injury retirement benefits. The Hearing officer determined that this officer was not able to obtain these benefits because the injury could not be considered an accidental injury because it occurred in the normal course of performing his ordinary employment duties.

The officer argued that the collapse of the table was not an expected ordinary course of his employment duties. The state did not agree and refused his petition. The state maintains that responding to domestic violence calls and restraining unruly participants is a normal course of a police officer’s duties. If that officer in catastrophically injured in the course of those duties, the state does not feel that they should be responsible. A Westchester County Criminal Lawyer said the Officer appealed this decision. The State Court of Appeals upheld the verdict.

This type of situation is becoming all too common. Officers are expected to put their lives and bodies in danger to protect the citizens of this country. Yet when they are injured, the departments are not standing behind them. Recent changes in the employment laws in several states are permitting police departments to fire injured officers rather than ensure that they are taken care of for their sacrifice. It will not be long in this type of environment before young prospective officers refuse to take jobs in law enforcement. Why would anyone risk their livelihood and health to protect others knowing that when they get hurt, they will lose everything. Injured officers are losing their jobs, houses, and lives without the support of the very citizens whom they risk everything to protect. One has only to remember the events of 911 to acknowledge the risks that these people take every day. A profession that has always been more of a calling than a job, has now become too much of a risk to the officer’s ability to care for their families.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates have attorneys who can help. Because there are convenient offices throughout New York and the Metropolitan area, it is easy to locate one of these attorneys close to you. Whether you are the police officer who is injured and needs representation to recover what you have earned, or the suspect arrested for domestic violence. Whether you have been charged with domestic violence, sex crimes, or a theft crimes, we have legal counsel that can assist you.

In July 1996, after a prior order of protection expired, plaintiff obtained a second order of protection against her former boyfriend in Bronx Criminal Court. She delivered the order to the Domestic Violence Unit at her local police precinct and asked that it be served on her former boyfriend. At that time, plaintiff met two officers, the individuals assigned to the unit. Plaintiff later received a telephone call from one of the officers confirming that her former boyfriend had been served with the court order.

According to plaintiff, about a week later, her former boyfriend telephoned her at around 5:00 PM on a Friday evening and threatened to kill her. The former boyfriend had made various threats in the past — threats that prompted plaintiff to secure an order of protection — but plaintiff viewed this threat as an escalation of his hostility because he had not previously threatened to kill her. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the plaintiff immediately left her apartment with her two young sons, planning to go to her grandmother's house in the Bronx. On the way to her car, however, she stopped at a payphone and contacted the Domestic Violence Unit to alert the police to the latest threat by her former boyfriend. She contended that she spoke with one of the officers, who told her that she should return to her apartment and that the police would arrest her former boyfriend immediately.

After speaking to one of the officers, plaintiff returned to her apartment with her children where she remained for the rest of the evening. She did not hear from the police that evening, nor did she contact the precinct to inquire whether her former boyfriend had been located or arrested. The night passed without incident. A Queens Criminal Lawyer said the following day, a Saturday, plaintiff and her children remained in their apartment most of the day. At about 10:45 PM that evening, plaintiff stepped out of the apartment and into the hallway of her building intending to take out the garbage when she was confronted by her former boyfriend brandishing a gun. He ushered her back into the apartment doorway and shot her two or three times injuring her face and arm. The two children witnessed the shooting but were not physically harmed. The former boyfriend then turned the gun on himself and committed suicide.

Plaintiff commenced this action against the City of New York claiming that, based on her telephone conversation with one of the officers, the City had undertaken a "special relationship" with her that created a duty of care; that the City was negligent in failing to arrest her former boyfriend prior to the attack; and that its negligence was a proximate cause of the shooting.
Plaintiff also brought claims on behalf of the children, contending that the "special relationship" extended to them and that they could recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress because they were in the zone of danger at the time of the attack.

The case involves the provision of police protection, which is a classic governmental, rather than proprietary, function. That being so, the facts potentially implicate two separate but well-established grounds for a municipality to secure dismissal of a tort claim brought against it by a private citizen injured by a third party. The first relates to the fundamental obligation of a plaintiff pursuing a negligence cause of action to prove that the putative defendant owed a duty of care. Under the public duty rule, although a municipality owes a general duty to the public at large to furnish police protection, this does not create a duty of care running to a specific individual sufficient to support a negligence claim, unless the facts demonstrate that a special duty was created. This is an offshoot of the general proposition that "to sustain liability against a municipality, the duty breached must be more than that owed the public generally". The courts have deemed it necessary to restrict the scope of duty in this manner because the government is not an insurer against harm suffered by its citizenry at the hands of third parties. Thus, in order to pursue her negligence action against the City in this case, plaintiffs were required to allege a special duty — which they attempted to do by contending that the telephone conversation with one of the officers created a special relationship.

The second principle relevant here relates not to an element of plaintiffs' negligence claim but to a defense that was potentially available to the City — the governmental function immunity defense. Although the State long-ago waived sovereign immunity on behalf of itself and its municipal subdivisions, the common-law doctrine of governmental immunity continues to shield public entities from liability for discretionary actions taken during the performance of governmental functions. This limitation on liability reflects separation of powers principles and is intended to ensure that public servants are free to exercise their decision-making authority without interference from the courts. It further reflects a value judgment that, despite injury to a member of the public, the broader interest in having government officers and employees free to exercise judgment and discretion in their official functions, unhampered by fear of second-guessing and retaliatory lawsuits, outweighs the benefits to be had from imposing liability for injury.

A public employee's discretionary acts, conduct involving the exercise of reasoned judgment, may not result in the municipality's liability even when the conduct is negligent. In other words, even if a plaintiff establishes all elements of a negligence claim, a state or municipal defendant engaging in a governmental function can avoid liability if it timely raises the defense and proves that the alleged negligent act or omission involved the exercise of discretionary authority. Also, the governmental function immunity defense cannot attach unless the municipal defendant establishes that the discretion possessed by its employees was in fact exercised in relation to the conduct on which liability is predicated.

As recently held by the court, when both of these doctrines are asserted in a negligence case, the rule that emerges is that "government action, if discretionary, may not be a basis for liability, while ministerial actions may be, but only if they violate a special duty owed to the plaintiff, apart from any duty to the public in general".

In order to prevail on a governmental function immunity defense, a municipality must do much more than merely allege that its employee was engaged in activities involving the exercise of discretion.

Whether an action of a governmental employee or official is cloaked with any governmental immunity requires an analysis of the functions and duties of the actor's particular position and whether they inherently entail the exercise of some discretion and judgment. If these functions and duties are essentially clerical or routine, no immunity will attach.

With the foregoing principles in mind, we turn to the special duty issue in this case in recognition of the fact that, if plaintiffs cannot overcome the threshold burden of demonstrating that defendant owed the requisite duty of care, there will be no occasion to address whether defendant can avoid liability by relying on the governmental function immunity defense.
To establish a special relationship, plaintiffs were required to show that there was:
"(1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, or an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality's agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality's agents and the injured party; and (4) that party's justifiable reliance on the municipality's affirmative undertaking".
The “justifiable reliance” requirement is the most important factor for the court to consider, described as "critical", because it "provides the essential causative link between the 'special duty' assumed by the municipality and the alleged injury".

Assuming, as we must, given the procedural posture of the case, that the telephone call between plaintiff and one of the officers occurred as plaintiff described, the officer's statement did not create a special relationship. It was not reasonable for plaintiff to conclude, based on nothing more than the officer's statement that the police were going to arrest her former boyfriend "immediately," that she could relax her vigilance indefinitely, a belief that apparently impelled her to exit her apartment some 28 hours later without further contact with the police. The record indicates that the former boyfriend threatened plaintiff over the telephone — there is no indication that plaintiff knew where he was calling from or that she conveyed any information relating to his whereabouts to the police.

Thus, it would not have been reasonable for plaintiff to have relied on the police’s promise to arrest her former boyfriend "immediately" in a literal sense since his location had to be discovered. In fact, the record shows that plaintiff understood that the police would first have to find the former boyfriend before he could be arrested since she testified at trial that she did not call the officer who allegedly made the promise when she returned to her apartment because she believed that such officer would not be at the precinct but would be out looking for her former boyfriend. At best, since plaintiff had no reason to believe that the police knew where her former boyfriend was, the officer's statement could reasonably be viewed only as a promise to look for the former boyfriend and arrest him if he was located. It was not reasonable for plaintiff to relax her vigilance based on this type of representation that was dependent on locating the former boyfriend.

Furthermore, plaintiff’s own statements concerning her expectations undercut the claim of justifiable reliance. Based on her prior experience with the Domestic Violence Unit, plaintiff testified that she expected the police to call her back to confirm the arrest — and she acknowledged that she received no such call prior to the attack (nor did she contact the precinct to inquire concerning the status of the search). Because plaintiff expected to receive confirmation that her former boyfriend had been taken into custody, it is difficult to reconcile her contention that she was nonetheless justified in relaxing her vigilance when more than a day passed with no word of the expected arrest.

Although, in a colloquial sense, people should be able to depend on the police to do what they say they are going to do — and no doubt the police have an obligation to attempt to fulfill that trust — it does not follow that a plaintiff injured by a third party is always entitled to pursue a claim against a municipality in every situation where the police fall short of that aspiration. The element of justifiable reliance must be assessed through the prism of reasonableness and liability will not always extend to a municipality for injuries caused by the violent acts of a third party.

The court finds that plaintiffs’ proof was insufficient to establish a special relationship and demonstrate that the City owed them a special duty of care. There was a failure to establish a prima facie case. Having determined that the duty element was lacking, there is no occasion to address whether the City preserved its right to assert a defense of whether it could have avoided liability under the governmental function immunity defense on the rationale that the alleged negligence involved the exercise of discretionary authority.

Domestic violence is alarming especially when the lives of children may be at risk. For more information on how to deal with these matters, including issues involving battery, assault and sex crimes, consult with Stephen Bilkis & Associates. You will be advised by the best New York City Domestic Violence Lawyer or the best New York City Criminal Lawyer, among others.

In domestic violence cases, the law states that if an incident of domestic violence occurs in the presence of a child, that the involved parties are charged with the offense of cruelty to children, child neglect, or child abuse. Sometimes, the victim is inadvertently charged with child neglect. In the heat of the moment when handling domestic violence calls, officers are called upon to make immediate judgments. Sometimes, these judgments are made mistakenly and the wrong party is charged in relationship to the incident. The statute orders officers to charge the primary aggressor of the domestic violence assault. Sometimes, it is not immediately clear which party involved in a domestic dispute is the primary aggressor. These calls are complicated and emotionally charged. Many times, officers rely on the court system to sort through the involvements because they will see the incident after everyone has cooled off. Unfortunately, the courts are also overburdened and court officers have the same problems sorting out the issues. This was the case in an appeal that was requested on August 10, 2010.

A young mother was assaulted by her boyfriend in her home in front of her child. The altercation was volatile and police were called to the scene. The officer interviewed the child and the child stated that he was scared and nervous during the assault. Both the mother and her boyfriend were charged with child neglect. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that when the case came to court, social services had already determined that the incidence of domestic violence had been isolated. The boyfriend was determined to be the primary aggressor. The mother had broken her relationship with the boyfriend and the incident was established to have been an isolated encounter.

The mother requested that her case be dismissed since the Family Court had already determined that she was no threat to the child. In fact, they determined that there was no reason to exercise any sanctions. They found that the child was healthy and that his mental and emotional condition was not impaired or in imminent danger of being impaired as a result of what they described as an isolated incident. The court established that the mother exercised good parenting skills and had an excellent relationship with the child. The child demonstrated a desire to continue residing with his mother. They found that the child and mother shared a positive relationship. When this situation was brought to the court’s attention, it was expected that the victim’s request to vacate the neglect case against her would be accepted. However, inexplicably the court refused to vacate her charge and found her guilty. The mother filed an appeal under the Family Court Act §105(c) stating that the agency’s evidence at the hearing failed to establish that any neglect had occurred in relation to this mother and her child. In essence, the state had failed to make their case by a preponderance of the evidence against the mother. The appellate court determined that the judgment in this case was flawed and that the case should have been vacated.

If this young mother had not had good representation on appeal, there is no question that she might have endured the humiliation of a child neglect charge on her record. Law enforcement officers and officers of the court failed this young mother. However, they are only human and are prone to innocent errors in judgment. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said our system of Jurisprudence is designed with checks and balances in place to catch these errors and correct them. This one was caught and corrected.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates are attorneys who believe in the ability of the legal system to correct errors like this. Because there are convenient offices throughout New York and the Metropolitan area, it is easy to locate one of these attorneys close to you. If you have been charged wrongly for a crime that you did not commit, such as assault, battery or sex crimes, contact us to have a New York Domestic Violence Attorney assist you. If you are located in the state of New York, we have NY criminal Lawyers who can intercede on your behalf.

On 22 February 1997, the defendant, after a parental visit, brought his children directly to his then wife (now former wife) in contravention to a court order of protection (hereinafter COOP). Thereafter, a verbal and physical confrontation occurred between the defendant and his wife. The COOP provided that the defendant was to return his children to the local police station.
The defendant was indicted and tried for crimes involved in this incident and another.

On 24 March 1999 after a jury trial, the defendant was found guilty of assault in the second degree, two counts of assault in the third degree, and two counts of criminal contempt in the first degree.

After trial and prior to sentence, defendant successfully moved this court to set aside the guilty verdicts as to all assault counts. This court held that "the evidence adduced at trial was devoid of legal sufficiency to support the verdict finding that the defendant caused `physical injury'" to his former wife and former father-in-law. On 15 September 1999, the defendant was sentenced on the criminal contempt in the first degree convictions to five years' probation (the first year to year and one half on intensive supervised probation) and included, as a special condition, 500 hours of community service. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the court also issued a COOP which is to expire on 14 September 2004.

Now, the defendant probationer applies, through the Probation Department, for a limited certificate of relief from disabilities (hereinafter called CRD) which would authorize him "to apply for hunting licenses and use long gun solely in governmental recognized hunting areas outside of New York City, and solely during designated autumn hunting seasons."
The defendant has completed his community service with high praise from the office where he had worked and is a first time offender who would otherwise be eligible for a CRD. He continues to serve his probationary sentence.

This application for a CRD requires the court to consider three federal criminal statutes, contradictory United States Court of Appeals decisions, contradictory New York lower court decisions, and novel issues apparently not decided by any court.

The New York's Felon-in-Possession Law bars the issuance to or renewal of a firearm license to a person who has been convicted of a "felony". This statutory bar applies to firearms as defined in Penal Law. A rifle is not a firearm unless "one of the barrels is less than sixteen inches in length”. Thus, there is no prohibition against a felon or a person who is under a COOP from possessing a hunting rifle. Therefore, a CRD is not necessary for the possession of a hunting rifle under New York State law.

The CRD may be helpful to eliminate criminal liability for numerous federal weapon possession crimes. A Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer says that in order to determine whether to issue a CRD, the court must decide whether the issuance of a CRD would remove the federal bar against possession of a firearm. If the defendant still could not lawfully possess the hunting rifle even after the court's issuance of a CRD, then the court would be deceiving the defendant as to the legality of his possession of a weapon, possibly be violating the Due Process Clause of the US Constitution and performing a worthless act. Under those circumstances, the court believes that it would be prohibited from issuing the CRD. Even if permitted, the court would not and should not perform a useless act.

On the other hand, under the Federal Felon-in-Possession Law, it is unlawful for any person who has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to possess in or affecting commerce any firearm or ammunition, or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
The term `firearm' means any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive". The term "firearm" includes hunting rifles.

The court has investigated and has found that, as argued by the defendant on the brand of rifle wanted, while Remington does manufacture hunting rifles in Ilion, New York, some of the parts used are shipped from other states. Often major components are also manufactured in New York, but shipped to other states for processing before return to New York for sale. Thus, it is clear that the jurisdictional predicate of traveling in interstate commerce is met.

Now, since the defendant has been convicted of a felony, he is subject to the provisions of 18 USC § 922 (g) (1). However, 18 USC § 921 (a) (20) provides for an exception to the felon-in-possession prohibition and an exception to that exception known as the "unless" clause.
On the Exception to Definition of Conviction, the status of “felon” is removed for purposes of felon-in-possession gun possession crime if the conviction has been expunged or the state has "restored" a felon's "civil rights." The determination of whether a state has restored a felon's civil rights is determined by the law of the state of conviction. The state need not restore all civil rights, but must "substantially" restore a felon's rights. Nonetheless all core civil rights must be restored in order to obtain the benefit of this exemption. While the statute does not define the core civil rights, federal courts have defined the three core civil rights as the right to vote, the right to serve on a jury and the right to hold public office.

The herein court must determine what civil rights are lost in New York by a felon, and then, if these rights can be restored by a CRD.

Under Civil Rights Law, a convicted person who is incarcerated for a day or longer in a state correctional institution loses all civil rights during the period of incarceration. Once an incarcerated convicted person is released some of the civil rights are restored.

In this case, the defendant was never incarcerated. Thus, Civil Rights Law does not apply to him.

In New York, a felon who was never incarcerated does not lose the right to vote. This court has not found any statute that provides for the loss of the right to hold public office by a felon who was never incarcerated. However, a felon, whether incarcerated or not, loses the right to serve on a jury.

Thus, the CRD is not a document restoring civil rights. The CRD is legally insufficient to permit weapon possession by a former felon. The document restoring a defendant's rights must restore also the defendant's right to possess all weapons.

The "Unless" Clause further states that a restoration of civil rights is effective "unless such pardon, expungement provides that the person may not possess, or receive a firearm." In effect, the statute provides that even if a felon should have all civil rights restored, that is insufficient to comply with the exemption if the document restoring those rights prohibits possession of a weapon.

As stated above, this defendant is ineligible to possess certain firearms. Thus, unless a CRD relieves a defendant of all firearm restraints, then a felon would be prohibited from possessing any firearm.

One nisi prius court has held that a CRD cannot relieve a defendant from firearm restrictions imposed by New York on a felon. The court did not explain its reasoning. It merely cited the Penal Law. Dicta in an Appellate Division decision, all indicate that a CRD may remove the automatic bar contained in Penal Law to license a felon.

The court finds that it has the right to eliminate the automatic forfeiture of the right to a pistol or gun license. However, the CRD will not eliminate the firearm disability that must be done by the licensing agency. Thus, the CRD in effect authorizes a felon to apply to the licensing agency. The licensing agency cannot automatically deny the right to the license, but may do so in its discretion. The CRD "restores" the felon's civil rights, but continues the bar of possessing a weapon until the licensing agency authorizes possession. As such the "unless" clause of 18 USC § 921 (a) (20) comes into effect because in New York the document restoring the civil rights also contains a bar to possession of a weapon.

The court holds that even if the court were to issue a CRD and the licensing agency permitted the possession of all firearms, the defendant's possession of a weapon that at some time traveled in interstate commerce would constitute a federal crime.

The court holds that it is barred from granting the defendant's request, or, if not prevented by law, and should not perform a useless act.

The law provides that “it shall be unlawful for any person who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence to possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm". The term `misdemeanor crime of domestic violence' means an offense that (i) is a misdemeanor under Federal or State Law; and (ii) has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse.

To establish the "use or attempted use of physical force element" all that is necessary is that the individual be convicted of a crime containing an element of an act "which was intended to cause pain or injury to another, coupled with the apparent ability to execute said act". Physical force may be characterized as power, violence, or pressure directed against another person's body.

In this case, the court vacated the assault in the third degree conviction because the People failed to make out a prima facie case that the victim suffered "physical injury."

The rule requires a court, upon setting aside a verdict, to take the same action as the appropriate appellate court; that when an appellate court determines that the trial evidence is not legally sufficient to support the verdict for a particular offense, but is sufficient to support a lesser included offense, then the appellate court may reduce the conviction to the lesser included offense.

In this case, the court should have reduced the defendant's conviction to the lesser included offense of attempted assault in the third degree, a misdemeanor. Attempted assault in the third degree would qualify under the federal statute as a domestic violence misdemeanor.
Because of this error, the court, in determining whether to issue the CRD, will consider the defendant as if he were convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor.

Thus, a defendant in New York who has only been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor is ineligible for a CRD which would restore the right to possess any type of weapon.

18 USC § 922 (g) (8) bans gun possession for those subject to a protective order. This statute contains three elements: (1) an order of protection preceded by a hearing and notice containing certain restrictions and findings; (2) knowing possession of a firearm; and (3) possession affecting interstate commerce.

The elements of knowing, possession, and interstate commerce are identical to what this court has stated for the felon-in-possession statute.

The element of hearing and notice is fulfilled when a defendant has had an opportunity to participate and be heard in the determination of the issuance of the protective order.
In this case, the defendant was present at sentencing, was aware that the court could issue a COOP, and was asked if he or his counsel wished to say anything. Further, defense counsel was given the opportunity to read the probation report, which contained a request by the victim for a COOP. The requirement of hearing and notice was fulfilled.

This section has no exceptions for a convicted individual who has had civil rights restored. The apparent reason is, as held in a landmark case: “Possession of firearms by persons laboring under the yoke of anti-harassment or anti-stalking restraining orders is a horse of a different hue. The dangerous propensities of persons with a history of domestic abuse are no secret, and the possibility of tragic encounters has been too often realized. We think it follows that a person who is subject to such an order would not be sanguine about the legal consequences of possessing a firearm, let alone of being apprehended with a handgun in the immediate vicinity of his spouse."

Hence, the defendant, for as long as the COOP is in effect, is barred by law from possessing a firearm, including a hunting rifle.

Now, even if the federal statutes were not a bar to possession of a firearm by this defendant, the court in exercising its discretion cannot shut its eyes to the realities of life and the policies that have driven the federal statutes previously discussed.

The presence of a gun dramatically increases the likelihood that domestic violence will escalate into murder.

In performing lethality assessments, the possession of a gun is a main factor that significantly increases the risk of homicide. The herein court notes that guns and domestic violence are often a deadly combination.

Moreover, in the present case, the court has learned of times that the defendant acted violently against the victim. The Probation Department recommends against issuing the CRD. The probation report indicates prior acts of violence against the defendant's children.

The court, were it to have had discretion, would decline to grant the certificate of relief of civil disabilities that would permit the probationer "to apply for hunting licenses and use long guns solely in governmental recognized hunting areas outside of New York City, and solely during designated autumn hunting seasons." This is especially true where, as here, not only must the court grant relief for a hunting rifle, but must also grant relief for all types of weapons.

The application is denied to the extent that the defendant requests permission to apply for a hunting license and to possess and use a rifle. The court does, however, grant probationer a CRD for employment purposes only.

When someone is convicted of a felony, whether it be from sex crimes, burglary or assault, certain rights are stripped off a person and some of these rights may or may not be restored. This situation may arise even in a misdemeanor domestic violence. To know more of the legal remedies available in these situations, contact Stephen Bilkis & Associate for a free consult.

The parties met through the Internet in 2003, when the mother was studying veterinary medicine and the father was a teacher studying for a Master of Education degree. The parties married on 5 June 2004, in Kentucky. Six months later, the mother became pregnant, but continued her veterinary studies and graduated in May 2005. Upon graduation, the mother moved to New York, where the father joined her soon thereafter.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that in September 2005, the mother gave birth, in New York, to twin daughters. On 31 October 2005, both parties and the children moved to Kentucky. In August 2006 the parties purchased a house in Kentucky.

In January 2007 the father commenced an action for divorce in Kentucky Family Court.
On 11 January 2007, while the Kentucky divorce action was pending, the Kentucky Family Court issued a pendente lite visitation order, which directed equal visitation time between both parties, and directed the parties to participate in mediation. As a consequence of the mediation, the parties reached an agreement regarding the distribution of most of their property, but could not reach a custody agreement.

In April 2007, the mother forwarded a proposed settlement order to the father, which would have held the divorce action in abeyance for one year, allowed the mother to return to New York for at least one year to pursue her career as a veterinarian, and outlined a living arrangement and schedule for residential custody, which provided that the parties and children would, over the next two years, alternate between Kentucky and New York. However, neither the parties nor the Kentucky Family Court signed the proposed settlement order.

On 20 April 2007, the mother and children moved to New York to live with the mother's parents. Thereafter, the parties sold the house they had purchased together in Kentucky and the father moved in with his parents in Kentucky.

On 7 June 2007, both parties signed an "agreed order" to dismiss the Kentucky divorce action without prejudice to reinstatement of the action. From 9 June 2007, through 14 July 2007, the father resided with the mother and the children in the maternal grandparents' home in New York.
The children visited their father in Kentucky at his parents' home from 15 July 2007, until 27 August 2007, an approximately six-week period. While in Kentucky, the children did not have their own bedrooms but, rather, slept on a mattress on the floor of the father's bedroom, during which time they contracted scabies. However, they were not diagnosed or treated for scabies until they returned to New York.

On 1 November 2007, according to a Bronx Criminal Lawyer, the mother filed the instant petition for custody in the Family Court, Orange County. In the petition, the mother requested sole custody of the children and that visitation with the father can occur only within New York State.

The mother asserted, among other things, that she had been the children's primary caregiver since birth; there were no pediatricians or hospitals in Butler County, Kentucky, where the father resided; the nearest hospital to the father's residence was 45 minutes away by car; and the home where the father resided was unsanitary. According to the mother's petition, the father's residence was infested with mice and did not have a functioning sewer line. Further, the petition alleged that the paternal grandparents' property, where the father's trailer was located, was infested with ticks and cockroaches. The mother further alleged that the father was verbally and physically abusive to her on multiple occasions, including, for example, one occasion on which the father threatened to kill her before he would let her take the children to New York.

According to the mother, on the same night the father made that threat, he forced her out of their car, requiring her to walk alone on a desolate road for miles before she reached home.
On 5 December 2007, while the mother's petition for custody was pending in New York, the Kentucky Family Court granted the father's motion for reinstatement of the previously-dismissed divorce action, but thereafter stayed that action on the mother's motion.

Meanwhile, before the Family Court, Orange County, the mother asserted, inter alia, that New York was the children's home state within the meaning of the UCCJEA since the children had lived in this state continuously since April 2007, i.e., for at least six months prior to her commencement of the instant proceeding, in accordance with the Domestic Relations Law.
On 12 February 2008, the father moved to dismiss the petition in the instant proceeding based on, inter alia, lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The father argued, among other things, that the divorce and custody proceedings should both be litigated in Kentucky since the children had not lived in New York for the requisite six consecutive months prior to the mother's commencement of this proceeding and, thus, New York was not their home state within the meaning of the UCCJEA. Rather, he contended, the mother commenced the proceeding less than four months after the children returned from Kentucky, after residing with him for six weeks during the summer of 2007. He argued that the children's six-week absence from New York was not temporary and, thus, the children had not lived in New York for the requisite six consecutive months prior to the commencement of this proceeding.

Under the Domestic Relations Law, a state may have jurisdiction over a child custody proceeding if the "state is the home state of the child". A "home state" is defined as "the state in which a child lived with a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding". The definition of home state also permits a period of temporary absence during the six-month time frame necessary to establish home-state residency.

Here, the facts support the mother's contention that she intended to remain permanently in New York and that the children's six-week visit to Kentucky during the summer of 2007 was a temporary absence which did not interrupt the six-month pre-petition residency period required by the UCCJEA. Although the mother may have expressed to the father that she would return to Kentucky, her actions indicated otherwise. For instance, the mother never changed her permanent address from New York to Kentucky, and her driver's license, veterinary license, and voter registration all remained in New York. Furthermore, in New York, the children received special education services, had a pediatrician, and resided in their own home with the mother, who was the children's primary caregiver since birth. Considering these facts, it is evident that the mother intended New York to be the permanent residence and home state for both her and the children. Her conduct could not be construed to evince intent to have the children stay permanently in Kentucky.

We are further persuaded that Kentucky is not the children's home state by virtue of the fact that the father took no affirmative steps prior to the commencement of the instant proceeding to establish any permanent residence for the children in Kentucky. Considering the children's health and developmental concerns, health care was and is highly important to the children's well-being. Despite these health issues, the father did not retain a pediatrician or a therapist when the children resided in Kentucky. Moreover, the children did not have bedrooms but, rather, slept on the floor of the father's room in the grandparents' home. In sum, the mother's decision to seek medical and psychological care for the children in New York demonstrated a level of permanency that was never achieved in Kentucky, and is indicative of a home-state residency for the children.

Although the parties and children previously resided as a family unit in Kentucky, and the children lived most of their lives in Kentucky, the father failed to show how the children's move to New York constituted a temporary absence from Kentucky or was made through a wrongful removal.

In any event, a wrongful removal will not be treated as a temporary absence "if there is evidence that the taking or retention of the child was to protect the petitioner from domestic violence". Other states have also applied the UCCJEA to protect victims of domestic violence who flee from one state to another with their children to escape abuse and seek custody in a different jurisdiction. Although one goal of the UCCJEA is to prevent forum shopping, another crucial purpose of the UCCJEA is to protect victims of domestic violence who, on their face, may be perceived as forum shoppers, but in reality are fleeing from one state to another to escape abuse.

Here, the mother admittedly misled the father about agreeing to reconcile their marriage. However, the mother averred that the father would not permit her to return to New York if she refused to attempt reconciliation. She, thus, asserts that although she lied to the father, she did so with the intent to return to New York to protect herself and the children from the threat of domestic violence. Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law, a party's conduct may not be construed against him or her if he or she engaged in such conduct to protect against domestic violence.

Accordingly, the court does not construe the mother's conduct as a wrongful removal, since her concededly false statement of intent was made to escape an allegedly abusive relationship which included threats of domestic violence.

In sum, the record reveals that the children's six-week summer visit to Kentucky was merely a temporary stay similar to a summer vacation. The mother agreed to the six-week visit so that the children could have the opportunity to spend time with their family in Kentucky, with the understanding that the children would return to New York to resume their therapy and schooling. As a result, the children's visit to Kentucky was not a change of residency, but was merely a temporary absence from New York. As such, under Domestic Relations Law, the children's temporary absence from New York is considered to be part of the requisite six-month period. New York is thus the children's home state and its courts have jurisdiction to hear the instant custody proceeding.

In addition to furthering the UCCJEA's goals of protecting a party who has made allegations of domestic abuse and attending to the health and educational needs of the subject children, New York's exercise of jurisdiction here furthers the statutory goal of strengthening jurisdictional certainty in child custody proceedings. In the interest of protecting children and parents who travel frequently between states, our recognition of the children's six-week visit as a temporary absence permits parties to child custody proceedings to freely vacation and visit family members in other states without fear of losing home-state status.

Accordingly, since New York is the children's home state within the meaning of the UCCJEA, the courts of New York have jurisdiction over the instant custody proceeding unless jurisdiction is declined. The court finds no ground to decline such jurisdiction and, thus, need not analyze whether New York or Kentucky is the more convenient forum.

If you are a victim of domestic violence, a sex crime, or assault, you should know what legal rights you have especially when there are children involved and their safety could be at risk. Contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates for a free legal advice on these matters. Talk to a New York Domestic Violence Attorney or a New York Criminal Attorney in our firm for your legal remedies.

Three different women were physically abused by their intimate partners or husbands. These three different women all had children who were then living with them at the time that the domestic violence against the women occurred.

These three different women all asked the help of the police and the family court to stop the domestic violence. In all the three cases, the family court issued orders of protection.
In the same family court where these cases for domestic violence were pending, the Administration for Child Services (ACS) all intervened. ACS had a standing policy that all children were removed from the mothers who were victims of domestic violence because even as victims, they are also deemed to have engaged in domestic violence. The ACS contends that the battered woman is negligent when she allowed her children to witness the domestic violence committed against her. The ACS put all the children of these battered women in foster care.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the mothers all objected to the removal of their children from their homes and the placing of their children under foster care. They appealed to the District Court which issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the City of New York from penalizing a mother with the removal of her children simply because she was battered by her partner.

The three mothers sought the return of their children on the ground that as victims of the domestic violence, they should not be punished with the forcible removal of their children who are already traumatized by the domestic violence they witnessed. The removal of their children is actually a punishment on the children themselves. They also claimed that the emergency removal of their children from their custody by the ACS without a court order violated their Constitutional right to due process.

The ACS appealed this injunction issued by the District Court of New York to the Court of Appeals of the State of New York on the ground of grave abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals of the State of New York certified these three consolidated cases upon three questions to the US Federal Supreme Court.

The first question is: can a child be considered neglected simply because the parent or caretaker of the child allowed the child to witness domestic abuse against the parent or caretaker?

On this first certified question, the Federal Supreme Court opined that if the question were answered in the affirmative, it would mean that a finding of neglect is based only on evidence of the fact that a parent has been the victim of domestic violence and the child or children have been exposed to the domestic violence. A Manhattan Criminal Lawyer said the Court ruled that these two facts are insufficient to presume neglect. There must be proof of actual or imminent danger of physical, emotional or mental impairment to the child. There must also be proof that the parent or caretaker of the child failed to exercise a minimum degree of care not to expose the child to the domestic violence. The final test should still be the best interest of the child.

The second certified question was: can witnessing domestic violence be considered as an imminent danger or risk to a child’s life or health such that emergency removal of the child with or without a court order is appropriate? Again the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that exposing a child to domestic violence cannot be presumed as neglectful. Not all children who witness domestic violence is at risk of impairment. Exposure of the child to domestic violence by itself is not an automatic ground for removal. The family courts are given the tough job of balancing the impairment of the child if allowed to witness domestic violence and the impairment of the child if he is removed from his home.

The third certified question was: does proof that a child witnessed domestic violence demonstrate that removal of the child is necessary? The Supreme Court ruled that each case of domestic violence is unique in that each case has specific facts. The Court ruled that the policy of the ACS of automatically removing children from their battered parent operates upon a blanket presumption. The Court opined that there must be a factual determination and evidence must be presented of the need for removal of the child and the impact of the removal of the child.

Domestic violence in the home affects not only the battered person but also the children he or she may have. In almost all cases of domestic violence the ACS may insist upon the removal of the children from the home. If you are a victim of domestic violence, assault or sex crimes, you need a New York Domestic Violence Lawyer to show that the exposure of your child to domestic violence does not put your child in imminent danger of being impaired. A skilled attorney can help you prove that removing your child from your custody may further impair your children. At Stephen Bilkis and Associates, their legal team are willing to argue that your child’s best interest is to remain with you. .Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates today and protect the best interest of your child

The accused man is charged of driving while ability is impaired by alcohol. During the course of his DWI consolidated pre-trial hearings and non-jury trial, the accused team objected to the complainant's admission of the certified calibration records and simulator solution certificates. An NY Criminal Lawyer said that the challenged documents relate to the breath test instrument used to test the accused man’s blood alcohol level at the time of his arrest. The accused counsel’s challenge was made on the grounds that admission of such business records without the testimony of the analyst who created them violates the law. The Court reserved the decision on the application while completion of the case is pending, at which time the Court granted both parties the opportunity to submit summary of law in support of their respective positions. The Court has considered the several submissions by the counsel in concluding that the certified calibration records are admissible and do not violate the law.

A NewYork Criminal Lawyer said that based on records, the law held that since the Constitution guarantees a criminal accused the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him, the practical application of the law prohibits the introduction of out-of-court statements which are testimonial in nature, unless the accused had an opportunity to cross-examine the person who made the statements.

Records similar to the challenged documents have been admitted routinely for years in State DUI cases if properly authenticated under the State business records in exception to the hearsay rule. Most courts examining the issue in light of the law still held the records to be non-testimonial and therefore admissible without live testimony in accordance to the proper authentication. Addressing the business records hearsay exception, the Court of Appeals also cautioned against the categorical elimination of business records as a basic misreading of the law. A thorough analysis declined to adopt a bright line rule admitting business records without testimony, as facts and context are essential and the question of validity of the testimony requires consideration of multiple factors, not all of equal importance in every case.

The Supreme Court held that admission of analysis certificates of certain types of scientific tests violates the law if admitted in place of a live testimony with no opportunity for cross-examination by an accused. Writing for the majority, it was reasoned that when a report is prepared with a reasonable expectation that it will later be used at trial, and lay down facts that may become helpful to the complainant, which are sought to be proved at the trial, it must be considered testimonial and therefore cannot be admitted as a business record. The Court explicitly exempted the calibration reports and simulator solution samples from the reach of the ruling. It also acknowledged a legitimate concern of the complainants who are faced with potentially higher costs and overburdened staff but insisted that the rule will not be as burdensome as many fear.

The calibration and simulator solution records were prepared not in anticipation of the complainant of the particular accused but as relating to the regular maintenance of the particular Alcotest machine and chemical samples. Specific limitation recognizes that it would be a reduction to the illogical to require live testimony from every witness who has laid hands on a case. Underlying records of breath test instruments are non-substantial from the direct fact of the accused man’s intoxication and guilt of the charge. His blood alcohol level at the time of his arrest was not proven or even shown.

The arresting officer is a certified State Police breath test operator who actually conducted the blood alcohol test used at trial to prove the ultimate issue. He testified thoroughly as to the procedures and safeguards he conducted prior to, during and after the test of the accused man’s breath. He collected, analyzed and testified to the actual evidence contained in the Alcotest report of the accused man’s blood alcohol level. The proper operation and functioning of the machine was part of his testimony based on his training and experience. The ministerial reports admitted as business records were merely background to, and confirmed by his testimony. He laid the proper foundation to admit the documents as business records. The rights guaranteed to the accused have not been violated.

The Court holds that calibration and simulator solution certificates of breath test instruments are non-testimonial and specifically exempted and their admission based on the appropriate business record foundation did not violate the law. The accused man’s motion for a Trial Order of Dismissal is denied.

When you decide to be behind the wheel knowing that you are not perfectly sober is such an irresponsible act because doing so would certainly harm other people and get you into a criminal case. If you have been charged with sex crimes, a theft charge or DWI, call Stephen Bilkis and Associates.

A man was stopped at the street for failing to wear a seat belt and operating a vehicle with a cracked front windshield. Upon approaching the vehicle, the police officer noticed that the driver have a glassy eyes. The driver responded to the questions of the police officer with a slurred speech and an odor of alcohol emanated from him. After the man failed the standard field sobriety tests, the police arrested the driver for DWI.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said charges against the driver took place and the bail was set and posted. Subsequently, the man came forward and claimed that he did not drive the vehicle which was stopped by the police officer. The man also claimed that his brother used his license and identity. The man submits an affidavit which indicates that he learned of his brother's arrest when tickets turned up in the man’s mailbox a couple of days after the arrest. The brother of the man called him a couple of days later according to the affidavit submitted. The brother of the man also advised him that he used the license and was arrested for DWI. While no evidence of identity is offered in support of the motion to dismiss the man, the jury concedes that the man did not operate the vehicle and that his brother did. The acknowledgment by the prosecution of the identity of the driver followed initial findings of the present motion. The initial findings ordered a trial to determine that the man did not operate the vehicle in question and was not arrested due to ambiguities in the submitted papers. The prosecution accepted the point rather than proceed to trial. The decision on the merits of the legal action is rendered.

The overlap of the naming of the man as the accused while charging the person of the man’s brother with violating Vehicle and Traffic Law makes the man an wronged person whose privileges to legally operate a motor vehicle have been suspended. The man therefore has the right to challenge the prosecution with his name, his driver's license and his identity. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that without the right to come forward and reveal the false use of an identity, the man is plagued with the misdemeanor and with potential effects of a conviction. Prosecuting the brother of the man essentially leaves the brother to invest only his time while the man receives the penalties accruing by fines, suspension and revocation of his license.

The acquired interest of the man in his license gives rise to the standing necessary to raise the issue and seek dismissal of the case brought against his identity. A prosecutor has the ethical obligation not to maintain a criminal action when the prosecutor knows or it is obvious that the charge is not supported by credible reason, whether the charge involves sex crimes, theft or a DWI. At the same time, the prosecutor admits the accused is the brother, and the proceeding should name him and not the man, the prosecutor resists dismissing the action against the name of the man. The prosecution does not suggest in the case that the man is complicit in switching identities with his brother. However, the District Attorney simply wants to revise the sworn statement of the arresting officer.

Based on the record, the criminal procedure law gives the right to specifically revise a prosecutor's information. Revising information is permitted when the count sought to be added charges an offense supported by the sworn factual accusation. However, courts have permitted revision of information’s by applying the condition which prohibits dismissal of information’s as facially insufficient where the defect or irregularity is of a type that may be cured by revision. Revisions to information’s are generally permitted to correct errors as to time, place and names of persons. Revision of names is permitted in situations where a name is misspelled or a witness has been incorrectly identified in a supporting statement. Revision of an accusation has been permitted when the opponent has been charge under a fictitious name rather than the correct name because the grand jury meant to charge the latter named individual.

The action against the man is dismissed based upon a legal impediment and the admission by the district attorney that the man did not operate the motor vehicle. The district attorney is denied the right to revise the name of the accused however they are free to file a proper accusatory instrument naming the brother of the man as the accused

It is very difficult for a family member to see someone they love in jail however it is also hard to accept that a family member is going to suffer the charges that he never did. If someone has been charged with drug possession, a theft charge or DWI, our attorneys are capable in giving you with legal guidance.

A traffic officer responded to a radio run of an automobile accident at Roosevelt Avenue and Queens Boulevard. When he arrived at the scene, the accused was standing beside an automobile which had been involved in the car accident. The traffic officer testified that the accused had bloodshot eyes, was unsteady on his feet and had the odor of alcohol on his breath. A witness to the accident told the traffic officer that he had seen the accused driving the car. There was no testimony that any other person was observed to be in or around the automobile.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accused spoke Spanish and apparently understood little or no English. The traffic officer obtained a driver's license and other documents bearing the accused man’s name but he was unable to recall whether the documents were given to him by the accused or if they were discovered in the automobile. The accused was placed under arrest and was taken to into the precinct.

A police officer testified that he was called to the precinct to conduct an Intoxicated Driver's Exam on the accused. In the presence of the traffic officer and the police officer, the accused was shown a Spanish language videotape intended to apprise him of the charges against him and to inform him of the repercussions of refusing to submit to a chemical test analysis or breathalyzer test. The Spanish language tape was translated for the Court by the court interpreter. Such is the only interpretation before the Court as neither the jury nor the accused called an expert witness to translate the videotape.

The Court adopted the translation of the Spanish language video. It stated that if the accused refuse the chemical exam or whatever part, his license will be immediately suspended or revoked or he will lose his privileges even though he will be found guilty or not of the accusation because he has been arrested. It also stated that the accused should submit to the chemical exam or whatever part thereafter. It can be introduced as proof against him in a trial, process or hearing of the result of his arrest. A Long Island Criminal Lawyer said the accused was asked if he wants to submit to the chemical analysis in order to determine if he there is presence or absence of alcohol or drug in his blood stream and he responded not to take the test.

The accused testified that at the time of his arrest he was coming from a disco where he had imbibed five or six beers. He further testified however that he was not driving on the day of the accident and in fact he does not know how to drive. In addition he states that although he has resided in the U.S. for two years, he does not come into contact with English speaking persons and speaks absolutely no English. The accused testified that he was not even shown the Spanish language videotape and that no request was made of him to take the breathalyzer exam.

The accused contends that there was no probable cause for his arrest because he was not driving the automobile. As such, he argues that the evidence of his refusal must be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. It is well settled that in passing on whether there was probable cause for an arrest, the basis for such a belief must not only be reasonable, but it must appear to be at least more probable than that a crime has not taken place and that the one arrested is the person responsible for.

The accused further contends that the Spanish language videotape did not warn him in clear and unambiguous language which made him refused to submit to the test. The jury contends that the video shown to the accused and adequately apprised him of his rights and of the repercussions of his refusal.

Based upon the testimony of the traffic officers and the police officer, the court finds that the accused was shown the video. The law provides that evidence of a refusal to submit to a chemical test by a person suspected of DWI is admissible at a trial, proceeding or hearing only upon a showing that the person was given sufficient warning, in clear and unambiguous language which resulted of such refusal and that the person persisted in the refusal. A person arrested for violating the law must be informed that if he refuses to submit to a chemical test, his license is immediately suspended and subsequently revoked regardless of the ultimate disposition of the criminal charges.

Contrary to the jury's assertion, the accused need not make a showing that he was confused or that he found the tape to be ambiguous. In fact, such a showing would not be a sufficient basis for suppression where the jury meets the burden of showing the tape to be clear and unequivocal. The translation given to the Court at the suppression hearing was provided by the court interpreter. The jury failed to present an expert who could have testified that, in his opinion, the language used in the tape was clear and unequivocal. Thus, the court can only base its conclusion on the rendition given by the court interpreter.

Several parts of the English translation of the Spanish language tape are confusing and unclear and do not meet the requirements of Vehicle and Traffic Law. While the vehicle and traffic law clearly states that a person arrested for such violation must be informed that his refusal to take the chemical test will result in his license being immediately suspended and subsequently revoked. The Spanish translation indicates that his license will be immediately suspended or revoked or the driving privileges will be lost. This is clearly not the same. Nor did the Spanish warning clearly apprised the accused of the fact that his refusal to take the exam can be used against him at a trial or hearing resulting from the arrest. It is unclear whether that portion of the warnings regarding the use at trial refers to the result of such test if it is taken, or to the refusal, if it is not taken.

As such, the court finds that the warnings given in the Spanish language tape are not sufficient and are not in clear and unequivocal language. The accused further contends that the jury has not met their burden of showing that the accused was persistent in his refusal.

The dictionary defines persistence as to continue steadfastly or often annoyingly, especially in spite of opposition. The language barrier prevented the officers from engaging in any further communications with the accused. There was therefore no opportunity for the accused to continue steadfastly to refuse to take the chemical exam. The simple mention of the no word by the accused does meets the persistence standard of the traffic law.

The requirement will never be satisfied when the accused is merely shown a videotape and cannot engage in conversation with the officer administering its exam. Unless the state assigns Spanish speaking officers to the Highway Divisions or shows a series of tapes to DWI accused persons, the jury will never be able to meet the persistency requirement with regard to the accused.

The Court believes it would be less burdensome upon the State while fair to the accused to require the jury to prove that the warnings were clear and unequivocal, that the accused indicated he understood the warnings and that he refused to submit to the test. However, the Court is bound by the persistency requirement and such burden was not met. The accused person’s motion to suppress the refusal is granted.

Wrongful arrest for a DWI, sex crimes charge, or a theft charge, might be the hardest thing to experience. Contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice and guidance.

Initially, the court held that records reflecting the calibration of breath test machine and analysis of breath test simulator solution used in DWI cases were non-testimonial hearsay and admissible over confrontation clause objection under business records exception. The certifications to be submitted for the calibration or maintenance of the breath test instrument and the analysis of the Breath Alcohol simulator solution used in the breath test instrument are either testimonial or non-testimonial in nature. When proven to be testimonial then the complainant must bring in the analyst. If it is non-testimonial, the complainant may lay the basis for introduction of the records.

Testimonial statements are material such as affidavits, custodial examinations, extrajudicial statements, depositions, prior confession, prior testimony that the accused was unable to cross-examine, similar pretrial statements, formalized testimonial materials and statements that were made under circumstances that the complainant would reasonably expect to be used in the later trial.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the Supreme Court deliberately left for another day any effort to spell out a comprehensive definition of testimonial. The Court does say that when a non-testimonial hearsay is at issue, it is wholly consistent with the design to afford the states flexibility in their development of hearsay law. The Supreme Court's analysis of testimony excludes some hearsay exceptions, such as business and official records. To hold otherwise would require numerous additional witnesses without any apparent gains in the truth-seeking process. After all, cross-examination is a tool to flesh out the truth, not an empty procedure.

One State Law allows a lab chemist to test materials for drugs and to send in a sworn statement as to the identification of the drug and its weight. The sworn statements were submitted as legitimate evidence of what was asserted. A New York Law would not allow this. The chemist is necessary as a witness to establish what he analyzed. The court limits extrajudicial statements to formalize testimonial materials such as affidavits, depositions, prior testimony or confessions.

Business and public records are generally admissible absent confrontation not because they qualify under an exception to the hearsay rules, but because they have been created for the administration of an entity's affairs and not testimonial. A Manhattan Criminal Lawyer said the court specifically states that it does not hold anyone whose testimony may be relevant in establishing the chain of custody, authenticity of the sample or accuracy of the testing, must appear in person as part of the complainant’s case. Additionally, the documents prepared in the regular course of equipment for maintenance may well qualify as non-testimonial records.

The Court is aware of recent Court DWI rulings with regard to the challenge of Alcotest results and not bound by it and finds its rationale to decide not in accordance with most State Court’s findings that calibration reports are not testimonials and qualify as admissible business records. In addition, even business records devised primarily for litigation receive business record protection so long as they have a secondary business purpose. Therefore, the court will not hold that the calibration and simulator solution records cannot be considered as typical business records. The breathalyzer machine can be used not only for legal action purposes such as criminal cases but it can also be beneficial for non-legal intentions. If an accused person who takes the breathalyzer test blows a reading of .06% or below within two hours after the arrest, it is legitimate evidence that he is not intoxicated. Maintaining it has a minimum a dual purpose.

Accordingly, the certifications for the calibration and maintenance of the breath test instrument and the analysis of the Breath Alcohol simulator solution used in the breath test instrument will be allowed to be admitted at trial pending a proper foundational basis being established.
When the Court makes its conclusion, one party will surely rejoice leaving the other party grieving. Whether you have been charged with a DWI, sex crimes or a theft crime, make an appointment with Stephen Bilkis and Associates.

A police officer and his partner were on routine patrol at one of the intersections in Queens County. The officers noticed the woman driving a grey Cadillac passed through a steady red light. The other officer pulled the vehicle over and as he approached, the woman rolled down her window. As the officer requested the woman's license and registration, he noticed that she had bloodshot, watery eyes, and also detected the strong smell of alcohol on the woman’s breath. The officer further observed that the woman seemed disoriented and unaware of her surroundings. The officer requested the woman to step out of the vehicle, at which he also noticed that the woman was unsteady on her feet. The officer placed the woman under arrest. As the officer was escorting the woman to the squad car, she became very loud and argumentative towards the officer.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, the woman was brought to the Precinct Intoxicated Drivers Testing Unit (I.D.T.U.) for the purposes of performing chemical testing. The woman was immediately brought to the basement of the precinct where the breathalyzer testing is performed. Present at the testing site were the arresting officer, his partner and two other officers of the precinct. At no time were Miranda warnings given to the woman by the arresting officer.

The officer of the precinct confirmed that he was the officer responsible for administering the breathalyzer test to the woman. The officer also alleged that he has six years of experience with the I.D.T.U., and has conducted six hundred of such tests at a rate of approximately thirty per month.

The test as administered was videotaped and the videotaped was offered into evidence and carefully reviewed by the court. The court observed that the quality of the audio portion of the tape is extremely poor, rendering it almost inaudible and of questionable use as evidence. For that reason, the court relies mainly on the visual portion of the tape and the testimony of the officer of the precinct in assessing what happened during the woman's chemical testing. At the beginning, as seen on the tape, the woman permitted the officer when asked to take the breathalyzer. For the reason of her permission, the officer didn’t read full the refusal warnings. However, as the officer attempted to have her blow into the breathalyzer, the woman laughed, carried on in a whimsical manner, and stated that she don’t want to blow and wanted to get her keys to go home. At one point during the efforts to take the test, the woman apparently removed the mouthpiece from the breathalyzer and the officer had to reset the machine. The officer then warned the woman in response to the said conduct and stated that if the woman doesn’t blow into the machine she will lose her license. The woman laughed in response, the officer considered that behavior as a refusal. An NYC Criminal Lawyer said the officer claimed that the full refusal warnings were given to the woman after he deemed her to have refused but were not videotaped.

The court finds that the stop of the woman’s vehicle by the police officer constitutes legally permissible police action. A police officer may approach and stop a vehicle when a reasonable suspicion that a violation of traffic regulations is involved and observed. It is clear that the police action was not the product of simple desire, caprice or idle curiosity, but was performed in response to a traffic infraction personally observed by the arresting officer.

Based on the record, to validate a DWI, the police officer must have had reasonable grounds to effectuate the arrest. Reasonable grounds for an arrest for driving while under the influence of alcohol may be established through the police officer's observations of the accused person’s condition and/or utilizing the screening or field sobriety tests.

The court finds that based upon the officer’s personal observations of the woman, the officer had probable reason to effectuate the arrest. The officer observed her to have classic signs of intoxication such as bloodshot and watery eyes, strong smell of alcohol on her breath, her appearance of disoriented and was unsteady on her feet. For those reasons, the woman’s motion to suppress her refusal based upon a lack of credible reason is denied.

Legal charges against us or any family member is very difficult to cope with whether the charge involves sex crimes, a drug offense of a DWI. However, seeking legal assistance is a way to face those dilemmas. If you’ve been arrested for driving while intoxicated violation, call Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice and guidance.

A man filed an appeal from the decision of the first district court of Nassau County concerning its judgment of DWI and over speeding law suit.

The incident happened when a Nassau County police officer observed that the man’s traveling is at about 90 miles per hour on the Long Island Expressway. The officer confirmed that his estimate is done by a laser device and by his speedometer. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the officer stopped the man and found out that the man showed several signs of intoxication. The man admitted to having a drink and the officer administered a series of field sobriety tests, all of which the man failed. The officer arrested the man and transported him to the police department, where the man again failed a series of sobriety tests and permitted to a chemical test of the alcohol content of his blood. The test, conducted through a breath test instrument revealed a result of.11 per centum by weight.

The man wanted to bring in an expert testimony as to the range to get the concentration of alcohol in a person's blood from the quantity of alcohol vapor detected in a breath sample. The man did not challenge the instrument's reliability, but sought to lay the foundation for a jury argument that man's individual ratio might differ so significantly from the mean as to diminish the verification weight to be accorded the test results. The court disallowed the evidence on ground of relevance.

Based on the record, the scientific accuracy of breath testing instruments approved by the State Department of Health is no longer open to question. A consequence of the general acceptance in the scientific community of the reliability of the results of blood alcohol testing by such instruments is that it is no longer necessary to establish through foundational evidence the reliability of the test results by means of expert testimony. The presumption of reliability extends to the scientific premises underlying the operation of breath test instruments, including the validity of the partition or conversion ratio.

The deficient evidence by the man that his personal conversion ratio differs so significantly from the mean as to materially undermine the weight to be given the test result, it cannot be said that the test so erroneously recorded his blood alcohol content as to render his conviction wrongful. The evidence, although technically relevant, will be excluded if it is too slight, remote, or hypothetical to have a legitimate influence in determining the fact at issue. Bronx Criminal Lawyer the court did not abuse its responsibility in rejecting the man's offer of proof which, while involving matters not theoretically irrelevant, was not shown to have probative value above the slight, remote, or hypothetical and amounted to little more than an invitation to speculate.

In the man's argument that the blood alcohol test result was irrelevant because the presence of numerous persons moving between the observing police officer seated 5 to 10 feet from the man, prevented the officer from maintaining a continuous observation to the man for the 15-minute period prior to the test, is also without merit. Proof of the necessary continuous observation is not a predicate condition to admit breathalyzer test results but rather, it goes only to the weight to be afforded the test result, not its acceptability. Moreover, the observation requirement is not strictly construed.

The court decides based on the weight of the reliable evidence, and satisfied that the judgment concerning the man’s DUI and over speeding case was not against the weight of the evidence. The court also considered the man’s remaining arguments however find it unpreserved or without merit. The decision of conviction is confirmed.

There are instances that unexpected situation occur. In times that we drive under the influence of alcohol, getting arrested is not from afar. Whether you have been charged with a DWI, theft crime, or sex crimes, the legal team from Stephen Bilkis and Associates can provide you with sound legal assistance.

A man was arrested and was charged of Patronizing a Prostitute and Operating a Motor Vehicle While under the Influence of Alcohol or DUI which is also a misdemeanor. The accused man refused to submit to a chemical test and upon arraignment and his license was duly suspended. The accused moved for an order overturning any statements he made and any evidence of his refusal. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the hearing was ordered and was conducted before the Court. At the outset of the hearing, the specific nature of the accused man’s application was clarified. The accused moved on two grounds to overturn the evidence of the statements he made on videotape at the time he was given refusal warnings. The accused man asserted that he was arrested without credible cause and that his videotaped statements should be overturned as the fruit of his illegal arrest and its outcome. He also asserted that the same videotaped statements should also be overturned as evidence of a refusal to consent to a chemical test that was made only after inadequate refusal warnings were given.

At the hearing, the complainant presented the testimonies of the arresting officer and a police officer together with a videotape of the accused while the accused presented no evidence. The arresting officer's testimony showed that shortly after midnight of the arrest date, the accused drove his car onto the set of an undercover police prostitution operation. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accused approached a female undercover officer who was posing as a prostitute and offered to pay her twenty dollars in return for a sex act. The undercover officer communicated to other police officers by pre-arranged signal that an offer had been made and the other officers moved in and stopped the accused within a few seconds after his offer. A police officer approached the accused who was still seated in the driver's seat of his car with the car engine still running. The police officer conferred briefly by a walkie-talkie with the undercover officer who confirmed that the accused had offered her money for sex. The accused smelled strongly of alcohol and appeared to be very intoxicated in that his eyes were bloodshot and he was swaying and babbling. The police officer asked the accused to step out of his car and when the car door opened the accused fell face first into the street and had to be pulled to his feet by the police. A preliminary field test was administered and the accused man’s blood alcohol content measured a great apparent evidence of intoxication. The accused was arrested for the crimes of Patronizing a Prostitute and DWI and was taken to a police station. The police did not read the accused of his Miranda rights at any subsequent time.

The police attempted to give the accused his refusal warnings and the procedure was videotaped. The accused speaks Spanish and accordingly, the police officers properly decided to give the accused his refusal warnings in Spanish. The police had a pre-recorded videotape of a woman delivering refusal warnings in Spanish on hand. The accused was videotaped as he stood side by side with the police officer and another arresting officer and watched the Spanish language videotape version of the refusal warnings being played on a television set. The room was arranged in such a way that when a viewer watches the videotape of the accused, it is not apparent that the accused is looking at a television set or where the off-screen woman's voice delivering the refusal warnings in Spanish is coming from.

The accused responded to the pre-recorded Spanish language refusal warning by making a series of remarks that were not directly responsive to the question whether or not he would consent to the chemical test. The accused asserts that it is the first time he has gotten drunk and that everyone gets drunk at Christmas time. He exclaims with considerable enthusiasm that the woman in the pre-recorded Spanish language videotape is pretty. The accused grows increasingly difficult to understand by muttering that he is becoming crazy and nervous.

The Vehicle and Traffic Law provides that evidence of the accused man’s refusal to submit to a chemical test shall be admissible at the accused man’s trial on the criminal charge of DWI, but only upon a showing by the complainant that the accused persisted in refusing to take the test after being given sufficient warning in clear and unequivocal language.

At the conclusion of the combined Refusal hearing in the case, the Court issued an oral decision indicating that the accused man’s motion would be denied unless he could point to persuasive authority leading to a different conclusion and it can be found that the accused had not been given complete refusal warnings. During the oral argument at the conclusion of the hearing, the complainant properly conceded that the accused had not been given any Miranda warnings and had not been given adequate refusal warnings. The complainant properly conceded that the evidence of the accused man’s refusal could not be presented to the jury at trial. However the complainant did argue that they should be permitted to introduce into evidence at trial a redacted version of the videotape made by the accused at the police station at the time when the inadequate refusal warnings were given. Specifically, the complainant proposed that the passages of the videotape in which the accused was given partial refusal warnings and refused to take the chemical test would be eliminated, but that the other remaining passages would be admitted into evidence before the jury in order to show the accused man’s condition and appearance close to the time of his arrest. The Court directed the complainant to submit a videotape redacted in the form proposed by the complainant. The Court further directed the parties to submit legal memoranda on the issue whether any portion of the accused man’s videotaped statements should be admitted into evidence at trial notwithstanding the fact that the accused was given inadequate refusal warnings.

The accused is right to raise the concern because it is obvious that the videotape has been redacted, the jury may speculate as to what has been deleted from the tape. However there is no good reason to doubt that an appropriate limiting instruction can be fashioned to meet the concern. In addition, it should be noted that as a technical matter the redacted video is very choppy because of the many edits made. It gives undue emphasis to the fact that certain material has been deleted. The Court therefore requests, but does not direct, that the complainant do whatever is possible as a mechanical matter to smooth out the redacted videotape so that the edits are not quite so jarring. Accordingly, the Court finds that the complainant may present the redacted videotape as evidence at trial against evidence of a refusal.

The Court concludes that even though no Miranda warnings were given, the redacted videotape may be played for the jury at trial without violating the accused man’s right against self-incrimination. The Court also finds that the accused man’s statements in the case were not the product of interrogation against self-incrimination.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the partial refusal warning that was given to the accused did not constitute interrogation and that the redacted videotape may therefore be admitted in evidence at trial without violating the accused man’s right against self-incrimination. For all the reasons stated, the Court holds that the complainant may not introduce at trial any evidence of the accused man’s refusal to take the chemical test, but the complainant may introduce into evidence at trial the videotape of the accused in the redacted form they have proposed. The Assistant District Attorney and the defense counsel are directed to alert the trial judge at the outset of the trial to the need for jury instructions in accordance with the opinion as to the limited use of the videotape and for the reasons why it has been redacted.

If you are arrested for unlawfully operating a motor vehicle, sex crimes or drug possession, you must have an attorney on your side to assist you on what to do. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates today.

A vehicle was stopped at a State Police sobriety checkpoint. After allegedly displaying certain outward sign of intoxication and failing four out of five field sobriety tests, the accused was asked to give a breath sample which resulted in a reading of a .13% blood alcohol content level. The accused challenges the constitutionality of the checkpoint stop on the grounds that the State Police failed to follow their own self-established written guidelines.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that in addition to establishing a seemingly strict protocol for the selection of sites, scheduling, briefing, setup, system of stops and interview procedures, the written guidelines of the State Police call for the making of certain records and reports before, during and after the date of the checkpoint. When a sobriety checkpoint is first scheduled, a DWI Program Notification message is supposed to be transmitted to Assistant Deputy Superintendent using a prescribed format. The memorandum is essentially a list of particulars pertaining to the planned checkpoint, including time and location, enforcement personnel and system of stop of every vehicle, every third vehicle, and so on. During the checkpoint, the DWI Investigative Note Card should be used to record pertinent impairment information including the officer's observations, the motorist's responses to specific questions and the specific cues, or signs of impairment observed during field sobriety tests. No later than two business days following completion of the checkpoint, a DWI Program Activity Record is required to be received at a Division Traffic Services. The record appears to be a data collection tool containing useful post-checkpoint information such as the number of vehicles passing through the checkpoint, the number of vehicles stopped and the number of motorists arrested for DUI and DWI.

While the guidelines do not specifically mandate the use of the DWI Investigative Note Card, the guidelines speak in more absolute terms about the DWI Program Notification and DWI Program Activity Record. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the guidelines provide that it is imperative that the reports be completed in a timely and accurate manner. The documents are further described as legal records that are often referenced in both criminal and civil proceedings. The parties' submissions agree that none of the above-described documents was ever prepared, let alone transmitted to the appropriate official or division of the State Police. Thus, the stage is set for the court to consider the legal consequences of an admitted failure to strictly or substantially observe sobriety checkpoint guidelines.

Whether a law enforcement agency's failure to follow its own sobriety checkpoint guidelines renders the stop unlawful appears to be a question of first impression. It is well-settled that a roadblock or checkpoint stop is a seizure within the meaning of the law. As a general rule, seizure of an automobile on a highway or at a roadblock requires an individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. The Supreme Court has recognized only limited circumstances in which the usual rule does not apply. In general, a sobriety checkpoint aimed at removing drunk drivers from the road does not violate the law. On the other hand, a vehicle checkpoint whose primary purpose is indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control has been declared unconstitutional.

The jury's burden of proof as to the programmatic purpose is derived from the constitutional principle underlying the reasonableness of a unsuspicious roadblock stop such as weighing of the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure, the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and the severity of the interference with individual liberty. In the absence of such proof, a court is left without any basis to assess the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure or the degree to which the seizure advanced the public interest. The primary programmatic purpose must be determined by examining the underlying reason for undertaking it as opposed to the particular manner in which the checkpoint was conducted.
In order to remove the legal disgrace of allegedly violating the law prohibition against warrantless and unsuspicious stops, the government bears the burden of satisfying additional requirements. First, a checkpoint must be carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers. Second, the Supreme Court has insisted that the discretion of the official in the field must be circumscribed. Thus, primarily because of the legal disgrace attached to warrantless and unsuspicious stops, the government bears the burden of proving at a suppression hearing that the particular checkpoint in question was conducted in a non-discretionary manner and that the officers did not exercise individual discretion as to which cars to stop or what questions to ask. Third, there should be adequate precautions as to safety, lighting and fair warning of the existence of the checkpoint. Fourth, the location of a fixed checkpoint should be chosen not by officers in the field, but by officials responsible for making overall decisions as to the effective allocation of limited enforcement resources. The plan, directive or guidelines should emanate from the higher echelons of the police department, sheriff or State Police.

Collectively, the foregoing requirements constitute a substitute for the constitutional norm of individualized suspicion. While the list may seem formidable, law enforcement agencies have a choice of routes. One is the familiar road of individualized suspicion and the other is the less traveled and more exotic road built by Court of Appeals and Supreme Court precedents.
Inasmuch as the plan should emanate from the higher echelons of the law enforcement agency and inasmuch as the discretion of the individual officers in the field must be circumscribed, logic dictates that the plan must be followed. A plan whose execution is left to the whim and caprice of officers in the field is no plan at all.

If you have been charged with a DWI, a drug possession offense or sex crimes, contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice and a free consultation.

The defendant was charged with violation of traffic laws because he was driving while under the influence of alcohol. The court conducted a hearing to determine if the defendant’s three separate statements have any legal implication.

In this DWI case, there are three different statements being deliberated. In the first statement of the defendant, she had said that she had a fight with a male friend since she was too intoxicated to driver her vehicle. The statement also indicated that she had 2 drinks. The second statement was allegedly given by the defendant after she was arrested by the police. In that second statement, she claimed that she only took one drink at her friend’s house and was heading to another destination. The third statement said that the defendant had three drinks and was about to go to her friend’s house.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the three statements are obviously in conflict with one another. The only witness to this case was the police officer who arrested the defendant. According to the officer’s statement, he and his partner were patrolling their usual route. The officers received a radio call and proceeded to respond to a dispute between drivers on the road. They went to the location of the dispute. When the police officers had arrived at the scene, the lead officer noticed the three people who seemed to be arguing. The woman, who was also the driver of the vehicle, was identified as the defendant.

The police officer was informed by one of the men who was with the woman defendant had been driving along when he noticed the woman and her friend having an argument. The man stopped his car to break it up.

After hearing the man, the police officer proceeded to ask the defendant what happened. The defendant told the police officer that they were arguing because she was too intoxicated to drive the car. When the officer had asked the defendant where she came from, the defendant had replied that she had been drinking. While the defendant was talking, the police officer noticed that she was slurring her speech and had bloodshot eyes. These were considered signs of intoxication. The officer also noted an alcoholic smell coming from the defendant.
After detecting the smell of alcohol, the officer had the defendant take the sobriety tests to determine if she was really intoxicated. The breath test results showed that she was intoxicated. The officer did not make her walk in a straight line since the defendant was wearing very high heels.

The officer arrested the defendant and brought her to the precinct for further questioning. An NY Criminal Lawyer said that while the police officer had the defendant at the back of the car, he proceeded to read the Miranda warnings in her presence. During the entire ride to the precinct, the police officer noted that the defendant had made a different version of her statement. At the precinct, the police officer also heard the defendant make another statement that was different from the previous ones.

Based on the provisions of the law, the police officer had probable cause in arresting the defendant. The officer had suspected the defendant to be driving while intoxicated. The court has found that the officer acted in the proper manner when he approached the defendant’s car and inquired on the incident. Before the defendant’s arrest, the court also finds that the questions asked by the police officer were only investigatory in nature. It can be recalled that the officer first asked about the reason of the dispute. Regarding the statements made by the defendant prior to her arrest, the court has found that those statements were made by the defendant out of her own free will. Therefore, such statements are admissible in court. However, there was no direct evidence that the defendant had been driving while she was intoxicated since the officers found her car parked along the side of the road. The motion of the defendant to suppress the statements is granted.

DWI lawsuits are not as simple as you think. If you are charged with DWI, sex crimes or a theft crime a qualified lawyer is all you need as you prepare your defense. Contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates for advice and a free consultation.

The defendant faces charges of DWI or driving while intoxicated. The defendant is also charged with violating traffic laws. According to the arresting officer, the defendant failed to maintain driving within the correct lane. A hearing was held in court to determine if the evidence against the defendant had been illegally obtained. The court was tasked to decide on the validity of the evidence in court. The alleged evidence includes the statements made by the defendant and his refusal to take a chemical test.

The witness on this case was the police officer who had arrested the defendant. The police officer had 20 years’ worth of experience working in law enforcement. Through the years, the officer had made several arrests involving drinking while intoxicated charges.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that according to the statement of the police officer, he was patrolling the highway during the night when he came across the defendant’s car. The officer observed that the driver of the car was driving at a high speed. The police officer followed the car in order to get closer. As the driver of the car made the turn, the police officer noted that he ran past two stop signs and went over the yellow lines.

It was during this time that the police officer turned on his emergency lights and pursued the vehicle to a complete stop. When the car pulled over by the side of the road, the officer approached the car and talked to the driver. The officer asked for his license and registration. The driver who was also the defendant in this case, had difficulty retrieving the needed documents. The police officer also noted the smell of alcohol inside the car.

The police officer proceeded to ask the defendant if he had been drinking. The defendant replied that he had a few drinks. An NYC Criminal Lawyer said that while the defendant was talking, the police officer noted that the driver showed signs of intoxication such as slurred speech and glassy eyes. After noting the observation, the police officer told the defendant to get out of the car and walk to the back of his car. This was actually a test on the part of the defendant if he could walk in a straight line. The officer further noted that the defendant was unsteady while walking. The officer had the defendant undergo sobriety tests.

The defendant failed all of the tests. The police officer decided that the defendant was guilty of DWI and brought him to the precinct. The officer again detected traces of alcohol on the defendant. At the precinct, the officer asked the defendant if he wanted to undergo a chemical test. It was during this time that the defendant spoke and asked to talk to a lawyer. He will not answer any more questions if unless he speaks to his lawyer.

According to the provisions of the law, a traffic stop is considered constitutional when there is legal basis for its occurrence. In the case of the police officer, he witnessed the defendant violate many traffic laws including speeding, running past stop signs and going over the yellow lines. The traffic violations provided the officer the legal basis to pursue and stop the vehicle.

The probable cause to proving the charge of DWI is left on the police officer. In this case, he had probable cause since the defendant demonstrated the classic signs of intoxication which led him to violate said traffic laws. The court has noted the observations of the police officer regarding the smell of alcohol and the results of the sobriety tests administered on the defendant. It has also been noted that the defendant admitted that he was drinking.

The court has decided that the earlier evidence regarding the defendant’s refusal to take the chemical test is not admissible since it was unclear whether the defendant had insisted on his refusal to take the test.

If you are charged with DWI, a sex crimes charge or a theft charge, you don’t have to bear the legal burden any longer. A skilled lawyer will be there for you in preparation for your case.Contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice and a free consultation.

The respondent in this case had a license to carry firearms. The same license was suspended by order of the court. All guns owned by the respondent were to be turned over to the sheriff’s department pending the hearing of the case. The permit to carry firearms was reinstated after the proceeding of a DWI charge.

The court was tasked to determine the circumstances leading to the arrest of the respondent. According to the witness who was also the arresting officer, he arrived at the house of the respondent as back up. The officer had responded to a call made on the emergency hotline involving a dispute between a husband and wife. When the officer spoke to the husband and also the respondent in this case, the respondent said that it was his wife’s fault. The respondent claimed that his wife assaulted him. He did not do anything to his wife. The officer noted the behaviour of the respondent as uncooperative. The respondent kept on telling the officer to get out of the house.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the officer also noted that respondent showed signs of intoxication. The officer arrested the respondent for his disorderly behaviour. During the investigation of the police regarding the dispute, the respondent kept on harassing his wife and the officers present. Upon arrest, the respondent was brought to the court to be arraigned. The respondent continued to be in an unruly mood while inside the premises of the court. The charge at this point was changed to obstruction. At the request of the respondent’s wife, the court granted an order of protection. The officer imposed the order by seizing the guns of the respondent.

After the serving of the order of protection, the obstruction charge was withdrawn. The respondent was presented with the condition that the order of protection will be dropped if he will surrender his license to carry firearms. The respondent is arguing in this case that his permit was already surrendered as ordered by the court.

When the court deputy arrived at the house of the respondent, he noted that the respondent was intoxicated since he had slurred speech and glass eyes. He also spoke obscene words in front of the deputy. The deputy explained that he responded to a domestic dispute call and was there to enforce the order of protection. The respondent was then arrested for violating the order of protection. Another officer arrived at the scene and noted the bruises and scratches on the respondent’s wife.

Based on the facts presented in the case, a Long Island Criminal Lawyer said that the provisions of the law state that a gun permit may be revoked if the owner is unfit to own a gun. The court has declared the respondent to be unfit. The proof required to revoke the license must be substantial evidence. The court has the responsibility to protect the public from the threat of unfit gun holders. If the gun owner is declared unfit therefore the guns may be considered dangerous under his possession.

The respondent has been found by the court to have credibility issues due to his intoxication and domestic disputes. The respondent had violated the order of protection and proceeded to hurt his wife anyway. The revoked license was determined by the court to have substantial evidence. The court also ordered that any guns taken due to a decision of a former case must be surrendered and transferred to another person who was fit to carry a gun permit.

The respondent was ordered by the court to arrange the transfer or sale of the guns to another individual with a permit. An appeal may be made on this decision.

If you are facing a DWI charge, sex crimes charge or domestic violence offense, you don’t have to worry. Hire the services Stephen Bilkis and Associates to help you prepare on your case.

The defendant has filed an appeal for his conviction. The court found the defendant guilty of DWI. He was also found guilty of violating traffic rules and regulations. The defendant reportedly failed to stick to the right side of the road while driving and went over a hazard marking.

The court finds the defendant guilty of the DWI after he went off the rural road while driving and as a result, his car hit the telephone pole. The defendant allegedly left the scene without reporting the incident to authorities. After his trial by jury, the court sentenced him to 1 to 3 years of imprisonment. The defendant has filed a motion for appeal.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the defendant asserted in his appeal that the proof of his intoxication while driving should be declared as legally insufficient. According to his statement, the defendant claimed that he did not become intoxicated until after his accident involving the telephone pole.

A witness gave a statement and said that he came upon the staggering defendant standing on the middle of the road. The witness saw that he was talking to his mobile phone. The witness came upon him and remarked that the defendant had been drinking. The defendant replied that he only started drinking after he crashed the telephone pole. The witness further testified that the defendant had slurring speech and looked dazed and confused.

The state trooper who arrived at the scene searched the defendant’s car and found a half empty vodka bottle. However, the defendant had fled from the scene. Later on, another state trooper came by the house of the defendant. A New York City Criminal Lawyer said the trooper had observed that the defendant had glassy eyes, slurred speech and had difficulty in body coordination. The trooper also detected the smell of alcohol on the defendant.

When the defendant was tested several times for sobriety, he failed repeatedly. During the time of the accident, the jury has noted that the weather was clear and dry. It was also noted that there was only one slight bend on the road near the crash site.

During the investigation of the trooper, the defendant told him that the he had one or two beers at the party that he attended before he drove off for home. The defendant then claimed that he did was not intoxicated until after arriving home. According to his statement, the defendant drank a few more beers and emptied half a bottle of whiskey before the state trooper arrived on his doorstep. The defendant further told the trooper that he was staggering in the middle of the road because of the dizziness he felt from the impact of the airbag in his car.

Based from the evidence presented, the court finds the case in favor of the people. The jury also concluded that the defendant drove off the side of the road and hit the telephone pole because he was intoxicated.

Regarding the matter of the defendant’s appeal that the court did not comply with a statute involving the substitution of a juror while on trial. According to the statute, when there are changes made among the jurors, the court must put into writing the changes made and have the defendant sign the document. This should be done in the presence of open court. However, the defendant contends that he was not given anything to sign during the proceedings. In this case, the court granted the request of the defendant to substitute a current juror for another one. Despite consent provided by the defendant and his counsel, the appeals court has found that the county court had not followed the procedure of having the defendant sign a written consent in open court. This violates the constitutional right of the defendant by jury composed of 12 members.

The appeals court therefore finds the issue to be a constitutional matter and requires judgment to be reversed. The case will be tried again in county court.

If you are involved in a DWI case, sex crimes charge, or theft charge, you need to have the competent services of a skilled lawyer. No matter what type of charge against you, our legal team is always ready to represent you if you go to trial. Stephen Bilkis & Associates will gladly arrange a meeting for you.

Two state police troopers were parked at a corner when a red pick-up truck sped past the intersection. The radar in the police trooper’s patrol car registered that the vehicle was going at a speed of 65 miles per hour in a 45 miles per hour zone. The police troopers then followed the red pick-up truck and while they were right behind the red pick-up truck, the police radar was still tracking the speed of the red pick-up truck.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that then the red pick-up truck parked into the parking lot outside a bar, the police officers got out of their patrol car and asked the driver for his license and registration. They noted that the driver was only 20 years old. The officers noticed the strong smell of alcohol on the driver and his red, watery and glassy eyes. One of the officers asked the driver if he had been drinking that night and the driver said he had been drinking beer. He also stated that he knew that he should not have been drinking that night.

At this point the officers asked the driver to take sobriety tests at the parking lot. The driver was staggering and swaying when asked to stand still. He failed to follow with his eyes a pen that the officer moved in front of him. The driver succeeded in walking heel to toe in a straight line for about nine steps. But the driver could not keep his leg up to stand on just one leg without staggering or swaying. He could not recite the letters of the alphabet correctly and stopped midway. He was not given a breath analyzer test. After this, the state troopers then placed the driver under arrest for DWI.

A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said that during the trial, the State Trooper who made the arrest testified that he had finished 80 hours of coursework at the police academy on recognizing sobriety or intoxication in drivers. He had made about 75 arrests of drunk drivers during his tour of service and has been present during the arrest of about 100 more drunk drivers.

The driver, during the trial, asked the court to suppress all the testimonial evidence against him as they were obtained illegally. He contends that he was arrested without cause.

The Court rejected the argument of the driver. The Court noted that the State Troopers had enough probable cause to stop the driver of the red pick-up: they had witnessed him speeding; his breath reeked of alcohol; his eyes were bloodshot, glassy and watery. And they noticed that the driver was unsteady on his feet. The driver was only 20 years old at the time of his arrest and should not even be admitted to a bar. He was violating the law at the time of his arrest.

The Court explained that probable cause exists when the police officer had a reasonable belief that a crime was being committed. Speeding is a crime which was sufficient probable cause for the state troopers to stop the driver. When they looked at his license and registration, the police officers were able to determine that he as committing crime: he was drinking even though he was only a minor (under 21 years old). The driver was also chatty: he admitted that he had been drinking beer and that he knew that he shouldn’t be drinking.

All the evidence from the testimony of the state troopers, including their recollection as to the failure of the driver during the field sobriety tests is all admissible as these were obtained legally. The state troopers had probable cause to stop the red pick-up truck. When they asked for the license and registration, the driver smelled of alcohol and had red, watery and bloodshot eyes. They also saw that he was only 20 years old. They had probable cause to subject him to the field sobriety tests. When he failed the sobriety tests, the state troopers had probable cause to arrest him for driving while intoxicated. The evidence obtained during the stop, the evidence of the sobriety tests and the admissions of the driver are all admissible into evidence.

If you have been charged with a DWI, sex crimes, or a theft charge, call Stephen Bilkis and Associates and ask to confer with a lawyer who can explain to you what the charges mean. Our office can help you during your custodial investigation; he can assist you at trial and present evidence as well as ague your case in your behalf.

Sex crimes vary a great deal in details and the people involved in it according to a long time New York sex crime lawyer. When such crimes happen, it does not just involve men and women for it could also involve some homosexuals who are usually convicted as pedophiles. A certain case that can further explore similar details is that of Thomas Gutierrez. There was a single incident that a person he once invited to see a movie complained of sexual abuse. The other New York rape lawyers who were involved in dealing with the case referred to him as a human predator.

It was found out by another expert New York Crimnal Lawyer that Gutierrez keeps movie tickets as some kind of souvenir and memorabilia of those he abuses inside the theaters. In fact, his exact term was ‘trophy’ for a certain night which somehow means a different night out with another minor, specifically children. The way the prosecutors gave their questions was justified especially with how Gutierrez invited persistently the victims and it was fully emphasized that he is an adult already with the victims being young individuals.

As with another New York Criminal Lawyer who did a close study on the case questioned whether there was improper touching done by the accused to the victims. The complainant said that the defendant tried to put his hands on his pants but this was of course denied by Gutierrez. There may have not been enough proof but the level of guilt that the defendant showed was too overwhelming. Every credible lawyer therefore agrees with the overall judgment of the court that he did sexual abuse and has endangered the life of a child.

There is even no need any more for a new trial for the details would just be reviewed over and over again, the same as before. It is important thought that a more thorough investigation was made not just to prove Thomas truly guilty but also know how much he has reached with his consistent crime. Could there be already a wide collection of movie tickets that he has collected? How come his past victims never had the guts to complain? Did he pay or threaten them? With the help of the ticket collection, could there be a certain pattern traced so that the rest of the minors in the community can be further protected from such an offender?

It can be truly hard to decide on a case especially when there are not any solid evidences which should arise. There should also be a good number of witnesses and complainants who would testify against one person. This is one reason why Thomas was still fighting for his freedom with the considerable lack of evidence which was required by the court. But it was good the overall decision still led to the protection of the complainant and the rest of the minors in the society.

There is always a competent New York Llawyer who can certainly help you in understanding the details of these cases and eventually allow you to win it through a very fair trial, whether you have been charged with a sex crime, drug possession crime or theft charge. There are enough New York rape lawyers who can offer you assistance straight from the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates. With every case won, you just do not fight for your rights and your total freedom but also for the utmost protection of the rest of the minors in society especially from such abusive adults like the common pedophiles and other sex offenders.

Sex crimes become all the more complicated when they are set into varying degrees according to the court. With the help of legal counsel, you can be sure to understand the consequences behind each degree and how hard the punishments that come with it. To further understand it, the case of Bruce Thompson is raised. Bruce was guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree and also of sodomy in the third degree.

The first one was his offense of forcing someone to have sexual contact with him while the other crime is engaging a minor to have sex with him. This was also researched well by a New York Criminal Lawyer who handles a lot of sex crime cases which involve minors. The defendant was fighting for the fact that there was no sufficient evidence provided against him. A certain John Gorton who was 15 years old told his story that Bruce approached him in the back of a store and talked him into a lot of things.

Eventually it was found that Bruce fooled him and said that he had stolen coins from him and that he would called a certain store owner to report him. They eventually shared a drink by the river and when the minor was completely drunk, Bruce removed the teen’s clothes and sexual intercourse happened. John only consented to it out of fear that Bruce might harm him especially with the paranoia that many kids were killed in that spot. After the incident, they walked away from the place and John ran away and went home. He asked his father and granddad to call the police.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the witness in the gas station John passed by attested that he was really running hard and asking for money to get to call the police. He appeared all shook up and stiffed according to the witness named James Buckland. Harold Dennis was also another witness who overheard the John saying to Bruce that he really did not steal the coins he was accusing him of. This case was easily resolved due to the solid elements presented during the trial.

All the noteworthy incidents that transpired point to one single person and that was Bruce. The crimes that John may be complaining of may have had no exact witness but the related incidents that happened before and after were pretty much supported by two solid witnesses. Hence, he was charged guilty of the two sex crimes that he has committed to John despite his constant denial. The case may have lacked in such evidences that Bruce was fighting for just to prove the crime but still the intensity level of the corroboration was too strong to prove Bruce guilty of the two crimes.

If you truly care for the minors in our community, then we must help each other by getting the right lawyers who would fight for our rights and would stick close to our sides. There are many reliable lawyers who you can fully trust from the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates located in NY. Whether you have been charged with drug possession, sex crimes or a theft crime, we can help.

Nothing can be more painful when the ones who have done the sexual crime is one of our loved ones. It all makes it worse when the victims belong in our family too. This is what a New York sex crimes lawyer wants to share to us with this case of Orlando Roman. He was accused of bribing his ex-wife to not testify in court with regards to his case of abusing his own four year old kid. Janet Roman is the mother of the kid who filed a complaint to the police about his bribe offer to not testify about the sex abuse of their own child.

Roman was offered about $15,000 for the agreement to not testify in the grand jury hearing. She questioned first about the sex abuse and rape case but he did not say anything about it. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that Roman said if the money be taken he would transfer to another state and move away from them. He almost promised that he would never be seen again as part of the incentive. He also said that the victim was just coached and that he did not do anything that have intentionally hurt the victim.

As per the findings of an expert Manhattan Criminal Lawyer, the conversation recorded would be heard out in a separate trial but it will not be admitted as part of the counts of child sex abuse whether it is consolidated or not. But such can take a big part too in the process of proving the accused guilty of the sexual abuse crime he is confronting. Money truly is played dirty just to be able to buy your freedom out or the justice that others deserve.

To go away from the victim and the family affected is not the solution to the crime that Orlando Roman has been accused of doing. It is such an unacceptable act to even abuse your own kid or any loved one and family member according to a New York sex with minor defense lawyer. This is one reason why sex crimes are considered to be one of the most sensitive types of cases to deal with in court and other legal proceedings.

This is not just because of the reason that terms are very sensitive and adult oriented, but because of the overall fact that it can sometimes involve our own loved ones in the case, especially when the kids are the victims of sexual abuse, rape, and endangering the welfare of a child. Hence, it is very important that we step ahead just in case we encounter such scenarios. And with such cases, we can depend much on the help and assistance of Stephen Bilkis & Associates.

All you have to do is contact them even if you are still in the phase of merely inquiring. It will not hurt if you would openly ask questions about any legal ordeal that you need to overcome especially when it is sex crime related. If you want to fight for your right and your freedom to live in peace, then it is a must to get a lawyer whom you can easily talk to and trust.

The SORA or the Sex Offender Registration Act is a widely discussed topic in the line of sex crimes. In this particular case, there are five names involved which are trying to relieve themselves from registering in the system. The first one on the list is Eliezer Cintron who is guilty of using cocaine and endangering the life of a minor with sexual abuse. He made her girlfriend and two kids slave prisoners in her own apartment. There was no sexual crime alleged according to a New York child pornography lawyer but still this was a negligent act of doing.

Next according is Nelson Cordero. His case was burglary since he broke into the home of his common law wife. He tied up his son and his 15 year old friend in a bathroom during the assault. There were no sex crimes mentioned but he was still considered a sex offender by the SORA. Dwayne Glover is the next with cases of attempted murder and robbery. He entered into a certain apartment with a gun and imprisoned all its occupants. He directed everyone including a 12-year-old girl to lie down in the bed.

Marko Ivesic was also discovered guilty of kidnapping after breaking into the home of his own brother in law where his wife resides. He did not have any sexual contact with anyone but threatened to kill everyone in the family. Francis Jackson is the last for the promotion of prostitution and kidnapping too. Together with his girlfriend, they forced two women to get into prostitution for days. He bribed them by kidnapping one of the sons of the two women so that she will not stop working for them as a prostitute.

The SORA according to any New York Criminal Lawyer is an appropriate system of law enforcement to those who have crime offenses such as these. This helps in the resolving process of exploitation and sexual abuse as well. It alerts the public that they are protected since such crime offenders are under their custody. The highest level in SORA is the one that is meant for the high risk offenders. The information for all offenders in SORA are made available for the public to know through the internet or their toll free numbers.

All the cases states that of the five fall under the adoption of the SORA and the JWA as well. The petitioners did not succeed in proving that the system would deprive them of practicing their rights and that in their way of thinking, it was unconstitutional. All their requests are denied and the court advises still that they register and start the appointed treatment programs for themselves. Besides it is for their own good to have a chance to start anew.

Such intricacies of cases is something that you can only learn if you talk to a competitive Long Island Criminal Lawyer. If you have trouble finding which one is the most credible, end your struggles by visiting instead Stephen Bilkis & Associates offices throughout NY. They have a legal team who can definitely help you fight for your rights and freedom to live in peace. Remember that when you are going through any case, winning is not everything. What is most important is that you learn a lot from it so that you know way better the next time around which you would hope would never happen again.

Many sex crimes are committed by those who are not just merely in their normal state of minds. Majority of those who are offenders of such are usually found out to be of unstable. In this particular case discussed, the accused is hidden by the initials of P.H. He was seen first at a rooftop looking over a woman while masturbating and using cocaine. The victim was sleeping at that time when the suspect went inside her apartment and harassed her before he went out with the victim’s purse.

P.H. had a wide background of doing the act of public masturbation before. With this, the court is convinced that he is an exhibitionist and very much dependent on the use of cocaine. Even if he was placed on SIST, it still showed that he had a wide history too of burglary and trespassing. A witness that was called to stand for this case was Officer Ramirez. According to the Officer, P.H. was guilty of still doing these acts even after his release from 2009 and his placement on SIST. The masturbation in public places that he caught P.H. for were done in bathroom stalls that were enclosed.

With the help of a New York Criminal Lawyer, it was also discovered that he was fired from his messenger job. He was not able to explain the reason behind his termination but it was all revealed during one group counseling session. This happened due to a dispute over Metrocards issuance. Another witness was Ms. Smith who caught him taking pictures of her under her skirt with the use of his cellphone. But somehow, in the public place, P.H. made it appear that the victim was the one stealing his phone.

Dr. Field was the one who diagnosed P.H.’s case and that he finds the patient truly positive of what the court has finalized on. Another doctor by the name of Dr. Katsavdakis said that he was not able to complete the programs of therapy meant for him when he was still in custody. This led the doctor to conclude that P.H. is prone to doing things without having to reflect on the consequences that he has to face afterwards.

In reality, a Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer thinks that P.H. has lost a lot of control and freedom in his life due to his own doings. He even committed a sex crime again just hours after his supervised parole. All these led the court to be sure of their findings that he is mentally abnormal due to the strong urge to commit sex crimes over and over. This would lead him to become confined for further treatment under a very strict supervised environment.

If you do not want such sex crimes to prevail in our society, then it is only with the help of a reliable lawyer that we can educate ourselves more on such cases. Whether you have been charged with child pornography, a theft crime or drug possession, ith the help the legal team from the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates, you can be sure that such sex offenders would not anymore hurt or harm others in the future the same way they did in the past. It is only with the assistance of experts that we can get to understand the intricacies and sensitivities of such sex crime cases happening within our communities.

There are many sex crimes these days that are discovered by or have been caused by mental health or abnormality. Aside from SORA there is also the SOMTA or what is called as the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act which deals with sex crimes that involve the Mental Hygiene Law. In this particular case, the one accused is convicted of promoting prostitution, kidnapping and also bail jumping. He was given the charge of 9 to 18 years for kidnapping, 4 to 8 years for the kidnapping, and 3 to 6 years for the bail jumping.

The defendant forced his victim and raped her over and over again. He even forced her to be a prostitute and even physically beat her including the involvement of drugs. He was a detained sex offender who was found out to have been suffering from some kind of mental abnormality. According to a New York law as discussed by a New York Criminal Lawyer describes SOMTA as crimes that are sexually motivated.

Hence, it is the court’s decision to find out if the previous crimes committed by an accused person are motivated by a mental abnormality that is driven with the need for sex. All these should go through the proper criminal proceeding to make it very fair and carry out justice pretty well. Such acts like SOMTA are meant to protect the society from the danger of these free roaming sex offenders. It is only through the programs for treatment and proper management to help the accused to recover and have a bright future and at the same time to protect the citizens of the society.

According to a New York criminal lawyer, the goals of the court to let such sex offenders like Nelson to go through such programs include proper management of their unstable behavior. But one must expect that such treatment will surely come as strict and well supervised. It may even go as worst as leading to a lifetime confinement. In Nelson’s case, it has been well proven that his crimes were sexually motivated. What Nelson fights for is that he does not deserve the stigma that registering to such SOMTA would cause his own credibility.

Such mental health treatment should not be considered as a punishment but instead as a treatment process so as to help the sex offender suffering from a mental abnormality to still get to recover as fast as they can. What Nelson did to his victim was too heinous that he took advantage of the rights of another and even abused it extremely. The mechanism used was truly excessive and up to the extreme. It is just logical that the court would capture offenders like Nelson so that the number of such crimes committed would surely be lessened.

To know more about the aspects of SORA or SOMTA, or if you have been charged with a sex crime, drug possession or a theft crime, it is best to seek the assistance and guidance of a reliable New York sex crime lawyer. One of the best ones that you can find especially in New York would begin within the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates located in New York. They handle all sorts of sex crimes and its intricate details to make sure that you get the justice and freedom you deserve by getting a credible lawyer who will stay right by your side the entire time. Such expert assistance would help you understand best such legal proceedings that can help protect others as well.

Justice and fairness are the two main things that every New York sex crime lawyer aims to achieve in such cases that they handle. Majority of them are way too sensitive especially if it involves women and children. In fact, even in today’s modern times, it is easy to find also the young men being abused especially by the older pimps in the society. This particular case talks about handling juvenile cases whether it should be led to a Civil or Criminal proceeding. According to an expert New York rape lawyer, it is the petitioner who serves as the overall complainant or the victim.

The example taken was about a certain William S. who was accused of alleged sex crime acts in a total of three legal proceedings which were distinct from each of the others. This is because one crime can be deemed unrelated with each other and that it becomes totally unfair to consolidate them all just to push someone down. Other cases quite similar to that of William S. was taken into consideration for better examples to clarify the entire situation. In this case, it was about a certain Turner who was accused.

According to the New York Criminal Lawyer who once researched about the case, he was charged with killing his own mother last March 7, 1968. The other case was about being charged for the death of his grandmother at the same means of how his mother was killed – through shooting. The sides in the court requested to just consolidate the cases but before doing that, the court had to analyze well whether the two scenarios are really related to each other. And this of course, requires solid and hard evidence.

The said consolidation of cases is possible if it can be established that the two scenes were made with just one scheme or plan. It is not enough that the two scenarios by means or method just strike a great resemblance. Evidence is the number one key in such cases. This goes the same for some popular serial killers. There would always be some kind of trademark in the crimes done or something that lawyers or the court would term as the signature. And since this falls under the sex crime category, then there should be forced sexual relations to the victim involved.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the Other Acts of Sexual Misbehavior and Perversion as Evidence in Prosecutions for Sexual Offenses can be tackled for more clarification. Such demand for consolidation of crimes allegedly done by the suspect has served as a long time stick already that hurts much the defendant just because similar looking cases are introduced in court. What can be deemed apparent when it comes to sexual offenders is that compared to other offenders, they are the ones who happen to be the ones who do it out of habit or out of impulse.

Whether you have been charged with a sex crime, drug possession or a theft crime, seek the help of a lawyer especially the ones from the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates. There are many proceedings that you may take a long time to understand but if you would gain the assistance of a skilled lawyer, you can be sure to understand fully all the details of the case, whether or not you are the one involved. One thing is for sure: you can be guided well towards not just winning the case but also learning a lot from it.

Sexual abuse can be everywhere, it might be occurring in our own home. According to a New York Sex Lawyer, on September 5, 1995, James L. Archer was convicted by the County Court of crimes of sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of a child. During trial, the 13-year-old victim testified that prior to the commission of the crimes, James L. Archer, a 31-year-old live in companion of the victim’s aunt, told her that he wanted to rape her and have a baby with her. She further testified that Archer threatened to kill her whole family if she revealed his feelings about her to anyone. The victim indicated that she believed these threats and, for that reason, did not immediately report the crimes.

Based on the New York Criminal Lawyer, Archer’s initial argument on his appeal was that the jury’s verdict finding him guilty of two counts of the crime of sexual abuse is not supported by legally sufficient evidence in that there is no proof of forcible compulsion. As relevant here, ‘Forcible Compulsion’ means to compel by either use of physical force; or a threat, express or implied, which places a person in fear of immediate death or physical injury to herself or another person. The higher court held that given the victim’s young age and Archer’s dominance over her by reason of his age and relationship with her aunt, the jury could have reasonably inferred that Archer accomplished the sexual contact through the use of threats that placed the victim in fear of immediate death or physical injury to herself or members of her family.

Another argument that Archer had pointed out was that he was discriminated by the admission of evidence regarding prior bad acts of sexual nature that he purportedly perpetrated upon the victim. Generally, a New York Sex Abuse Lawyer said, such evidence may not be offered to show Archer’s bad character or his inclination toward crime but may be admitted if the acts help establish some element of the crime under investigation. This exception was said to be applicable in this case since the challenged testimony was admitted to establish that Archer engaged in a course of conduct that was likely to be injurious to the physical or moral of the victim, an essential element of the crime of endangering the welfare of a child that was charged in two counts of indictment.

The trial panel produced a psychotherapist who presented testimony pertaining to child sex abuse syndrome. He said that the Supreme Court have held such testimony admissible provided it is limited to explaining behavior that might appear unusual to a lay juror and is not used to show that the alleged victim’s behavior was consistent with patterns of behavior exhibited by victims of proven sexual abuse. The Court held that, the prosecutor posed a hypothetical question to the expert that subsumed the evidence in this case and asked if the hypothetical victim’s behavior was unusual with respect to child sex abuse syndrome. Further, the lower court gave limiting instructions in its charge that the expert could not render an opinion on the issue of whether the victim was sexually abused.

A Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer said that upon Archer’s conviction of two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, Archer was sentenced to consecutive indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 2 to 7 years, a New York Child Pornography Lawyer added. Taking into account Archer’s previous conviction of a sex-related crime involving this victim and the predatory nature of the crimes that carry a high risk of recidivism, the higher court did not consider the sentence harsh or excessive.

A man filed a legal action to discharge him against a complaint for failure to state a cause of action. It involves alcoholic beverage control law concerning underage drinking. The man states that there is no issue of fact by which he may be held liable and that no legitimate cause of action has been set forth in the complaint. The corporation, who stands as the opponent, opposed the legal action, stating that they claim a cognizable common law cause of action, and cross-move to modify their answer.

According to a New York Crimal Lawyer, said the bar (under the said corporation), who filed a complaint against the man is licensed to offer alcoholic beverages, to sell and for consumption on its premises by customers over the age of 21 years. The man at the time of the incident was a 19-year-old student. He was stopped by the police early in the morning while walking back to campus in an intoxicated state. He was brought to the police station on an unrelated matter and told the police officers that he was underage and had been drinking at the tavern earlier in the evening. He further told that he had gained access to that place by use of a false driver's license. He purchased and was served alcoholic beverages.

The police officers then accompanied him to the bar, where he identified the employee, who used to be the longtime president of the corporation as well as the owner of the bar, as the person who had served him the alcoholic beverages. The president was charged with the penal law crime of unlawfully dealing with a child for allegedly selling alcoholic beverages. In addition, alcoholic beverage administrative proceedings were commenced against the company for the revocation of its liquor license because of the alleged sales of alcoholic beverages to several other underage college students.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the man was never criminally charged for his actions and was granted immunity from trial by the district attorney in exchange for his testimony against the president in the proceedings and he must testify accordingly. Eventually, the president was successful in defending himself in both the criminal and administrative proceedings and company retained its liquor license. All parties set an oral argument that there are no pending proceedings.

The corporation initiated its action by summons and complaint and stated that the man trespassed the business premises and unlawfully entered the premises by presenting fraudulent identification. For their second cause of action, they stated that the man fraudulently and intentionally deceived the president by his actions and that they justifiably relied on the man’s presentation of false identification. The corporation seeks for damages on each of their first and second causes of action claiming that as a direct result of the man’s trespass and fraud, they suffered investigation and possible suspension, cancellation and revocation of liquor license, suffered charges and trial, lost profits and incurred unnecessary legal expenses.
In the man’s legal action, he stated that discharge of complaint is appropriate in his favor because the corporation’s lawsuit constitutes a strategic lawsuit against public participation. Violations of the relevant provisions of the alcoholic beverage control law provides the corporation with no basis for a civil cause of action and that public policy prohibit the sort of civil suit as against an adverse witness in a trial and as against an underage person who the state legislature was trying to protect by enacting such regulatory laws.

In opposition to the man’s motion for discharge of complaint, the corporation alleges that the instant action is not a strategic lawsuit against public participation, but, rather, a legitimate legal proceeding which has a valid basis in fact and law. The purpose of which is to hold accountable the man who engaged in unlawful and fraudulent conduct for his own benefit and amusement. They further state that the intent is not to punish or discourage individuals who cooperate in the trial. The court said there were no drug possession laws involved with the case.

The corporation also submits an affidavit of the Executive Director of the company’s association and two affidavits of the president. The director testifies in his affidavit that there is a significant problem among the association's members with the enforcement of the legal drinking age because of false identifications presented by underage drinkers. The director also state that the recent amendments of the alcoholic beverage law has shown an intent to sanction underage individuals who acquire alcoholic beverages by the use of false identification and that public policy supports the continuation of this form of legal action to sanction such underage drinkers.
The first affidavit of the president states that the district law pertaining to the underage drinking age is selectively and inequitably enforced. The second of his affidavits states that at the time of the incident, the company restricted access to individuals over the age of 21 years and who presented documentary proof of their age; and, that any underage on the premises were there without the knowledge or permission of the owners. The corporation also alleges that through the incorporation of different facts, the revised complaint will be sufficient to overcome the man’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action.

The underage man testified in exchange for immunity against trial proceedings. Based on records, such proceedings cannot be said to have been an action involving public petition and participation as such is considered within the strategic lawsuit against public participation subsections. The proceedings were initiated solely at the discretion of the district attorney and had no direct effect on company’s license. For these reasons, the part of the man’s motion which seeks to dismiss the president’s complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public participation is denied.

The corporation states, however, despite such repeated statements of the clear intent of the government to place the duty of the burden of underage drinking laws on the vendor of alcohol, the strict liability is no longer applicable in light of alcoholic beverage control law, which allows the licensed vendor an affirmative defense in the proceeding that the underage customers had produced a false identification and that the alcohol was sold in reliance upon such identification, and which makes it a violation for a person under the age of 21 years to present a false identification for the purpose of attempting to purchase an alcoholic beverage. The corporation submits that these changes in the act of support for their argument that such civil right of action, as is presented, impliedly exists within the law or that the plaintiffs, otherwise, should be allowed to proceed by way of a common law on trespass or fraudulent misrepresentation action as is pled in the complaint. However, the provisions are misinterpreted as a change or shift in public policy, rather than as a calculated legislative adaptation to the realities of the challenges of monitoring underage drinking and request the court to step outside of its judicial interpretive function and create a previously unrecognized cause of action based upon public policy arguments. The corporation correctly recognizes in its supporting papers that the presentation of false identification by underage persons to obtain alcoholic beverages is a prevalent problem.

Accordingly, the underage man’s motion to discharge complaint against him is granted and the corporation’s motion to modify their complaint is denied.

If you or your family member had been arrested and been involved in any DWI, sex crimes matter or theft charge, contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates are here to give you a hand. Please feel free to call our office and we will provide the best assistance for your legal needs.

It may be common for anyone of us to hear or watch rape cases in the news but we never realize how hard it is to handle with the right legal procedurures. One case that was very complicated to assess and it involved three men as the ones who are making an appeal. The ones that were mentioned in the proceedings were Michael De Vito, Theodore Buckley and Gary Mandel. In rape cases like this one, the mental background and reliability of the one who is complaining is very important.

The alleged victim was contacted via phone by Mandel for a good number of times last April 4, 1975. It appears that their houses are just several blocks apart and that Mandel invited her to his house to discuss a fresh course at the Brooklyn College. She went to his house and after a short conversation at the kitchen, she was given a glass of water which she consumed but made her too dizzy to still hold consciousness. According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, the next thing she knew, she was already in the basement struggling against Mandel. Then came the other two, De Vito and Buckley, to the basement through a back door and with that the worst sexual things happened.

The victim running away half naked when she finally saw the opportunity. She hid in some bushes and wait till the alleged suspects left. She ran and knocked into another home which was owned by Lila and Murray Raber. The three denied all these and said that what happened was with the consent of the victim. They claim that she only reported and filed a complaint out of utmost humiliation she suffered from during the sexual activity when water balloons burst inside her bra.

According to a Queens Criminal Lawyer, at the end of the case, after all the evaluations and evidence presented, all three men involved as suspects of the sex crime were acquitted. They were not convicted of sodomy and rape according to the reports. There was no sexual abuse which happened especially after the medical examination of the alleged victim which showed there was no semen and even damage to the parts of her body which she reported were abused by the three guys. This made the corroboration request of all three crimes weak and the reason that she was just drugged during that time was proven heavily.

However, there are some points in the case which could have still been greatly explored like the background of the victim. The attorney of the victim was limited to only exploring the mental and emotional stability of the victim as per her records released by the South Oaks Hospital. At one point, there could have been really the consent from the female but still in a broader perspective, the three guys still sexually abused the victim even if it was just in the first degree due to the severe injuries the victim had in her body.

To report and go through the legal proceeding of sex crimes is not easy especially for its sensitivity. It is only an skilled lawyer who can help you out with these legal issues and guide you all the way back to the road of justice. Contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates and book an appointment with a lawyer from our legal team who can educate you well enough with all the information you need to know in cases of sex crimes.

Every New York sex crimes lawyer has been able to handle a wide variety of cases that deal with sexual abuse of minors and other similar scenarios. With the modern world of today becoming filled with so much of the online community, it is also common to find cases where minors are sexually abused through online chatting. This is the exact case that happened to a professional attorney who was arrested for sex chatting with a 13-year-old and even meeting up with her in person to have actual physical sexual encounter.

There were two witnesses who emerged. The first witness testified that he knew the accused attorney to be a very dignified professional. In fact, Steven J. Lever, the attorney accused, is waiting for a job offer from the firm of the first witness. The second witness is a close family friend and testified too that Lever is a very honest person aside from being smart. The first hearing led for the suspension of the attorney for six months since the court was not convinced that he really had sexual contact with the minor involved.

But as per the view of an expert New York Criminal Lawyer, the sentence for the accused should be greater than that. Anything that abuses the rights of minors should definitely pay for all the consequences that come with such actions. Another credible lawyer believes that the abuse of Internet to take advantage of minors for sex, or endangering the welfare of a child, a grave misconduct, especially for another professional who should be smarter than the average person in the society. It is just right to not let any attorneys like Lever to still practice law with such an immoral background.

The court who handled the first hearing justified that such a light sanction was given since the accused was highly cooperative during the legal process of the case. He had no background on any disciplinary action and it was assumed that external factors of being stressed due to the recent passing of his mother could have been the thing that triggered him to entertain himself for a while through online chatting. Even the therapist who handled him said that there is a low chance of him doing the same offense again.

A Staten Island Criminal Lawyer said there is another case that shared almost the same details with this one. But the only difference is that in the other case, the actual sexual contact was proven. But with Lever’s case, there were no solid evidences presented. The alternative recommended sanction had a chance though to be given to the accused for as long as three years and he would be continuously go through evaluation with an expert psychiatrist. The biggest lesson learned about this is that no professional attorney should have the right to still practice their profession in the court if guilty of committing such an immoral crime.

No sex crime should ever get away from going through the right legal process. If you or any of your loved ones happen to get involved in such especially in the city of New York, do not hesitate to contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates. Sex crimes can be stopped in our society if we would all work together to crush it completely so that no human right will ever be devalued.

In this DWI case, the defendant has formerly entered a guilty plea to the charge of driving while intoxicated. The guilty plea of the defendant was found to be satisfactory for other charges like resisting arrest and the failure to undergo a sobriety test. Following the arraignment, the legal counsel of the defendant had filed several motions.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the motions filed were subsequently contested until a hearing to establish probable cause was scheduled. However, the hearing did not push through on that date. The matter was dismissed later on. On the same day, a conference before the trial was held in chambers with counsels also appearing. During the conference, the prosecution offered the defendant to make a guilty plea on his charges to reduce his sentence if convicted.

Before taking the plea offer of the prosecution, the court advised the defendant of his constitutional right to appear before the jury and stand on trial. The court also advised him that the prosecution had the burden of finding evidence against him. This means that the jury must be unanimous in convicting the defendant.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant was further advised by the court that his legal counsel can question the witnesses of the prosecution. After all the recommendations made by the court, the defendant declared that he is waiving his right to appear before a jury trial. The defendant had admitted that he was drinking a six-pack of beer while he was driving his car. The court sentenced the defendant to participate in the drinking drivers program of the city, similar to programs available for drug possession crimes. His driver’s license was also revoked for a year and ordered to pay the fine.

About 2 years later, the defendant was arrested again for DWI. The legal counsel of the defendant has filed a motion seeking the court to abandon the previous conviction of the defendant. The lawyer claimed that the judgment made during that time was in violation of the defendant’s rights.

The defendant asserts in his appeal that the former conviction should be abandoned because his lawyer did not advise him to contest the charge with non-operation of vehicle. He contended that the ineffective counsel of his lawyer had resulted in his guilty plea.

The defendant recalled the events during on the day that he was arrested. According to his statement, a police officer saw him inside the car. The officer told him to vacate his vehicle and take sobriety tests. The defendant refused because he said he was not intoxicated. The police officer allegedly said that since the key was inside the ignition slot, the defendant was guilty.

The issue raised in this case involved the failure of the defense counsel to present a possible theory of defense to his client, the defendant. The court will determine if this action will deny the defendant his right to meaningful and effective representation.

The defendant’s motion is based on the issue that the previous judgment of his case was obtained because his constitutional rights were violated. The defendant also wants the court to acknowledge that he was misrepresented when his lawyer failed to advise him of an alternative defense which could lead to a different judgment on his case.

According to the provisions, the guilty plea made by the defendant will only be valid when it is the defendant has made the decision out of his own free will. The guilty plea should also be a result of intelligent decision-making on the part of the defendant.

The defendant has the burden of proof to support his motion of ineffective representation. He must prove to the court that his counsel had committed errors in advising the defendant regarding his guilty plea.

Since the defendant could not present evidence that he was misrepresented, the court denied his motion to abandon the guilty plea on his case.

If you have been arrested and charged for a DWI case, sex crimes case or theft crime, you should have a lawyer defend your case in court.The downtown offices of Stephen Bilkis & Associates are always open for your personal consultation and inquiry.

This legal action is filed against a restaurant by a husband who seeks to recover damages for injuries he sustained in a vehicular accident. His wife was driving while intoxicated and lost control of the vehicle. He claimed that the restaurant violated a general obligation law because his wife’s intoxication resulted from the restaurant’s serving the alcoholic drink, according to a New York Criminal Lawyer.

The restaurant move for a legal action to terminate the complaint filed to them on the ground that the husband purchased the alcoholic beverages for his wife and thus has no cause of action against them based on a violation of the general obligation law. In support of their action, the restaurant relied on the statement and testimony of the couple.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, at around 10 to 10:30 p.m., the couple consumed a bottle of beer from another restaurant then went home. Afterwards, the couple then went to the restaurant which they summoned. The couple arrived at approximately 11:00 p.m. The husband bought beers for his wife and they both drank at least four to five bottles of it. They left the said restaurant at about 1:30 a.m. and the wife was the one driving the vehicle. As they were proceeding north, the car went out of control, crossed over to the opposite bound lane and jumped on a guard rail. The husband sustained serious injuries in the accident.

The couple submitted their affidavits in opposition to the action. They explained that when they stated the testimony that the husband bought the beer for his wife it was meant only in the sense that he supplied the money for the purchase because the money was in his pocket, but the money which he earns is shared equally by them and they file a joint income tax return. During the course of the evening, either of them would go to the bar to place orders for their beers and the husband never purchased drinks for his wife unless she asked for them.

The couple opposes on two grounds. The first argument states that, to impede the husband from recovery under the general obligation law would be an unparalleled extension of the concept of procuring alcoholic beverages and would leave husbands and wives unprotected by that law. They contend that both public policy and law treat a married couple as a single entity and that marriage entity bought and paid for the beer. They also claim that there is a factual issue as to whether the husband bought the alcoholic beverages for his wife.

According to the couple, because of their status as married, they were drinking companions and from time to time they go out to socialize and have a few beers together as they did on the night of the accident. They frame the issue on the motion as whether a husband can be considered the procurer of alcohol for his wife when his wife requests the alcoholic beverages and places some of the orders for the alcoholic beverages herself, and joint income is used for their purchase.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said it is well settled that a person who procured the alcoholic beverage for the person whose intoxication allegedly caused his injury has no cognizable cause of action based upon a violation of the general obligation law. It is sufficient that the plaintiff merely contributed to the purchase of the alcoholic beverages which caused the person's intoxication.

Since the plaintiff's own affidavits establish that during the course of the evening, the husband placed at least some of the orders for his wife’s drinks and provided funds in which he had an interest for the purchase, he played a more affirmative role than that of mere drinking companion to his wife. The court finds that the husband procured the alcoholic beverages and accordingly, the general obligation law cannot be maintained.

The Plaintiff further argues that the case law which precludes damage recovery to one who procures the alcoholic beverage should not apply to a married couple. Under the plaintiff's analysis, a spouse would have to coerce his or her partner into drinking in order to be regarded as a procurer of alcoholic beverages for the intoxicated partner and be denied relief under the law. Such a result would carve out an exception for married a couple which has no legal basis. Whether a person procured alcoholic beverages for another must be decided without regard to a person's marital status. A person who does not procure alcoholic beverages for his spouse is protected by the law; one who does is not.

Since the husband’s cause of action cannot be maintained, the wife’s derivative action must also be dismissed.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer commented that tragic things can happen merely because someone is under the influence of drugs or alcohol. When you are caught in this kind of circumstances and you feel the need for legal advice, speak to at Stephen Bilkis & Associates is always ready and prepared to respond to your legal related demands.

A driver from New York appealed when he was convicted of the crimes of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree and two counts of DWI (driving while intoxicated) and the traffic infraction of failure to keep right.

In tne early morning, following an evening of drinking at a bar, the defendant commenced driving his car with one passenger in the front and the victim, who was acutely intoxicated in the back seat. Shortly afterwards, the defendant was involved in a single vehicle accident, in which his car struck a guide rail, crossed the road and went into a ditch. Although the front seat passengers were not seriously injured, the one seated at the back died. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the pathologist who conducted the autopsy concluded the cause of death was Aspiration gastric contents due to Concussion. A jury found the defendant guilty on all four counts. His subsequent sentence included a prison term, a fine and restitution for vehicular manslaughter, one year in jail on each of the driving while intoxicated counts, and a fine for failure to keep right. All the prison terms were concurrent.

Records revealed that the defendant argues that his conviction of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree was not supported by legal sufficient evidence. When analyzing legal sufficiency, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether there is a valid line of reasoning for a rational jury to have found beyond a reasonable doubt each of the essential elements of the crime. Vehicular manslaughter in the second degree is comprised of criminally negligent homicide in which the death is caused by an operator who is driving while intoxicated. The defendant contends that the evidence failed to establish criminal negligence and failed to show that his conduct caused the victim's death.

Criminally negligent homicide involves a failure to perceive a risk of death, and some serious blameworthiness in the conduct that caused it. The risk involved must have been substantial and unjustifiable, and the failure to perceive that risk must have been a gross deviation from reasonable care. There was proof that both the defendant and the victim had been drinking substantial amounts of beer and shots of liquor throughout the evening and early morning hours.

Despite his considerable consumption of alcohol, the defendant, after helping place the victim in his car, began driving. The front seat passenger testified that following the accident, he wanted to get help for the victim, but the defendant told him not to and, instead, instructed him to assist in attempting to get the car out of the ditch. The accident occurred near a house and the occupant of the house awoken at the sound of the accident and stated that they heard the occupants trying to get the car out of the ditch for about half an hour. Several witnesses who came upon the scene more than half an hour after the accident described the defendant as appearing severely intoxicated with slurred speech and difficulty standing. The defendant acknowledged to a police officer at the hospital that he had been drinking and missed a turn because he was going too fast. He submitted to an alco-sensor test that indicated positive for alcohol, and a subsequent blood alcohol test was taken a considerable time after the accident revealed a level of .17%. The evidence adequately supports the jury's determination that the defendant's conduct constituted negligence.

The defendant contends that the victim choked on his own vomit. A Bronx Criminal Lawyer said the pathologist who performed the autopsy testified that the large hematoma on the victim's forehead revealed that he had not choked prior to the accident since such bruising would not have occurred if he is already dead. He further explained that, despite the victim's high blood alcohol level, his gag and cough reflexes would have remained responsive. However, the pathologist added that the victim sustained a concussion in the accident and a concussion made it significantly more likely that the victim was not able to cough and clear his throat from vomit. The evidence adequately established that the victim was alive when he was placed in the defendant's car and the defendant's conduct was a sufficiently direct cause of the victim's death to support the verdict.

The argument that County Court erred, after conducting a hearing, in admitting the results of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test is also unpersuasive. The defendant failed to establish an abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances that would merit modification of his sentence.

The legal team at Stephen Bilkis and Associates can represent you or a family member in facing any lawsuit. Whether you have been charged with sex crimes, a theft, or DWI, give us a call so we can provide you free advice and consultation to better understand your situation. Our offices are located all throughout the NY Metropolitan Area.

A man was arrested for DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) by a New York State trooper while on patrol in the City of Rome. The trooper observed a Chevrolet weaving within its lane and ½ car lengths into the other lane. The weather conditions were dry at that time. As the trooper proceeded westerly onto Rabbit Road he observed no violations, but after the vehicle turned left, he observed the vehicle go over into the other lane upon curves, and went over the center line once. The vehicle then proceeded where it was stopped at the direction of the officer. The testimony did not indicate at which time the defendant entered the City of Rome. Aside from the driver, there were two other occupants in the vehicle. The trooper approached the driver, identified as being the defendant, and noticed an average odor of alcohol upon his breath. The trooper asked the defendant to produce a license and registration which he did and then grabbed a cigarette from the passenger in the back seat.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the trooper asked the defendant to step out of the vehicle so that he could ask him questions. Upon stepping out of the vehicle, the defendant used the door for support. The trooper then asked the defendant where he had been drinking and he responded that he drank in a bar. The trooper also asked him how much had he drunk and the defendant replied that he drank only one and added that he had a couple of beers and shots. He was asked where he was coming from and replied that he went to a funeral before going to a friend’s place.

The defendant's license identified him. The trooper then asked if he would perform certain field sobriety tests to which the defendant agreed. The trooper conducted a horizontal gaze nystagmus test and stated his background and experience in conducting such tests. A proper foundation was laid for conducting the test for field sobriety purposes. A walk and turn test was conducted but the defendant lost his balance twice by using his arms, did not walk heel-to-toe, made a wrong turn, and walked off the line. The defendant failed the one-leg-stand test by putting his leg down, and a sufficient foundation was established primarily through the cross-examination. On the finger-to-nose test the defendant missed his nose once. An alcohol sensor test was conducted to determine any consumption of alcohol and it was positive for such.

The trooper arrived at an opinion that the defendant was in an intoxicated condition based upon his observations and placed him under arrest for driving while intoxicated. The defendant was advised of his rights and also as to the results of a refusal of the chemical test. The defendant indicated that he did understand his rights but no waiver of his right to counsel was established and the defendant did not agree to answer any questions. The defendant did consent to the conducting of a chemical test. The statements at the scene at the defendant's own vehicle were knowingly and voluntarily made and were not the product of custodial interrogation.

The initial stopping of the defendant's vehicle by the officer was a limited seizure subject to constitutional limitation. A stopping of a vehicle for a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law would constitute a reasonable suspicion for the stop, a valid exercise of the police power and police conduct which may be characterized as reasonable when balanced against an individual's interest in being free from governmental interference.

An NY Criminal Lawyer said that the offense committed in a private vehicle during a trip thereof extending through more than one county may be prosecuted in any county through which such vehicle passed in the course of such trip. Furthermore, the Criminal Procedure Law makes the provision applicable to geographical jurisdiction between towns and cities. Accordingly, even though the underlying traffic infraction occurred in one city, the entire matter would be under the jurisdiction of another city.

The State may stop a vehicle and question its occupants for a legitimate reason. The stopping of the defendant's vehicle was non-arbitrary and nondiscriminatory, since the officer observed the defendant operate his vehicle in violation of a provision of the Vehicle and Traffic Law pertaining to operation upon the right hand side of the highway. After stopping the vehicle, hearing the defendant admit that he had been drinking and detecting an odor of alcohol, the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe that the defendant was driving while under the influence of alcohol sufficient to request him to submit to field sobriety tests and the gaze nystagmus test.

The Alco-Sensor testimony was clearly not admissible to show intoxication. It is well settled that there must be a sufficient showing of reliability of the test results before scientific evidence may be introduced. Scientific evidence will only be admitted at trial if the procedure and results are generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community.

Likewise, a sufficient foundation was established as to the walk and turn test, the one-leg stand test, and the finger-to-nose test to use them for probable cause for the arrest, and also to be admissible at the time of trial for the jury's consideration together with other factors. Thus, the law requires that whenever the court intends to offer evidence of the defendant's statements to a public officer or testimony of observations of the defendant, they must serve notice of such evidence on the defendant within 15 days of arraignment and before trial. However, there are two exceptions to these requirements; the 15-day time provision may be waived for good cause and the notice may be excused if the defendant has in fact moved for suppression.

Clearly, a defendant cannot challenge what he does not know. Thus, the law requires that the notice specify the evidence intended to be offered. The notice served informed the defendant that the court intended to offer oral and written statements and specified the evidence as the law commands. Full copies of the statements need not be supplied but they must be described sufficiently so that the defendant can intelligently identify them.

Even if the court had found there to be inadequate notice, most of the statements were admissible against the defendant because he moved to suppress his statements and those statements were identified at the hearing addressing voluntariness.

Records revealed that the defendant was not in custody at the time he made the initial statements to the officer since the court finds at such a time a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would have felt free to leave the presence of the police officer. Since the defendant was not in custody, it was not necessary for the officer at that time to advise the defendant regarding his rights.

The testimony of the officers as to their observations of the defendant and as to the trooper’s opinion that he was in an intoxicated condition provided reasonable belief on the part of the trooper that the defendant had committed the crime of driving while intoxicated or at least the traffic infraction of operating while impaired or the crime of operating a motor vehicle while having ten one-hundredths or more by weight of alcohol in the blood. The opinion of the officer was therefore sufficient to constitute probable cause for the arrest of the defendant and that the chemical test of the defendant's blood by analysis of his breath was not the product of an illegal detention.

Accordingly, the defendant's motion to suppress in all respects is denied.

Lack of information may result in a wrongful detention. If you find yourself arrested for sex crimes, a theft crime or drug crime, it is important that you know your rights. Stephen Bilkis & Associates can provide you free consultations and help you find the right approach to get you out of your wrong situations.

A motion was filed by the defendant to declare the evidence presented by the police officer as inadmissible. The court denied the motion since the police officer had reasonable reason when he approached the defendant’s vehicle, according to a New York DWI Lawyer.

According to the officer, he saw the vehicle of the defendant parked along the crosswalk and approached it. The officer noted that the vehicle had people asleep inside. The officer woke the occupants of the car and asked for identification. He noted that the driver showed signs of intoxication such as glassy eyes and slurred speech. The officer asked the driver to take the sobriety test.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the officer in this case had probable cause to arrest the defendant if he was found to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. According to the analysis of the court, the questions of the police officer were not interrogative in nature. Since this was the case, Miranda warnings are not required. During the arraignment of the defendant, he was charged with operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or DWI.

The court is tasked to review the procedural background of the case. The defendant was arrested for driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic drinks. The charges were arraigned on the same date. The following year, the court had scheduled a suppression hearing. The purpose of the said hearing was to determine if there was probable cause regarding the arrest of the defendant at the scene. The court will also have to decide whether the defendant’s statements in the IDTU room should be declared inadmissible since there were no Miranda warnings issued to the defendant.

During the suppression hearing, the prosecution called on 2 witnesses who were also police officers. The prosecution has the initial burden of proof to establish probable cause regarding the arrest of the defendant and the behaviour of the police. If the prosecution will establish the needed proof, the burden will now shift to the defendant in proving the allegations made regarding illegal police conduct.

A Nassau County DWI Lawyer said that the prosecution will have to prove that the behaviour of the police towards the defendant was legal, therefore justifying the arrest of the defendant. According to the law, a police officer is allowed to approach anyone and inquire about basic information in a non-threatening manner. This may be questions about a person’s name, address and destination. In legal terms, this line of questioning is known as a request for information.

The next approach involves an officer who detects a crime is about to be committed or is involved in a criminal activity. The officer may stop and detain that individual to prevent the crime from happening. Police officers have the authority under the law to arrest anyone when have probable cause to believe that the same individual will commit a crime. In the DWI case of the defendant, the police officer had established probable cause before making the arrest.
The court has also review vehicle and traffic laws to aid in the judgment of the case. The law states that it is forbidden for anyone to park along the lines of a crosswalk. In relation to the case, the police officer had a valid reason for approaching the defendant’s vehicle since it was parked on the crosswalk.

According to the testimony of the officer, he was also concerned for the people inside the car since the area was known for high incidence of crimes. He wanted to make sure that they were safe that’s why he approached the vehicle. When the officer was close to the car, he also observed that the driver was also asleep along with the other passengers.

The court has ruled that the officer had probable cause in arresting the defendant since he was found to be intoxicated. The results of the sobriety test also confirmed that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol while driving.

A DWI case is not an easy thing to deal with. Stop worrying and hire legal counsel to represent you in your trial. Our legal counsel is highly skilled when DWI cases are involved. Contact the offices of Stephen Bilkis & Associates for a personal consultation and assistance.

It is common to find with any sex crimes that the offender appeals to the court of lessening the risk level category that they were assigned to in going through the treatment program for their benefit. This case of Allan Barnes, the offender,who takes issue to his being rated as a level three offender. It was clear that he never denied the physical injury he has done to his victim like scars and stitches on the victim’s lip and legs. Not to mention the memory problems she has suffered from due to the head injuries Allan inflicted too.

It was just a bit weird how he never denies this but keeps on telling the court that all these may have just been hearsay for the absence of convincing proof. It is more uncomfortable to unravel that despite his challenge on the judgment, he did not present any other version of the facts, at least his very own. A New York Criminal Lawyer said such proceedings are suggested by the court for the protection of the rest of the citizens of the community.

It is likely that a sex crime offender may reoffend again. The court does not deprive the offender to present any evidence that would not limit him in fighting for his own rights and for the greater interest of his liberty. When basing on the criminal background of the criminal, he has been an offender since his younger days charged with a burglary case. In Georgia, he was also once convicted of a drug possession way back in the early 80s. It was also interesting according to a New York child pornography lawyer who also studied this appeal that he was also once involved in a case for cruelty to animals.

It was discovered that the rape case was made after his release from his Georgia custody. The court basing it on these instances perceives that he is most likely to become a reoffender especially with having to commit a rape crime even after being released out of prison for another case. In Georgia, he committed possession of drugs while his rape crime was not associated with any substance abuse.

Another New York sex with minor defense lawyer also found out that Barne’s contention was based on his argument that he has been abstinent for quite a long time new. But this was just further dismissed with the lack of proper proof of the abstinence he was talking about. This should have been proved with proper and formal supervision from the right authorities. In the end, it was clear to everyone that there was enough evidence to show he deserved the level three ranking for sex crime offenders.

Sex crimes are handled best by the expert Bronx Criminal Lawyer, especially the ones who work for the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates. With the help of our reliable legal team, you will not just be able to win your own fight but also help the society be free of these crime offenders which can put a lot of threat to the lives of women and children, most especially.

When you come in, we will provide you with vaulable legal guidance and a free consultation. We have offices located throughout New York City, including locations in Manhattan, Staten Island, Queens, the Bronx, and Brooklyn. We also have offices location in Suffolk County and Nassau County on Long Island, as well as Westchester County. Call us today to schedule your free consultation at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

Sex crimes cases are the crimes that many wish would really go down in numbers these days. This is because majority of the victims of these cases are the women and the minors. This particular case is about Webster L. Chapman who was convicted of sex offenses that deal with a minor. The incidents happened last 2006 in the months of March and February. The victim involved was the cousin of the defendant who was 17 years old then. The rest of the convictions included vandalism acts in the home of Joan Osbourne who used to be the mother in law of Webster. It happened during the time when his former wife and three kids were still residing there.

According to the New York Criminal Lawyer who studied the case, there are no solid evidence presented for the convictions of rape he was accused of. The testimony of the victim did not straightly say that there were physical force dealt on her for it all started when she was just lying in bed and he started touching her in the most sensitive parts of her body. At first, the victim said that it was somehow consensual. But when the time came that she wanted to stop already, he forced himself on her still.

The victim also said to another NYC Criminal Lawyer who was part of the team that she has attempted to leave the house for a lot of times already but still returned on her own liking. She said that the accused can be way too loud and mean especially when it is under the influence of alcohol. There were also threats coming from Chapman on several occasions when she would refuse to have sex with her. If the court would just base its judgment from these testimonies, then it truly is not sufficient to win the case against the accused.

The victim also told a New York sex with minor defense lawyer that when she became drunk at one point, she ended up being in the room of Chapman where she first got into consensual sex again. But things changed when Chapman tried inserting a sex to in her most private part which she did not allow but still was forced on her. This could have been a solid testimony already but since the victim was still able to communicate despite her claim of being intoxicated was too weak for the case.

He also had threatened his ex-wife by cursing her and almost slitting her throat. It took one witness to attest all of these facts that he verbally abuses his wife. His roommate, Donald Palmer, also testified against him that he once told him of his plans to retaliate to his ex wife by spraying paint on the house of his mother in law, even if his own children are there. In the end, he was still found guilty of about 11 counts of the indictment.

You need not feel alone or scared if you happen to be a victim of a rape crimes. You can be sure to find a reliable lawyer fro the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates. The advantage of getting a lawyer can be truly helpful not just in helping you win your case but also add to your learning of how you would defend your rights as a human being. You will feel assured with the assistance of such expert lawyers.

Several police officers were charged with various crimes arising out of their conduct in connection with their search for a lost police radio. According to a New York Drug Crime Lawyer, the records of the case, the police officers went to two apartments to pursue a lead regarding the radio. The radio had been lost during an arrest related to a drug crime in the area several days earlier. The records said the police officers pushed their way into two apartments, ransacking both, and unlawfully detained the individuals encountered within the apartments. In searching the second apartment, the police officers discovered vials of crack coccaine and threatened the occupants therein that they would be charged with coccaine possession if the radio were not promptly returned. The police officers allegedly told the apartment occupants that they would "forget" about the drugs if the radio was returned. Administrative proceedings were then commenced against the police officers by conducting hearings.

Following a jury trial, each police officer was found guilty of unlawful imprisonment, coercion, criminal trespass, and official misconduct. Two of the officers were also convicted of falsifying business records. Prior to sentencing, the police officers moved to set aside the verdict alleging improper use of their statements in connection with the indictment and trial.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that among the numerous issues raised on appeal, the police officers challenged the sufficiency of the trial evidence, the cour'ts charge on unlayful imprisonment, alleged inconsistencies in jury verdict and the court's restriction on cross-examination of certain witnesses. Each of the police officers gave similar statements essentially denying any wrongdoing. The policemen testified in court that they saw one of the occupants of the apartment in the alley and he dropped the cocaine when he saw the police officers. One of the policemen said he has arrested the same person for marijuana possession prior to the incident.

The court found that the evidence was more than sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict of guilt, that all the elements of the crimes charged were established and that the guilty verdicts as to certain counts and not guilty verdicts as to others are not inconsistent with one another. While the police officers continue to claim that, at worst, their conduct constituted no more than an impermissible search for which there is no criminal liability, and that to uphold the guilty verdicts would be to seriously "chill the ability and good faith efforts of law enforcement to protect the public, the evidence before the jury amply demonstrated that defendants far exceeded the bounds of permissible police conduct and that they committed the crimes of which they were found guilty.

A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said that the court noted that an indictment is not fatlly tainted merely because someone involved in the criminal prosecution may have been exposed to a portion or all of the police officers' immunized statement, although clearly precautions should be taken -- and stringently observed -- to prevent such occurrence.

Drug addiction is a rampant problem in society and affects everyone. Being involved in a lawsuit arising from this crime is difficult. There are attorneys will stand by you and help see you through your case. These attorneys can argue your side and make sure that you and your loved ones are compensated.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates with its Queens Drug Possession Lawyers, has offices throughout the New York Metropolitan area. Our attorneys can provide you with advice to guide you through your difficult situations. Without our attorneys, you may lose your rights which may cost you a significant amount of money.

The defendant in this case is charged with a DWI and violation of vehicle and traffic laws. A hearing was ordered by the court to determine if the blood test obtained from the defendant had led to the violation of vehicle and traffic laws.

The police officer who arrested the defendant was named the witness in the hearing. There were no witnesses for the side of the defendant. The court heard the testimony of the witness and examined the evidence presented before it.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, after the witness had testified, the court has found the witness to be credible since the witness is a veteran police officer. On the day of the arrest, the officer was on his usual patrol when he received a report concerning a vehicle accident. He arrived at the scene and found the two cars involved in the accident. He noted that one car had attained damages on its rear end. The other car had damages at the front. The police officer chose to approach the car with the front damage. The driver of the vehicle was the defendant in this case.

A Staten Island Criminal Lawyer said the officer proceeded to ask the condition of the defendant and inquired about the cause of the accident. According to the defendant, he was driving his car along the road when he hit another car. The police officer noted during that time that the defendant had glassy and bloodshot eyes. The defendant also had slurred speech when he spoke. The officer also noticed that a hint of alcohol seemed to come from the vehicle.
It was during this time that the officer had asked the defendant if he had drank recently. The defendant admitted that he did take alcoholic drinks. When the police officer asked the defendant to step out of the vehicle, the officer noticed that defendant had difficulty maintaining his balance. The officer concluded that the defendant was driving while intoxicated. He arrested the defendant and had him tested at a medical center.

According to his statement, the police officer called the highway patrol to request for the blood kit to be taken to the defendant. He made the call while they were on their way to the hospital. The blood kit was needed to take a sample of the defendant’s blood. A blood sample was needed to detect the presence of alcohol in the bloodstream. An emergency room nurse was requested by the police to take a blood sample from the defendant. The sample was sealed and placed inside the box of the blood kit.

Based on witness testimony and the evidence presented in this case, the court has determined that there were sufficient grounds in which the police officer had acted on the defendant. The court noted that the officer responded to a radio report regarding the accident. It was the police officer’s duty to respond to a road accident and provide assistance if needed. It was also his job to assess the situation including observing the behaviour of the vehicle driver. Since it was the defendant’s car that had the front damage, it was clear that the defendant had caused the accident. The defendant himself admitted to the officer that he had been drinking. This explains the accident since he was driving while intoxicated.

It was also clear to the court that the defendant showed the usual signs of intoxication. This is direct evidence that the defendant had been drinking. Other signs include the difficulty in maintain body coordination and the smell of alcohol on his car. The officer had established probable cause in light of the evidence presented.

The statements given by the defendant including his admission that he was drinking were given in his own free will. Therefore, the court has decided to deny the motion filed by the defendant to suppress the statements. However, the defendant’s motion to suppress the blood sample results was granted due to the unclear identity of the individual who drew the blood sample.

A DWI case can be tough to deal with. You don’t have to think anymore when you hire the legal services of legal counsel. Whether you have been charged with sex crimes, theft or a DWI, ask for a free consultation at the offices of Stephen Bilkis & Associates.

A New York DWI Attorney will understand what needs to be done to defend you in court. With the assistance of Stephen Bilkis & Associates, you can never go wrong.

A man was arrested in November 14, 2007 for driving while intoxicated and his license was revoked. As part of his conviction, his driver’s license was revoked for six months. But because this conviction was the man’s first, he was able to join a rehabilitation program offered by the Department of Motor Vehicles.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that as part of the rehabilitation program, the man was issued a conditional license. This license imposed restrictions on him: he can only drive to and from work; he can only drive to the rehabilitation program and its related activities; he can only drive to and from school; and he can only drive between 12:00 noon and 3:00 p.m. on Saturdays.

On February 10, 2008, the man was arrested once more for driving while intoxicated. He was arrested at 1:04 p.m. He was with his girlfriend and upon his arrest he told the arresting police officer that he and his girlfriend came from a bar. He was charged for driving while intoxicated and other offenses. Under the indictment, he was charged with aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree.

During the DWI trial, the man asked that the charge of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree be dismissed. He claims that he was not unlicensed at the time of his second arrest. He did have a license, albeit a conditional one. He argued that he should only be charged with unauthorized operation of a motor vehicle, a misdemeanor that carries with it a penalty of $500 and 15 days’ imprisonment.

A Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer said the People vigorously opposed the motion arguing that the penalty of the charge of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree is higher and is a more suitable punishment for the man. Because when he went to drive on a public highway, he knew full well that his license had already been revoked. This crime carries with it a higher penalty of 30 days’ imprisonment. After all, he was already convicted of driving while intoxicated and his license was revoked, and then, after he was given a conditional license, he again went and drove his vehicle on the public highway in violation of the conditional license which has also been revoked for driving while intoxicated for the second time. Driving while intoxicated and without a license carries with it a stiff penalty of 180 days’ imprisonment. Driving without a license after the license was revoked for driving while intoxicated carries with it a much higher penalty of up to four years. The People argue that the man’s callous violation of the law cannot be rewarded with a light penalty. Doing so will disregard the State’s policy to curb drunk driving.

The Supreme Court decided to dismiss the graver charge against the defendant of driving with a revoked license and instead found him guilty of the lesser misdemeanor of driving in violation of the conditions of his license.

The Supreme Court decided that the man’s license was revoked after his first conviction for driving while intoxicated but he was issued a new conditional license. His second arrest for driving at a time and for a purpose that is not allowed under the provisions of his conditional license is a mere violation of the terms of his conditional license.

This interpretation of the statute is the most plausible reading of the law as the legislature has amended it. The most recent amendment of the law involved the raising of the fine from $100 to $500 but the prison term of 15 days remained intact.

A conviction for driving while intoxicated carries with it not only a prison term, it also carries with it subsidiary penalties such as a fine and revocation of the convict’s driver’s license.

Conviction for driving while intoxicated is a serious offense that will remain in your permanent record. Whether you have been charged with a DWI, sex crimes or a theft charge, it is important to ensure that your rights are protected. At Stephen Bilkis and Associates, well-trained and capable attorneys are ready to assist in your defense. They will present your case and argue it for you.

The defendant was charged with DWI including various traffic violations. A suppression hearing was scheduled to determine if the statements admitted for evidence were allegedly given by the defendant. The hearing will also determine if the breath test results of the defendant will be placed under suppression.

The only witness in the hearing was the police officer who arrested the defendant for driving while intoxicated. The court was tasked to make a decision regarding the motion to suppress by reviewing the facts and the precedents of the case.

According to a New York Crirminal Lawyer, the police officer who arrested the defendant is an experienced female officer who already had several DWI arrests under her belt. On the day of the arrest, the female officer was on her usual patrol when she pulled over the defendant’s car. When the officer approached the car, she asked to see the license and registration. While the defendant produced the needed documents, the officer asked the defendant if he knew why she asked him to pull over. The defendant remarked that he was driving like an asshole.

The police officer asked where the defendant came from and replied that he was at a friend’s house. When the officer had asked if the defendant had been drinking, the defendant gave an affirmative response. During such time, the officer noted that the defendant showed the usual signs of intoxication such as bloodshot and glassy eyes and slurred speech.

An NYC Criminal Lawyer said that the officer judged that the defendant was guilty of DWI and arrested him. The defendant was brought to the precinct. At the precinct, the defendant refused to take the chemical test and breath test. The officer gave the Miranda warnings to which the defendant acknowledged that he understood his rights. When asked if the defendant wanted to talk to his lawyer, he said yes. When asked if he wanted to continue talking to the officer without his lawyer present, he also affirmed. The officer moved on to asked him more questions. In the end, the defendant consented to taking a breath test. The first attempt gave an insufficient sample. By the second attempt, the defendant was positive with alcohol in his body.

According to the provisions of the law, a defendant who has been temporarily detained because he was pulled over is not considered detained for the purposes of Miranda warnings. When a defendant is submitted under a routine stop on the road, the questioning of the police officer should be treated as only investigatory in nature.

In the suppression hearing, the probable cause for the traffic stop and the arrest should be the legal issue being discussed. The police officer’s temporary stop of the defendant was a legal procedure and did not pose an issue of custody. It can be recalled from the statement of the officer that she did not read the Miranda warnings while she was talking to the defendant on the road. The statements of the defendant when he was pulled over were made out of his own free will. He was not forced by the police officer to say anything he didn’t want to say. The court has determined that the statements of the defendant were voluntary and should be allowed as evidence against him.

In the issue regarding the evidence acquired from the tests administered in the precinct, it appears that the defendant’s right to counsel had been violated. According to the law, when the defendant in custody has expressed his intention to have a lawyer present, no further questions should be asked by the investigating officers.

Despite the defendant’s affirmative response when asked if he was comfortable answering more questions from the officer, this does not mean that he is waiving his rights to counsel. The evidence that would prove his guilt was taken because his rights had been violated. Therefore, the court has ruled that such evidence is not admissible in court since it was obtained illegally.

A DWI case should not stop you from going about your normal routine. Get the help of a New York DWI Lawyer and expect top legal services at your disposal. Whether you have been charged with sex crimes, a DWI or theft crime, call the offices of Stephen Bilkis & Associates for more inquiries.

Sex crime violators are very rampant these days according to a New York Criminal Lawyer who once gathered surveys and studies about it. The factors that led to this are way too many to mention but what is important is that there are solutions and programs provided to help even the offenders to pay for what they have done or be treated if it was found out to be some kind of mental sickness. This is the same as the case here of Gonzalo Gonzales. He was fighting for his ability to complete the specific sex offender program set for him.

Based on the facts presented, it was last April 24, 2006 when the counselors from the correction program asked him to sign a form stating that he refused to take the said treatment which means failure of acknowledging his responsibility for the crime he was accused of. According to Gonzalez, he did not sign it for he never denied that responsibility for what he has done. He was very certain of himself that he did comply with the program.

The counselor Groge Pundy is responsible for screening and interviewing the sex offender program candidates. According to him who was further interviewed by Queens Criminal Lawyer, Gonzales did not take the program while still being in New York and under the custody of the state’s correctional services. One of the main requirements for the program is that the offender must be responsible to pay what’s due for the crimes he has done. If in the screening process alone, the responsibility is denied, then this just means refusal to enter the program as well.

Mr. Pundt interviewed Gonzales last April 24, 2006 about his willingness for the program. With the many offenders that Pundt interviews everyday, it is understandable why it was so hard to recall already. But the proof of the results of the interview concludes it all – that the offender denies responsibility for his crimes which are rape and sodomy. The court believes that this part of the screening process if important so that they can be sure the inmate would be receptive to all the therapy that he will go through.

It has no other purpose but to benefit well the inmate involved. And the court in this matter believed in the documents presented by Mr. Pundt. There may have been good time allowance already given to Gonzales but still he has denied such credits when he could have responded and cooperated with the orders of the court. Hence, in the end, the court found his contentions to be without sense after thorough review of what the offender is trying to prove. It decided for his petition to just be simply dismissed.

Every lawyer from the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates is capable of helping you out with any of these very sensitive cases. If you want your sex crimes cases to be successful in court, then do not risk in letting just about anyone to handle your case.

In a lot of sex crimes these days, an expert New York Criminal Lawyer says that there are many accused who suffer from a certain kind of mental abnormalities. Such case lets the court decide that such accused undergo certain treatment like the SORA. But in this case, the alleged named as Elias McFarland. However, in this case he keeps on appealing that such program is unconstitutional and that he would fight for his right.

The court did not agree that the decision for the SORA is unconstitutional. It even scored him as a sex offender who is of high risk and falls as level 3 offender. But the defendant still continue to disagree and never stopped submitting written submissions to serve as additional support to what he is trying to prove. He contends here is no valid reason at all to have his level 3 designation to be lowered for he was certainly considered as a high risk offender which means he is of great harm to the society.

At one point, a New York Criminal Lawyer said it was questioned why the Attorney General’s office did not show up during the hearing. But as analyzed by a New York sex abuse lawyer who is well experienced, such decline to appear just meant that they are confident already of the way they assess the risk levels of such offenders. It just means that there is no need for them to even show up for all the proposition is already well settled. All the facts were all outlined well and complete sets of evidence were are presented without any chance of being argued by others.

According to additional data, Elias McFarland is 76 years old and he was trying to prove that he is too old to still go through such punishments. But with the background of his heinous crimes, the court did not allow such to happen for him not to go through proper treatment for he is of high risk already to the society. There was even one criminal background of Elias which involved him striking a very old woman who is 86 years old. And she was even sexually abused by Elias at such an elderly age.

Such cases are important to help the citizens of New York to stay protected from such sex crimes and also help the offenders themselves to still have a chance to be treated and change their lives for the better. The risk assessment of sex offenders is very important and decided on properly and formally by the Court with the help of medical and psychology experts who are capable of analyzing what happens in the mental and other aspects of such offenders and why they are forced to do such heinous crimes to others who are innocent and helpless like minors and women in majority.

If you want to know more about how sex offenders are assessed according to their level of risk to the society in general, then you can try visiting the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates and find a reliable lawyer who can help you be well informed with how the entire process works. Whether you have been charged with sex crimes, a drug possession crime, or a theft crime, it is important that your rights are protected at all times.

When you ask an expert New York Criminal Lawyer these days, it is common to hear that most sex offenders suffer from severe mental abnormality or disease. To help you further understand this, we take a good example of this case of John Suggs. He is a known detained sex offender who suffers gravely from being mentally abnormal. During his trial, two expert psychologists presented in court to prove and offer their opining that John truly suffers from mental abnormality. The doctors are named as Dr. Krishner and Dr. Peterson.

One of the doctors rendered a summary report that described his childhood, teenager and adult history when it comes to history of trauma and abuse. It was outlined comprehensively as they recount all the helpful things that may have happened in the past of the accused. As a child, it was discovered that he was not taken good care of by his parents. At the young age of three, he was already wandering the streets and since then has become such a great rebel in school and even in the immediate community he was in.

According to another New York Criminal Lawyer, he also once set fire to a dormitory and even was convicted of the death of his own mother at one point. He even attempted to commit suicide at the young age of 11 by thinking of drinking mercury straight from a thermometer. It was at the age of 1 when he committed his first rape case. He kidnapped a female college student by pointing a knife straight at her and raped and stole some money from her in a room. The lawyer who once studied this case believes that this is such a case of extreme mental abnormality.

All these discoveries about the life of John Suggs shocked everyone including an expert New York Sex Crimes Lawyer with minor defense lawyer who became a part of the case. It is justified in such cases that when law and psychiatry work together well, then justice filled decisions are made so that justice can be truly achieved and for the society to not feel fear within the communities they live in. Nevertheless, the accused still fought for his case and mentioned a lot of alibis that did not work out well for the court to believe and give him a chance for.

He said he is very sick with diabetes and that he is not at all a serial rapist as how he was seen during the proceeding. When it comes to his alleged Anti-Social Personality Disorder, John said that he is not a rebel at all but just has a weird personality but just set in a different fashion or style. Even if Suggs appeared to be intelligent and even highly articulate in court, the crimes he has done will not be free from being punished according to the rightful laws of New York when it comes to dealing with sex crimes.

In New York, you can surely find lots of expert New York Drug Possession Lawyer who can help you in winning such cases and understanding its details. Getting involved in such cases is not just about putting someone down but to reveal the truth that would bring forth justice to everyone and the entire society. You can check out the legal office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates where you can be sure to find a skilled lawyer who can help you all throughout the proceeding and stand by your side to fight for your rights.

According to a New York DWI Lawyer, a Lounge bar petitioned for the dismissal of charges against them by the State Liquor Authority after they were found guilty of selling alcoholic beverages to a person under the age of 21 years. The bar's liquor license was suspended for 15 days and was imposed a penalty. The person to whom the bar allegedly sold the alcohol was killed in a car accident shortly after driving while intoxicated from the Lounge bar.

A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said that the record establishes that the Lounge was a topless go-go bar whose entertainment fee was included in the additional cost of each customer's first drink. The Lounge bar's witnesses testified that its doorman admitted the minor after he displayed false identification. However, the police officer who subsequently inventoried his personal effects found a variety of identification documents, but no false ones. Moreover, his two friends testified that the identification was not checked at the door, but that he was admitted while they were excluded based on their respective physical appearances.

A New York DWI Lawyer has not disputed that the minor spent about an hour inside the bar. During that period, when his two friends testified that they approached the door to the Lounge bar and observed him inside drinking from a bottle of beer, the Lounge bar witnesses claimed that he was not served any alcohol. In addition, all of the witnesses agreed that at some point he endeavored to bribe the doorman to admit his two underage friends. According to his friends, while negotiating with the doorman, he was visibly drunk and was holding a bottle of Budweiser beer in his hand. The bribery attempt was reported to the bar manager, who testified noticing the minor who was then intoxicated and signaled the barmaid to stop serving the minor alcoholic beverages. No Lounge bar employee made any effort to drive him out.

At the hearing, the minor person’s two friends, also under the age of 21 at the time of the incident, testified that prior to going to the Lounge bar, they were all drinking in another establishment where, without having their identification checked, they were served with beers. The threesome then drove to the Lounge bar and only the deceased minor, who already appeared intoxicated, was admitted. The two friends, who remained outside, tried to see him whenever the front door opened and, at some point, saw him drinking from what appeared to be a bottle of beer. The two friends could not see the bar from outside the front door and they did not see how he obtained the beer. When he went out of the Lounger bar and returned to the car, he was pretty drunk and was holding a bottle of beer which he threw out the window before the car accident.

After the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge held that the charge had not been sustained by evidence. However, the finding was reversed by the Sate Liquor Authority, which held that the evidence introduced at the hearing sustained the charge. The State Liquor Authority issued the order which suspended the petitioner's liquor license for 15 days and imposed a $1,000 penalty.
The standard to be applied is whether the illegal conduct was open, observable and of such nature that its postponement could, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, have been prevented. According to the credible testimony, the minor person was inside the bar for an hour drinking beer while he was visibly intoxicated, and gave the club's employees reason to question his majority when he unabashedly attempted to bribe the doorman to admit his juvenile companions.

Critical witnesses could have established how the minor obtained the illegal beverage was available but chose not to testify. His friends, who were never admitted to the Lounge bar, had no opportunity to observe him purchasing his beer. Under the unusual circumstances, as in many a criminal conviction, the allegation depends necessarily upon circumstantial evidence which must not be unsound.

Legal disputes over intoxicated drivers often hurt businesses and may cause great amount of money. If you find your company in need of sound advice, feel free to call and consult with legal counsel from Stephen Bilkis and Associates. Our offices are located all throughout the NY Metropolitan Area.

Anne-Marie P., a juvenile, was charged with various sex crimes that included one count of first degree sodomy, two counts of first degree sexual abuse, two counts of third degree sexual abuse and one count of sexual misconduct. These crimes were allegedly committed against Megan H., who was six years old at the time she testified. The court was satisfied in her ability to offer sworn testimony. The case went to trial in Family Court.

Megan testified that the juvenile defendant pulled down her pants and penetrated her vagina using her fingers. She also stated that the defendant put her mouth on her breasts and touched her behind. According to the victim, she attempted to escape the room where the inappropriate sexual contact took place. She also said she did not give Anne-Marie P. permission to do these things.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, Megan also testified that she had seen the defendant place her mouth on her brothers’ penises. Cross-examination revealed that Megan had told her mother what happened as well as the detective who took her statement. Reportedly, she could not remember the date or time the inappropriate sex acts took place. She also said that incidents similar to the ones she described had never happened to her friends and she had never seen anything so portrayed on television.

The girl’s mother, Cathy H. testified that Megan told her about the incidents. Reportedly, the defendant had been babysitting the victim and her brothers on the night of August 5, 1985. Cathy H. asked the defendant about the events Megan described but the juvenile denied the allegations. When Megan’s father came home from a business trip on August 8, 1985, the couple contacted police about the incident.

Anne-Marie P. testified that she did babysit for Megan and her brothers on the date in question. She denied any of the claims regarding sexual abuse or inappropriate sexual touching involving the minor children. Her attorney then raised the issue of whether Family Court was the proper venue for her case.

According to her testimony, Megan H. lived in Nassau County, which is where the events occurred. The defendant also acknowledged that she was babysitting the children in their home, which had a Nassau County address. As such, the court agreed that there should be no dispute over the jurisdiction. Furthermore, it was also acknowledged that the defendant testified to being 14 years of age, which also supports the case being heard in Family Court.

A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said that Anne-Marie’s representatives also argued that there was no circumstantial evidence to support a conviction. Under Penal Law 130.16, corroboration was not a requirement in order to prove consent in sex offense cases involving underage children.

The court found that the victim’s testimony was credible and consistent and by itself, established proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged sex abuse had occurred. Following this conclusion, the court upheld the charge of first degree sexual abuse but dismissed the other counts based on a lack of evidence. The court referred the case to the Nassau County Probation Department for a complete investigation, including a psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the juvenile defendant.

As evidenced by this case, sex crimes do not always involve an adult committing a sexual offense against a minor child. In some cases, another child may be the perpetrator of lewd acts or sexual abuse. Fortunately, the juvenile’s parents hired an experienced criminal defense lawyer to protect her rights.

If you or your child has been charged with sexual abuse of a minor, sodomy, another crime involving sex acts with a child, or endangering the welfare of a child or related offense, you also need to speak with a New York criminal defense attorney right away. The law firm of Stephen Bilkis and Associates specializes in defending the rights of individuals who’ve been charged with a serious sex offense. Call 1-800-NY-NY-LAW today or stop by one of our New York area offices to discuss your case. Don’t hesitate to get the legal help you need to defend yourself against a sex offense charge.

Edgar Bagarozy was convicted of sex crimes that included two counts of second degree sodomy for four instances of improper sexual contact with three young boys. Mr. Bagarozy was sentenced to two consecutive terms of 3 ½ to 7 years. Each victim testified that he had allowed Mr. Bagarozy to engage in oral sodomy in exchange for a trip to the movies or an amusement park.

Charges involving one of the victims, identified as Dennis M., were dismissed after the boy recanted. He claimed that he had falsely accused Mr. Bagarozy after being intimidated by the police. In the case of the two other victims, Angel J. and Manny O., Mr. Bagarozy was convicted of the sodomy charges.

The defendant opted not to testify at trial, despite the fact that the prosecution focused on his sexual preference and submitted a large volume of evidence attesting to his previous sexual acts involving young boys. Specifically, evidence was introduced regarding Mr. Bagarozy’s affiliation with NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) as proof of his intent to commit sodomy. Following his conviction, Mr. Bagarozy’s criminal defense lawyer filed an appeal with the Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department.

A New York Criminal Lawyer explained that the court examined the testimony presented at trial in making their determination. According to trial records, sometime in February 1984, 13-year-old Manny O. was in Mr. Bagarozy’s apartment watching movies. As they watched television, Mr. Bagarozy began playing with the boy’s hair. He then promised Manny he would take him to Action Park if he would allow him to perform oral sodomy on him. In November 1984, Manny was in Mr. Bagarozy’s apartment with another boy named Luis. Manny consented to the oral sodomy and Mr. Bagarozy took him and the other boy to the movies.

In January 1985, 11-year-old Angel J. went with Luis and another boy named Tony to Mr. Bagarozy’s apartment. Tony and Luis went into the bedroom. Angel went to the bedroom later on where he saw both boys with their pants down. Mr. Bagarozy pulled Angel’s pants down, put him on the bed and orally sodomized him. Angel then left the bedroom alone.

In January 1987, Mr. Bagarozy placed a phone call to Manny from Rikers Island where he was being held in custody after being arrested. He stated to Manny that he should not say anything to police about what happened in the apartment. He telephoned Manny again shortly before the trial began and advised him not to come to New York.

A Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer said that Tony and Luis, who were both 14, testified on Mr. Bagarozy’s behalf. Tony denied any sexual contact and also denied witnessing any sexual acts involving Angel. Luis testified that Mr. Bagarozy never touched him inappropriately and that no sexual contact, including sodomy, ever occurred.

The prosecution’s focus on Mr. Bagarozy’s sexual preference was also a focal point for the court. Prior to trial, she sought to introduce evidence regarding Mr. Bagarozy’s two prior convictions for second degree sodomy. The basis for her argument was that since both the prior crimes and the most recent sexual abuse involving minors were perpetrated against underage Hispanic boys, this established a pattern of behavior. The prosecution’s motion was denied but left the door open for her to refile later on if the prior convictions became relevant to the case at hand.

The trial court chose not to rule on a defense motion which would have excluded literature, photographs and videos taken from Mr. Bagarozy’s apartment after he was arrested, including the NAMBLA newsletters and a poem which described the performance of oral sodomy on a young boy.

In opening statements, the defense acknowledged that the evidence would show that Mr. Bagarozy was gay but that there was no proof of any improper sexual contact with a child. Furthermore, the defense argued that the police had manufactured the allegations against him based on homophobic fear.

The prosecution renewed her pre-trial application regarding evidence of Mr. Bagarozy’s prior record and personal background, based on the defense’s allegation that police had been surveilling him extensively prior to his arrest. The court again chose to deny this request. At trial, the prosecution questioned Sergeant Maginnis, the officer who had arrested Mr. Bagarozy. In her questioning, she attempted to elicit information about Mr. Bagarozy’s known background and specifically asked if he was a known pedophile. Defense moved for a mistrial but the court allowed the trial to continue and advised the jury to disregard the prosecution’s question.

The prosecutor eventually conceded that it was impossible to prove any sexual contact, sexual abuse or sodomy in the case of Dennis M. She did ask him about the erotic material found in the apartment but he denied ever seeing any of it. Defense council questioned Dennis about his involvement in a harassment lawsuit against the police. The prosecution attempted to establish a link between Dennis and another NAMBLA member but ultimately, the trial judge instructed the jury to disregard this evidence. She was, however, allowed to question Dennis M. as to whether he had any prior knowledge of Mr. Bagarozy’s sexual attraction to or involvement with young boys. At the end of her questioning, she asked the court to strike any and all testimony concerning the federal lawsuit.

Manny O. testified that he had seen NAMBLA literature at Mr. Bagarozy’s apartment on at least one occasion. The literature was then passed on to the jury for examination but stated that it was to be viewed only as indicative of his intent at the time of the alleged crimes, rather than a declaration of his beliefs.

A Detective Healy, who was working undercover inside NAMBLA, testified that he knew Mr. Bagarozy as Richard Boyer, a name that was listed as a contributor to the organization’s newsletter. The prosecutor questioned Mr. Healy as to whether he had ever seen Mr. Bagarozy at a NAMBLA meeting where sex acts had been performed. Defense again moved for a mistrial during this line of questioning.

During the cross-examination of Peter Meltzer, the publisher of the NAMBLA newsletter, the prosecution violated the court’s restrictions and asked him numerous questions outside the scope of what was allowed. The poem about oral sodomy that was found in Mr. Bagarozy’s apartment and had been printed in the NAMBLA newsletter was of particular concern.

In summation, the prosecution made an allusion to Jesus and characterized Mr. Bagarozy’s alleged crimes as an attempt to keep them from going to Heaven. The jury subsequently convicted him of the sodomy charges relating to Manny and Angel.

In reviewing the case, the appellate court pointed out that the central issue at trial was whether Mr. Bagarozy had committed sex acts with a minor, not his actual state of mind at the time. However, the prosecution’s line of questioning and the evidence she introduced focused solely on Mr. Bagarozy’s sexual preference, which was outside the scope of what the trial court agreed to allow. The court further concluded that both the prosecution and the trial judge incorrectly equivocated intent and proclivity and the introduction of the evidence relating to Mr. Bagarozy’s NAMBLA affiliation should not have been allowed. Furthermore, her references to Mr. Bagarozy being a pedophile were also improper. Inciting Biblical imagery in her summation was also considered to be an error that could not be overlooked.

Based on the prosecution’s handling of the case and on contradictory testimony presented by Manny O., the appellate court ruled that Mr. Bagarozy’s conviction for the two second degree sodomy counts should be reversed and his case remanded for a new trial.

The defendant in this case faced serious charges and without the help of his defense attorney, he may not have been able to escape an unfair prosecution. Fortunately, the prosecutor did not pursue additional charges against him, such as possession of child pornography or dissemination of obscene material to minors.

A conviction for rape, sexual abuse, child molestation or another sex crime in New York can have serious consequences, including imprisonment and registration as a sex offender. If you or a loved one has been charged with any of these crimes, you need to contact an experienced New York criminal defense attorney today.

The law firm of Stephen Bilkis and Associates specializes in defending clients who’ve been charged with sodomy and other sex offense. Call 1-800-NY-NY-LAW or visit one of our New York area office locations to discuss your case. Don’t let a conviction for a sex offense ruin your life. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates today to get the experienced legal representation you need to protect your rights.

Michael Hernandez was found guilt of six counts of first degree sodomy, one count of attempted first degree sodomy, two counts of second degree sodomy and one count of first degree sexual abuse. Following his conviction, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders recommended designating Mr. Hernandez as a risk level three sexually violent offender upon his release. Mr. Hernandez’s criminal defense lawyer requested a risk assessment hearing to determine whether he should be assigned to risk level two based on the evidence.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that according to trial records, Mr. Hernandez was convicted on sex crimes charges for committing improper sexual acts with five boys, aged 11 to 15. Apparently, Mr. Hernandez had convinced the boys to run away from home and go to a shack in the woods near Pelham Bay, where the sexual offenses occurred. At the time the sexual acts were committed, Mr. Hernandez was 19. He received a sentence of 8 1/3 to 25 years with a release date of November 7, 2011.

On October 23, 2003, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders submitted a risk assessment which recommended classifying Mr. Hernandez as a sexually violent offender based on score which was calculated by assigning a certain number of points for specific details of his crimes. Mr. Hernandez’s score totaled 165 points and was broken down accordingly: 10 points for use of force; 25 points for sexual intercourse and/or aggravated sexual abuse with the victim; 30 points for more than three victims; 20 points for a continuing act of sexual misconduct; 20 points for the victims being under age 16; 10 points for Mr. Hernandez being under age 20 at the time the crimes occurred; 30 points for a prior violent felony or misdemeanor sex crime conviction; 10 points for the prior crime occurring less than three years before the most recent acts; and 10 points for unsatisfactory conduct while incarcerated.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that after calculating his risk level, the Board created a case summary based on a review of Mr. Hernandez’s file, including information gathered during the pre-sentencing investigation, his prior criminal history and his behavior since being imprisoned. According to the case summary, Mr. Hernandez was adjudicated as a youthful offender for a weapons offense in 1986 for which he received five years probation. While on probation, he was arrested for the sex crimes for which he was convicted. Specifically, Mr. Hernandez sodomized and sexually abused the five young boys over a period of two weeks. The sexual abuse of the minors involving fondling, as well as oral and anal sodomy of at least one victim. One of the boys testified that Mr. Hernandez kept a knife in plain sight while the sex crimes occurred and threatened to kill their families if they told on him. The boys also said that Mr. Hernandez had told them he had satanic powers and could control them. In addition, Mr. Hernandez incurred approximately 20 different violations while incarcerated.

Mr. Hernandez’s criminal defense attorney argued that despite the score established by the risk assessment, his client is not a threat to the community at large and should not be branded as a sexual predator. Specifically, the defense noted that since being imprisoned, Mr. Hernandez overcame a heroin addiction and became engaged to his fiancée. The defense also cite his age as an indication of his increased maturity level. The prosecution argued that these claims have no bearing on the outcome of the risk assessment and that they are not sufficient evidence to warrant a lesser risk level. The Bronx County Supreme Court was charged with deciding the issue.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that the court first looked at the Board’s guidelines for determining what level of risk a sex offender may pose upon release and the likelihood of a repeat offense. Using the scoring system, the Board typically makes a recommendation as to whether an individual should be designated as a sexual predator, sexually violent offender or predicate sex offender. The risk level assigned to an offender determines what information can be shared with the public about his crimes and current location. The Board uses 15 separate factors in four categories to calculate an offender’s risk level. A score of 110 or higher leads to an assignment of risk level three.

In Mr. Hernandez’s case, the court was asked to determine whether he qualified as a level two risk rather than a level three. Risk level three is typically reserved for cases where the risk of a repeat offense is especially high. Offenders assigned this level will have their exact address and place of employment made available to the public.

The court examined the information used to calculate Mr. Hernandez’s score and considered the guidelines established by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders. Under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), any individual who is convicted of first degree sodomy, attempted first degree sodomy or first degree sexual abuse is considered to be a sexually violent offender. In Mr. Hernandez’s case, he was convicted of all of these crimes. Based on the crimes he was convicted of, his prior criminal history, the age of the victims, Mr. Hernandez’s age and the fact that the crimes were ongoing, the court held that the Board’s initial risk level assessment was correct. Accordingly, his classification as a risk level three sexually violent offender was upheld.

Sexual offenses are considered to be serious offenses in New York state. A conviction for a sex crime such as indecency with a minor, possession of child pornography or child sexual abuse can not only land you in prison but leave you branded as a sexual predator for the rest of your life. If you’ve been charged with sodomy, molestation or any included drug crime, you need to speak with an experienced skilled legal counsel right away
.
The law firm of Stephen Bilkis and Associates specializes in handling cases involving sex and drug crimes. Our expert team of criminal defense lawyers is committed to proving your innocence and aggressively defending your rights. Call 1-800-NY-NY-LAW or stop by one of our New York area offices to discuss your case. Don’t wait another day to get the expert legal representation you need to fight a sex crimes charge.

On December 6, 2007, Pasqual Reyes was convicted of one count each of second degree burglary and endangering the welfare of a child as well as four counts of third degree sexual abuse. At trial, the jury sent the judge a note questioning how the age of the victim impacted intent with regard to the burglary charge. The court essentially stated that it would advise the jury that the age of the victim was irrelevant. Mr. Reyes’ criminal defense attorney objected and asked the court to reread its original instruction. Defense argued that age of the victim was a factor in determining intent to commit burglary. The court reaffirmed its stance and delivered a more specific instruction to the jury. The jury found Mr. Reyes guilty of the above-mentioned charges and his defense attorney appealed to the Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, the appellate court was asked to consider whether the court should have reread the original instruction as requested by defense counsel. Defense claimed that the revised instruction the trial judge provided was incorrect and prejudicially misleading. With regard to the defense’s argument, the court held that it was appropriate for the trial judge to have delivered more specific instructions to the jury, rather than the readback of the charge that was originally requested since the jury clearly did not understand the information given to them initially.
Defense counsel also argued that the third degree sexual abuse charge did not satisfy the intent element of the burglary charge. The appellate court again reiterated that the trial judge charged the jury correctly in stating that if they believed that Mr. Reyes intentionally entered the building in order to have sexual contact with a minor then the victim’s actual age is irrelevant. The court also cited New York law, which holds that a person is responsible for the age of any individual with whom they have sexual contact, whether they know the other person’s age or the person represents their age as being different from what it actually is.

A Westchester County Criminal Lawyer explained that in New York, a person is guilty of third degree sexual abuse when he or she has sexual contact with another person without their consent. A sexual abuse victim is legally incapable of consenting if they are less than 17 years of age. A person is guilty of endangering the welfare of a child if he or she knowingly acts in a way that is likely to cause physical, mental or moral harm to someone under 17 years of age. The prosecutor established that the victim was 14 years old at the time of the alleged sexual acts and Mr. Reyes was 32 years old.

With regards to the burglary charge, under New York law someone is guilty of second degree burglary if he or she knowingly enters a building with the intent to commit a crime.

The appellate court held that the trial court was correct in charging the jury that all the prosecution had to prove was that Mr. Reyes entered the building with the intent to have sexual contact with his victim, not that the victim was under 17 or that he knew her actual age. The court likened their reasoning to that used in cases where a defendant is charged with an attempted crime, rather than the completed act. As such, the appellate panel concurred in their opinion to uphold Mr. Reyes’ conviction on all counts.

Although Mr. Reyes’ criminal defense attorney attempted to challenge the court’s ruling, he was unsuccessful in proving his claims. The issues raised by the defense on appeal were contradictory in nature to the objections originally brought at trial, which lead the appellate court to uphold the jury’s verdict.

Hiring an experienced New York criminal defense lawyer is the first step in defending your rights when you have been charged with sex crimes. If you or someone you love has been arrested for rape, sexual abuse, sodomy or other sex acts involving a minor, you shouldn’t hesitate to retain experienced legal counsel immediately. The law firm of Stephen Bilkis and Associates is available to assist criminal defendants in fighting sex crimes charges. Call 1-800-NY-NY-LAW today to speak with a member of our expert legal team or visit one of our New York area offices to discuss your case in person. Don’t face the judge and jury alone. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates today to get the help you need to protect your rights.

On September 4, 2009, Jelan Miller was convicted of one count each of first degree rape, third degree rape, attempted criminal sexual act in the first degree and attempted criminal sexual act in the third degree. Mr. Miller appealed his conviction to the New York State Supreme Court Appellate, Second Division based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

According to trial records, Mr. Miller was charged with raping a 16-year-old girl who frequently baby sat for him and his girlfriend in their home. The girl claimed that Mr. Miller raped her one evening when she stayed overnight at the residence.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that in reviewing Mr. Miller’s case, the appellate court found that his criminal defense attorney failed to prevent prejudicial evidence from being admitted at trial. Specifically, the girl’s mother testified that two of Mr. Miller’s girlfriend’s nieces were often present in the home and that their personalities and behavior changed seemingly overnight. One girl, she stated, became mean and angry while the other became very promiscuous. These statements had the effect of implying that Mr. Miller had inappropriate sexual contact with the two girls, suggesting to the jury that he had a predisposition for committing sexual acts with minors. Mr. Miller’s attorney objected to the statements on the grounds that they were hearsay but never raised any objection regarding their prejudicial nature. The defense also never requested the judge to instruct the jury to consider the information within a limited scope.

A New York Criminal Lawyer stated that Mr. Miller’s girlfriend stated on cross-examination that her daughter had dreamt that he was sexually abusing her. The prosecutor asked her if she believed that it was a coincidence that her daughter had had such a dream and that another girl was now accusing Mr. Miller of rape. Defense counsel again objected but said nothing about the testimony being prejudicial. This objection was overruled and the testimony was allowed. The statements offered by Mr. Miller’s girlfriend implied to the jury that he had potentially raped her daughter and that he had a prior history of sex crimes involving young children. Defense counsel again failed to file a request for a limiting instruction to the jury regarding the girlfriend’s statements.

The appellate court found that there could be no legitimate reason or trial strategy which would excuse or explain defense counsel’s failure to object to the prejudicial testimony. Furthermore, the court held that the admission of the testimony deprived Mr. Miller of his right to a fair trial since the statements admitted into evidence may have caused the jury to believe that he had a previous history of inappropriate sexual contact with young children, which may have caused them to unfairly evaluate the evidence in the case at hand. As such, the appellate court opted to reverse Mr. Miller’s conviction and remand the case for a new trial.

As evidenced by this case, choosing the right criminal defense attorney can make all the difference when attempting to prove your innocence in the face of sex crimes charges, theft allegations or drug possession charges. Mr. Miller’s defense counsel effectively circumvented his own case by not objecting to testimony which case his client as a sexual predator.

If you or a loved one has been charged with sexual abuse, rape or other inappropriate sex crimes involving minors, you need to contact an experienced attorney right away. The law firm of Stephen Bilkis and Associates is committed to aggressively defending the rights of individuals charged with sex offenses. Call 1-800-NY-NY-LAW today to speak with a member of our criminal defense team. You may also visit one of our many New York area offices to discuss your case in person. Don’t let a conviction for a sexual offense ruin your life. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates today to get the professional legal representation you need to prove your innocence.

A husband was convicted after a jury trial, of attempted murder, assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree. His terms were to run concurrently.

The husband repeatedly stabbed his wife, causing her serious and permanent injuries, and forced her seven year old step-daughter to fall out of a window. A New York DWI Lawyer explained that the principal question is whether the husband was entitled to the requested charge of reckless criminal assault, as a lesser included offense of intentional assault. The husband contends that the court should have granted his request, arguing that it was inherently inconsistent for the court to charge intoxication but not the lesser included offense of reckless assault arising out of that intoxication.

To establish entitlement to a lesser included offense charge, the defendant must show that the additional offense he seeks to have charged is a lesser included offense, an offense of a lesser degree. He must also show that it is theoretically impossible to commit the greater crime without also committing the lesser one and there is a reasonable view of the evidence that would support a finding that he committed the lesser offense but not the greater. A New York Criminal Lawyer contends that with the circumstances presented, it was impossible to commit intentional assault without also committing reckless assault. While the evidence of intoxication may be considered as negating the element of intent, there was insufficient evidence of intoxication for a reasonable person to entertain a doubt as to the husband’s. Thus, as the court argued in opposing the husband's request for a charge on intoxication, no reasonable view of the evidence show that he was intoxicated. The issue of his intoxication should not have been submitted to the jury, and the court's failure to charge reckless assault under the theory he was intoxicated was not an error and does not warrant reversal.

A social worker who had interviewed the wife at the hospital ten days after the stabbing noted in her report that she had described her husband’s condition at the time of the attack as a drunken, jealous rage. According to a Nassau County DWI Lawyer, he husband sought to introduce the wife’s characterization as a prior inconsistent statement to impeach her testimony that he was not intoxicated at the time of the attack and that she did not recall stating that he was in a drunken, jealous rage. Over the defense counsel's objection, the court admitted in evidence the entire report of the interview--in which the wife had expressed her feelings about the attack--not merely the one statement her husband sought to have admitted. The court instructed the jury that the social worker's statement is received in evidence not for its truth, but to show the statement was made.

In charging intoxication the court contrasted the testimony of the social worker that the wife had told her that her husband had stabbed her in a drunken, jealous rage with her in-court testimony that she did not recall whether or not she had made such a statement. The social worker's testimony, however, did not furnish direct evidence of intoxication, since the defense counsel sought to introduce the testimony solely as a prior inconsistent statement to impeach the wife and since the court clearly admitted it for that limited purpose. The defendant's brother testified that he observed the defendant drinking six or seven hours before the crimes. However, drinking the night before the incident is not a sufficient basis for an intoxication charge, especially since the brother of the defendant merely stated his brother was drinking; he did not state that the defendant exhibited any signs of intoxication. The trial court did not refer to the brother’s testimony in its intoxication charge.

The only evidence regarding the defendant's condition at the time of the incident was the wife’s testimony that her husband was not intoxicated or under the influence of drugs. Moreover, she testified that at the time of the stabbing her husband told her she is going to die. The stepdaughter testified that when her father caught up with her on the stairwell, he told her that if she did not jump out of the window he would stab her and that he pulled her hands from the window's safety bars, causing her to fall to the ledge on the second floor. It showed that the defendant was acting, not recklessly, but with the intent to cause, at a minimum, serious physical injury.

When a family member is the one who caused you harm, you might be blinded by the intention of protecting that person over your own right to justice. At Stephen Bilkis and Associates, our legal team will make sure that committing justice in your favor is their top priority.

Ronald Pawley was indicted on September 19, 1978 for two counts of first degree sodomy, two counts of third degree sodomy and four counts of endangering the welfare of a child. The Monroe County Court dismissed all of the charges with the exception of two counts of endangering the welfare of a child. The prosecutor subsequently appealed the court’s decision.
The Supreme Court Appellate Division, Fourth Department was charged with determining whether the prosecution’s motion had any merit. Specifically, the court looked at the legal requirements pertaining to corroboration in cases involving sex crimes.

Under Section 130.16 of the New York Penal Law code, no person can be convicted of consensual sodomy or any other sex crime which includes lack of consent as an element if the victim cannot consent because of age, mental capacity or mental defect if there is no other corroborating evidence. The requirement for corroboration of a victim’s testimony does not apply in cases involving sex offenses, excluding cases involving consensual sodomy and sex offenses where lack of consent is presumed due to age or mental state.

The court was asked to consider whether a grand jury indictment that was based on uncorroborated evidence for one or more of the charged crimes could be sustained. In Mr. Pawley’s case, the only evidence presented to suggest he had engaged in unlawful sexual contact was the testimony of the victims, two 15-year-old boys.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, the appellate division held that corroborated evidence at the grand jury stage is a requirement for an indictment for any crime included under Section 130.16. Specifically, the appellate court found that the trial court acted correctly in dismissing the two counts of third degree sodomy.

In regards to the first two counts of the indictment, sodomy in the first degree, the appellate court held that the trial court acted in error in dismissing these charges. Under New York law, first degree sodomy is defined as unlawfully engaging in sexual contact with someone who is incapable of consenting by reason of physical helplessness. The court held that the testimony the victims presented to the grand jury was sufficient to support the charges. Specifically, the court noted that in order to dismiss a charge based on insufficient evidence, the evidence presented must not support the crime or any lesser included offense. In Mr. Pawley’s case, third degree sexual abuse was a lesser included offense of first degree sodomy and the evidence presented to the grand jury did support the sexual abuse charge.

Under New York Penal law, someone is guilty of third degree sexual abuse when he or she engages in sexual contact with another person without their consent. In Mr. Pawley’s case, the evidence suggested that he had offered drugs and alcohol to the 15-year-old victims, presumably in an effort to weaken their defenses and make them less likely to resist his sexual advances.

The appellate division also held that the first two counts of endangering the welfare of a child were improperly dismissed. The court again pointed to Mr. Pawley’s actions in providing drugs and alcohol to the victims so that he could engage in unlawful sexual contact with them. Accordingly, the court unanimously voted to reinstate the first, second, fifth and sixth counts of the indictment, according to a Bronx Criminal Lawyer.

While Mr. Pawley’s New York criminal defense lawyer presented an interesting argument, ultimately the court was not persuaded to deny the prosecution’s motion. If you or someone you love has been charged with sodomy, sexual abuse, sexual assault or another sex offense, you need to contact an experienced defense attorney right away.

The law firm of Stephen Bilkis and Associates offers expert legal defense to individuals facing charges for sex crimes in the New York area. Help is available by calling 1-800-NY-NY-LAW or by visiting one of our multiple office locations.

Our team of experienced criminal defense attorneys is committed to aggressively defending your rights to produce the best outcome possible. Don’t let a conviction for a sex crime ruin your life. Contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates today to get the professional legal help you need to mount the strongest defense possible against a sex offense charge.

David Felix was charged with robbery in the second degree as an armed and violent Class C felony, according to a New York Criminal Lawyer. He pled guilty to a Class D violent felony offense in exchange for a prison sentence of one to three years. At that time, the court agreed to consider an application for a less sentence based on mitigating circumstances. The court later found that there was insufficient mitigating evidence to support a shorter term than he had already received. Mr. Felix then challenged the court’s decision, alleging a violation of his due process rights. The court rejected his claim. At the sentencing hearing, Mr. Felix’s criminal defense attorney filed another application for a shorter sentence, which was also denied.

The case was then referred to the Supreme Court Appellate Division to address Mr. Felix’s constitutional claim. After reviewing New York Penal Law, the court determined that the prison term he received was appropriate and that the lower acted within the boundaries of its discretion in handing down the sentence. Accordingly, his plea arrangement and sentence were affirmed.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Lupiano noted that the statute in question, Penal Law Section 70.02., was in fact constitutional. Furthermore, the judge noted that in pleading guilty to the second degree attempted robbery charge, Mr. Felix was fully aware of the sentencing restrictions imposed by law.

The judge went on to cite a Colorado case, Specht v. Patterson, in which a defendant was convicted for indecent liberties with a minor. Instead of being sentenced under the statutory guidelines, Mr. Specht was sentenced under the Colorado Sex Offenders Act, which allows an indeterminate sentence ranging from one day to life in prison. In that case, the use of the Sex Offenders Act entailed the creation of a new charge which would have required Mr. Specht’s due process rights to be observed.

In Mr. Felix’s case, a new charge was not the issue, commented a New York Criminal Lawyer. The question centered on the plea bargain arrangement and the statutory sentencing guidelines that govern it. Under Statute 70.02, the sentencing court was permitted to impose the same sentence on an individual who pleads guilty to a class D violent felony as it would for someone who was convicted by a jury of the same offense. Accordingly, Justice Lupiano concluded that Mr. Felix’s conviction for second degree robbery and his sentence should be affirmed.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sullivan held that the sentencing court made no attempt to justify the sentence it imposed and that the sentence was outside the scope of its discretion. The judge found that in sentencing Mr. Felix, the court did not take into account mitigating circumstances surrounding his background and lifestyle since committing the crimes. The judge also argued that Penal Law Section 70.02 was unconstitutional because it allowed defendants to be sentenced to an enhanced punishment for an unproven charge without requiring the prosecution to show evidence of the crimes. This effectively equates to a violation of a defendant’s due process rights. Accordingly, Justice Sullivan held that Mr. Felix’s sentence should be reversed and the case remanded for a new sentencing hearing.

While the majority determined that Mr. Felix’s sentence should be upheld, his New York criminal defense attorney was able to persuade at least one member of the appellate panel that the sentencing was unfairly imposed. Mr. Felix was fortunate to have such a dedicated legal advocate fighting for his rights.

Hiring an experienced criminal defense lawyer should be your top priority if you or a loved one has been charged with robbery, sex crimes or other serious offenses. The law office of Stephen Bilkis and Associates specializes in providing legal representation for criminal defendants involved in robbery and sex offense cases in the New York area. Help is available by calling 1-800-NY-NY-LAW or by visiting one of the firm’s numerous office locations. A conviction for robbery, burglary, sex crime or drug possession can have life-altering consequences. Contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates today to get the assistance you need to navigate the complexities of the new York legal system.

On November 7, 1974, the Supreme Court of Monroe County, New York was called upon to hear the appeal of a drug possession conviction. According to a Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer, New York man was convicted after a jury trial of “Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the First Degree based on a $5000.00 sale of cocaine, Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Fifth Degree, and Criminally Using Drug Paraphernalia in the Second Degree.” The appeal of the offender’s cocaine possession and sale case was based on the contention by the offender that the state’s statute was written in violation of the United States Constitution.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, the offender claims that the punishment imposed on Class A drug felons is cruel and unusual in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The defendant argued that the sentences for drug offenses in New York are disproportionate to the offenses themselves. He sites in his behalf that other jurisdictions have lowered their mandated sentences when they were determined to be disproportionate. He contends that New York’s failure to do so makes them in violation of the United States Constitution.

Secondly, the defendant claims that the legislation is an arbitrary classification which denies equal protection of the laws because New York’s Class A drug offenses are punished more severely than Class A drug offenses in other jurisdictions.

The court finds that the severity of punishment for Class A drug felonies is fair and equitable in that to their minds, Class A drug felonies “represent a most serious and constant threat to our society.” They go on to cite that drug trafficking and its consequences are one of the foremost problems in the minds of all citizens. The contention that other more serious and violent crimes are dealt with less severely than Class A drug felonies is an argument that begs question before the Court. The court considers street level drug deals to be but one phase in a larger scale of criminal activity.

They contend that the nature of drug possession and trafficking is that it does not stop with the street sale of a drug but continues as new persons become addicted. The addicts then commit other crimes and victimize other people to supply their habits. The justices point out that there was substantial support prior to the current legislation to make the sale of any narcotics, hallucinogenics or amphetamines a life sentence without parole.

The conviction is upheld and the defendant’s motion is denied in its entirety.

Issues of law are constantly changing. A person who is not specifically trained in the law cannot begin to know what all of their rights are without the assistance of a professional. Here at Steven Bilkis and Associates, we provide skilled legal counsel who can help. Whether you have been charged with a drug crime, sex crimes, or a theft offense, we will ensure that your rights are protected. Criminal law Attorneys can argue your side and make sure that you and your loved ones are considered. We make sure that you are defended to protect your rights.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates has convenient offices throughout the New York Metropolitan area including other areas of New York. We can provide you with advice to guide you through difficult situations. You and your loved ones will need advice following such a frightening experience. Let us help you to recover from the devastation that has befallen your family. If you are ever arrested for a drug related crime, we are here to help.

On April 20, 2007, an undercover police officer in a bar in Westhampton Beach in Suffolk County observed a suspect hand a knotted clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance to another person and in return he was given cash money. They then separated and left the bar. Since the officer had witnessed the sale of the suspected narcotic, he had other officers stop the truck of the buyer and they recovered the drugs which proved under testing to be cocaine. The buyer was arrested for cocaine possession, according to a New York Drug Crime Lawyer.

The buyer then agreed to testify against the seller. Around two hours later, the seller was arrested. At the time of his arrest, he was not in possession of cocaine or any other drugs. The seller was arrested and charged with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. In return for his testimony against the seller, the buyer’s criminal charges were dismissed.

Prior to court, the prosecutor asked the judge if he could get permission to ask the buyer on the stand in court if he had purchased drugs from that seller in the past. He argued that since he had been a regular customer of the seller that it would clear up any questions as to the “absence of mistake.” In other words, it would ensure that the defense could not say that the buyer was mistaken about the identity of the person who had sold him the drugs, explained a Queens Drug Possession Lawyer. If the buyer knew the seller, there is no “absence of mistake.” The defense counsel opposed the motion. He claimed that the seller was not going to claim that the buyer had made a mistake about naming him, but that the buyer was simply lying and that he had never sold the man drugs in the first place.

A New York Criminal Lawyer explained that the judge originally told the prosecutor that he would not be allowed to ask the buyer any questions about previous sales. However, he told both lawyers that it was possible that additional testimony could change that ruling. In court the following date, the defense attorney questioned the buyer about his knowledge of the severity of the charges. The prosecutor again made the motion to bring in the prior sales stating that the defense attorney had opened the door to that line of questioning. Consequently, the buyer admitted to purchasing drugs from the seller on at least ten prior occasions.

The court found him guilty and he appealed. On appeal the Supreme Court reversed the decision on a matter of law since the prior transaction testimony served no purpose and was prejudicial. A new trial was ordered.

A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer can explain that issues of law are constantly changing. A person who is not specifically trained in the law cannot begin to know what all of their rights are without the assistance of a professional. Here at Steven Bilkis and Associates, we have a complete legal team to serve you. Our legal counsel will stand by you and ensure that your rights are protected. Our legal team can argue your side and make sure that you and your loved ones are considered. We make sure that you are defended to protect your rights.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates with its Criminal law Lawyers has convenient offices throughout the New York Metropolitan area including other areas of New York. Our Drug Crime Attorneys can provide you with advice to guide you through difficult situations. Without skilled counsel you could lose precious compensation to help with your defense. You and your loved ones will need advice following such a frightening experience. This is true even if the attorney for the other side has not adequately made their case. Let us help you to recover from the devastation that has befallen your family. If you are ever arrested for a drug related crime, we are here to help.

Rape cases are very sensitive and contain intricate in details. It requires a lot of evidence and consistency in the chain of events involved in the case. This goes the same for this case against Santos Quinto who was accused of raping a 19 year old who eventually got pregnant. The victim said that she first had sex with her full consent with her high school classmate in November 8, 2002. But after five years, when she was 19 years old already, she filed another police report that her step grandfather who is the accused mentioned was the one who raped her.

She explained to a New York Criminal Lawyer that it happened three times way back in 2002 but the problem arises with her decision to have not reported it when the crime was still fresh then. Even if this delay was questioned, such extension is still permitted in some circumstances especially for some sex crimes that are made to innocent children. A medical report that the victim went through revealed that she was pregnant.

According to the police and Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer who questioned her, her first statement stated that she had sex with her classmate and that she just said she was raped because she was afraid that her parents might get angry. At that time, the case came to a close. But by 2007, when she turned 19, she reported that it was her stepgrandfather who raped her for three consecutive times on different dates within the year of 2002. She recalled the story that it happened when she used to live with her grandma and cousins. She was abused three times inside of their own home.

She also confessed that she told her grandmother but she refused to believe her. She did not say anything about the incident when she learned that she was pregnant because the old man threatened her. In such cases of sex crimes extension of time frame is allowed considering that the child is not yet on the mature state of mind if she is younger than 18. Hence, the court can wait up until five years which is applicable with this particular case.

It can be really sad that sex crimes of today revolve around incest. It is devastating to find out that the more responsible family members are the ones who actually abuse the little ones in the family. So the court fully understands how threatened such victims are especially when their abusers are coming from their own familial relations. And if the consensual sex between her and the classmate was really true, it still cannot be deemed as a criminal offense under the Penal Law. One thing is true with this case report. It is important that the one accused should be punished accordingly.

It is not good news to hear that there are families who suffer from such troubles. But in case your very own is going through the same ordeal or you know someone else’s family who does, then do not hesitate to seek the complete assistance of Stephen Bilkis & Associates. You can be assured that your rights will be protected and your case will receive the attention it deserves.

James Taylor was 21 when he broke into a New Rochelle home on May 2, 1975. Assisted by three other men, Taylor entered the home of a suspected drug dealer with the intention of stealing money from the residents. Asleep in the home were the alleged drug dealer’s wife and three daughters, who were aged two, five and seven. According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, the four men, who were armed and wearing masks, demanded money from the wife and threatened to kill the children when she stated she had none. After she repeated her claim that there was no money to steal, the men threatened to kidnap the youngest daughter and hold her for ransom.

One of the men took the girls’ mother into a bathroom just off the master bedroom and closed the door. While holding a gun to her head he told her he would kill her if she didn’t reveal where they hid their money. She was then tied, bound and locked in a closet. When she escaped, the men were gone, along with her two-year-old daughter. She called police, who arrived on the scene. An officer noticed a blue Datsun in the area, which was occupied by Taylor, another man and a little girl. Police attempted to stop the vehicle, which lead to a high-speed chase. Finally, the car collided with a light pole, allowing police to rescue the child and apprehend Mr. Taylor and the other man.

At a non-jury trial, Mr. Taylor was convicted of first degree kidnapping, first degree robbery, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and first degree burglary. He was sentenced to 20 years to life. In November 1995, Mr. Taylor was paroled and as a condition of his release, required to register as a Level Three sex offender. At a redetermination hearing held in 2005, a Westchester County Court found that the Sex Offender Registration Act was unconstitutional in Mr. Taylor’s case and that he was not subject to its requirements. In April 2007, the court’s decision was reversed on appeal and a new hearing requested. The case was then forwarded to the Westchester County Supreme Court.

On April 22, 2008, Mr. Taylor was served with a new risk assessment document by the prosecution. In May 2008, Mr. Taylor filed a motion to dismiss the proceeding on the grounds that the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) was unconstitutional and that being forced to register as a sex offender would be a violation of his rights. The court denied the motion in August 2008 and a new classification hearing was held in February 2009. At that time, the prosecution recommended a Level Three classification and Mr. Taylor’s criminal defense attorney again objected on the grounds that he never committed any sexual abuse or other sex crimes.
In considering his argument, the courted noted that in People v. Knox, the Court of Appeals found that requiring someone to register as a sex offender for committing a crime requiring registration is not a constitutional violation even when there is no evidence to suggest that a sex crime occurred. The Westchester County Supreme Court then considered the risk assessment used to classify sex offenders, which is based on a points system. In Mr. Taylor’s case, he received 30 points based on the victim’s age and 20 points for the fact that he was previously unknown to her. The court noted that 50 points was more than sufficient to classify Mr. Taylor as a Level One sex offender.

The court then determined that 30 points should be assessed because Mr. Taylor and the other robbers were armed at the time the kidnapping occurred. Mr. Taylor’s defense attorney then questioned the mother’s testimony, arguing that it was unclear to her whether his client actually had a gun in his possession. Upon reviewing the grand jury minutes, the court found that this claim was without merit and that the additional 30 points were justified.

Next, the court was asked to consider whether 15 points should be awarded for Mr. Taylor’s prior criminal history. In November 1971, he was adjudicated as a youthful offender after pleading guilty to a non-violent felony. The court held that under state guidelines, juvenile crimes and youthful offender adjudications held equal weight in determining risk. Accordingly, another 15 points was assessed against Mr. Taylor.

The court then had to determine whether 15 points should be added for Mr. Taylor’s prior history of drug and alcohol abuse. In the early 1970s, he attended multiple drug and alcohol treatment programs, including a methadone maintenance program. In 1974, drug treatment was lifted as a condition of his probation. Mr. Taylor claimed that no points should be awarded since he was not using drugs or alcohol at the time the robbery occurred. After considering Mr. Taylor’s prior treatment record and his statements regarding his current lack of drug or alcohol use, the court found that no points were merited in this category.

According to a Westchester County Criminal Lawyer, the prosecution also requested that 10 points should be given based on evidence that Mr. Taylor did not accept full responsibility for his criminal actions. Mr. Taylor challenged this claim, stating that he never denied committing the robbery or kidnapping. He also asserted that he acknowledged his guilt before a judge in March 2005. The court found that the prosecution’s arguments were unmerited and that Mr. Taylor had made sufficient efforts to accept responsibility for his crimes.

Finally, the court had to consider whether 10 points should be added based on Mr. Taylor’s behavior while incarcerated and after his release. The prosecution provided evidence of multiple violations that occurred while he was in prison, including five Tier II violations. Mr. Taylor argued that he never had any Tier III violations and that the infractions that occurred did not involve violence or sexual acts. He also argued that since the Parole Board granted his release at his first parole hearing, this should serve as evidence of a lack of any behavioral problems. The court agreed with Mr. Taylor’s arguments and found no evidence which would merit the awarding of additional points in this category.

In total, Mr. Taylor received 95 points, which would qualify him as a Level Two offender. The prosecution sought to increase this to Level Three while Mr. Taylor sought to reduce it to Level One. Specifically, he argues that he never committed any crime that involved inappropriate sexual contact with a minor and that since his release he has made every attempt to live within the confines of the law. In sum, Mr. Taylor claims that he is no longer a threat to anyone and that a lower classification is appropriate.

After reviewing the claims of both parties, the court held that Mr. Taylor’s classification should be downgraded to a Level One offender. The court based its decision on the facts of the case and on the fact that his behavior since being paroled did not demonstrate any potential risk to society.

Mr. Taylor’s New York legal counsel continued to work diligently on his behalf long after his sentence was complete. Without his help, Mr. Taylor’s classification as a sex offender may not have been downgraded to a more appropriate level.

In cases involving sex offenses, it’s important to have an experienced criminal defense lawyer on your side. The law firm of Stephen Bilkis and Associates is committed to aggressively defending the rights of clients who’ve been charged with rape, sodomy, sexual abuse and other sex offenses.

If you or a loved one has been arrested for a sex crime, you need to call 1-800-NY-NY-LAW to discuss your case. Help is also available by visiting one of our New York area offices. Don’t let a conviction for a sex crime ruin your life. Get the experienced legal representation you need to protect your rights by calling Stephen Bilkis and Associates today.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer,Jason Garren plead guilty to numerous counts involving possession of child pornography. Specifically, his plea agreement included five counts of possessing a sexual performance by a child and four counts of promoting a sexual performance by a child. The Broome County Court sentenced him to six months in jail and a probationary term of ten years. He was also required to register as a sex offender upon his release.

After leaving jail, Mr. Garren failed to register as required by the Sex Offender Registration Act. He was then charged probation violation for failing to comply with this requirement. Mr. Garren plead guilty to the charge and as such his probation was revoked. He was then sentenced to a prison term of 1 1/3 to 4 years for each count of the original indictment, with the sentences ordered to run concurrently.

Mr. Garren appealed the conviction but his criminal defense attorney made an application to withdraw from the case. Specifically, he argued that no new issues existed to be raised on appeal. The appellate court, however, disagreed and found that Mr. Garren’s arguments had merit on at least one point in regard to the severity of the sentence he received. The appellate court granted the defense attorney’s request to withdraw and required new counsel to be assigned to the case.

Despite the fact that Mr. Garren’s New York Criminal Lawyer chose to withdraw from the case, the appellate court found some legal basis for his claims. Hopefully, his new defense counsel will work aggressively on his behalf to defend his rights.

If you or someone you love has been charged with possession of child pornography or other inappropriate sex offenses, finding the right criminal defense attorney should be your top priority. The law firm of Stephen Bilkis and Associates specializes in representing criminal defendants in the New York area who are facing sex crime charges. Their experienced criminal defense team is available by phone at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW or in person at one of the firm’s numerous New York area offices. Don’t hesitate to contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates today to get the legal representation you need to get the best resolution possible in your case.

A 25-year old mother was indicted and convicted of a drug crime after trial of the sale of cocaine, which is considered a class A-I felony to an undercover police officer. According to sources, in a location known for rampant cocaine possession, the mother sold the undercover officer 214 vials of cocaine for $2,000 and promised to "take care of" him "the next time" he came. At the time of the sale she was 17 years old.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, under criminal laws, conviction of a class A-I felony carries a mandatory indeterminate prison sentence, the minimum of which is not less than 15 years and not more than 25 years, the maximum of which is life imprisonment. The trial court, however, determined that in this drug case, imposing even the minimum mandatory sentence of 15 years to life would constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Accordingly, the trial court imposed an indeterminate sentence of eight years to life imprisonment. A divided appellate court affirmed. The judges who the dissented voted to reverse the sentence and remand the case to Supreme Court for resentencing in compliance with the Penal Law's mandatory sentencing provisions for an A-I felony conviction. The State appealed.

On further appeal, the court pointed out that courts have upheld the facial and validity of the mandatory maximum life imprisonment sentence and various mandatory minimum prison sentences as against challenges under the cruel and unusual punishment prohibitions of the State and Federal Constitutions. The court, in many cases, adopted the principle that a sentence may constitute cruel and unusual punishment by being " 'cruelly' excessive, that is, grossly disproportionate to the crime for which it is exacted."

In assessing the proportionality of the mandatory sentences, the courts take into consideration the following factors: (1) the gravity of the offense, primarily in terms of the harm it causes society, but also in comparison with punishments imposed for other crimes in the State of New York as well as with punishments for the same or similar crimes in other jurisdictions; and (2) the character of the offender and the gravity of the threat he or she poses to society.

In this case, the court held that the constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishments were not transgressed on the record and facts of the case.

The court also examined the extent of the mother's culpability and the threat she poses to society and determined that the accused cannot be considered an "accidental" offender of marijuana posession. The trial court noted that the accused understood well what she was involved in." Here, the sale of 214 vials of cocaine for $2,000 was, at the very least, at a high level of culpability and risk to society. The court further noted that the accused has elected to personally sell a requested significant quantity of drugs at the wholesale level.

Drug addiction is a rampant problem in society and affects everyone. Being involved in a lawsuit arising from this crime is difficult. But whether you are charged with a drug crime, criminal tresspass, domestic violence, or a DWI, it is important to ensure that your rights are protected. Qualified legal counsel from Stephen Bilkis and Associates will stand by you and help see you through your case. Our team can argue your side and make sure that you and your loved ones are compensated.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates has offices throughout the New York Metropolitan. Our team can provide you with advice to guide you through your difficult situations. Without the assistance of an attorney, you may lose your rights which may cost you a significant amount of money.

Stephen Bilkis and Associates will also recommend Substance Abuse Lawyers who will help you.

In 1985, Juan Santos was convicted of one count of first degree rape, one count of second degree rape, four counts of first degree sodomy and four counts of second degree sodomy. The charges stemmed from claims brought by Mr. Santos’ two stepdaughters, who claimed that he forcibly raped and sodomized them on multiple occasions. Following his conviction, he was sentenced to a combined term of 25 to 50 years.

Mr. Santos’ criminal defense attorney filed a motion to set aside the verdict and this request was granted in 1991. The New York County Supreme Court was unable to determine why the conviction was overturned but the prosecutor in the case claimed they had arranged a plea agreement in which Mr. Santos would plead guilty to one count of first degree rape. In exchange, he received a sentence of 5 to 15 years, according to a New York Criminal Lawyer.

In September 2008, the court received a letter from the New York Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders concerning Mr. Santos’ risk level. The person who drafted the letter, Board Examiner Floyd Epps, stated that Mr. Santos had raped, sodomized, sexually abused and threatened the two victims over a period of several years. The letter also indicated that Mr. Santos claimed the charges were false and that his wife had encouraged the two girls to make up the story because she was angry that he was having an affair. In addition, Mr. Santos has denied committed the sex crimes he was charged with.

According to a Nassau County Criminal Lawyer, Mr. Santos was released on parole in May 1994 and in January 1997, returned to prison because of a violation. He was released again in April 1997 and incarcerated again in 2003 because of another violation. In 2004, he was released again and his supervision period ended. At the time of his initial parole, he was classified as a Level Three sex offender. Following his last release from prison, he earned both a bachelors and master’s degree and refrained from engaging in criminal activities. Based on these facts, Mr. Santos filed a motion to have his sex offender status downgraded to a level two classification.

The court ordered the prosecution to prepare a new risk assessment evaluation to detemine Mr. Santos’ threat level. This document assigns a specific number of points to certain factors which when combined, provide a score which is used to assess the potential for future reoffense. After completing the new assessment, Mr. Santos’ score was determined to be 115, which was five points over the minimum score required for a Level Three classification. Based on this result, he then filed a motion to have his risk level downgraded to Level Two, citing the positive changes in his lifestyle following his release from prison. Both the prosecutor and the Board of Examiners opposed this motion.

The New York County Supreme Court was charged with determining whether to grant Mr. Santos’ request. Specifically, the court looked at the guidelines created by the Sex Offender Registration Act and the factors incorporated as part of the risk assessment document. Individuals with a score of 0 to 70 are classified as Level One offenders; a score of 75 to 105 points leads to a Level Two classification; and Level 3 offenders have a score of 110 to 300 points. The higher the score, the greater the perceived risk that a sex offender will commit subsequent sex crimes. Mr. Santos’ criminal defense attorney did not challenge the validity of the risk assessment toll but merely questioned whether the scoring system had certain limitations that should be considered in determining whether to upgrade or downgrade an offender.

The court acknowledged that Mr. Santos’ score was based on both objective and subjective determinations, rather than a psychiatric evaluation. The court also noted that the points designated for each factor, including the use of violence, the age of the victim and the type of contact involved, did not appear to have any actuarial basis. Furthermore, the court found that the factors used to calculate risk level were seemingly arbitrary in some circumstances and that the timing of an offense could cause the score to increase dramatically. Finally, the court held that the risk assessment tool was outdated and failed to account for new scientific research findings regarding sex offender recidivism rates and risk factors. However, the court is generally not allowed to depart from the findings of the risk assessment tool unless certain aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present.

In Mr. Santos’ case, the court held that downgrading his classification to a Level Two offender was justified based on his actions after his final stay in prison in 2004. The court argued that there was clear and convincing evidence of his reduced threat level which support the change in status, despite the score determined by the risk assessment tool. The court did agree that Mr. Santos’ failure to acknowledge guilt for his crimes should be counted against him in calculating his risk score but that that fact alone did not support the Level Three classification. The court also acknowledged that Mr. Santos had not been a model citizen after his 1994 release and that the fact that there was no evidence of unlawful sexual contact with a minor did not mean that these types of offenses had not occurred during that period. However, based on the perceived recidivism risk, the court supported his status being downgraded to Level Two.

Being labeled a sex offender can have serious and long-lasting repercussions and make it difficult to become a productive member of society. Fortunately, Mr. Santos was able to move in a more positive direction after his release from prison, which merited the change in his sex offender status.

If you or a loved one is battling a sex crimes charge, you need the aid of an experienced legal counsel to protect your rights. The law office Stephen Bilkis and Associates is available to assist criminal defendants in the New York area who are charged with rape, sodomy, sexual abuse and other types of unlawful sexual contact. Call 1-800-NY-NY-LAW today to get the legal help you need. You can also discuss your case in person by visiting one of the firm’s New York are offices. Don’t hesitate to contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates today to get the help you need to fight a sex crime charge.

In August 2002, Justin Palmer was accused of sexually molesting a 15-year-old girl in Florida. Five months later, he participated in an armed robbery of another Florida home. He pled guilty to both crimes and was sentenced to five years in prison. According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, after being released, he moved to Green County, New York. The Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders completed a risk assessment which classified Mr. Palmer as a Level One offender.

The prosecutor later argued that the Board failed to assign an additional 30 points based on Mr. Palmer’s conviction for the home 2003 home invasion. County Court determined that the robbery, while not a prior crime, should still be considered as an aggravating factor which would justify upgrading Mr. Palmer’s classification to a Level Two offender. Mr. Palmer subsequently appealed this decision to the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, Third Department.

Specifically, Mr. Palmer argued that the prosecution failed to provide him and the County Court with the required 10-day written notice of their intent to seek a new offender classification. The court noted that this issue was never raised in County Court and therefore not subject to review. The appellate court also held that Mr. Palmer’s argument was without merit since the court record demonstrated that the he was well aware of what the prosecution was attempting to do with regard to upgrading his classification status. Therefore, his claim that his due process rights were violated was unfounded.

Furthermore, the court found that the County Court’s decision to upgrade his classification to level two was within its scope of discretion. The decision was based on Mr. Palmer’s home invasion conviction, which occurred after the alleged sexual abuse of the minor girl. The circumstances of the home invasion, including the use of violence, were aggravating factors which would support an upgraded classification. Accordingly, the appellate court chose to affirm the Mr. Palmer’s Level Two offender status.

Unfortunately, Mr. Palmer’s New York criminal defense attorney was unable to persuade the court that the upgraded classification was unwarranted. His new status could potentially make it difficult to find employment and become a productive member of the community.

If you or a loved one has been charged with sex crimes, you need to hire an experienced criminal defense lawyer to act as your advocate. The law firm of Stephen Bilkis and Associates specializes in defending individuals charged with sexual abuse, rape and other sex crimes in the New York area. Help is available by calling 1-800-NY-NY-LAW or by visiting one of the firm’s many office locations. A sex crime conviction can have life-altering consequences and severely damage your reputation. Contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates today to get the legal help you need to protect your rights.

A 40-year old man was arrested and charged with several drug crimes and violations, including criminal drug possession of a controlled substance, criminal use of drug paraphernalia, unlawful marijuana possession, and unlawful possession of fire works.

The accused, despite the absence of the district attorney, was permitted to enter a plea of the crime of possession of a controlled substance, which is classified as a misdemeanor. A New York Criminal Lawyer reported that the DA argued that he is authorized to exercise his right to proceed for forfeiture asserting that such proceeding can be brought against a person not even charged or convicted of any crime. Thus, the DA said, forfeiture against one convicted of a misdemeanor crime is appropriate.

A review of relevant criminal laws discloses that a forfeiture proceeding may be brought for a "pre-conviction forfeiture crime." The court deduced that the only crime for which a forfeiture may be sought and ordered in advance of a conviction are the felony of criminal marijuana possession in the first degree and the crime of criminal sale of marijuana in the first degree. While the law authorizes the commencement of a forfeiture action before conviction for what are clumsily called "post conviction" forfeiture crimes, which are crimes other than the denominated drug related charges called "pre-conviction forfeiture crimes," the statute nonetheless expressly provides that a court may not grant forfeiture until the conviction has occurred, the court noted.

A New York Criminal Lawyer explained that the court clarified that relevant laws do not authorize even the commencement, much less the conclusion, of a forfeiture proceeding in advance of a conviction for a misdemeanor, not even a drug-related misdemeanor. The court concluded that the DA could not have proceeded against the accused by way of any type of proceeding for the misdemeanor crime to which the accused pleaded guilty: criminal possession of a controlled substance.

If the remedy of forfeiture is a criminal penalty, the court pointed out two serious constitutional questions arising. First, where there has been a conviction for a crime subsequent attempts to seek forfeiture based upon that crime may be barred by the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution. Second, as to that part of the statute which permits forfeiture actions based upon drug offenses, the Due Process Clause may be violated because forfeiture can be based upon only a showing of clear and convincing evidence, as opposed to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that the drug related crime in question was committed.

The court said it supports the ends which forfeiture proceedings seek to accomplish. However, the court said it does not support it with such zeal that time proven constitutional safeguards can be abrogated. Because there exists constitutional deficiences to the forfeiture proceedings, the court said the issue of whether the provisions governing the forfeiture fail to pass muster under tests established in a catena of similar cases must first be determined.

Drug addiction is a rampant problem in society and affects everyone. Being involved in a lawsuit arising from this crime is difficult. Whether you have been charged with a drug related offense, sex crimes, or a theft crime, contact us. Our legal counsel will stand by you and help see you through your case.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates with its NY Criminal Law Lawyers, has offices throughout the New York Metropolitan area. Our attorneys can provide you with advice to guide you through your difficult situations. Without skilled legal counsel, you may lose your rights which may cost you a significant amount of money.

Stephen Bilkis and Associates will also recommend Substance Abuse Lawyers who will help you.

Almost every New York Criminal Lawyer is aware of the fact that for various sex crimes, sex offenders are set to register for them to be treated properly and also as a way to protect the rest of the citizens of the society. In this particular case to be discussed, there are three accused sex offenders who refuse to register under this legal act. All of them were involved with having committed kidnapping. They insist that their rights have been violated since there were no proofs that they really did it.

The first one accused is defendant #1. She was seen approaching a group of little children in the park and allegedly grabbed an eight year old kid. Her motive was to have a replacement of one of her own kids whom she has lost due to custody. The next one was defendant #2 who allegedly locked his girlfriend who has two little kids in her own apartment. The reason is that he did not want his girlfriend to break up with him. The last one is defendant #3 who employed a prostitute. When his employee decided to quit, he was accused of kidnapping the woman's son so the woman would go back to working for him.

As per the Supreme Court’s judgment, all three should be assisted by a Bronx Criminal Lawyer under the Sex Offender Registration Act. But as already mentioned, they all protested and did not want to succumb to it. The main reason of the three is that they may be guilty of kidnapping but they were never found guilty of sexually abusing the minors they have abducted. But if SORA will be reviewed, it includes unlawful imprisonment and kidnapping in the list of crimes committed.

Once offenders agree to register, they will still be categorized to be of high or moderate level according to the intensity of crimes they have committed. All their information is included upon registration like their photos, addresses, previous employment, and a lot more. However, all of them consistently fight it off that there are no proof to any sexual misconduct for them to be ordered to register under SORA. Yes, such may not be ruled out as per the analysis of a credible New York sex with minor defense lawyer but it does not mean that the court violated their acts and rights.

All three believe that the State did not let them fight for their own rights and that they should not be labeled of committing a crime that they did not really do. They said that they do not want to be known in the society for being child predators when they have not really done any sexual act on the kids they have kidnapped. But the only interest that the Court has is to protect the community from such offenders who can potentially cause harm or danger to such minors even if it did not include sex crimes. Besides, a lot of cases prove that kidnapping most of the time lead to sexually abusing the abductees.

If you want to know more about the details of the SORA, then there is no better professional to approach than legal counsel from the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates. Their offices in New York has teams of legal counsel who can help you out if you or any of your loved ones happen to be involved in such sensitive cases. With their help, you do not just get to be assured of winning the case but also learning more about your rights.

A jury convicted David L. Perkins of numerous crimes arising out of his conduct in providing alcohol to and engaging in sex acts with his daughter’s teenage friends. County Court had imposed the maximum sentence, an entire sum of 36 years in prison.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, Perkins asserted that there was legally insufficient evidence to convict him of sexual abuse because the court had failed to establish that the victim was physically helpless but the court asserted that the victim’s testimony that she blacked out and “was so drunk that she didn’t know what was going on,” was sufficient to establish the presence of physical helplessness.

A Booklyn Criminal Lawyer who witnessed the trial said that each victim testified consistently and with particularity about the sexual acts committed against them by Perkins and to being provided with alcohol at Perkin’s house. The court said that contrary to Perkin’s testimony, the record clearly revealed that the victims were under the age of 17 at the time of the crimes. The court also stressed that although some of the victims could not recall the precise dates or times of the incidents, “any consistencies regarding date and time did not render all of their testimony incredible as a matter of law, and we find no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s resolution of this credibility issues”.

A friend of one of the victims, Nicole Garrison, testified that the victim complained that Perkins had sexually assaulted her the day after the incident occurred and at the victim’s first opportunity. While such out-of-court statements are generally inadmissible to bolster a witness testimony, evidence that a victim of sexual assault promptly complained about the incident is admissible to corroborate the allegation that an assault took place.

Perkins also asserted that his statement to the police, in which he admitted to providing alcohol to his daughter’s friends but denied, having sexual contact with the girls, was involuntarily made and should have been suppressed. The court replied that after Perkins voluntarily went to the police station for questioning, he was advised of his Miranda rights, offered food and drink, and did not request any lawyer or state that he wished to remain silent. He then discussed, without incident of any kind, various allegations of underage drinking in his home and signed the statement.

Upon appeal to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, Perkins lawyers find that the County Court erred in imposing consecutive terms upon certain of his convictions. They said that Penal Law provides that concurrent sentences must be imposed “for two or more offenses committed through a single act or omission, or through an act or omission which in itself constituted one of the offenses and also was a material element of the other”. With respect to the first victim, Perkins was convicted of two counts of sexual misconduct, sodomy in the third degree and rape in the third degree based upon an act of oral sex and sexual intercourse, as well as unlawfully dealing with a child in the first degree (for providing alcohol to the victim) and endangering the welfare of a child (for providing alcohol and subjecting the victim to oral sex and sexual intercourse). The higher court said that these convictions were based on only one act of deviate sexual intercourse, one act of sexual intercourse and one instance of providing alcohol. It stated that the remaining convictions “comprise separate, distinct and independently punishable offenses” and thus, according to a New York Sex Crimes Lawyer, consecutive sentences were warranted.

Encountering cases like this one needs you to be with an experienced and loyal lawyer by your side when you are in a trial room. Skilled legal counsel will be there always at your side and fight you through in every obstacle in the courtroom.

An established law firm, Stephen Bilkis and Associate is situated around the New York Metropolitan area.

In late 2002 and 2003, Phillip Riback, a pediatric neurologist, was charged with two indictments, later consolidated, with 39 criminal counts alleging that he had sex crimes with numerous male patients during medical examinations between 1997 and 2002. After pretrial proceedings in which some counts were dismissed, Phillip Riback went to trial on 30 counts. He was ultimately convicted of 28 counts, 12 felonies and 16 misdemeanors.

A New York Criminal Lawyer who followed the case, said that the convictions stem from the testimony of 14 boys, none of whom knew one another (except two were brothers), whose families consulted defendants for their sons’ various neurological problems. The boys described a variety of conduct that occurred for the most part after their parents complied with Riback’s request that they leave the boys alone with him in the examining room, at which time defendant encouraged them to play a “controlled spitting” game with him, tickled, hugged or kissed them or play-wrestled with them, pushed his erect penis against their bodies, held them upside down by their ankles or had the boys sit or lay on him, during which time Riback’s hands or face came into contact with the boys’ genitals, mostly over clothing (several described defendant’s direct –underneath clothing- contact with their penis), or the boys’ faces were pushed to Riback’s genital area over clothing. The lawyer said that all of the contact occurred in the subterfuge of a medical exam by Riback, often accompanied by warnings not to tell anyone.

Philip Riback’s conduct was first partially revealed in 2002, according to a New York Crimnal Lawyer, when one of the patient made revelations first to his mother and then to the Town of Colonie Police Department and the Department of Health’s Office of Professional Medical Conduct (OPMC), later providing a signed statement to the police recounting the extent of Riback’s sexual contact with him in December 2001, when he was nine years old. After another complaint by another family to OPMC of Riback’s conduct to his patients and came other allegations, Riback was arrested. The arrest was covered by the media and over 100 people contacted the police and 50 were interviewed, which leads to the subject indictment.

Riback did not testify during trial, but pursued the defense theory that any unusual behavior by him during patients’ exam was to create a rapport with-and put at ease-his young patients. Reports gathered stated Riback’s lawyer argued that, only after suggestive and coercive questioning by police and parents were the boys persuaded to interpret his innocent and benign behaviors as having a sexual component, leading to false mistaken accusations. Riback’s lawyers repeatedly emphasized the boys’ lengthy delays in disclosing Ribacks’ conduct and the fact that most of the boys’ disclosures of sexual contact did not occur until after Riback’s initial arrest, in support of its theory that all of the boys’ sexual contact allegations were the product of publicity and suggestive questioning.

Based on the data gathered, Phillip Riback was convicted and was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 48 years, with five years of postrelease supervision. Riback’s postrial motion to vacate the judgment of conviction was denied without a hearing.

Upon appeal to the Third Department of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, where a New York Sex with Minor Defense Lawyer was able to relate, said that Riback’s defense lawyers questions the validity of the judgment rendered and by permission, from an order of the lower court which denied his motion to vacate the judgment of conviction without a hearing of which the Supreme Court replied that the accusations made were supported by the weight of credible evidence by the minors he had molested and the overwhelming evidence of Riback’s culpability. The Supreme Court also held that the “Country Court may have placed undue weight upon Riback’s ill-advised decision to reject the very favorable plea bargain and proceed to trial” and found that the 48 years aggregate was “too extreme a penalty for Riback’s exercise of his constitutional right to jury trial” thus lowering it to 20 years aggregate prison.

Sometimes life can be so cruel and mean, we all make mistakes but when we choose to suffer for those mistakes and find that the penalty is more than what we deserved, there is legal counsel to help you. Whether you have been convicted of a sex crime, drug possession or a theft crime, legal counsel can ensure that your rights are protected throughout your legal process.

A 37-year old man has been indicted for the drug possession, sale of a controlled substance and other drug related charges. Under the revised criminal laws relating to drug crimes, each of the crime charged is classified as an A--III felony, punishable by an indeterminate term of imprisonment, the minimum period of which, for a first offender, is from one to eight and one-third years, and the maximum of which is life imprisonment.

The accused demanded for the dismissal of his indictment based on constitutional grounds. The accused specifically assailed the validity of certain criminal laws on the ground that these provisions do violence to his due process and equal protection rights and that they are inconsistent with the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment under the Federal and New York Constitutions.

According to the court, the gist of the accused's cruel and unusual punishment claim is that the penalty which has been legislatively imposed and must be judicially imposed, if there is a conviction, is too harsh for the alleged drug crimes. The accused argued that the quantities of heroin involved here are minute and that the entire amount of his gain from each of the transactions with which he is charged was $60.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said, the court, applying several tests, concluded that the maximum sentence of life imprisonment which the accused will be confronted with, if convicted, is neither so inherently severe nor excessive as to violate the Eighth Amendment. The sentence affords an offender the opportunity to minimize his term of imprisonment by rehabilitating himself to the point that the parole board, in the exercise of discretion, permits him to serve a part of that term outside of the prison walls. In this regard, the fact that an offender sentenced under the penalty provisions attacked by the accused must serve the minimum term imposed, before release on parole becomes a possibility, does not give rise to a valid Eighth Amendment claim.

Secondly, the court said the indeterminate sentence of imprisonment prescribed by statute for the A--III felonies of which the accused stands accused may not be said to have been imposed arbitrarily by the Legislature within the meaning of the constitutional prohibition which comes into play here. For years, the evils of drug abuse and narcotics traffic have occasioned the grave concern of government.

A New York Criminal Lawyer commented that the very drug crime classification and sentencing provisions which the accused so stridently objects to reflect no more than a legislative awareness that earlier and less stringment measures had failed to deter illicit drug traffic and the heinous crimes that it spawns.

The mere fact that, in beefing up the penalties for violation of the narcotics laws, the Legislature allowed more lenient sentences for offenses deemed by some to represent a greater evil, does not convert the penalties under fire in this case into cruel and inhuman punishments, the court concluded.

Drug addiction is a rampant problem in society and affects everyone. Being involved in a lawsuit arising from this crime is difficult. There are New York Drug Crime Attorneys will stand by you and help see you through your case. These Attorneys can argue your side and make sure that you and your loved ones are compensated.

Whether you are been charged with sex crimes, a drug offense or theft crime, speak to Stephen Bilkis & Associates. Our legal team can provide you with advice to guide you through your difficult situations.
Stephen Bilkis and Associates will also recommend Substance Abuse Lawyers who will help you.

These days, it is very hard to trust others especially when it comes to leaving our kids with people who you can truly rely on. There are many cases these days where nannies and even babysitters are accused of committing sex crimes that involve the children of their own employers according to a New York Criminal Lawyer. This goes the same for this case that is considered as an example here in this report for you to understand better the legal proceedings for such cases. The one involved here as the accused is James Watt.

Watt was convicted of rape, sodomy and for putting into danger the welfare of a little child. The crimes involved in his case are considered very heinous since it was committed against innocent and helpless tiny girls who are under 11 years old. These kids according to their parents were entrusted to him since he operates a basement based daycare center in the community. The problem that made everything worse because the daycare center was not registered.

All of the kids involved as victims gave their testimonies in detail even if it was really heinously specific in detail. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer backed this all up with formal medical evidence from experts done through proper medical examinations of the children. Many of them already showed suffering from diseases which are sexually transmitted. It was actually very sensitive to discuss but this could be a true learning experience for many and how they would be able to protect their children. The total number of crimes that was perpetrated against him includes twelve kids. This of course means that this case should be well investigated and be well prepared.

To add more formality and technicality on the investigation of this particular sex crime, the court got the service of a master psychologist by the name of Eileen Treacy. She is an expert in handling the sex crimes with kids. She interviewed seven of the kid victims and the result of her analysis led to the conviction of Watt being guilty of the crime. According to a New York sex with minor defense lawyer the reports were all asked to be gathered and presented to the court.

In the end, what was most important for the court is to offer utmost protection to the innocent victims of Watt. All of them have gone through so much trauma and abuse that this could bring negative effects to how they will handle the future ahead of them. And it is important that such a crime should not just go unpunished. It is also such a weak reason to use that he should not be convicted just because no one can say the exact dates of the sex crime and abuse that were committed. And hence, the Court made the right decision to convict and punish such a person as James Watt for pretending to love and care for kids just so he can take advantage of sexually abusing them.

It is very important these days that you get to know or be in touch with the credible legal counsel who can offer complete assistance to you especially if it is your own child who has fallen victim to such a heinous crime as this of Watt. The best place to start off your search for the right New York sex with minor defense lawyer is the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates.

There are many sex crimes these days that are discovered by a New York Criminal Lawyer to have been caused by mental health or abnormality. Aside from SORA there is also the SOMTA or what is called as the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act which deals with sex crimes that involve the Mental Hygiene Law. In this particular case, the defendant is convicted of promoting prostitution, kidnapping and also bail jumping. He was given the charge of 9 to 18 years for kidnapping, 4 to 8 years for the kidnapping, and 3 to 6 years for the bail jumping.

Nelson forced his victim and raped her over and over again. He even forced her to be a prostitute and even physically beat her including the involvement of drugs. He was a detained sex offender who was found out to have been suffering from some kind of mental abnormality. According to a New York law as discussed by a Bronx Criminal Lawyer describes SOMTA as crimes that are sexually motivated.

Hence, it is the court’s decision to find out if the previous sex crimes committed by an accused person are motivated by a mental abnormality that is driven with the need for sex. All these should go through the proper criminal proceeding to make it very fair and carry out justice pretty well. Such acts like SOMTA are meant to protect the society from the danger of these free roaming sex offenders. It is only through the programs for treatment and proper management to help the accused to recover and have a bright future and at the same time to protect the citizens of the society.

The goals of the court to let such sex offenders like Nelson to go through such programs include proper management of their unstable behavior. But one must expect that such treatment will surely come as strict and well supervised. It may even go as worst as leading to a lifetime confinement. In Nelson’s case, it has been well proven that his crimes were sexually motivated. What Nelson fights for is that he does not deserve the stigma that registering to such SOMTA would cause his own credibility.

Such mental health treatment should not be considered as a punishment but instead as a treatment process so as to help the sex offender suffering from a mental abnormality to still get to recover as fast as they can. What Nelson did to his victim was too heinous that he took advantage of the rights of another and even abused it extremely. The mechanism used was truly excessive and up to the extreme. It is just logical that the court would capture offenders like Nelson so that the number of such crimes committed would surely be lessened.

To know more about the aspects of SORA or SOMTA, it is best to seek the assistance and guidance of a reliable legal counsel. One of the best ones that you can find especially in New York would begin within the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates. They handle all sorts of sex crimes and its intricate details to make sure that you get the justice and freedom you deserve. Such expert assistance will help you understand best such legal proceedings that can help protect others as well.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, in July of 1974, a man who pleaded guilty for sale prohibited drugs was charged of life imprisonment with no possibility of probation and lifetime parole. According to reports, this rule was first given the highest force of law in United States in 1910 which during that time was considered to be fair and just, but does it follow that what was fair and just 70 or more years ago applies now.

Based on reports, of all the class A felonies such as arson, kidnapping, murder, only the narcotics possession and sale offenses are prohibited from being reduced by plea bargaining. Thus, a person who kills intentionally, who causes serious physical injury in the course of a robbery, who rapes a child, who blows up an occupied building, faces a maximum term of 25 years, or a maximum of 30 years for a series of such acts before being imprisoned on any one of them. Although imprisonment is mandatory, no minimum term may be imposed unless the court gives reasons for concluding that the best interest of the public requires it because of the nature and circumstances of the crime and of the history and character of the defendant.

A New York Criminal Lawyer revealed that a man charged of cocaine possession will not remain on parole for the rest of his life, nor will he be denied the opportunity to engage in plea bargaining. Crack possession is considered to be worse than a person who kills intentionally, who causes serious physical injury in the course of a robbery, who rapes a child, who blows up an occupied building,whether he sells a bag of heroin for profit or to support his own addiction or whether he gives away a 'fix' to a desperately sick friend suffering from withdrawal pains (where the consequences to the 'victim' and to society are minimal, by any scale of values), the mandatory maximum penalty of life remains the same.

The NY Law dictates that drug posession crimes must be punished much more severely than the armed robber who shoots his victim and the multiple rapists. He must be punished as severely as the most heinous murderers, kidnappers, and arsonists, and more severely than many of them. He is even denied the privileges accorded to all other criminal defendants, including multiple and persistent felony offenders, of plea bargaining and of judicial discretion in setting the maximum term in accordance with the nature and circumstances of the particular criminal conduct involved and with the history and character of the defendant.The Court is not allowed to consider the status of the buyer, whether addict or non-addict. Nor may it consider the qualities of the offender, whether young or old, family man or not high or low rehabilitative potential, value or potential value to society. In all cases there is a mandatory maximum of life imprisonment.

In the opinion of the Court, no view of the dangerousness of narcotics to persons or society can justify such disproportionate punishment. It seems incomprehensible to the Court that a man involved in the sale of narcotics at the four corners in Rochester, may be prosecuted in Federal Court one block to the north, and may under Federal Law receive a probationary sentence but if he is prosecuted in this Court, one block to the south, he must receive a mandatory maximum of life imprisonment.

Therefore, what constitutional punishment should be imposed? The present law was enacted and became effective September 1, 1973. By reason of this decision the Court reinstitutes the law prior to that time and reclassifies the crime as a Class C felony. The defendant, following completion of his presentence investigation, will be sentenced thereunder but didn’t the court matured?

Stephen Bilkis & Associates has convenient offices throughout the New York Metropolitan area. Our legal team can provide you with advice to guide you through situations where an injury resulted because of another's negligence. Whether you have been charged with a drug crime, sex crimes, or weapons possession, it is important to speak to legal counsel to ensure that your rights are protected.

On October 16, 1974, the Albany County Court in People v. Hollingsworth had an occasion to rule on the constitutionality of the penalty imposed by the Drug Law of 1973. The said law imposes a mandatory penalty of life imprisonment on certain drug crimes, making the penalty equivalent to that of heinous crimes, such as kidnapping or murder.

In the said case, the defendant was charged with the criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. Prior to trial, the defendant sought the dismissal of the case because, according to him, the law infringes on his constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, among others. He anchored his claim on the decision of the Monroe County Court in People v. Mosley, where it was held that certain provisions of the Drug Law is unconstitutional for being a cruel and unusual punishment.

In drug possession cases, it must be noted that the standard by which the court must determine whether a particular punishment is cruel and unusual, and hence violative of the Constitutions, is the modern concept of cruelty and unusualness prevailing in society at the time the question is raised.

In People v. Mosley, the Court held that the sale of a drug is not a violent act and the sale itself does not present a danger to the user or to the society. However, in this case of People v. Hollingsworth, the Court gave a different opinion. It was stated that one does not have to look very far to find the broken lives caused by drug abuse nor does one have to possess the logical ability of an Einstein to perceive the causal connection between rampant drug abuse in this State and Country and a major percentage of the number of crimes of violence, causing destruction to life and property. All of this is precipitated by the drug dealer. The sale of illicit drugs is potentially as dangerous as any crime of violence to person or property or, even more so, since the seller not only ruins the life of the purchaser but also the many innocent people whose property and lives are taken and victimized by the addict.

Moreover, a State statute cannot be deemed unconstitutional simply because there is a disagreement between the Courts and the State Legislature as to the best way to deal with convicted drug sellers. The principle well entrenched in our law is that the judiciary may not substitute its judgment and discretion for the judgment of the Legislature. It is the Legislature which has the power to fix the penalty for crimes, and just because the penalty imposed for certain drug crimes is severe, does not mean that there is a violation of the Constitutions.

While the Court in People v. Hollingsworth upheld the constitutionality of the Drug Law, it nevertheless expressed its disapproval on the method of dealing with drug crimes because the law removes the flexibility which is necessary for imposing just sentences. To reconcile the problem, the Court called upon the Legislature to re-evaluate its position and maintain the present maximum sentence for such crimes, while at the same time remove the mandatory provisions of the statute. This method would allow the individual sentencing Judge to duly function as a Judge and to make the determination as to what is best for society and the individual, based upon the facts of the particular case.

Whether you have been charged with sex crimes, drug possession or a weapns charge, call Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice. Our legal team can argue your side of the case and make sure that your rights are protected.

Please know that In addition to solving your drug related concerns, Stephen Bilkis and Associates will recommend other Drug Crime Lawyers who will help you

Sexual abuse can be everywhere, it might be occurring in our own home. According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, on September 5, 1995, the defendant was convicted by the County Court of crimes of sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of a child. During trial, the 13-year-old victim testified that prior to the commission of the crimes, the defendant, a 31-year-old live in companion of the victim’s aunt, told her that he wanted to rape her and have a baby with her. She further testified that he threatened to kill her whole family if she revealed his feelings about her to anyone. The victim indicated that she believed these threats and, for that reason, did not immediately report the crimes.

Based on the New York Sex Crime Lawyer, the defendant' initial argument on his appeal was that the jury’s verdict finding him guilty of two counts of the crime of sexual abuse is not supported by legally sufficient evidence in that there is no proof of forcible compulsion. As relevant here, ‘Forcible Compulsion’ means to compel by either use of physical force; or a threat, express or implied, which places a person in fear of immediate death or physical injury to herself or another person. The higher court held that given the victim’s young age and the defendant's dominance over her by reason of his age and relationship with her aunt, the jury could have reasonably inferred that he accomplished the sexual contact through the use of threats that placed the victim in fear of immediate death or physical injury to herself or members of her family.

Another argument that Archer had pointed out was that he was discriminated by the admission of evidence regarding prior bad acts of sexual nature that he purportedly perpetrated upon the victim. Generally, a Long Island Criminal Lawyer said, such evidence may not be offered to show the defendant's bad character or his inclination toward crime but may be admitted if the acts help establish some element of the crime under investigation. This exception was said to be applicable in this case since the challenged testimony was admitted to establish that he engaged in a course of conduct that was likely to be injurious to the physical or moral of the victim, an essential element of the crime of endangering the welfare of a child that was charged in two counts of indictment.

The trial panel produced a psychotherapist who presented testimony pertaining to child sex abuse syndrome. He said that the Supreme Court have held such testimony admissible provided it is limited to explaining behavior that might appear unusual to a lay juror and is not used to show that the alleged victim’s behavior was consistent with patterns of behavior exhibited by victims of proven sexual abuse. The Court held that, the prosecutor posed a hypothetical question to the expert that subsumed the evidence in this case and asked if the hypothetical victim’s behavior was unusual with respect to child sex abuse syndrome. Further, the lower court gave limiting instructions in its charge that the expert could not render an opinion on the issue of whether the victim was sexually abused.

Upon the defendant's conviction of two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, he was sentenced to consecutive indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 2 to 7 years. Taking into account his previous conviction of a sex-related crime involving this victim and the predatory nature of the crimes that carry a high risk of recidivism, the higher court did not consider the sentence harsh or excessive.

Getting involved in a lawsuit carries a lot of problems. Skilled legal counsel will see to it that you will see through it with ease. Stephen Bilkis and Associates are here to provide legal counsel and ensure your rights are protected. With offices located throughout the New York Metropolitan Area.

On September 8, 11 and 12, 1972, an undercover police officer bought cocaine from a man at the Franz Segal Park. The police officer’ back-up team in the area did not actually see the exchange of money for the cocaine. The police officer just showed his back-up team the evidence of the cocaine he bought from the man in the park which was confirmed to be cocaine.

On September 13 and 18, 1972, the defendant again sold cocaine to another undercover police officer at the same area of Franz Segal Park. When the police arrested the defendant in his apartment they discovered marijuana in a bookcase and cocaine hidden inside the inner door of a refrigerator.

The man was charged with selling cocaine on September 8, 11 and 12, 1972. He was charged also for cocaine possession and selling on September 13 and 18, 1972. And he was charged for marijuana possession and cocaine possession for the drugs found in his apartment during his arrest.

During the trial for selling cocaine on September 8, 11 and 12, 1972, the defendant pleaded guilty to the other charges of selling and possession of cocaine and marijuana discovered in his apartment during his arrest on September 22, 1972.

The defendant testified in his own defense. During his cross-examination, the prosecutor asked detailed questions regarding his guilty pleas in the two other cases for criminal selling and possession of cocaine. The questions extensively probed the similarity of the areas; the similarity of the time of day of the sales; and the variety and amount of the cocaine. He was also asked regarding the separate charges for the September 13 and 18, 1972 cocaine possession. The defense counsel objected that the questions were prejudicial to the defendant but the trial judge overruled the objections.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, he defendant was convicted by a jury on all three counts of cocaine selling on September 8, 11 and 12, 1972. The defendant appealed on the ground that the cross-examination was improper and prejudicial. The manner of the questioning tended to prove his tendency or propensity to sell drugs.

The Supreme Court of Bronx County agreed: under criminal law, the extensive cross-examination about the other drug cases were improper and highly prejudicial as the questions showed defendant’s propensity of possessing and selling drugs. Cross-examining the defendant on prior criminal acts is permitted but solely to impeach his credibility as a witness. It cannot be used to lead the jury to believe that the prior criminal acts are proof of the commission of the present charges of cocaine and marijuana possession and selling. It cannot be used to show that defendant was a regular trafficker in dangerous drugs.

The defendant’s conviction was overturned and he was granted a new trial.
Losing a loved one and being involved in a lawsuit for their wrongful death is difficult for all. ANew York Drug crime Attorneys will stand by you and help see you through your case. A New York Criminal Lawyer can argue your side and make sure that you and your loved ones are compensated.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates and their skilled legal team has convenient offices throughout the New York Metropolitan area. Whether you have been charged with sex crimes, drug possession or a weapons possession charge, our can provide you with advice to guide you through situations where an injury resulted because of another’s negligence. Without a New York Drug crime Attorney you may lose your rights which may cost you a significant amount of money.
Please know that in addition to Criminal Law Stephen Bilkis and Associates will recommend New York Criminal Lawyers who will help you.

A Suffolk County man is facing felony charges for abandoning his 2 year old Doberman pinscher in an empty house without food or water. The dog was found in a closed bedroom dehydrated and almost dying. A New York Criminal Lawyer says the 20 year old man faces up to 2 years in prison along with numerous fines for aggravated animal cruelty. He is out on $1,500 bail. According to the SPCA the man has admitted that the dog was his. The 19 pound dog is now being treated at a local animal hospital in Plainview. Once he has fully recovered he will be available for adoption. The defenant is due back in court to determine the outcome of his case and will need a qualified legal counsel to help him in his quest for freedom.

If you or someone you know is facing criminal charges of any kind you may need assistance from Stephen Bilkis and Associates. One who can help you defend your case in the appropriate manner and help you obtain the best results possible.

Come in to our office for answers to the many questions you likely have, and a free consultation. We have offices located in both Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island, as well as Westchester County. In New York City, we have locations in Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island.

A New York City Criminal Lawyer is not overwhelmed or even shocked that a popular pop star has had his sentence lightened after such a short period of time. The famous R&B singer who at 21 years old has been sentenced to five years probation, a one year domestic violence course, and community service.

The star was originally sentenced after pleading guilty to assaulting another celebrity, his ex-girlfriend, prior to the 2009 Grammy Awards. Even with the modified sentence, he is prevented from harassing or annoying girlfriend, but can speak to her if necessary. The girlfriend's lawyer stated to a Long Island Criminal Lawyer that she was fine with the modified order. It has not yet been determined whether the man has completed the domestic violence course or the community service; however he is still on probation for the remainder of the five year sentence. The public is not outraged, but also not looking forward to the fallout if the star and his girlfriend get back together. Most fans feel that both artists are better off apart.

The question has been raised by fans of why the star did not receive jail time or at least a harsher punishment, but sources show that girlfriend, her lawyer, and the star's lawyer came to an agreement for the lesser punishment. The girlfriend did not push the issue of trial, maybe for fear of losing or the man receiving no punishment. Public comments also reflect the thought that though the pop star is allowed to contact his ex-girlfriend, which he simply wanted the extended freedom to be able to attend awards shows. Fans and the public in general feel this break up, whether enforced by the law or not will enhance the careers of both artists for the better.

Whether star wishes to contact his girlfriend or not, he now has the freedom to attend public events at the same time as her without fear of being in violation of a restraining order. So whether the star's goal is to boost the number of public appearances or to apologize to his ex-girlfriend in person does not really matter as he is allowed to do either without fear. The only provision of the modified judgment is that the star, if speaking to his ex, does so in a respectful manner. He may not harass or annoy his girlfriend in any way, which should be common sense, but had to be placed in judicial writing.

Though the star was not punished as severely as he could have been for a charge involving domestic violence, his chances to remain completely free may have been enhanced by using a skilled legal counsel. If taken to court his lawyer may have been able to get probation without community service or domestic violence classes. No one will ever know what a difference a skilled lawyer could have made in this situation.

A debate ensued in Palm City, Florida, where people gathered to voice their opinions on the potential likelihood that an Arizona styled immigration enforcement law in the state, a New York Criminal Lawyer was told. Emotions ran high at the Library where over 300 people arrived for the summoning. There was standing room only.

State Representative Bill Snyder, R-Stuart, called a town meeting to get the citizens’ opinion on the proposed law. Snyder has prospered the immigration law. Supporters of both sides of the issue were allowed to voice the pros and cons of the law.

Many times throughout the meeting, Snyder asked the crowd to remain civil to each other. “It is rare that in Florida that we have an issue that engenders so much passion,” said Snyder at the meeting to the crowd.

Snyder’s proposed immigration bill would allow state, county, and local law enforcement officials to ask and seek legal status from people, claims a New York Criminal Lawyer. It would give them the ability to get the federal authorities involved. Employers hiring illegal immigrants would also be punished if the bill were passed.

The crowd raised their concerns of how Florida’s tourism and agriculture would be affected by the law if the bill were passed. Some of the crowd was concerned that the law would give law enforcement the right to be racist toward a color of skin. A woman said at the meeting the proposed law “will make it legal to harass, profile and disrespect innocent citizens for one purpose and one purpose only: to appease the racists in this country.”

If you are afraid of being deported, speak to legal counsel immediately. Are you being charged with hiring undocumented workers? Contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates to defend you today.

A 27 year old man was extradited to Long Island from California to face murder charges on a 2009 fatal shooting that took place in a local nightclub. He is facing a charge of 2nd degree murder on the shooting of a victim Valley Stream. The victim was pronounced dead at a local hospital in Manhasset. A New York Criminal Lawyer has been called to defend the suspect. No date has been set for a trial but because of the serious charges, one will be set soon.

The laws that govern homicide in New York are governed by Section 125.00 of the New York Criminal Proceedure Law. There are many different factors that come into play when a charge of murder is involved. Courts will look at the intent of the party. What is planned, or an act of recklessness? Determining the defendant's intent will be very important to assess their guilt or innocence, and what particular charge of murder they may receive.

If you or someone you know is facing criminal charges you may need the assistance experienced legal counsel. Depending on your charges, you could be facing prison time, community service, monetary fines and probation. Speak to Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice and guidance.We will provide you with sound legal advice and a free consultation. We have offices located throughout the New York area for your convenience, including locations in Manhattan, Staten Island, Queens, the Bronx and Brooklyn. On Long Island, we have locations in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island, as well as Westchester County.

The sooner you contact us, the better. We will provide you with an aggressive defense, and ensure that your rights are protected throughout the legal process. Call us today to schedule a free consultation at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

A New York Criminal Lawyer has learned that Akhilesh was arrested at Amausi international airport on Thursday. The local police chief commented that the arrest was a preventative measure as Wednesday was the last day of the Samajwadi Party’s (SP) protest against the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) government.

When Akhilesh arrived at the airport, he was greeted by a multitude of police that immediately surrounded him and led him away, reports a New York Criminal Lawyer. He was being held at the Lucknow district jail after initially being taken to an undisclosed location.

Although he was whisked away rather abruptly before being allowed to speak with the media, as he was being escorted away he commented that, “This is dictatorship. We are not even being allowed a democratic protest."

Many of the protestors were angered by Akhilesh’s arrest. They then went onto protest against the BSP for what they call corruption and lawlessness. However, the police were prepared and outnumbered the protestors. This led to many protestors being arrested and taken away. There were also many protestors who not only burned BSP flags, but also became aggressive in their attempts to confront the current administration no matter the outcome.

One local area, Amethi, saw the SP workers arrive at the protests by horseback. Of course, this took the local authorities by surprise, as they had no horses of their own at the scene in order to counter this move. The authorities could also not ascertain which to attack first, the horse, or the rider.

The protests have been ongoing since Monday when SP leader publicly announced that he was being held under house arrest so as not to be able to attend the protests that were planned for this week.

After the arrest of Akhilesh, more SP protestors arrived to the area by bus, and many women were seen leading the protests as part of their observance of International Women’s Day. While the estimated number of arrests depend on who one is asking, one estimate the number to be as high as about 30,000.

Whenever you or a loved one has an encounter with the criminal justice system, whether is is a drug possession crime, theft crime, or weapons charge, you do not have to go it alone. A New York Criminal Attorney is available to take your case and work with you to achieve the result you seek.

At a muscle-energy supplement store, a female was doing her best to explain to the would-be thief about the various supplements. The attempted robbery occurred at the GNC store on 18th Avenue near 71st Street at 5:50 P.M. last June. A New York Criminal Lawyer are usually called in situations like this, as theft of property is definitely a reason to need someone like Steve Bilkis and Associates.

The eighteen-year-old suspect started out by asking questions about a product and then forced the manager into a back room and demanded the combination to the safe. The manager gave him the wrong number and at that point he obviously realized at that point that he didn’t have much time so he ran.

The manager was obviously thinking quickly on her feet, as she was able to direct the police to the supplement bottle that the suspect had been holding. At that point, the authorities were able to lift his prints from the bottle and make an identification of the suspect. Stephen Bilkis and Associats can be reached at 1-800-NY-NY-Law for a free, no-obligation initial consultation.

A man indicted for providing steroids to professional athletes received a sentence of one year and a day in prison. The Alabama pharmacy was part of the investigation of a Phoenix naturopath who supposedly treated the athletes. A New York Criminal Lawyer reports that the accused man fled to Costa Rica.

The man had originally been interviewed on radio stations praising the therapeutic benefits of steroids. However, once he was in front of a judge, he admitted that he wished he had not made the statements. According to sources, the judge indicated that the man be allowed to serve his sentence in a halfway house.

The naturopath admitted to prescribing steroids, human growth hormone and other drugs to patients who didn’t need them for a medical reason. In 2006 the Mobile Alabama pharmacy was raided and became known as Operation Which Doctor.The drugs were distributed via an illegal Internet ring.

If you have been charged with a crime, including drug possession, a theft charge or gun possession, speak with Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice and guidance. We will provide you with the answers you need, and a free consultation. We have offices to serve you throughout New York City, including locations in Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Staten Island and Queens. We also have locations in Westchester County, and Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island.

A New York Criminal Lawyer reports that one man was dead and a ten-year-old girl was wounded in the arm in a shooting at a local grocery store in Brooklyn. The police were called to the scene at approximately 7:40 Pm and emergency medical services were called to transport the girl to the hospital where is she is listed in stable condition.

The victim who lost his life apparently made it to Woodhull Medical and Mental Health Center and police say he was pronounced dead about 8:00 PM from numerous gunshot wounds. The firm of Steve Bilkis and Associates are available at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW for an initial, free, no-obligation consultation when injuries such as this occur. The authorities did not release the name of either victim and have not arrested anyone as of yet.

If you have been charged with a criminal matter, speak to Stephen Bilkis and Associates for guidane. We have offices throughout New York City, including locations in Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island. We also have locations in Westchester County and Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island.

It has been reported that this years Memorial Day holiday weekend DWI arrest have increased from the previous years. A total of 130 arrests were made in Nassau County and Suffolk County combined. Nassau County arrested 73 people between 9pm Friday and 9am Tuesday morning. In Suffolk County there were 57 arrests between 4pm Friday and 7am Tuesday said a New York Criminal Lawyer. Last years reports indicate there were 106 arrests made and more than half of these arrests resulted in conviction especially when the suspects were not represented.

If you or someone you know is facing charges in New York due to a charge of Driving While Intoxicated or Driving While Ability Impaired it is important to ensure that your rights are protected. Speak to Stephen Bilkis and Associates for guidance and a free consultation. We have locations available throughout New York City for your convenience, including offices in Manhattan, Staten Island, Queens, the Bronx, and Brooklyn. We also have locations in Westchester County as well as Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island. Call us today for a free consultation.

An intoxicated New York City police officer was killed after causing a deadly car crash that also injured four others, according to a New York Criminal Lawyer. He had attended a surprise party for a fellow officer before the incident, and the guests at the event had seen the cop drinking. Two of the injured stated that they were just not aware of how intoxicated the driver was.

The 35 year old officer was driving his vehicle when he left the party just after 6AM on May 16th, reported a New York Criminal Lawyer. Another New York City police officer was one of the victims, as he had been riding in the car. The other cop, only 25, had also consumed alcohol at the party and had a blood alcohol level of .21. Both officers had been riding in the front seat of the car.

The driver had offered to drive the four victims home, despite his blood alcohol level of .16, which is twice the state ís legal driving limit of 0.08. All four victims were women, two of whom currently remain in critical condition. Two sisters were also seriously injured as a result of the automobile accident. The sisterís mother was angry that the police officersí reckless actions had landed her daughters in the hospital and caused their critical injuries such as a shattered pelvis, a spinal cord injury, and fractured legs.

If you have been accused of driving while intoxicated or impaired, contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates for your defense. Prosecutors take these cases very seriously, and therefore you should only be represented by the skilled legal counsel. Contact us today for a free consultation. We have offices to serve you throughout the New York City area, including locations in Manhattan, Staten Island, the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens. We also have locations in Westchester County as well as Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island.

An eighty-one year old man has been convicted of misdemeaner animal abuse and will be spending 30 Days in jail for the killing of a squirrel, says a New York Criminal Lawyer. Last February, the man was reported for abuse using a pellet gun to shoot the animal at his home. He has been arrested 12 times in the past for misdemeanor violations including criminal contempt, for violating orders of the court, but most of the arrests have been due to wildlife violations.

Upon his release from his 30 day jail sentence, the man will face 15 other charges all related to his use of a BB gun. The octagenarian, who lives in East Northport, has had many disputes in the past involving his neighbors.

He is an 81 year old Army Veteran who served in the army air corps for 3 years after World War II. Following his military career, he ran an aerial photography business. He spent many years flying out of the Fleshing Airport and the Bayport Aerodrome.

He has a daughter who is very concerned about the time her father must spend in jail mostly due to his multiple medical problems. She revealed to a New York Criminal Lawyer that she is overly concerned that he will not receive his many medications while he is incarcerated. He must also use a cane or walker to ambulate, and his multiple medical problems include ailments such as hypothyroidism and frequent confusion.

The man was supposed to start his jail sentence but two weeks previous to that he developed shortness of breath and was hospitalized. He may be eligible for special housing as an inmate in the jail, and with good conduct he may only have to serve 20 of the 30 day jail sentence before facing the further charges.

Even those facing misdemeanor charges need a qualified legal counsel for their defense. Contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates today for the best representation you can receive.

A 25 year old cab driver noticed two men were following him as he drove on Franklin Street in Hempstead. The cabbie stopped his cab and pursued the two men bearing a knife. The two men also left their car with bats. It has been reported that the two men took cash from the cab driver along with a cell phone after they beat him with the bats. The cabbie was able to stab one of the perpetrators. The cabbie was arrested and treated at Nassau University Medical Center in East Meadow. Police found the other two men who were later identified. One of the men was charged with robbery and possession of a dangerous weapon. He was also arrested and held at the hospital in a guarded location. According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, the cabbie was charged with assault and possession of a dangerous weapon.

If you are being charged with a crime you need skilled legal counsel by your side. Speak to Stephen Bilkis today for advice and a free consultation.

Just weeks after a January earthquake killed more than 300,000 people, devastating the country of Haiti, officials there will soon be faced with yet another task; caring for and housing immigrants with criminal backgrounds who have been deported from the United States, claims an officer . According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, the decision to no longer suspend deportation of Haitian immigrants has some people up in arms, saying that there is no way the country of Haiti can provide adequate housing and care for those deported at this time due to the disastrous effects of the earthquake upon its population.

More than one hundred detainees in Florida had their deportations placed on hold for six months after the earthquake, because of the extreme damage, mass homelessness and disease that has spreading through Haiti since the devastating quake hit. Now, reports the story, the United States is no longer willing to allow these detainees to remain here in the states, and is rounding them up and preparing to send them back, despite unsanitary living conditions and a precarious future in the country of their birth.

Cleanup has been excruciatingly slow since the earthquake, explains the official. Homelessness is rampant, crime has escalated and disease is overtaking the population. Thousands of people are being wiped out by Cholera, including a massive prison outbreak that has left more than two dozen prisoners dead. Despite these questionable conditions, a spokesperson for the ICE has maintained that the US government is doing what they can to insure that the deported prisoners will be returning under safe and humane conditions.

If you have found yourself charged with a criminal matter, such as drug possession, a theft crime or a DWI, contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice. We will ensure that your rights are protected, and will provide you with a free consultation.

John Mark Karr, who became semi-famous in 2006 for associating himself with the death of JonBenet Ramsey, is living here in the United States as a woman, according to a New York Criminal Lawyer. Karr falsely confessed to the murder of Benet Ramsey in Boulder, Colorado but it was later proven that he did not perform the murder nor did he help commit the crime. JonBenet Ramsey was a 6 year old beauty queen found murdered in her home in Boulder, Colorado
in 2006. The crime has never been solved and Karr was ruled out as the perpetrator.

Karr was a Thai teacher previously and he is now living in Washington state as a woman. There is no evidence that Karr has had any surgical procedures to officially become a woman. Karr is using the alias Alexis Valoran Reich and recent photographs of him show a much more feminine appearance then in the past. The pictures suggest to New York Criminal Lawyers that he is attempting to portray himself as a woman and further evidence to this attempt is that he is
using a female name.

A woman has come forth and reported Karr as living in Washington impersonating a woman. She also accuses him of allegedly attempting to form a cult of young girls. The woman appeared on the NBC's Today Show to publicize the new life of Karr and she has also placed a restraining order against the female impersonator.

At this time it is not known if there will be any legal actions taken against Karr other then the restraining order that has been filed with the local court.

Those facing criminal charges require the best defense. Speak to Stephen Bilkis and Associates today for advice, we will provide you with a free consultation and solid legal guidance.

A 40 year-old immigration attorney faces charges for 28 counts of fraud, conspiracy activity, and 42 counts of alien harboring with the intent of personal financial gain, so reports a New York Criminal Lawyer. The accused attorney held a great understanding of the US visa program, and used his inside knowledge to manipulate the system by intentionally overlooking his clients eligibility for three consecutive years.

The accused also charged his clients unreasonably high fees, claiming that he would help them obtain faulty 'green-cards'. This kind of behavior would lead many to believe that they would be receiving resident alien status, something that would dramatically change their lives. Not only has this man taken advantage of many clients financially, but also emotionally, by holding out unrealistic promises—based on lies.

A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer explains, that the charged, after being presented before the court was released on a $50,000 secure bond, under the pretenses that he would be forced to surrender US & UK passports. The future doesn't looks so bright for the accused, as with each count he will have to deal with a quarter of a million dollars in fines. In addition, with each count, he will also face a decade in prison, with exception of the conspiracy charge, that stipulates a maximum of five years in prison. Whatever personal gain, this man thought he had coming, it will pale in comparison to the years he will spend in prison, and the lives he ruined along the way.

In difficult situations, where you need direction and hope, Stephen Bilkis and Associates can help you navigate through the legal maze. Our legal team will act as your advocate, providing you with support, and an additional peace of mind.

The role of emerging technology and how the government, in particular those branches of the government charged with public protection and order, deal with it is one of the great challenges of the twenty first century, said a New York Criminal Lawyer the other day.

In particular, the issue of how to treat Electronic Mail, or E-Mail, has been a thorny issue for the courts to deal with. On the one side are privacy advocates, who believe that the Fourth Amendment protections against warrant less searches of one's person, house, papers, and effects should include E-Mail. They believe it is a logical extension that the founding fathers would have supported had E-Mail been in existence at the formation of the Republic.. On the other side of the issue are those arguing that individuals have no expectation of privacy to their E-Mails and that as a result they are not afforded protection form warrantless searches. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case just recently and has agreed with the former: E-Mail searches require a warrant prior to being conducted. The decision is considered a victory for privacy advocates.

The court believed that since E-Mail mimics the form and function of traditional mail that it would be illogical to not extend the protections. The case now sets a precedent to be followed by all courts within the Sixth Circuit. An appeal to the United States Supreme Court is expected and no doubt the nation's highest court will eventually decide on this issue.

If you have been the victim of a warrant-less search, or have been convicted of a white collar crime, or fraud, contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates to ensure your constitutional rights are protected.

We have offices available throughout the New York City area, including locations in Manhattan, Staten Island, the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens. We also have locations in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island, as well as Westchester County. Call us today and schedule an appointment. We will provide you with sound legal guidance and a free consultation.

A New York Criminal Lawyer says that a federal judge in Manhattan rejected a Guantanamo detainee’s request to drop his guilty verdict. The detainee claims that he should be tried as a civilian in the court and that his first trial was not legal or just. The judge ruled he would not drop the earlier guilty verdict and that there was enough evidence to continue with his keeping his charge of conspiracy. The detainee will probably appeal this ruling as well.

Last year, the detainee was convicted on one act of conspiracy to destroy a government building. The New York Criminal Lawyer was informed that the man was convicted of conspiring to blow up the US embassy in East Africa. There were 224 people who were killed in that attack and many more were injured. The attack also killed one dozen Americans.

The detainee was held on the conspiracy charge, but he was exonerated on 280 different counts in the same incident. The attack on the US embassy took place in 1998 and he has been in US custody ever since. He faces life in prison when he sees the judge for the sentencing portion of his trial, which will happen in the next few weeks. The detainee’s lawyer tried to dismiss the guilty charge by saying the verdict was inconsistent with other verdicts in the US since then. The judge dismissed the lawyer’s arguments and held the detainee on the guilty charge.

A Stephen Bilkis and Associates will aid you or a family member on any criminal case you face. Our legal team is trained to handle any matter in a court of law that requires representation. Consult our office before you step in to any court room.

A New York Criminal Lawyer has learned of the arraignment of an East Hills man in the hit-and-run death of an 81-year-old Roslyn Heights woman. According to his account, he saw the woman, but could not avoid hitting her. The driver, 26, is charged with felony, leaving the scene of an accident with a death, and with a traffic violation, leaving the scene of an incident without a report.

The prosecution said that the driver hit the 81-year-old woman with his Jeep Cherokee and just kept driving without alerting the authorities. She was thrown at least 75 feet by the impact and pronounced dead on the scene.

Nassau police sources said that the driver was found when he took his car to a Queens body shop and someone called the Nassau police department tip line. The driver says he was alone the night of the accident, according to a New York Criminal Lawyer.

Though he claimed to the judge to be unemployed, the driver’s attorney said he had been a teacher’s assistant and also worked for a start-up computer company. The driver’s parents plan to hire a private attorney. The judge ordered the driver to be held on $1 million bond or $500,000 bail.

A skilled legal counsel is the best hope for you or a loved when trouble with legal authorities arises. No matter what the circumstance, you will need representation to be certain your case is presented in the best possible way in court. Whether you have been charged with sex crimes, a theft charge or drug possession, it is important to speak with legal counsel as soon as possible to ensure that your rights are protected. Stephen Bilkis and Associates will provide you with sound legal guidance and a free consultation. Call us today at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW. We have offices in Manhattan, Staten Island, Queens, the Bronx and Brooklyn. We also have locations in Westchester County, as well as Suffolk County and Nassau County on Long Island.

A non-denominational community church was recently threatened with foreclosure following verification that it owed $11.3 million in principal, as well as substantial interest and moderate late charges, as reported by a New York Criminal Lawyer.

The non-profit community church in Palm Beach Gardens was cited for a possible foreclosure along with its fellow tenants, including a construction company and a real estate counseling firm. The principal amount owed by the church stemmed from a past loan from a local bank in 2006, and the case was heard in the Palm Beach County 15th Judicial Circuit. The non-profit community church originated in a former cinema complex in Palm Beach Gardens, and in 2008 upgraded to its current location, a retail/office/entertainment complex. A New York Criminal Lawyer notes the postulation of Palm Beach Gardens’ vice mayor that the church’s financial situation may be due, in part, to a struggling economy and the resulting decline in giving among members and guests. His insight is relevant due to his further involvement in commercial lending; the vice mayor serves as vice- president of commercial lending for another bank.

The community church houses a 50,000-square-foot cultural center oriented toward the local community, as well as a banquet hall that houses a commercial kitchen and features a capacity of 500 individuals. According to the aforementioned vice mayor of the city, it is likely that an agreement will be reached between the church and the bank- perhaps a payment plan- rather than pursuing a mortgage foreclosure. The vice mayor is quoted as saying, "Foreclosing on a church is not good public relations for a bank".

The expertise of legal counsel extends to such financial woes as those being faced by the community church mentioned above. As a non-profit organization serving the community, a certain level of leniency is sometimes offered. It is acknowledged that such investments as made by non-profits are not immune to economic setbacks, and are perhaps even more at risk of hardship to due the nature of the business. Our legal team is trained and accustomed to partnering with such non-profit organizations to seek financial resolution and restoration.

Whether you have a financial entanglement with an organization, or have been charged with a drug possession crime, or white collar crime, speak to your legal team right away. We will provide you with a free consultation and ensure that your rights are protected. We have offices throughout the New York area, including locations in Manhattan, Staten Island, Queens, the Bronx and Brooklyn. We also have locations in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island and Westchester County. Call us today to schedule your free consultation at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

Countries with dictatorial regimes in control are often filled with a population that has been abused, horrified, and terrorized, to the point of submission. The Libyan regime is no different, and with the world’s focus now turned toward it, many stories that have been hidden for so long are now making their way into the international spotlight, a New York Criminal Lawyer reports.

While each story told comes from an individual, there is a very common theme to each of them…A government-administrated campaign against its own people. Regardless of whether either passive or active submission techniques are employed, every totalitarian, authoritarian, and dictatorial government or ruler throughout history has used many of the same population control methods as has Gaddafi since he assumed power in 1969 as part of a military coup.

Some of the more recent reports from Libya reflect stories of those who were kidnapped, tortured, stored away, or even never heard from again. While many of their stories may seem far-fetched to many in the world who hear them, the stories are real and unfortunately, they are true.

One such story that has recently come to light involves a businessman and his family, who for as of yet unknown reasons were targeted by the Libyan secret police. The man was supposed to go into the local police station for unknown questioning, but never made it for the secret police kidnapped him on his way to the station. He was not seen or heard from for more than seven years. A New York Criminal Lawyer also discovered that during the time he was imprisoned, his family was constantly harassed. His son expelled from the university, and all were forbidden to make a living.

Unfortunately, tales such as the businessman’s are not uncommon, for there are countless other men and women who were taken away by the secret police that were never heard from again. Their fate can only be speculated, but like most Libyans, the worst is always expected.
The people of Libya are in the process of taking their country back from the regime that had them imprisoned for many years, and are paying a price for it. Freedom, as we are aware, is never free for it must be earned by the blood and sweat of a nation’s peoples.

If your family life has been interrupted by legal problems, whether it concerns a theft crime, drug possession or a white collar crime, our office is always available to assist. Call us today for a free consultation and to ensure that your rights are protected throughout your legal proceedings. We have offices located in New York City, including locations in Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island. We also have locations in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island, as well as Westchester County.

A former police officer was convicted of sex crimes and now faces many years in prison for his crimes. He abused his position of power and used that power to victimize two women. The now ex-cop offered jobs and child care programs to two women when he was not in authority to offer either to the women. He was convicted by a jury trial and one of the female jurors used the term "disgusting" when referring to the Defendant and his actions. He was also convicted of other charges at the trial including official misconduct and unlawful imprisonment.

Following his conviction, the ex-cop now faces up to seven years in prison for his illegal activities. He is due to be sentenced in July unless there is an extension of his sentencing date, according to a New York Criminal Lawyer.

His legal problems do not end with this sentencing. He was fired from the New York City Police Department last January for allegedly propositioning a teenager for sex. No further information is available at this time in regards to any further legal procedures involving this accusation. He also now faces a rape trial for charges related to two alleged assaults. He is accused again of abusing his position of power by luring two women to provide personal information to him while he was in uniform. He then took their personal contact information to get in touch with the two women at another time. Meeting up with the women he then allegedly attacked them sexually. The rape trial is pending.

If you or a loved one has been accused of rape or other sexual crime, please call Stephen Bilkis and Associates. Your future depends on the best representation, and only skilled legal counsel can provide that.

Testifying before a Connecticut State Legislature committee, a widower was finally allowed to tell his story about how his wife’s psychiatrist had contributed to her suicide more than seven years before, a New York Criminal Lawyer learned. This 46-year old man claims that after taking antidepressants the psychiatrist prescribed, his wife had suicidal thoughts. He went on to say that, her psychiatrist literally ignored his calls as he tried to get her help. His 46-year old wife eventually backed her car into the couple’s garage and left the engine running. Her death was a suicide by carbon monoxide poisoning.

While his wife’s former psychiatrist and his license remain in good standing in the state of Connecticut, and his attorney flatly denies the allegations, the husband of the dead woman has been on a quest ever since his wife passed away. He has had legal representation part of the time, most of his lawsuit attempts at the doctor have been pro se, which means he has been representing himself.

He has spent many hours at courthouses and legal libraries in order to prepare himself as to what he needed to do on his mission, as well as what would be expected of him. As part of his journey through the legal maze that he faced alone, he has filed numerous motions and legal briefs, and has most of them dismissed even without the judge allowing any arguments. Undaunted, he had his day to speak about his loss and his quest to a group of lawmakers who are looking to change the way the system treats those who represent themselves in malpractice lawsuits. During his testimony he was allowed to exceed his three-minute time to speak allocation because of his compelling story that lawmakers and attorneys alike had either already heard of, or were intrigued by.

At present, no one is for certain whether the bill the committee held the hearing over would ever make it to the floor of the Connecticut legislature for a vote, or if it had any chance of passage. The one thing that is clear in this story is that one man’s devotion to his family and to his cause can make a difference.

If you have been charged with an offense, such as fraud, drug possession or a theft crime, it is important to seek legal guidance as soon as possible. The penalties you could be facing could be severe, including prison time, community service and probation.

Contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice and a free consultation today.

A Kane County judge found an Elgin, Illinois man guilty of aggravated DWI and unlawful use of a deadly weapon. He was also found guilty of violating an order of protection. The judge dropped the most severe charge of armed violence and harassing a witness charge, a New York Criminal Lawyer was told.

The police were called to the residence of the 32-year-old man’s former girlfriend’s residence. They found the man asleep in a Jeep with a butcher knife outside the apartment complex at 2:45 a.m. April 7, 2010. The woman called the police because the man had knocked several times throughout a four-hour period. She never answered the door. Instead, she hid in fear until he went away.

At the trial, the police officers, who responded to the 911 call, testified that the man appeared intoxicated. He threatened his former girlfriend, one of the police officers said in court. At the time of the incident, he had been released on bond for an arson charge where he set fire to a house where one of his children, who was two-years-old, was inside. The child was not injured. The home belonged to his parents.

The man could face two to 10-years in prison for the charges because of the guilty verdict. He was been in custody since the incident in April.

The insurance company responsible for his parent’s home has filed a civil lawsuit against him because of the damages caused by the arson. They are requesting $410,000 from the man.

Contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates for guidance, whether you have been charged with sex crimes, arson, drug or weapons possession. We will use our years of experience to keep the fines and sentencing low. When you come in, we will provide you with legal guidance and a free consultation. We have offices throughout New York, including offices in Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island. We also have locations in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island, as well as Westchester County. Call us today for an appointment at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

An Alexandria Police Department detective faces driving under the influence charges after he was involved in a single car accident. He crashed his city-issued vehicle into a concrete pole. The car was provided to the department with taxpayer money. The accident happened at the corner of Gibbon and South Patrick Streets in Alexandria, a New York Criminal Lawyer was told.

The detective, who was off-duty at the time of the accident, refused to take a breathalyzer test when the police arrived about 6:30 p.m. Saturday at the accident location. He is also facing charges of unreasonable refusal for rejecting the breathalyzer test.

The mayor of the city said the incident could not be tolerated. “It doesn’t represent the characteristics of the hundreds of outstanding men and women of our police department. Hopefully, this is just an isolated incident,” said the mayor.

He was taken to an area hospital to be treated for injuries related to the accident. The injuries were considered minor.

The detective’s court date has not been officially scheduled, but he is on paid administrative leave. The department is running an internal investigation into the DUI said the department’s spokesperson.

This is not the first DUI incident the department has faced. Back in 2009, the former police chief was arrested in Arlington after drinking drunk. The current police chief, who replaced the former one after he was arrested, and the city manager may be taking a closer look at the department’s policies to keep DUIs from occurring again, explained a New York Criminal Lawyer.

Do not let just any lawyer represent you in court; instead let Stephen Bilkis and Associates fight for you. Whether you have been charged with drug possession, a theft crime, or DWI, we will provide you with a free consultation and ensure that your rights are protected. Come in and see us in one of our many New York locations, such as Staten Island, Queens, the Bronx, or Brooklyn. We also have offices in Suffolk County and Nassau County on Long Island, as well as Westchester County.

A man was arrested for DWI after allegedly striking objects and vehicles in a trailer park.

The local 911 office received several calls from trailer park residents about a driver in a white Ford truck striking, fencing, an electrical box, power lines and other vehicles. When officials arrived on the scene, they observed the white truck driving southeast without headlights in a field. When the truck stopped, deputies discovered the driver had abandoned the vehicle.

After searching the area, deputies found the 41 year-old man 300 yards from the abandoned truck. He was hiding in a ditch. The man stumbled out of the ditch mumbling that someone had slipped something in his drink and it was making him act crazy. Officials observed that the man seemed extremely intoxicated and discovered a rifle the man had left behind in the ditch, stated a New York Criminal Lawyer.

The man admitted to having drinks earlier in the evening, but refused to perform field sobriety tests because he stated he would not pass them. According to officials, he had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.239, which is three times the legal limit.

The man, who was driving with a suspended license, was arrested and charged with aggravated DWI, reckless driving, criminal damage and leaving the scene of an accident. No other details regarding the incident or about the man's incarceration or bond are available at this time.

If you or a loved one is facing criminal charges, Stephen Bilkis and Associates can help. We can help you navigate through the complicated process of putting together an effective defense, ensuring the best possible legal outcome. We have offices located throughout New York for your convenience, including locations in Manhattan, Queens, The Bronx, Brooklyn, and Staten Island. We also have locations in Westchester County, and Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island. Call us today for a free consultation at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

A driver, police believe was driving drunk, will face charges after her 17-year-old passenger suffered severe injuries from the crash. The 22-year-old woman driving crashed into a tree, a New York Criminal Lawyer was informed.

Police were called to the scene of the accident around 2:40 a.m. Sunday. The 17-year-old male passenger was unconscious when officials responded. He had visible facial injuries. The accident happened in Morgan Hill, California.

The driver is not the only person believed to have been drunk during the time of the crash, the minor was believed to have been under the influence too, as police officers reported to a New York Criminal Lawyer. A helicopter transported the 17-year-old male to a nearby hospital in California. At this time, the male is in critical condition, but the hospital was not able to go into any further detail about his health.

The driver also complained of pain in her ankles and wrists. It is unclear if they were wearing seat belts at the time of the crash. She has since been released from the hospital and booked by Morgan Hill Police. She was booked under the suspicion of DUI. She was taken to Santa Clara County Jail to await her day in court. It is unclear if she has a lawyer.

Do not be caught without a qualified legal counsel by your side. Do not let just any lawyer represent you; speak to Stephen Bilkis and Associates today. Whether you have been charged with a DUI, drug possession or a theft crime, it is important to speak obtain legal guidance right away. It is important to ensure that your rights are protected and that your case is presented to the court in the best possible light. Call us today for legal advice and a free consultation. We have offices located throughout New York City to serve you, including locations in Manhattan, Staten Island, the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens. We also have locations in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island, as well as Westchester County. Call us today to schedule a free consultation at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

Currently in the state of New York, there is an interesting dynamic happening in the medical field regarding awards given to victims of medical malpractice.

Many representatives of hospitals are arguing in favor of “caps” for financial compensation awarded to victims of alleged medical malpractice, in response to malpractice lawsuits. A New York Criminal Lawyer notes that one of the main reasons for their argument is the correlation between high malpractice awards and high costs of medical care to the average patient. The hospitals and doctors that are fighting for these malpractice award caps are also directly correlated to the increased need for “defensive medicine”, which includes certain medical procedures and tests which might normally be deemed unnecessary, were it not for the extra care given to patients out of fear of malpractice accusations.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, as observed by a New York Criminal lawyer, are consumer advocacy groups and attorneys, who claim that award caps for medical malpractice are detrimental to the interests of patients. They continue with a positive reason for keeping caps off of malpractice award suits by stating that when it comes to long-term care, cap-less awards act as an important element for the well-being of the patients. Furthermore, they maintain that hospitals do not usually pay such malpractice awards out of their own pocket; in fact, the insurance provider usually takes care of such claims, although insurance premiums have steadily increased in recent years.

Another reason that hospitals and doctors are hoping for award caps is the claim that such caps would result in a substantial lowering in insurance costs for the hospitals. However, a representative of the New York State Bar Association comments, "We've looked at the states where this has been put into place, for example in Texas," he said. "Texas adopted caps. Have insurance rates gone down? No. They haven’t gone down one cent." Medicaid currently has a multi-billion dollar budget, yet they do not pay out damage claims in cases of medical malpractice. Although doctors and hospitals have stressed the necessity for “relief” from massive malpractice awards, it appears as though the majority of cases and costs are absorbed by the insurance provider.

This issue is important to society and it is hoped that a delicate balance is struck between proper medical care for patients and the avoidance of flippant malpractice lawsuits. As the State of New York battles through this issue, we are likely to see similar debate nationwide In the event that you or those you love find yourself in the midst of a scenario such as that described above, qualified legal counsel is available to assist you with individual care and concern, as well as beneficial legal counsel and representation.

Whether you have been charged with Medicaid fraud, insurance fraud, or other white collar crime, it is important to speak with our office as soon as possible. We will ensure that you receive an aggressive defense, and that your rights are protected.

A Sag Harbor woman was charged with driving while intoxicated after she ran her car into a utility pole, according to reports from a New York Criminal Lawyer. The driver and her two small children sustained injuries in the crash.

The 34-year-old mother was charged with an aggravated felony, DWI, and a misdemeanor, endangering the welfare of a child, following the accident, a New York Personal Injury Lawyer was told. In Southampton Town Justice Court, her plea was not guilty, sources told New York Car Accident Lawyers. She was released on $5,000 bail.

The woman lost control of her vehicle while driving in Bridgehampton. She swerved into the northbound lane and knocked over several poles, dropping live wires over the road. Authorities had to close the street for several hours.

The woman and her children, ages 2 and 6, were taken by Fire Department rescue workers to Southampton Hospital, where they were quickly treated and allowed to go. Grandparents claimed the children at the behest of county Child Protective Services workers. No one could reach the mother of the children for comment.

A car accident is a traumatic event and having to go through legal proceedings does not make it easier. Whether you have been charged with a DWI, drug possession or sex crimes, it is important to obtain skilled legal guidance. When the time comes for you to be represented in court, speak to Stephen Bilkis and Associates for guidance and a free consultation. We have offices to serve you in New York City, including locations in Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn, the Bronx and Staten Island. We also have locations in Nassau County and Suffolk County in Long Island, as well as Westchester County. Call us today to schedule an appointment at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

A man accused of stealing a high dollar purse tells a Manhattan jury that he is too stupid to be a burglar, especially since he was not even aware that he was in a hotel where the crime occurred, according to a New York Criminal Lawyer. The Defendant is a convicted gun carrying car thief and shoplifter but claims to not have the intelligence to also be a burglar.

He was accused of sneaking into the Soho Grand Hotel in 2007 during a movie shoot and stealing a Balenciaga purse worth $2000. The purse belonged to Kirsten Dunst. He was arrested and went to trial on the burglary charge. His defense at the trial was that he was a drunk and was not even aware that he was in a hotel. He also used the defense that he is a myopic mongoloid who was incapable of the theft.

The Defendant then claimed to have been invited into the hotel by a friend who was involved in a drug deal at the time. His friend was allegedly going to the hotel to deliver drugs to an actor on the set and the delivery spot was the penthouse green room. The penthouse green room was being used by the British actor Simon Pegg and by the purse owner Dunst at the time.

The jury heard the details and spent a day deliberating the charges on the man but did not produce a verdict. The too stupid defense may have been effective. They will start their second day of deliberation to try and reach a verdict on whether or not the thief is smart enough to be a burglar.

If you have been accused of burglary, contact a legal counsel for your defense. There are many elements of your case that Stephen Bilkis and Associates will able to navigate you through.

Don’t plan on driving around in your tricked out car with the radio at full blast. New laws could make you a criminal in Florida if you have a car that is too noisy and police catch you, according to a New York Criminal Lawyer. Police are handing out fines and writing people up for laws that went in to affect that were meant to protect people’s hearing and privacy. Now, those laws are being challenged by people with tickets because they say the noise laws are too strict.

The “offenders” say they are not criminals and playing music within their car is not a crime. The law states that if someone – namely a police officer – can hear the music and they are at least 25 feet away, they can write you a ticket for the offense. People within the cars may have the music on and if the wind carries it the right way, police 25 feet away can come after you. The people riding in those cars believe that is not fair and that the distance by which a person can hear a radio or CD should be farther away.

Other cities besides the ones in Florida are also looking at tougher noise laws. Officials believe that if by making noise laws stricter and making them criminal offenses, people will pay attention to the law a bit more. The noise laws were created because citizens who didn’t have loud radios were tired of their cars shaking while sitting at a red light or a stop sign next to someone who had it up way too loud.

Whether you have been charged with criminal mischief, drug possession, or a DWI, it is important to speak with legal counsel as soon as possible. If you have questions or concerns regarding a potential case, call us today for a free consultation.

A bus driver in Mount Prospect is counting her lucky stars recently, claims a New York Criminal Lawyer. A judge granted the bus driver 2 ½ years of probation instead of a jail sentence for her crimes in a DWI case. The DWI occurred last March when the driver failed a field sobriety test. Her blood alcohol limit tested to be .226, which is more than three times the legal limit allowed for anyone to be behind the wheel.

The bus driver was driving under the influence as she dropped off approximately 45 students to their houses after school one day. She admitted to drinking two vodka tonic drinks during her lunch hour, before driving the students home from school. The bus driver was then fired from her position as driver. The driver’s supervisor was also fired for failure to report an incident.

There was a call made to the school district that alerted the supervisor that drinking might have been taking place during the lunch hour. The supervisor did not notify police, which the school says violated their policy. According to the New York Criminal Lawyer, the supervisor and the bus driver were fired for their conduct. The bus driver was charged with a DWI, and ordered 2 ½ years of probation, along with 480 hours of community service, attend alcohol counseling and pay a fine to the city. There is no word on if the supervisor faced any charges related to the incident besides losing their job.

Stephen Bilkis and Associates can represent you in a DWI case. Our skilled team of lawyersare trained to handle any criminal matter that you or a friend may face. Call us today for advice and a free consultation. We jhave offices located throughout New York City, including locations in Manhattan, Queens, the Bronx, Brooklyn and Staten Island. We also have locations in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island and Westchester County.

Officers of the New York Police Department have been accused of allegedly sodomizing a man during an arrest and claims to have proof, according to a New York Criminal Lawyer. The Brooklyn man, 27, claims to have information that the police officers altered the underwear he was wearing at the time of the event.

The attorneys for the man had called for a press conference to announce the new accusation but cancelled the event when the lawyers for the police officers demanded an emergency hearing and a gag order. The police attorneys succeeded in obtaining the gag order and a federal judge requested that the Plaintiffís attorneys not release the pictures demonstrating the proof of the altered underwear.

The man claims that the police baton used at the time of his arrest would not have produced the tear that was in his underwear. If the tear was from the baton, there should be a flap of cloth in the same area but the flap is no longer present. The Plaintiffís attorneys have concluded that the underwear was altered following the arrest suggesting tampering with evidence.

The new evidence is important in that during the police officer's criminal trial, an expert witness for the police officers testified that a flap should have been present. The officers were acquitted but the jury did not hear the evidence of the underwear tampering. Pictures taken at the
time of the arrest of the man did show a flap and this is the proof of tampering that he wants publicized.

The police officers and the NYPD are being sued, and do not want the tampered evidence presented to the jury. Prosecutors, on the other hand, stated that the jury did see all the evidence including the pictures obtained before the tampering
and still acquitted the officers.

Being charged with sex crimes is a serious offense. It is important that your rights are protected. There is no better representation for you than Stephen Bilkis and Associates.

Even though the body of a 10-year old disabled girl has been found, authorities have not had any luck finding the girl's severed head. The girl's stepmother has been charged with killing the girl and dismembering her body, reports a New York Criminal Lawyer. Law enforcement officials were able to locate the girl's body with assistance from the stepmother, who has been charged with the murder.

The stepmother, who has also been accused of abusing the girl prior to her death, appears to show little remorse for her actions. The girl, born in Australia, developed bone cancer when she was young and lost one of her legs and much of her hearing. She lived with her father and stepmother in the United States. Her biological mother still lives in Australia. Neighbors, friends and others report having seen bruises on the girl and also witnessed verbal and emotional abuse. The stepmother was apparently married to another man when she married the girl's father. The man lived across the street from the girl and her family and pretended to be the stepmother's brother.

Even though she was reported missing on October 9th of last year, law enforcement officials believe the girl went missing earlier than that. At the end of October, law enforcement found the girl's prosthetic leg and were able to identify it as hers using the manufacturer's serial number. Skeletal remains were found on November 3 and in the days that followed.

In addition to the kidnap and murder her stepdaughter, the stepmother also forged a ransom note. The ransom note asked for 1 million dollars. The stepmother is also being charged with hindering an investigation because police had to spend time to determine whether the note was real. The father has not been charged with any crime even though the stepmother has accused him of inappropriate behavior after the girl's remains were discovered.

While charges are pending against the stepmother, formal charges have not been filed because the girl's head has not yet been recovered. It is hopeful that the stepmother will reveal the location of the severed head so the girl may be put to rest in a compassionate manner. So far, the stepmother has shown little guilt or remorse for her actions and instead blames the girl and the father for her behavior.

Stephen Bilkis and Associates can help you through your legal troubles by providing insight and advice. Contact us today for a free consultation.

Taking the law into one’s own hands is never the best way to handle a situation. People tend to get hurt and once the actual legal system gets involved the process may become overwhelming. If you find yourself in a situation in which taking the law into your own hands has become an issue, contact a New York Criminal Lawyer. If this landlord had simply waited to see what was going to happen, perhaps this would not have escalated into assault.

Though the case has been forwarded to prosecutors, no charges have been filled as of yet. The 73 year old owner of the duplex in which the tenant lived ran over a man he said was standing behind his vehicle and refusing to move. West Fargo police state that Cass County prosecutors may charge the vehicle driver with aggravated assault. The tenant remains hospitalized and has been unable to speak to detectives following his injuries. In fact it is likely that the hospitalized man will not be able to speak to detectives for several more days.

The landlord told reporters that he felt threatened and scared by some man standing in the road who would not move. The landlord then states he saw another person coming up behind his vehicle and the fear was magnified. This all took place around 7:15 P.M. in the 600th block of Second Avenue West while the landlord sat in his Hummer.

Witnesses share a different story as two separate people state that the landlord struck the tenant on purpose, knowing where he was and who he was. Though he should probably hire a New York Criminal Lawyer for representation it does not appear the landlord has retained representation. This may be because no formal charges have been filed, but advice should still be considered. The landlord states that he will contest any charges that may be filed. He also adamantly says that he feared for his safety and did not purposely run over his tenant with his Hummer. It can be assumed that the landlord’s vision will be questioned as well as a history of disputes or arguments between the tenant and landlord. Witnesses will also play a large part in the decision of whether or not the prosecution is going to pursue this case as criminal.

If you find yourself in a position in which criminal charges are likely or pending, whether charges involve drug possession, a theft charge or assault, contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates immediately. No one should stand alone in a courtroom and our legal team will offer the best defense possible. We have offices throughout the New York area, including all the boroughs of New York City, Long Island and Westchester County. Call us today for a free consultation.

Those not wearing seat belts and driving under the influence of alcohol are now being targeted by police officers of both Iowa and Illinois. They now have more officers in those areas patrolling the streets looking for these violations, according to a New York Criminal Lawyer. Click It or Ticket and You Drink and Drive are two long time campaigns that are now linked together according to the Illinois Department of Transportation.

The extra patrolling being done in Iowa is know as the special Traffic Enforcement Program, or TEP. This will include 2,000 extra seat belt enforcement zones and much more patrolling at night to enforce these laws. This also includes 68 roadside safety checks.

Illinois has had a decline in deadly traffic accidents at a time of the year when numbers are usually on the rise due to increased travel with the holidays. Last years drop in fatalities was the first time since 1921 that there have been less than 1,000 people killed on the road. The state is also on track to be below 1,000 again this year.

Even though the numbers have been on the decline, the DOT is warning drivers to use caution on the road in this holiday season. Dan Wood of the DOT said."It's a time (of year) when we can forget that risky driving behavior can kill. Even one death, as everyone knows, is too many." There was a fatality on Halloween that killed a 40 year old trick-or-treating with her son.

If you have been charged with a DWI, then you need the assistance of Stephen Bilkis and Associates. Call us today for legal guidance and a free consultation. It is important to act promptly, to ensure that your rights are protected throughout your legal proceedings. We have offices located throughout New York City, including offices in Manhattan, Staten Island, Queens, the Bronx, and Brooklyn. We also have locations in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island and Westchester County.

A woman in Arizona was found guilty of participating in the deaths of a father and his daughter. The killings took place in 2009. The woman, an anti-illegal immigration activist, and two men forced their way into the family's home, claims a New York Criminal Lawyer. The two men shot and killed the man and his daughter and wounded the man's wife. The wife survived and called the police to report the killings. She says that she misses her family and blames the woman for destroying her life.

The woman, who is the head of an anti-illegal immigration watchdog group called the Minutemen American Defense, claims she is innocent and did show any remorse for her actions during the trial. This lack of remorse may have prompted the jury to sentence her to death, reports a New York Criminal Lawyer. In addition to being convicted of first-degree murder, the woman is the third woman in Arizona currently on death row. According to the district attorney, even though the woman may not have actually shot the man and his daughter, she planned the attack and got the two men to follow through with her plans.

It is suspected that the woman suffers from emotional problems and may have been abused as a child. She claims she targeted the man because he was a suspected drug dealer. She told news reporters when asked about what she had done that no one with children should sell drugs. No drugs or other illegal substances were found at the home when police arrived on the scene. The apparent motivation for invading the man's home was to steal jewelry, money, drugs and other items to help fund the Minutemen American Defense, says a New York City Criminal Lawyer. Jewelry belonging to the family was found by police at the woman's home. After finding the jewelry, the woman was arrested and taken into police custody.

To gain entry into the home, the woman and two men posed as border patrol officers. The man, his wife and daughter were all natural-born United States citizens. They lived ten miles from the Mexican border. The two men suspected of firing the weapons that killed the man and his daughter go on trial sometime this year. The two men may also receive the death penalty if convicted of killing the man and his daughter.

Whether you have been charged with murder, sex crimes, a drug or theft crime, it is important to seek legal guidance as soon as possible. Stephen Bilkis and Associates there at your side throughout the legal process to offer advice and counsel.

This is a disturbing case in which a man under the influence of alcohol started to drive his car after his girlfriend had been arrested. He was taking over and trying to drive as there was no one else around to drive him. Sadly, the man drove his car into a tree and killed the woman’s 5-year-old boy, reported the New York Criminal Lawyer.

The ultimate result in this case was that the man was found guilty of aggravated driving under the influence and will do three to fourteen years in prison. This crash was particularly horrific in that it happened at high-speed and the little boy had no chance.

The facts of the case appear to be that the man driving the car stated that the police ordered him to drive after his girlfriend was arrested. He claims he argued with them that she was his designated ride. However, that argument didn’t go over with the police, as the girlfriend was driving with a suspended license.

The man took off in the car and a high rate of speed, slammed violently into a tree, bounced off the tree into a fence and the eventually tore up a pine tree by its roots. When arrested, his blood alcohol level was twice the legal limit. The little boy was alive when emergency response crews arrived at the scene, but died later in hospital.

Despite what this case may have looked like on the surface, there was a stated defense for this man and that was he was a victim of entrapment and necessity – meaning that he only got into his car to drive because a police officer ordered him to drive and said he’d be arrested if he didn’t do as he was told. The girlfriend in this scenario informed the police the man was drunk.

However, there was rebuttal testimony that indicated the girlfriend had actually pleaded with the police to let the man drive the little boy home.

Whether you have been charged with DWI, sex crimes, gun possession or assault, it is important to ensure that your rights are

A 16 year old girl and a 13 year old boy are shot and killed after talking back to their 50 year old new mom, as reported by a New York Criminal Lawyer. The mom didn’t deny the shooting and killing of these two children.

The mom was already confronted once by police a few months earlier when they went to her residence for an abuse call. The mom would slap her children in the face for talking back. The police couldn’t really do anything at that time for lack of evidence. A police spokeswoman said that this seemed like a normal incident of high tension between a frustrated mom and teenage children. The police didn’t think this woman would eventually shoot her children.

The daughter had been going to a school counselor because of her own lashing out at her mom. She regretted how bad she had talked to and treated her mother. The counselor did say that she was told the mom would sometimes slap the children in the face for talking back. This really frustrated the teen girl who was used to being grounded for discipline and not hit. The counselor told the teen that a mother should not be slapping anybody in the face.

The hitting did continue to get worse. One time the mom hit the girl in the face for about 30 seconds on the way home. Once home she tried to continue hitting her but the teen caught her mom’s hand, stopped the hitting and decided to stand up to her mother instead of allowing her to keep physically abusing her.

The mom is a step-mom and not the birth mom. The children would often tell the mom that she was not their mom and this lead to more hitting and helped increase the frustration felt from the mom and the children.

After shooting her children, this 50 year old Tampa lady is being held without bond until her trial. The trial date has not been set and she is being help in a Florida State Correctional Facility.

Whether you have been charged with domestic violence, a drug crime, or a theft crime, don’t ever go to trial without the help of qualified legal counsel. Even if it looks hopeless and you are facing serious charges, don’t give up.

A man held for 14 days in 2003 for alleged ties to a terror suspect has filed a lawsuit against a former Attorney General. The man claims that he was stopped at Dulles International airport in Virginia and taken to various places throughout Virginia, Oklahoma and Idaho for questioning. During these sessions, the man was grilled on various subjects including his religious beliefs, ties to terrorism groups inside and outside the United States and his relationship with the terror suspect police officials had in custody, reports a New York Criminal Lawyer. The man was eventually released and never had to appear as a material witness. The other man's trial resulted in an acquittal in 2004.

The man, a U.S. citizen, converted to Islam while attending the University of Idaho. It was there that he struck up a friendship with the other man accused of terrorism. On that day in 2003, the man was on his way to Saudi Arabia to learn more about his religion, study the language and learn more about the culture when he was detained at the airport. The man currently lives in Saudi Arabia and is being represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

This case will probably end up being heard in front of the Supreme Court. While most agree the court will side with the Attorney General, some believe the decision to do so will be a tough one. The man's case rests on the fact that he was wrongfully detained as there was no evidence he was a part of any criminal activity or that he knew of any terror plots against the U.S., explains a New York Criminal Lawyer. The man also claims that law enforcement coerced him into answering questions because they told him he was to be a material witness during the other man's trial.

Newly appointed Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from this case since she used to be President Obama's solicitor general. The remaining justices will hear the case and make their judgment based on the evidence presented. This is relatively new legal territory as the Supreme Court has heard few of these types of cases since 9/11. They must take into consideration the political climate at the time and the rights of the man suing former Attorney General Ashcroft. This decision may affect future court cases heard in the Supreme Court and in other courts throughout the United States.

If you have questions about pending legal proceedings, or have been charged with a drug possession, a theft crime, or white collar crime, contact legal counsel right away to ensure that your rights are protected.

An elementary school principal has been arrested for obstructing officers. The incident occurred Monday evening as police responded to a burglary call and was in the process of arresting the boyfriend of the principal’s daughter. At some point during the time that police were on the scene, the principal became loud and belligerent which led to the accumulation of a crowd outside. It was at that point that police say they had no other choice than to arrest the principal as her commotions were arousing the gathering crowd of onlookers. The principal’s daughter has stated that her mom was only questioning the officers and had done nothing wrong.

The day following the incident, the principal was noticeably absent from school, as the local school board had placed her on suspension with pay pending an investigation, which they say is standard procedure. The local parents and students were left wondering what happened and why should the incident have led to her being suspended from her job when she was apparently doing a good job with the children. Some other parents, however, are asking some different questions, such as how can a school principal lecture their children on anger management when she cannot control her own temper.

A New York Criminal Lawyer has also learned that the principal has had some controversy in the past that was a function of her job. The resulting investigation of the on-campus spanking was inconclusive.

There are so many other factors that have not discovered as of this writing, and we are still awaiting comments from local law enforcement officials and from the local school district. Both are continuing their investigations. Thus far, there have been no indications as to why the principal lost her cool, or why she did not heed the law enforcement officers when they advised her to remain calm or they would have to arrest her.

In the meanwhile, the principal was released on a $150 bail and is awaiting the results of the schools investigation that will determine how soon or even if she can return to work.

When you have an encounter with the legal system, it can be a frightening experience, as many just do not understand the way it works. Whether you have been charged with sex crimes, burlgarly, assault or other criminal matter, it is important that your rights are protected. our legal team and Stephen Bilkis and Associates are fully qualified to stand up for you or your loved one and work to resolve the issue and get you back on the path that you need to be.

A man was convicted in Chicago of killing a young boy when he crashed his car into a tree. The boy was five-years old, reports a New York Criminal Lawyer. The incident occurred after the boy's mother was arrested for driving with a suspended license. The police officer at the scene took the mother into custody, but allowed the man, who was under the influence, to drive the boy home. The man was sentenced to three to 14 years in prison.

The initial incident took place in the Chicago neighborhood. The boy was eventually killed not too far from where his mother was arrested.

Throughout the trial, the mother of the boy insisted that at the time of her arrest, she told the police officer at least three times that the man was drunk and that she was the designated driver. She claims that the officer ordered the man to drive the boy home and even threatened to arrest the man if he did not comply. The man's blood-alcohol limit was twice the legal limit at the time of the accident. While driving, the man lost control of the car and slammed into a tree. The car then hit a fence and uprooted another tree, says a Manhattan Criminal Lawyer. The man claims he had no choice but to follow the police officers orders or face being arrested just like the mother.

The officer on the scene denies the mother's story. According to the district attorney, the mother actually pleaded with the officer to let the man take the boy home. Witnesses at the hospital where the boy died stated they overheard the mother telling a relative that she did indeed ask the officer to let the man drive. The district attorney also claims several other inconsistencies in the man and the mother's story. Apparently, the jury felt the same way and convicted the man of killing the boy.

It is unclear if the mother will face additional charges. The boy was killed last spring. The man was only recently sentenced for causing the boy's death. The lawyer for the man stated during the trial that the man was a victim of entrapment because he was forced by the officer to drive while under the influence. The lawyer also claimed that is was "necessary" for the man to follow the police officers orders.

Contact a Stephen Bilkis and Associates when facing legal issues. Whether you have been charged with a DWI, drug crime or sex crime, we can ensure that your rights are protected. Our legal team will listen to you and expertly represent your side during a trial or during other legal procedures.

A mother was driving drunk in a school zone this last week in front of an elementary school. She was obviously under the influence after being seen crashing into a stop sign and then continuing to get in line at school in order to pick up her daughter from the elementary school according to a school crossing guard.

The Florida Highway Patrol responded to this accident as it was initially called in as a hit and run, explained a New York Criminal Lawyer. The school crossing guard actually recognized the woman and immediately called the school to notify them.

Of course all this happened at about 3:00 as students where being dismissed for the day from school. The Florida Highway Patrol found this lady waiting in line ready to pick up her daughter from the school as they responded to this call. At that time the police took her into custody and tested her blood alcohol level. She was well above the legal limit as she took the breath test. This mother tested at 2 ½ times the legal limit.

The legal limit is set at .08 and this lady had a blood alcohol level of .20. She wasn’t just charged with a DWI but the arrest included the fact that she had committed a hit and run by not stopping after running over the stops sign. This caused a lot of anger and outrage from the other parents waiting in line to pick up their children.

A Stephen Bilkis and Associates can help you if you are being charged with a felony. Stand up for your rights and get help today. We have offices to serve you throughout the New York area, including locations in Manhattan, Queens, Staten Island, the Bronx, and Brooklyn. We also have locations in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island, and Westchester County.

A 19-year old female has been charged with aggravated cruelty to animals, which a felony that if convicted carries a maximum sentence of up to two years.

Before we continue, we must add that while some of the events contained in this article may seem bizarre, they are a factual representation of a true event that occurred within a large metropolitan city, and was first reported in one of its major newspapers. The names are being withheld due to privacy concerns of the parties.

It all began with the purchase of a hamster for the 19-year olds’ 9-year old brother. Her older brother, who is 25 and at the time was angered over something, had intentionally kicked the ball that the original hamster was in, which in turn threw the hamster from the ball. As a result of this action, the hamster died, the New York Criminal Lawyer was told.

The 25-year old brother, having felt absolutely horrible about what had just happened sought to make things right for his younger brother and bought him three new hamsters. While this may seem like the right thing for him to do, his 19-year old sister did not think too much of this and in the process she picked up one of the hamsters and “slammed it to the floor.” The hamster, of course, died on impact due to “blunt force trauma and liver damage.”

Thas yet to discover how the local animal society or local law enforcement first learned of this incident, but we had the chance to ask one local official about the incident. The local animal society told the New York Criminal Lawyer that animal cruelty laws apply to all animals regardless of size, and that the felony charge against the 19-year old female, as well as two additional misdemeanor charges of torturing animals and endangering the welfare of a child will also be pursued. Charges have not been filed against the 25-year old son.

The hamsters are no longer staying with the family. They were taken to a friend of the 25-year old son for safekeeping.

Criminal law can often take many twists and turns. Whether you or a loved one has been convicted of a drug crime, a weapons charge or DWI, it is important to ensure that your rights are protected at all times.

This was a really rough case for the local community and for all those involved in the search for a missing girl. The ten-year-old had lost her hearing and one leg as she fought bone cancer, said a New York Criminal Lawyer. Unfortunately, the girl was reported missing in October. It wasn’t until November that her body parts were found. Additionally, the police felt that the girl had been missing even before she was officially called in as a missing person.

The child’s stepmother was charged with murdering, abusing and desecrating her body. The police were unable to find the girl’s head despite a massive search over two different locations. There were indications of tool marks on the bones that were found, a fact that indicates the girl was dismembered after she was dead.

Based on evidence collected over the course of the investigation, the police were able to determine that the stepmother had consistently relied on verbal, physical and psychological abuse when interacting with her step-daughter, reported the New York Criminal Lawyer. Because the woman was in a position of trust, she was able to take advantage of that to kill the girl and then hide her body to delay detection and prosecution.

There were no reasons given why the stepmother chose to kill her stepdaughter. However, there were further allegations that the stepmom wrote a fake ransom note for one million dollars and that she wrote a letter while in jail, admitting the girl was dead and she felt sorry that she was caught. She tried to diffuse public reaction to her alleged crime by pointing a finger at the husband.

Even though this case does not look hopeful on the surface, it may not be what it looks like. This is the main reason to not assume that the woman is guilty of anything, until a case is actually made and she is proven to indeed be guilty. There are many criminal defenses that may be used to protect the stepmother’s rights and to make sure she is well represented, she would be best advised to speak to skilled legal counsel right away.

Everyone one, whether they are charged with a crime or suspected of a crime, including sex crimes, weapons charges or drug offenses , is entitled to a defense. That is why the whole foundation of the criminal justice system is innocent until proven guilty. To find out what your legal rights would be in a case like this.

If or a loved one has been charged with a criminal offense, it is important to speak to qualified legal counsel right away to ensure that your rights are protected throughout your legal proceedings.

Just when you think you have heard the entire story, new information has been revealed that prior to a well known baseball player's DWI arrest in February; he apparently had some choice words to say to some folks at a local restaurant.

The apparently intoxicated gentleman had stopped into a local restaurant at about 10:30pm when the manager told him that the restaurant was closing. He proceeded on into the restaurant when was informed by the manager again that the restaurant was closing. Was reported to have made repeated comments to the manager that he did not know who he was. A New York Criminal Lawyer was also told that he leaned into the manager’s face and said, "I know all of you, and I will kill all of you and blow this place up," as he patted the side of his shoulder bag.

It was at this point that the manager instructed a bartender to call 911, and the off-duty wildlife officer who had been inside the restaurant speaking with his friend, the manager, stepped out to his vehicle to collect his badge and firearm. It was at this point that the baseball player exited the restaurant and sped away in his vehicle while continuing to shout obscenities at everyone within hearing distance. It was not long afterwards that the police arrived.

About 30-minutes after the incident at the restaurant, the man's vehicle was spotted on the shoulder of the same road as the restaurant with smoke coming from it. When the deputy approached him, the deputy smelled alcohol, and according to the arrest report, the player actually turned up a bottle of scotch and took a drink in front of the deputy. It was at this point of the incident that he was arrested for DWI, and for resisting arrest without violence after he put up a small struggle with deputies.

Neither the baseball team, or his attorney had any comments. As of this writing, his attorneys have entered a plea of not guilty with the court.

Have you or a loved one have had a run-in with the law? If you have been charged with a criminal offense, it is important to speak to legal counsel right away to ensure that your rights are protected. Stephen Bilkis and Associates knows the way around the potential legal quagmire that awaits you, and can assist you in reaching a satisfactory conclusion.

An FBI SWAT team executed a search warrant on Wednesday, and made one arrest connected with the case, reports the New York Criminal Lawyer. The arrest is a result of the so-called isolated event that occurred on Martin Luther King Day that involved a backpack that was reportedly filled with enough explosives to cause lethal damage to bystanders.

Arrested is a 36-year old, ex-soldier that allegedly has ties to a white-supremacist group. This is reportedly the same group that was founded by the author of “The Turner Diaries,” that was the focus of setting the guidelines for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. It is thus far unclear as to whether he is the only person of interest in this case.

The suspect has already been arraigned in U.S Federal Court, which he has waived his hearing for bail. The suspect could face life in prison if convicted of several felony offenses including of the attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction. A separate charge of possession of an unregistered explosive device could net the suspect another maximum sentence of 10-years in prison if convicted. His next scheduled court appearance is set for March 23.

The Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer has heard much discussion, thus far, as to whether this should be classed as a hate crime. In simple words, a hate crime is considered by most states as any crime that involves “threats, harassment, or physical harm and is motivated by prejudice against someone's race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability.” The facts of this particular crime fit many of these definitions, as the explosive device was planted along a parade route that was to be primarily frequented by persons of a certain race, color, or national origin, and sought to cause threats, and/or physical harm to those persons.

The homemade bomb that was found on MLK Day was no makeshift device, as the explosives were laced with rat poison, which serves as an anti-coagulant. These were all factors prompted officials to pursue this case as one of domestic terrorism.

When you have a question about the legal system or are dealing with a criminal charge, contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates. Our legal team has the education, background, and experience to ensure that your rights are protected. As stressful as a criminal charge can be, it is important to take prompt legal action. Depending on the charges, you could be facing prison, community servce, fines and probation. The sooner you enlist the services of a qualified lawyer, the better chances you will have for a positive outcome.

Continue reading "FBI Makes Arrest in MLK Bomb Case" »

Two alleged bank robbers have been arrested, claimed a New York Criminal Lawyer. While police and FBI spokespeople have had few public comments yet, the two robbers are believed to be behind other recent bank robberies in a different district this month.

The arrests are part of a joint law enforcement investigation that included officers and agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF), and officers from various state and local police departments. Both bank robberies had similar methods of operation (MO), that included what appeared to be a pipe bomb left at each location, that later proved to be fake.

The suspects are being called the ‘copycat robbers’ as they were copying a robber from another series of bank robberies that had occurred in the area that also used fake bombs while pulling off heists, a Queens Criminal Lawyer was told. The particular bandit the crime duo was mimicking was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison just last month for his crimes.

Agents were able to apprehend the suspects as a result of a tip that alerted the agents and officers to the possible whereabouts of one of the robbers and of his next planned target. As a result of that tip, they were able to find evidence in a dumpster behind a neighborhood house and were able to trace the robber from there. It has also been reported that when agents approached the robber, there was no altercation and one came clean to what his plans and intentions were for his next robbery attempt.

The arrests caused quite the stir in nearby office buildings, as many workers congregated at the nearby windows to catch a glimpse of the activity nearby. Some were citing that as many as six workers were cramped into one office just to see what was going on as the arrests took place.

According to recent statistics, bank robberies have been on the rise over the past few years, and are believed to be related at least in part due to the sluggish economy.

The legal system can be very complicated and daunting. If convicted, you could be facing substantial penalties including prison time, fines, probation, and community service. If you have been charged with a crime, it is important to obtain legal counsel as soon as possible to ensure that your rights are protected.

Continue reading "Bank Robbers Arrested" »

Biloxi, MS, police have arrested an armed robbery suspect that is suspected of holding up a Brinks security guard on Wednesday, a New York Criminal Lawyer has learned. The suspect had confronted a Brinks’ guard who had just completed making a pickup at a local store, and at gunpoint demanded the guard to lie on the floor. The suspect took the Brinks bag and ran away.

Witnesses at the scene described the suspect’s vehicle to police and the suspect was soon spotted by a patrol officer who attempted to stop the vehicle. Following a brief pursuit along a local highway and city streets, the chase soon led into a local neighborhood, police discovered the suspect’s disabled vehicle abandoned with a flat tire. Officers and K-9’s took to the pursuit by foot through the neighborhood yards and the local wooded area. The suspect was taken into custody shortly thereafter without further incident.

As reported by the Stated Island Criminal Lawyer, this incident could have ended badly. When the suspect entered the local neighborhood, there were families and children who were watching as the events unfolded and many were reportedly frightened as they observed the suspect running through yards, and jumping over shrubbery and through fences. The officers on the scene did an excellent job in not only capturing an armed robbery suspect, but also in community relations as when the officers entered the neighborhood, they informed many of its residents to lock their doors and to stay away from the windows for safety’s sake. The residents have stated that they are very appreciative of not only the officers capturing the suspect, but to their rapid response to the scene.

As part of their ongoing investigation, the police have located the Brinks bag, and an old cell phone they have yet to identify, but have thus far not located the weapon that was allegedly used in the robbery of the Brinks guard. Even if it was not a gun, but perhaps only looked like one, it is still armed robbery. Most state laws make that perfectly clear. The suspect’s bail has been set at $250,000.

Whenever legal charges have been filed against either you or someone you love, it is important to speak with legal counsel right away. If you are found guilty, you could be facing significant consequences including prison time, probation, fines and more.

Continue reading "Brinks Truck Robbery Suspect Arrested" »

A former star of the a popular baseball team, was already in trouble for driving recklessly and forcing two cars off the road, even before he was arrested for DWI in February.

A New York Criminal Lawyer obtained evidence from the State Attorney’s Office in Florida that showed the defendant forced a truck off the road before his driving caused another car to take “evasive action and (go) totally onto the grass shoulder in order not to hit the sport utility vehicle head-on”.

This was from one of two drivers who claimed to see the SUV driving erratically. The 911 call revealed the driver felt the SUV operator had to be drunk or under the influence of drugs.

Later, the SUV was identified as the baseball player’s vehicle. It was reported to be by the side of the road with smoke pouring out of it.

Police found defendant next to the vehicle when they arrived. The athlete had blood shot eyes and “heavily slurred” speech, police sources reported. He was even drinking from a bottle of scotch when authorities were on the scene. The defendant initially resisted arrest, police explained.

Everyone deserves a fair trial, to be treated as anyone else in a court of law, no matter how famous they happen are, or the offense they have committed, including drug offenses, a sex crime or theft crime. Their treatment should be no better nor any worse than it would be for someone unknown to the general public. Sometimes, that’s easier said than achieved. Fortunately, there are skilled criminal lawyers whose job is making sure all sides are equal when it comes to a criminal trial.

Continue reading "Baseball Star Faces DWI and More" »

Some Ohio immigration-reform groups claim a program created to catch criminal illegal immigrants is also sending away people who have not committed any crimes.

These groups claim that 25% of the people deported by the federal Secure Communities program had never had any criminal conviction. In other places, they claim more than half of those deported through the program had no criminal record.

“We’re not talking about people who are truly dangerous criminals,” a representative of the ACLU explained. “These are people who are getting caught in the dragnet of law enforcement.
“We’re talking about people who want to work, who want to pay taxes, who just want to be left alone to live.”

A New York Criminal Lawyer has looked into ICE records and learned that from January 2010 through February 2011, 240 people were deported from Ohio. 123 of them had never been convicted of anything. This did include, however, people were charged with misdemeanors or felony charges that were either unproven or later dropped.

As for ICE, they claim it is their top priority to deport criminals. They told an NYC Criminal Lawyer that their Secure Communities program has identified more than 21,000 illegal immigrants convicted of such crimes as murder, rape, and child abuse in the three years of its operation.

Others say the agents are focusing on immigrants who are working, have families, or are high school students. They have been urging the president and other federal leaders to cause a change in the immigration program.

Even the union of immigration agents was unhappy with ICE. “Senior ICE leadership dedicated more time to campaigning for immigration reforms aimed at large-scale amnesty legislation than advising the American public and federal lawmakers on the severity of the illegal immigration problem,” the union stated.

Groups against illegal immigration claim these opposition groups are always trying to “water down immigration laws.”

“Being in a country illegally is a deportable offense,” a member of anti-illegal immigration groups said. “They’re in this country illegally, and they’re taking jobs from Americans. Their criminal status shouldn’t matter.”

Continue reading "Civil Rights Groups in Ohio Rail Against Crimeless Deportation" »

Four men were arrested after it was discovered that they billed for unnecessary dental work totaling $5.7 million over a period of 4 years in Brooklyn and Queens, reported a New York Criminal Lawyer. The four suspects are accused of luring the poor and homeless to different locations with offers of cash, McDonaldís gift certificates, and even CD players. The men allegedly would then bill Medicaid for the unnecessary dental work, mostly for dental cleanings.

A man, his son, and son-in-law are accused of drawing the homeless to the different locations, such as Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx. The dentist involved in the scam also allegedly paid recruiters in addition to performing the services as his part of the multi-million dollar scam. The recruiters were paid in cash between $10 and $30 based on the type of service received by those recruited. Most of the victims were found at nearby methadone clinics or from homeless shelters.

The head men would instruct the hired dentists to place two-thirds of the money received from Medicaid into dummy corporations that had been developed to conceal the money. The scam is thought to have spanned from January of 2006 until the arrest in April 2010.

The dentist was held on a $50,000 bond. The two ring leaders were held on $20,000 bail and then monitored with an electronic bracelet due to their potential as a flight risk.

If you have been accused of Medicaid fraud, you need a qualified New York Criminal Lawyer for your defense. Prosecutors can be unforgiving toward those who have allegedly defrauded people using the healthcare system. Speak with Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice and a free consultation. We have offices to serve you in New York City, including locations in Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Staten Island and Queens. We also have offices in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island, and Westchester County.

It has been noted that even though many convicted sex offenders are listed in registries they are still able to acquire jobs that place them in direct contact with children, often working as tutors, coaches and in other positions that place them close to children. Senator Charles Schumer might propose legislation to change that. The legislation would propose that it is illegal for registered sex offenders to work or volunteer in positions that put them in “direct and substantial” contact with children.

A New York Criminal Lawyer says business owners will have to screen the employees to make sure that they are not registered sex offenders. Businesses that are not in compliance would be fined and would face greater fines for repeat offenders. Many believe that a law such as this is already in existence but in actuality it is not. Businesses can check if an employee is registered by contacting the Division of Criminal Justice Services online or at 1-800-262-3257.

This law will be set out to prevent cases such as the one where school teacher who was on probation for a sex offense conviction privately tutored a 15 year old boy in. It was determined that he violated the terms of his probation and was once again arrested. Many sex offenders are not on parole or probation therefore they are not barred from acquiring such positions. The Schumer Legislation will prevent this from occurring.

If you or someone you know was arrested for committing a sex act or for violating probation/parole involving a sex crimes, you may need assistance from Stephen Bilkis and Associates. Come into our office for legal guidance and a free consultation. For your convenience, we have locations thoughout New York City, including offices in Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island. We also have offices in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island and Westchester County.

21 year old Copiague resident stabbed someone in a fight on Saturday at a house party in Massapequa. The victim was taken to a local hospital where he was released after being treated. He was charged with A Felony Second Degree Assault, and a Misdemeanor for weapons possession according to a New York Criminal Lawyer. The suspect is lucky in that the attack did not result in death or more serious injury to the victim. He would certainly need to retain qualified legal counsel or face seriously long jail time.

If you are being held on criminal charges you may need help from Stephen Bilkis and Associates to help you obtain the justice you deserve. Without one you can find yourself in serious trouble. Come in and we will answer all of your questions and provide you with a free case consultation. We have office locations in both Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island, and Westchester County. In New York City, we have offices in the Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Staten Island.