New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Four police officers in Manhattan were assigned to the Street Crime unit. They report for duty in plain clothes and they drive/ride in taxicabs around the city looking for crimes in progress.
ON December 10, 1982, two police officers were in a yellow cab near 115th Street around 5:00 p.m. They saw a car with three passengers going very slowly. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the police in the cab followed them for nearly two blocks before the police officer saw that the car had a busted tail light. The police officers drove up next to the car and flashed their police badges and identification and told the driver to pull over.

The three men in the car pulled over. The police officer approached and they noticed that the three men inside the car looked nervously around at the two police officers who approached the car at the two front doors of the car.

The police officer who was standing next to the driver’s door noticed a brown-paper wrapped package on the floor and asked the driver what was inside the package. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the driver answered that the brown-paper package contained glass panes which he had just bought. Next to the brown-paper package was a bag that was folded up. The police officer saw the folded-up bag and asked the driver to hand it over. The driver handed it over and the police officer saw that it contained cash. The police officer returned the bag to the driver.

The police officer testified at the grand jury that at that time, he noticed that the driver kept his left arm stiff and close to his body. The police officer asked the driver to step out of the car. As the driver was coming out of the car, the police officer thought he saw something protruding from the driver’s armpit. The other police officer patted down the driver but did not see anything protruding from his armpit. The police officer then searched the vehicle and found a gun.

The police officers testified before the grand jury and the grand jury returned an indictment for criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said at the arraignment the defendant driver asked that the grand jury indictment be dismissed.

The driver testified during the motion hearing that the taillight of his car was not busted on December 10, 1982. There was no reason for the police I the unmarked car to stop him on the street. He also testified that the police officer could not have known that his taillight was busted because it was still not dark enough for him to turn his car lights on. A Queens Drug Possession Lawyer also did not have a bag of money although he did have about $3,000 of gambling winnings in his coat pocket at that time. He claims that the police officer had no probable cause to suppose that he was committing a felony at the time that he was pulled over by the police.

The only question before the motion court was whether or not the police had probable cause to stop the car, search the driver and the car and finally to arrest the driver. The motion court found that there was no probable cause. The People appealed the resolution of the trial court dismissing the grand jury indictment.

The only question before the Supreme Court is whether or not the motion court erred in dismissing the grand jury indictment on the ground that there was no probable cause for the police to stop the driver.

The Court found that there was no probable cause. The busted taillight which was the reason for the police officer to stop the car was not credible. First, as the driver asserted, at 5 p.m. the street was not dark enough for the driver to turn on his headlights. Thus the testimony of the police officer cannot be found credible for this reason. Also, if it were true that the driver’s car had a busted taillight, driving around with a busted taillight is hardly a felony for which the police officer should stop him. Another reason why the police officer’s testimony regarding the taillight cannot be believed is that the police officer did not issue the driver a ticket regarding his busted taillight. There was nothing in the arrest report regarding a busted taillight and there was no mention of it until the police officer began speaking to the district attorney.
Also, moving nervously does not give the police sufficient or reasonable suspicion to think that the crime of criminal possession of a weapon was being committed. Holding one’s left arm stiffly against one’s body does not give an sufficient or reasonable suspicion that the crime of possession of a weapon was being committed either. There was no reason for the police officer to stop the driver. Thus, all evidence seized consequent to the illegal stop should be suppressed.

A charge for criminal possession of a weapon is serious. You need the assistance and advice of a New York City Criminal Lawyer to make sure that you make full use of your day in court. A New York Criminal Attorney can advice you as to your rights and your options. If you want to plea bargain, you need to be represented by a NYC Criminal lawyer who can explain to you your options. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates; ask to speak to any of their NY Criminal attorneys who are willing and ready to represent you. The officer of Stephen Bilkis and Associates are conveniently located in the New York area.

The petitioner of the case is the Commissioner of Correction of Connecticut, John R. Manson. The respondent/defendant of the case is Nowell A. Brathwaite.

Case Issues

This case involves the issue of whether or not the Fourteenth Amendment, under the Due Process Clause requires the exclusion of pretrial evidence that was obtained by a police procedure that is deemed suggestive and unnecessary.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that in 1970, Jimmy D. Glover, a full time police officer for the Connecticut State Police was assigned a job in the Narcotics Division and went undercover. On May 5th, 1970, around 7:45 pm he went along with Henry Alton Brown, an informant, to an apartment building located in Hartford. The purpose of this visit was to purchase narcotics from a known narcotics (drug possession) dealer, “Dickie Boy” Cicero. Glover knocked on the apartment door and asked for two bags of narcotics. He gave the man two $10 bills and received two glassine bags. Glover was within 2 feet of the individual that he made the purchase from and had a clear view of his face.

After leaving the apartment Glover returned to the station and described the individual he made the purchase from as a “colored man, about five feet, eleven inches, with black hair that was in a short afro style and of a heavy build.” D’Onofrio, who was the police officer that took the description, suspected that this was the dealer and obtained a photograph of Nowell A. Brathwaite, the respondent. Glover identified the man in the photograph as the person he had purchased narcotics from.

The respondent was arrested on the 27th of July and charged in a two count information of the possession and sale of heroin. During his trial, which took place in January of 1971 the photograph that was used by the police department for Glover’s identification of the respondent was received in evidence without any objection from the defense. There was no explanation given by the prosecution as to why a photographic array or a lineup was not used in the identification process.

The respondent was found guilty by the jury and sentences of no less than six and no more than nine years. One year and two months after the trial, the respondent filed a petition of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The respondent stated that by admitting the identification testimony in his trial he was deprived of the due process of the law that is protected under the 14th amendment. The petition was dismissed, but then reversed on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals. This court must determine whether or not the Due Process Clause in fact does force the exclusion of identification evidence.

Case Result

It is noted that the use of a single photograph for the purpose of identification is an extreme error. However, the court finds that in this case that it was unlikely that Glover misidentified the respondent. A Queens Criminal Lawyer says that they find that the find that the Due Process Clause under the 14th Amendment does not force the exclusion of this type of identification evidence and therefore uphold the initial dismissal of the petition. The respondents original sentencing will stand based on the decision of this court.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates is a law firm with offices located throughout the city of New York. We can sit down with you and discuss any type of legal situation that you may be involved with, whether it be drug possession, sex crimes or theft. You may call any of our offices at any time to set up a time to come in for your free consultation. Our lawyers will work with you directly to ensure your legal matters are handled correctly and efficiently.

A man was charged with robbery in the first, second and third degrees, grand larceny in the fourth degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and unlawful possession of marihuana . A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that all proceedings have been completed and the case was sent to the Court for trial.

The charges stems from an incident in which the complainant was robbed with a knife. The knife allegedly used by the man during the said incident was not recovered. At a pre-trial conference, the jury requested the court's permission to present evidence that approximately two weeks prior to the occurrence which comprises the charges in the instant case. It was a police officer who observed the man in possession of a knife which is similar to the description given by the complainant about the knife used in robbing.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the Supreme Court ruled that the testimony relating to the observation of the knife would be admissible at trial on the issue of identity and to complete the narrative. The man then claimed that the observation of the knife was the result of improper interference with his liberty by the police. An evidentiary hearing was held and the police officer was the only witness at the hearing. The court then found his testimony to be credible and made findings of fact and conclusions of law.

At the hearing, the police officer alleged that he was assigned to the intelligence division of the 48th precinct. He had also received numerous narcotics complaints from several locations in the area known as a drug prone location. Several complaints involving the sale of crack cocaine and heroin had also been received relating to a social club at the intersection. He further stated that when he and his partner approached the said corner with plainclothes and driving an unmarked police vehicle, they noted that several persons were congregating on the corner. As the police vehicle approached, one of the people on the corner leaned over and whispered something to the man who immediately took two steps back and runs and turns to the corner heading southbound. As he got closer the corner, the man turned and ran.

The officers followed the man and abruptly stopped the car next to the man within several feet of the corner. Their intention was to find out what he was running for. The man turned and looked at the police officers. When the officer yelled and asked why he was running, the man did not respond. The man stopped running and appeared to crouch down slightly behind a parked car and his hands looked like they were close to his jacket pockets. The officer didn’t know if the man had a weapon on him or if he's dropping anything to the ground. He can't tell because the man’s hands were hidden from his view.

As the officer exited his vehicle, he told the man if he can see the man’s hands. As the officer’s partner approached, the man stated that all he got was a weed. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said the man was then placed under arrest and 19 glassine envelopes of marihuana were recovered from him.

At the time of the arrest, the police also recovered a small folding knife with a white and glossy handle. The officer believed that the blade was less than four inches long which is not illegal to carry in public. A Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said the man was given a summons regarding the marihuana possession and the knife. Consequently, the jury’s application to present evidence that approximately two weeks prior to the alleged crime from which the officer observed the man in possession of a knife is denied.

Sometimes we can’t avoid accusations and allegations of others even if they are not sure of what they saw or what they hear. If you happen to be in trouble because of wrong claims, the Bronx Criminal Attorneys can provide you legal advice and guidance. If you want legal representation from the skilled Bronx Drug Lawyers at Stephen Bilkis and Associates, don’t think twice and call their offices immediately.

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.

Family Court deals with many issues that cross over from criminal court. It is not unusual for a criminal court issue to have family court repercussions. That was the case for a family on Mother’s Day 2003. A sixteen year old boy exposed himself and masturbated in front of a five year old female cousin. The incident occurred at a family gathering where most of the family was present. The boy’s Aunt and her brother, his Uncle found themselves on different sides of the argument surrounding this boy’s behavior. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that since the entire family split over the events of that day, this brother and sister continued to argue and ultimately began to file criminal and family court petitions against one another.

It appears that shortly after Mother’s Day of 2003, the Aunt confronted the five year old while she was at school. The Aunt was an employee of the school. The Uncle claims that the Aunt interrogated the child about the events of that day and that this encounter left the child frightened. The child told her father that she did not want to talk to or see her Aunt ever again. The Uncle confronted his sister about this incident and the situation went downhill from this point. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said another family member became involved and rumors amongst the family members increased. This family member told the Aunt that she had spoken to the Uncle and that he had gotten orders of protection against the Aunt.

The Aunt filed suit in family court alleging that the Uncle had defamed her and caused interference with her employment. On December 20, 2004, the Uncle filed a motion to dismiss the complaint filed by the Aunt. On March 18, 2005, the Family Court granted the Uncles motion to dismiss the Aunt’s entire complaint. The Aunt appealed this decision. The court reviewed the topics under discussion.

They consist of allegations from the Uncle that the Aunt filed a false police report against him. He maintained that on September 5, 2004, he told another family member that the Aunt had accused him of pulling a gun on her. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said the facts show that there is no evidence that a police report was ever issued and does not exist. Apparently, the Aunt repeated to another member of the family that she considered this allegation to be defamatory to her as well as the comments supposedly also made by the Uncle to other family members and to the Aunt’s supervisor at work that he had a court order to keep the Aunt away from his children.

The court determined that the comments made by both family members were short of anything that could be considered defamatory. This was decided because simply stating that the Uncle had a court order, was not enough to assume by anyone who had not read the court order that the Aunt had done anything wrong. A Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said it was also proven by a sworn deposition from the other family member that the insults had never happened. The court addressed this issue and the Aunt countered by stating that the other family member had told her about the conversation and that she had made the allegations that the Uncle had made the defamatory comments about her. The court found that under oath, the other family member had clearly denied that this conversation ever took place and maintained that the Uncle never said anything that could be defined as defamatory.

The court, as a result of hearing this information, determined that there was no issue in factual dispute between these parties that would require a trial. The alleged slander did not occur because there are many different interpretations that can be made regarding the comments. Since none of these comments were clearly defamatory, a case for slander could not be made even if as the Aunt claimed, the Uncle made them to her supervisor at an elementary school. She felt that the allegations, about a court order, was sufficient to create an issue for her at her place of business, the court disagreed. The court found in favor of the Uncle and dismissed all allegations granting a summary judgment.

At Stephen Bilkis & Associates, Domestic Violence Lawyers have convenient offices throughout New York and Metropolitan area. Family Court issues are emotional. Our Family lawyers can provide you with advice to guide you through difficult situations.

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.

In the fall of 2005, residents of the six-story Housing Authority apartment building complained to the Police Department's Housing Bureau about criminal law violations, trespassing in the building, crack possession and drug sales occurring in the building's lobby. The police officer’s superiors in the Bureau passed on the complaint to him, and he thereafter performed daily vertical patrols of the building. During the fall and winter, he participated in ten to fifteen trespass or narcotics arrests in the building, most in the lobby. The prevalent illegal activity was not curtailed until early March.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said on the night of February 14, 2006, the police officer and his partner entered the building in plainclothes, their guns holstered but their shields displayed, to conduct a vertical patrol on their own initiative. As the officers entered the well-lit lobby, the accused, whom the police officer did not recognize, was standing by the lobby elevator, about ten feet from the officers and face-to-face with them, conversing with a man. The police officer could not hear what was being said.

The officer announced that they were the police. The man said something to the accused, and the accused fled towards a stairwell leading from the lobby to the upper stories of the building. The officers ran after him, calling them out to stop. As the accused ran up the stairs, between the ground and second stories, the officer, trailing shortly behind, saw the accused throw or drop several small green baggies. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the police officer recognized them from his training and past arrests to be characteristic crack-cocaine packaging, and believed they contained crack-cocaine. The officer called the accused to stop but he kept running.

The officer finally caught up with the accused on the fifth floor, where he found the accused knocking on an apartment door. The officer drew his gun, and ordered the accused to remove his hands from his pockets. When the accused failed to do so, the officer pushed him against the wall and they rear-cuffed him. The officer asked the accused his name and where he lived. At some point on the fifth floor, persons in the apartment that the accused had been trying to enter told the police they knew him. The accused at some point told the police that he did not live in the building.

After apprehending the accused, the officer went back to where the accused had thrown the baggies, and recovered four small green baggies of cocaine just a few steps above the door leading from the lobby to the stairwell. The man who was with the accused before the chase, still downstairs, was arrested on a charge of loitering for the purpose of using narcotics.
The police brought the accused to the station house. He was searched and the officers recovered money from his pockets. At about 1:22 a.m. that night, the officer helped the accused make a telephone call to his mother, and stood by while the accused spoke to her.

The officer heard the accused tell his mother he ran, but they didn't find him with anything.
As noted, the accused seeks suppression on the grounds that the police lacked adequate justification to approach him to request information, and to pursue him when he fled. The arguments state no claim under the Fourth Amendment as the accused seemingly do not dispute.

In this regard, a police officer's mere approaching of an individual in a public place, and the officer's putting of questions to him, does not constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure absent circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that he was not free to leave. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said the Fourth Amendment accordingly does not interdict such inquiries, even if carried out without any basis for suspecting the person questioned. The accused man’s complaint that the police lacked adequate justification to question him in the lobby therefore finds no support in the Fourth Amendment.

Nor is a person seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when the police pursue or otherwise attempt to detain him, but have not yet laid hands on him, and he has not submitted to their authority. Accordingly, the Fourth Amendment affords no basis either for suppressing the direct fruits of such a pursuit, such as property jettisoned by the fleeing suspect, or for suppressing the fruits of an ensuing seizure of the fugitive on the ground that the seizure was justified only by observations during the putatively-improper pursuit. Accordingly, the accused man’s complaint that the police pursuit was improper affords no federal basis for suppression New York, however, regulates police conduct more thoroughly. As a matter of State common law, even police-citizen encounters which do not rise to the seizure level are governed by court-crafted rules intended to balance the needs of law enforcement against citizens' interests in avoiding unjustified harassment. A Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said the New York courts have forbidden police officers, on pain of suppression, from initiating questioning for law-enforcement purposes absent an objective, credible reason, not necessarily indicative of criminality.

Further, the Court of Appeals, construing the State Constitution, has rejected the conclusion that a seizure of the person requires physical apprehension or submission to authority. Rather, under New York law, one may be seized if the police action results in a significant interruption of the individual's liberty of movement. In particular, police pursuit of a fleeing suspect has been determined to constitute a limited detention or infringement on freedom of movement, rising to seizure level.

Indeed, as a matter of State constitutional law, the police are forbidden from pursuing a fleeing suspect absent reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed or is about to commit a crime. Reasonable suspicion represents that quantum of knowledge sufficient to induce an ordinarily prudent and cautious person under the circumstances to believe criminal activity is at hand. Even flight which frustrates a proper police inquiry does not, absent reasonable suspicion, permit pursuit.

The accused stakes his claim on these State-law principles. More particularly, he asserts that the officer and his partner possessed no objective, credible reason to question him in the lobby, and that their approach for that purpose was therefore unauthorized. Further, he asserts that they lacked reasonable suspicion justifying their pursuit when he fled.
The accused is charged with criminal crack possession. The court contend that as the police approached the accused in the apartment building lobby, the accused fled, throwing cocaine to the ground as the police pursued. By motion papers filed, the accused moved to suppress the drugs and statements he made in the wake of his arrest. The court opposed the motion in papers dated. By an oral order and worksheet endorsement, the court ordered that a hearing be held to resolve the parties' conflicting positions.

Following the hearing, the parties submitted legal memoranda which clarified their positions. In a letter-brief, the accused contends that the police lacked adequate justification both to approach to question him, and to pursue when he ran. He contends that police testimony to his throwing the drugs, and the drugs themselves, should be suppressed as the fruits of asserted improprieties. While his brief does not explicitly address the statements, his position seemingly implies that they should likewise be suppressed as fruits of the intrusions which precipitated his arrest. The court opposed the contentions. According to the court, the police were justified in approaching the accused to request information and in pursuing him when he fled. The court stress, throughout all the post-hearing submissions, that the officer’s inquiry, which the accused man’s flight frustrated, was legitimate.

Controlled substance could either help us or break us. Drugs were primarily made to heal people and alleviate the pain that we feel but when abuse, drugs can cause great danger to one’s life. A New York Drug Lawyer can help you or people close to you win your battle against drug-related legal actions. When drug dependence resulted to crime, contact a New York Criminal Attorney from Stephen Bilkis and Associates.

On 23 January 1997 at approximately 3:30 A.M., an investigator from the Albany County Sheriff's Department boarded a bus which had arrived from New York City. The investigator, wearing civilian clothing with his police badge prominently displayed on his coat, was accompanied by two other officers. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the investigator announced that they were conducting a drug interdiction and asked everyone on board, approximately fifteen passengers, to produce bus tickets and identification. He then proceeded to the back of the bus to begin examining those items from each passenger.

As the investigator was walking to the rear of the bus, he observed defendant and a female companion, sitting in the last row of seats, push a black object between them. He approached the two individuals and asked for their identification and bus tickets. The investigator then obtained consent to search defendant's bag which led to the discovery of a digital scale; asked defendant and his companion to stand at which time he saw a black jacket on defendant's seat. The officer found more than two ounces of cocaine in the jacket pocket (drug possession).

Defendant was indicted on one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, drug crimes.

The defendant moved to suppress the physical evidence seized by the police but the County Court denied it.

Subsequently, defendant pleaded guilty to both charges and was sentenced as a second felony offender to concurrent prison sentences of 8½ years to life and 8½ to 17 years.
The Appellate Division affirmed the decision.

Hence, the herein appeal.

The issue here is the admissibility of evidence seized as the result of an encounter between defendant and the police on a commercial passenger bus during a stopover in Albany, New York.

Defendant asserts that police conduct in this case violated the rules regulating police-initiated encounters with civilians.

At the outset, the court notes that whether police conduct in any particular case conforms to the rules is a mixed question of law and fact. Therefore, the court’s review is limited to whether there is evidence in the record supporting the lower courts' determinations. Here, the court concludes in the negative.

Where police acting in their criminal law enforcement capacity initiate an encounter with private citizens, the propriety of the encounter must be assessed under the four-tiered analytical framework: "If a police officer seeks simply to request information from an individual, that request must be supported by an objective, credible reason, not necessarily indicative of criminality. The common-law right of inquiry, a wholly separate level of contact, is activated by a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot and permits a somewhat greater intrusion. Where a police officer has reasonable suspicion that a particular person was involved in a felony or misdemeanor, the officer is authorized to forcibly stop and detain that person.

Finally, where the officer has probable cause to believe that a person has committed a crime, an arrest is authorized.

It is well settled that when an officer asks an individual to provide identification or destination information during a police-initiated encounter, the request for information implicates the initial tier of De Bour analysis. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said that although police officers have fairly broad authority to approach and pose questions, they may not do so on mere whim or caprice; the request must be based on an articulable reason not necessarily related to criminality.

The resolution of this case depends on when De Bour scrutiny was triggered and if, at that time, the police had an objective, credible reason to justify the request that all passengers produce tickets and identification.

The People contend that the police did not approach any particular passenger until the investigator observed defendant and his companion secret a black object, which provided the investigator with an articulable reason to request information from defendant and his companion.

However, starting De Bour analysis at this juncture overlooks the fact, as found by County Court and the Appellate Division, that the investigator initially asked every one of the passengers to present documentation prior to any observations of passenger conduct. De Bour was triggered at that point. The Appellate Division held that this inceptive request was satisfied by the articulable reason that the officers were conducting drug interdiction on a commercial passenger bus traveling from New York City, a known source city for narcotic drugs.

Defendant then argues that law enforcement knowledge regarding the origination of the bus was inadequate to establish a legal basis to ask everyone traveling on the bus to produce identification and a bus ticket.

The court agrees with defendant.

Courts have never held that a police encounter was justified by anything so general such as the knowledge that an entire city is a known source of drugs. Even a discrete area of a city identified as a high crime area has not, by itself, been sufficient justification for informational requests of the type involved here.

In determining the legality of an encounter, it has been crucial whether a nexus to conduct existed, that is, whether the police were aware of or observed conduct which provided a particularized reason to request information. A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said the fact that an encounter occurred in a high crime area, without more, has not passed De Bour scrutiny.

Meanwhile, a request for information might be justified, for instance, if the officers had a tip" or information that drugs were being transported from New York City by bus that evening, or if the police had observed defendant engage in certain activity prior to boarding the bus and then questioned him on the bus. Similarly, if the police had information that a fugitive was in the terminal, that could warrant the questioning of passengers. De Bour, in short, does not prevent police officers from following up on leads or from requesting information in countless situations where there is an objective, credible reason to question a person.

Here, the record does not reflect any reason for the request of all passengers to produce their tickets and identification, other than the fact the bus had departed from a place described by the investigator known as a source city for narcotics. In the absence of any conduct by a passenger or other basis giving rise to a particularized reason for the encounter, the request of 15 passengers to produce documentation did not meet the De Bour standard. Neither does the investigator's observation of defendant pushing a black object legitimize his earlier request of all passengers. Since a police encounter cannot be validated by a later-acquired suspicion, the investigator's subsequent observations of defendant do not cleanse the initial request of its shortcomings.

Accordingly, the court concludes that the procedure employed by the three police officers in boarding the bus and requesting that all of the passengers produce tickets and identification was conducted without an objective, credible reason. It follows that the ensuing search of defendant's bag and jacket was unlawful. In light of the determination, the court need not consider defendant's remaining constitutional challenges.

The order of the Appellate Division is reversed; defendant's guilty plea vacated; his motion to suppress granted; and, the indictment dismissed.

For more information regarding defense strategies in criminal cases, if you are in one, contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates and have a free consultation. Be advised by the best criminal defense lawyers. Talk to a New York Criminal Lawyer, a New York Drug Lawyer, or a New York Arrest Lawyer, among others, from our firm and plan your defenses in court.

The Facts of the Case:

A New York Drug Posession Lawyer said the plaintiff was a tenant in a building located at Academy Street in Manhattan, owned by defendant-one and managed by defendant-two.

On 26 February 2002, in the early afternoon, plaintiff entered the building through the lone entrance available to the tenants. A man whom plaintiff did not recognize entered the building immediately after her. The man walked ahead of plaintiff up a staircase, which plaintiff was using to reach her unit on the second floor. As plaintiff opened the door to her apartment, the man, who had continued up the staircase when plaintiff walked from the staircase to her unit, ran down the staircase and pushed plaintiff into the apartment. The man then sexually assaulted plaintiff at gunpoint.

Plaintiff commenced an action to recover damages for personal injuries.

Plaintiff claims that defendants failed to provide adequate security for the building; that defendants failed to maintain a working lock on the door to the tenants' entrance, which failure allowed the assailant to gain entry to the building and assault plaintiff.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the defendants jointly moved for a summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the assault was not foreseeable; arguing that, although there was drug activity in the surrounding neighborhood, there was no history of criminal activity in the building.

The Issues of the Case:

Are defendants liable to plaintiff? Was the crime foreseeable enough to warrant liability?

The Ruling of the Court:

Building owners and managing agents have a common-law duty to take minimal security precautions to protect tenants from the foreseeable criminal acts of third parties.

As one Justice stated for the Second Department in addressing the issue of whether a crime giving rise to a lawsuit was foreseeable to owners and operators of the building in which the crime occurred: A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said there is no requirement that the past experience relied on to establish foreseeability be of criminal activity at the exact location where plaintiff was harmed or that it be of the same type of criminal conduct to which plaintiff was subjected, or that the operative proof must be limited to crimes actually occurring in the specific building where the attack took place. However, this does not mean that the criminal activity relied upon by the plaintiffs to support their claim of foreseeability need not be relevant to predicting the crime in question. Rather, to establish foreseeability, the criminal conduct at issue must be shown to be reasonably predictable based on the prior occurrence of the same or similar criminal activity at a location sufficiently proximate to the subject location.

Defendants met their initial burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by making a prima facie showing that the sexual assault committed against plaintiff was not reasonably predictable.

In support of defendants’ motion, they submitted the deposition testimony of three witnesses: the plaintiff, an employee of the managing agent and the superintendent of the building. The deposition testimony of these witnesses established nothing more than that, in the words of the employee of the managing agent, there was a lot of drug and drug-related activity in the neighborhood. Moreover, a Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said with respect to the building itself, each witness testified that he or she was not aware of any criminal activity in the building prior to the assault committed against plaintiff.

In opposition to the motion, plaintiff submitted police reports indicating that seven (7) other several criminal activities that had occurred in or near the building prior to the assault. Plaintiff also submitted the affidavit of an expert in the field of premises security who averred, among other things, that the building was in a police precinct with high rates of crime, the drug activity in the neighborhood attracted criminal elements to the neighborhood and the assault on plaintiff was foreseeable.

Upon a review of the records, the court finds that plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to whether the sexual assault was foreseeable, i.e., reasonably predictable.

Of the seven prior instances of criminal activity relied upon by plaintiff, only three involved crimes against the person and none are similar to the sexual assault committed against plaintiff.

Thus, the sexual assault committed against plaintiff was not reasonably predictable based on the prior criminal activity in or near the building.

Without trivializing the criminal activity in and around plaintiff's building, it must be acknowledged that, except one, the criminal activity plaintiff relies upon consists of low-level crimes.

When one considers that plaintiff includes all the criminal activity in and around the building over a period of more than 4½ years, it also must be acknowledged that the extent of criminal activity plaintiff relies upon is hardly unusual. Quoting what one Justice said: "As the endless supply of crime statistics attest, crime is a fact of life and is foreseeable. Criminal activity is more frequent in our urban centers, although there are marked differences between neighborhoods. However, the courts have repeatedly held that ambient neighborhood crime alone is insufficient to establish foreseeability".

The fact that a woman entering her apartment in New York City might be subject to a sexual assault is conceivable; but conceivability is not the equivalent of foreseeability.
Accordingly, the motion is granted and the complaint is dismissed.

To have the best criminal defense attorney, get in touch with Stephen Bilkis & Associates. We have free consultation for all. Converse with an NY Criminal Attorney from our firm and seek an advice for a legal strategy. You may also consult with an NY Drug Attorney from our firm whose experiences with drug crimes are more extensive.

On October 4, 1975 a man and a woman went inside a boutique. The woman tried on dresses but did not buy any. While the woman was trying on dresses, her boyfriend asked the boutique owner if he could use her bathroom. The man observed that there was a big window in the bathroom that faced a back alley.

Three days later, the lovers parked their car in the back alley with the trunk of their car facing the back window of the bathroom. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the woman stayed near their car while her boyfriend entered the store and took clothing items and gave them to his girlfriend who stashed the clothes in the trunk.

A police officer on routine patrol passed through on his cruiser down the back alley and saw the woman; he saw clothes being pushed out of the widow, and the woman stashing the clothes in the trunk. He called for back-up and he saw the woman hide behind the car. The police officer approached and talked to the woman and asked her what she was doing. The police officer did not immediately place her under arrest.

Another police officer arrived because of the call for back-up made by the first police officer. He went to cover the store front. At that time, a New York Criminal Lawyer said the woman’s boyfriend came out of the front door. The police officer tried to stop the woman’s boyfriend from escaping but the man shot the police officer with the gun he had in his possession. The police officer later died.

The lovers were charged with felony murder, that is, that during the commission of a felony, the crime of murder was also committed. During the trial, the woman asked the trial judge to instruct the jury that if the police officer had already arrested the woman then there could be no felony murder as the burglary had already terminated at the time that the police officer was shot. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that she also moved that the trial judge instruct the jury to find her not guilty of felony murder if they find that she was already in custody of the police at the time that the police officer was shot.

The woman was convicted of felony murder. There was a finding that she willingly participated and fully involved herself in the burglary. She appealed her conviction but the Appellate Division affirmed the conviction finding that the trial court did not commit any error when it refused to instruct the jury as desired by the defendant.

On further appeal to the Supreme Court, the Court held that a felonious homicide is considered a felony murder by operation of law. This happens when the law transfers the malicious intent for the robbery as also malicious intent for the homicide. Applied to the specific facts of this case, the Court held that when the lady shared the felonious venture with her boyfriend who shot someone with the gun in his possession, she will also share in his liability for felony murder especially when it occurred during the felonious act or immediately while her boyfriend was fleeing from the scene.

The question then of whether or not the woman was already arrested at the time that her boyfriend shot the police officer is relevant and necessary to find if the woman really committed felony murder. The trial judge did not commit any error when it refused to instruct the jury as requested by the defendant such that she should be acquitted for the trial court judge did charge jury to find as a fact if the murder of the police officer was in furtherance of the burglary or of the immediate flight. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the trial court judge did not decide that the homicide occurred during the course of the burglary as a matter of law. This matter was left for the jury to decide.

Thus, the case was remanded by the Supreme Court to the trial court for a new trial with the specific mandate that the issue of whether or not the killing of the police officer was committed in furtherance of the burglary or in furtherance of flight from the scene of the burglary.

Have you been charged with a felony murder for having shot someone in the course of a robbery? You need the legal advice of a New York Gun Crime lawyer. The New York City Gun Crime Attorneys at Stephen Bilkis and Associates are willing to advice and assist you. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates today, speak with any of their NYC Gun Crime attorneys who can represent you in court and argue your defense. Confer with any of their NY Gun Crime lawyers today at any of their offices located in the New York area.

A 17-yr old defendant’s motion places in prospective whether his satisfactory "second chance" experience, as a full-time participant in a residential drug rehabilitation program, designed to return addicts (ex) or substance abusers to society, constitutes such a compelling factor, consideration or circumstance to warrant dismissal of the two top counts of the indictment Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance In The Second Degree and Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance In The Third Degree, which counts require mandatory minimums of incarceration upon conviction; cocaine possession or crack possession, a drug crime violative of criminal laws.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the People contend that the moving defendant who has no prior criminal record assisted a co-defendant in the sale of 7/8ths of an ounce of cocaine to an undercover police purchaser. Defendant was then a drug user with a dependency problem.

A pre-sentence evaluation of defendant by the Department of Probation indicates in part that he is a resident of an upstate drug program apparently raised by interested and caring parents who began abusing drugs at approximately the age of 13; apparently unable to come to terms with his abuse problems until his instant arrest; voluntarily committed himself to the Renaissance Project; he no longer denies that he has a problem and is apparently taking some action to deal with his drug abuse problem.

Plea discussions were conducted for over eight months. During this time, the defendant has been a full-time participant in a residential drug program, A New York Criminal Lawyer said the Renaissance Project, supported by the New York State Division of Substance Abuse Services. These conferences sought to arrive at an agreement which would circumvent the harsh mandatory minimum sentence of three years to life.

The desired probationary disposition was tentatively agreed upon, conditioned, however, upon the acceptance by the co-defendant of a plea of guilty and the Court's imposition of a significant term of incarceration.

On Dismissal in the Interest of Justice:

It must be noted that the law permit a court to dismiss an indictment where, in the opinion of the court, there exists some compelling factor, consideration or circumstance clearly demonstrating that conviction or prosecution would constitute injustice. Dismissal of an indictment in the furtherance of justice is discretionary with the court and must rest upon a sensitive balancing of the interests of the individual and the state.

Moreover, even though the law sets forth ten separate criteria or determinants for consideration and it indicates that the court's dismissal reasoning must be set upon the court record, there is no requirement that all statutory criteria or determinants need to be covered in each and every instance. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that the Court of Appeals has stated that it is not mandatory that "each of the decalogue of possible determinants which make up the provisions of the applicable be spelled out in so many words, so long as the ultimate reasons given for the dismissal are both real and compelling.

On Sentencing Objective of Non-Incarceration Rehabilitation as a Compelling Factor:
Generally speaking, nearly every sentence passed on a criminal offender is directed towards achieving one or more of four basic ends (Deterrence, Separation, Rehabilitation and Retribution).

These sentencing purposes are intended to subject the offender to some form of suffering or penalty, depriving him of life or liberty (permanently or temporarily) through death or incarceration.

The major underlying theory behind these sentencing ends is that the fear of possible death, incarceratory punishment or suffering, will operate in some way in the minds of potential lawbreakers to deter them from committing future criminal acts; thus, resulting in a determinant effect on offender recidivism.

Although considerable modern penological opinion recognizes that whatever sentencing form is undertaken as a deterrent to crime, the various forms used have largely failed in their objectives. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that nevertheless, punishment, etc., can be expected to be society's main answer to the criminal offender until some more satisfactory substitute is found.

For the past seventy odd years sentencing policies, as expressed in United States correctional opinion, have been dominated by a commitment to incarceration-rehabilitation through the imposition of indeterminate sentences. Judges have been called upon to pronounce a sentence in very general terms by specifying a minimum and maximum sentence; the final decision resting largely with a parole board. Recent evaluation of this "rehabilitation leading to release" experience has indicated that they have had a very questionable effect on offender recidivism.

Further, during this period of rehabilitation commitment, there has been a movement within penal institutions towards vocational and other training of those incarcerated as a step towards their eventual rehabilitation. Unfortunately, these efforts have been largely ineffective because of restricted prison budgetary provisions and other inhibiting factors.

No one with half an open eye can fail to appreciate the tremendous impact of alcohol and substance abuse on the Criminal Justice System.

On the other hand, it is interesting to note that the Queens County District Attorney's Office has had for the past number of years a "Second Chance" program. However, this program unfortunately has been expressly restricted to those youthful offenders committing non-violent misdemeanors with no drug involvement.

Although a reliable statistical bank has not as yet been gathered, it would appear that these non-incarceration "second chance" efforts offer great promise in reducing offender recidivism.
The Court is inclined to believe that the criminal justice system must make a concerted effort to salvage, by resort to non-incarceration--rehabilitation programs, wherever possible and merited those who have become sidetracked from the mainstream of our society through alcohol-and-drug-related substance abuse, especially those who are young, first-time offenders.

It would seem to make sense that regardless of the motivation of an offender to enter a substance abuse program that his or her entrance as soon after arrest as is possible has great merit and should be encouraged. Early admission into a second chance program enables a future sentencing court, the district attorney's office and others to consider a rehabilitative track record prior to any pre-pleading evaluation or pretrial discussion. Early entrance would seem beneficial to the drug-dependent offender.

On application of the law:

Here, the 17-year old former drug abuser has no prior arrest record. As a result of the "in-court" and written monthly updates over the past 10 months, the Court is satisfied that the defendant, as a full-time resident of "The Renaissance Project", is making a successful adjustment toward a drug-free life. The program reports that the progress towards modifying his behavior and heightening his self-control has been encouraging. The defendant completed his GED course and received his diploma.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the dismissal of the two top counts would enable this Court to avoid an unjust, unreasonable and negatively productive mandatory sentence of incarceration. Such dismissals would enable defendant to plead guilty to the balance of the indictment and this court to sentence him to a probationary sentence. Such probationary sentence would be subject to defendant's satisfactory completion of the two year residential program that the defendant has been in since and would be followed by three years' additional probationary supervision. The entire probationary sentence would further be subject to a maximum of five to fifteen years' contingency incarceration commitment in the event the program was not satisfactorily completed or that there was a re-arrest or other behavior which would constitute a violation of probation.

Upon a balancing of all interests, such a sentence would leave the defendant with a felony record (Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Fourth Degree--a "C" Felony), and place him in a position to complete, under the supervision of the Department of Probation, his two-year in-patient commitment at "The Renaissance Project".

The successful rehabilitation of the defendant would seem to be an obvious benefit to the defendant and all concerned; to do otherwise and abort defendant's treatment process at "The Renaissance Project" and his incarceration for one to three years would seem senseless and accomplish absolutely nothing. It is even almost certainly predictable that such incarceration would have a negative effect upon all concerned.

On the Alternative Relief:

Defendant seeks alternative relief transferring the matter from Queens County Supreme Court to the Special Narcotics Part (sitting in New York County), pursuant to the intent of Article 5-B of the Judiciary Law.

Although no authority has been cited in support of such transfer or seems to presently exist, the Court determines after analysis that it is empowered to transfer a pending narcotic indictment to any Special Narcotics Part in the City of New York.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon or after arraignment on a narcotics indictment filed in the Supreme Court in any county within such cities and before entry of a plea of guilty or commencement of trial, such Supreme Court may order that the indictment and action be assigned to a special narcotics part of the Supreme Court. However, there is no necessity to implement the proposed transfer. The Court notes that if such action is taken, it would have been reluctantly taken but only as a last resort to insure that the interests of justice were served, in the context of the characteristics of the crime and the offender.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates have the best criminal defense attorneys with strong and strategic defenses that have been studied and put into action accumulated by a wide range of experience in criminal actions. Contact our office and speak with our legal experts, Queens Criminal Attorneys, Queens Drug Attorneys, for a free consultation.

One evening, a detective was assigned as backup to an undercover police officer who was attempting to buy controlled substances at a social club. Nowhere in the records is it showed that the undercover officer was able to achieve such objective. However, later that night, the undercover officer advised the backup detective by radio transmission that a tall white male with a pony tail approached her inside the social club and asked her "if she wanted to take a hit of cocaine". The undercover officer referred to the subject by name. It is not clear from the records of the case whether the undercover officer and the subject engaged in any additional conversation.

At about six hours after the undercover officer was offered with cocaine, she left the social club. Thereafter, the detective and other police officers arrived at the social club. The police directed its occupants to leave, and "stopped" and searched the defendant and "everybody when they came out". The detective recovered a packet of cocaine from the defendant's jacket pocket (drug possession) and a .38 caliber automatic gun (gun crime) from the defendant's boot.

It is uncertain from the record whether the defendant was arrested before or after the search.
The court suppressed the gun and cocaine recovered from the defendant's person. In so doing, the hearing court did not dispute the veracity of the detective, or his right to rely on hearsay information provided by the undercover officer. Rather, the court found that the defendant's statement to the undercover officer was merely an inquiry into the undercover officer's "wishes and desires", not evidence of a crime.

Was there a valid search and seizure? Is the evidence admissible?

The court does not dispute that the detective was a trained and experienced narcotics officer, who was entitled to rely upon information provided by an undercover officer who was part of his team. In view of the detective’s candid admission that the police searched everybody when they came out of the social club prior to any confirmation from the undercover, it appears that the search of the defendant was not motivated by the detective's training or experience, or even upon the specific information provided by the undercover officer. Such wholesale searches, in violation of the probable cause requirement, have been universally condemned.

The Supreme Court of the United States has held that, in general, the legality of a search or seizure is to be measured by the objective circumstances, and not the subjective motivation of the officer. Further, the question of whether the search occurred minutes before or minutes after the arrest is generally immaterial. Thus, even if the information provided by the undercover officer was not the motivation for the search and/or arrest of the defendant, the question of whether the information provided by the undercover officer was sufficient to provide probable cause to arrest the defendant is still relevant to our inquiry.

While it is true that the detective was entitled to rely upon information provided by the undercover officer and that the undercover officer was not required to testify at the hearing, however, the detective’s bare-bones recitation of the information provided by the undercover officer was wholly inadequate to provide probable cause to arrest. Since it is unclear whether the undercover officer and the defendant engaged in additional conversation, it cannot be said with certainty the context in which the defendant purportedly asked her if she wanted a "hit" of cocaine.

The crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance may be predicated upon an offer or agreement to sell cocaine, even if an actual delivery of cocaine did not occur. However, not every casual offer is made criminal. To constitute a sale, there must be evidence to indicate an ability and intent on the part of the defendant to complete the transaction. A promise to deliver drugs at some point in the "near future" is insufficient, as a matter of law, to constitute a sale.

On the argument that defendant clearly had the ability to deliver cocaine, since cocaine was found on his person, it is beyond cavil that the fruit of a search incident to an arrest cannot be used to establish probable cause to arrest. As the Supreme Court of the United States held over 50 years ago, reasoning which would justify the arrest by the search and at the same time justify the search by the arrest will not do.

Here, there is no evidence that the undercover officer saw anything that appeared to be cocaine, or had any reason to believe that the defendant possessed cocaine (cocaine possession or crack possession, a drug crime in violation of criminal laws); no evidence that the defendant had the ability or intent to complete an exchange of cocaine from himself or any other person; no evidence of a prior relationship between the defendant and the undercover officer. Therefore, no inferences could be drawn as to the particulars of any future delivery.
A reasonable inference was that the defendant's statement to the undercover officer was merely an inquiry into her "wishes and desires". The defendant's statement was made in a social club, where casual conversation is rampant. The defendant may have been attempting to strike up a conversation with a female. Conduct which falls within the statutory definition of a sale of cocaine constitutes a crime, whatever the defendant's motive, but casual conversation does not.

A finding of probable cause to arrest does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. However, there must be reasonable cause to believe that a crime was or is being committed, and the defendant committed the crime. Conduct which is, at most, equivocal and suspicious, is not sufficient to establish probable cause to arrest.

Accordingly, the evidence is inadmissible; there was an unlawful search and seizure.
For the best legal representation and the best criminal defense attorneys, contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates. Whether you have been charged with cocaine possession, burglary or grand larceny, our teams of legal experts possess the skill, experience and the expertise you need to defend yourself before courts of law. Have a free consultation now with our Queens Criminal Lawyers, Queens Drug Lawyers, etc.

On this proceeding, the man moves to be granted judgment without trial to dismiss the complaint against him.

The man is the brother of the complainant woman. The siblings separated since an event that occurred during mother's day at a family gathering. Based on records, there have been numerous family court matters involving their family.

On the said event, a New York Criminal Lawyer said a sixteen year old nephew of the complainant and the man exposed himself and masturbated in front of the man's five year old daughter. The said incident caused a huge schism in the family, with various family members taking sides against each other. At some point after the incident, the complainant, who was a hall monitor at an old elementary school, confronted the daughter of the man. According to the man, the complainant cross examined his daughter about the incident. As a result on the said confrontation to the child, the man alleged that her daughter became frightened and did not want to see or speak to the complainant.

Consequent to the incident, an action was filed in court under the original complaint of that sought damages for defamatory comments and tortious interference. The man and his wife, as opponent, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The court issued an order granting the motion to dismiss the complainants’ entire complaint. The complainant appealed the court's decision and affirmed it. The court also modified the Supreme Court's order such that the allegations concerning the alleged filing of a false police report against the man was allowed to continue.

Subsequently, a motion was filed to the only remaining defamatory comment against the only remaining opponent. A Queens Criminal Lawyer said the complainant alleged that the man is accused by a complaint to the county police department for pulling a gun on the complainant. Upon information and belief, the man repeated the alleged gun crime with the woman's aunt, and several other members of her family.

The appellate division’s decision which sent the remaining reason of action against the man was served with notice of entry. After the appellate division had suggested the man's proof was more appropriate for a judgment without a trial, the man did file a motion. The complainant filed a revised complaint. A Westchester County Criminal Lawyer said the revised complaint contained the only allegation which survived the decision of the appellate division, as well as, two additional claims. One is for slander regarding a protective order and the other is for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

On the first reason for the legal action filed, it alleges that the man has falsely accused the complainant of a serious crime, namely filing a false police report, a criminal violation. The accusation by the man was a false and defamatory statement concerning the woman specifically that she had filed a false criminal complaint against him for threatening her by brandishing a gun. The man made a false accusation to third parties, including but not necessarily limited to the family members.

On the second reason, it alleges that the man has falsely accused the woman of being the subject of a protective order regarding the man's children. The false accusation criticizes the woman in her trade, business, and/or professional reputation as an educational professional who works with children. The allegation by the man was a false and defamatory statement concerning the woman, specifically and falsely suggesting that the woman personally had engaged in improper behavior relative to the man's children.

The man is also alleged of displaying a harassing conduct toward the woman and her family and that it was extreme and outrageous. The man intentionally or recklessly engaged in that harassment as part of his continual emotional assault on his sister. As a result of the extreme and outrageous, intentional conduct, his sister suffered severe emotional distress.

After the proceedings, the court finds that the final action in the revised complaint is dismissed. Further, the man's motion for judgment is granted and his motion to dismiss the complaint is also granted.

A negative outside influence to a person could result into legal actions. If you feel you are wrongfully accused of a crime, whether it is a drug possession charge, sex crimes or theft, a Nassau County Criminal Lawyer can provide you legal options to pursue in court. If your family member needs a Nassau County Arrest Lawyer at Stephen Bilkis and Associates, don’t hesitate to call the office in its metropolitan branches during office hours.

An appeal was made by a woman for a gun crime that killed a police officer. The woman and her boyfriend drove to New York City to visit some friends. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that after the first few nights, the couple settled in at the Hempstead Motor Inn. On the afternoon of Saturday, as the couple drove past a woman's clothing store, the stated that she like the black dress. They entered the boutique, which is located near the intersection, through the front door. The bathroom of the boutique has a window which looks out onto the rear parking area. The window was covered by wooden slats and glass slats. The woman went into the fitting room to try on some clothes, but his boyfriend wasn't in sight when she came out. The sales attendant informed the woman that her boyfriend had asked to use the bathroom. The woman went back to the fitting room and when she again came out, her boyfriend was standing by the front window, front door and he had picked out a blouse for her to try on. Although she didn't buy anything she had seen, she did buy the blouse picked out for her by her boyfriend and they left the store without buying anything.

In her statement given after complete Miranda warnings, the woman said that on the afternoon of the gun crime incident, she and her boyfriend went into Manhattan, where he purchased an ankle holster for his gun; that she remained outside the store while her boyfriend bought it, and she wasn't aware of what he had bought, notwithstanding the fact that she put the bag into her purse. Later, in the early hours of the morning after, the couple decided to get something to eat and the woman changed her clothes. They drove to a bar, when they arrive, her boyfriend told her to stay in the car while he looked for a man. Her boyfriend returned a short time later and they drove around, finally backing into an alleyway and turning out the lights. When the woman asked what he was doing, he allegedly replied not to worry.

The woman stayed in the car to watch for the cops while her boyfriend broke into the back window of the clothing boutique.

After entering the boutique, the man started throwing stuff out the window and yelled to put the stuff in the car. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the woman was putting the clothes which had been thrown out of the window into the trunk when she saw a light go on across the street. While her boyfriend went back into the store, she noticed a pair of headlights in a gas station across the street. The woman left the car and hid behind some trash cans in the alleyway. A police car pulled into the alleyway and a police officer shone a flashlight at her. She then got up and walked over to the police officer, who asked her what she was doing there. She replied that she was looking for her cat. The police then asked for some identification and she presented an address book, but her name was not in it. Before the police officer arrived, the woman had placed, in neat and orderly fashion, ladies' blouses, pants suits, ladies' coats, an adding machine, and a typewriter in the trunk. According to the woman, while she was being questioned, her boyfriend yelled to her to run; she thereafter heard a shot. The officers immediately ran around to the front of the store, with her following behind them, and in the ensuing confusion, she ran away.

The record further makes it clear that what had happened was that the burglary had been interrupted by the police officer who observed a Cadillac in the alleyway behind the row of stores. As the officer pulled into the alleyway, he saw the Cadillac move a little bit. He used his flashlight, but saw no one in the car. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said he did see an open window in the back of the boutique, and requested assistance. At that point a bystander informed the officer that he saw or heard someone banging at the front door of the dress shop. The officer told the bystander to go across the street and yell if he saw anyone run out of the front of the store. At about that time, the officer and his partner spotted the woman behind the Cadillac and near the trash cans in the driveway. She came forward out of the shadows. The officer also observed the open window and a garment lying underneath it. Also at about that time, the officer who was killed pulled up to the front of the store in a police ambulance answering his partner officer’s call for assistance.

During that time, the bystander observed the woman’s boyfriend leave the store and saw the police officer approach him. The woman and her boyfriend’s accounts differ slightly. The bystander observed the police officer place his hand on the man’s shoulder but did not see a gun in the officer’s hands. Suddenly the man turned, faced the officer and shot him. The officer dropped to the ground and the man ran. The other bystander testified that the shooting occurred as the officer attempted to push the man up against the front wall.

Both officers heard a shot and a groan. Both officers ran to the front of the store and the woman fled. An officer who had just arrived gave chase but lost her. The shot officer was taken to the hospital, where he remained until he died.

The woman was arrested in a motel. The police wanted to know the identity and whereabouts of her male accomplice. A Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said the woman said that they had been forced at gunpoint to do the burglary by an unknown White male. She indicated that she would talk without an attorney being present. The woman then repeated the story she had given the arresting officers to the effect that she and her boyfriend had been forced to commit the burglary. The detective replied that the woman was lying; that he had witnesses to show otherwise and that she should tell the truth. The woman then gave the detective an oral statement. She now claimed that she had not known that her boyfriend was armed and that he forced her to participate in the burglary by slapping her. Her oral statement was reduced to writing and signed by her.

While being questioned, the woman identified certain articles recovered at the crime scene, to wit, a bent screwdriver, gloves and a can containing mace, as belonging to her boyfriend. She also admitted that she, too, had possessed mace.

The woman contends that a reversal in the conviction should be made and that the court made a mistake in refusing to charge the jury. The court claimed that they found no error in its main charge to adopt the specific requests to charge. The woman willingly and voluntarily involved herself, and fully participated in a criminal act 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 crime scene.

A Nassau County Possession of a Weapon Attorney can help you when you are wrongly charged of possessing a harmful weapon. Stephen Bilkis and Associates can also provide you a Nassau County Arrest Lawyer if you have been wrongfully arrested due to weapon possession.

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.

A man met some friends one afternoon and drove with them in his car to another friend’s house. There they all spent the night. The next morning, two of his friends asked him to drive them to an address in Queens where he was going to see a man about a job. The friend who owned the car agreed to drive his two friends to Queens.

During the drive to Queens, the driver/owner of the car observed and saw one of his friends in possession of a gun. He dropped off his two friends. Before drove away, one of his friends came back to the car, showed him the gun and told him that they were planning to rob the house. The driver/owner of the car drove away.

A few minutes after he drove away, he was accosted by police officers on the road just a short distance from the address where he dropped them off. He was asked by the police officers who stopped him if he knew the two men he dropped off. He said he knew them. He admitted that he had dropped them off. What he did not admit was that he knew that they had planned to rob the house where he dropped them off. He never told the police that he saw one of his friends in possession of a gun.

The driver and his friends were all charged. The driver was tried and convicted of robbery in the first degree and conspiracy in the fourth degree. He appealed his conviction on the grounds that he should not have been convicted as he had no knowledge of the plan to rob or of the robbery itself. At the trial, his two friends confirmed all that the driver gave in his statement to the police. Both the other defendants were certain that none of them told the driver/owner of the car that they were planning a robbery. Both the other defendants stated that they never discussed the robbery with the driver of the car.

The trial court entered a verdict and judgment against the driver. The driver appealed his conviction arguing that there is no sufficient evidence to support a finding of guilt. He also argued that his conviction came from an inference of the trial court judge.

The Supreme Court at the verdict and judgment of the Trial Court may be upheld only if when the finding of facts is reviewed, the guilt of the driver was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Court concluded that the weight of the evidence does not support the Trial Court’s verdict. The Court held that the driver had been consistent in his statements. He denied from the very start that he knew anything about the robbery. Even if we were to believe that the driver saw one of his friends in possession of a gun or armed with a weapon, it cannot be inferred from mere possession of a gun that his friends were intending to commit armed robbery.

The persons who actually committed the armed robbery supported the driver’s claim of innocence. The driver testified at trial that he drove off immediately after he dropped off his friends and one of them told him that they were about to commit armed robbery. It was precisely his desire to have no part in the armed robbery that made him leave his friends there.
The Supreme Court found that under the circumstances, the People failed to prove the driver’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. His conviction is overturned.

Have you given a ride to friends and not know that they were in possession of a gun at that time? Were you charged for armed robbery along with them as a conspirator? You must go to Stephen Bilkis and Associates. Whether you have been involved with a gun crime, drug possession or sex crimes, they will provide you with a free consultation and sound legal guidance.

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.

A man was convicted on his guilty plea of marijuana possession in the first degree. His motion to cover up the evidence of marijuana cultivation seized by state police on a search warrant was denied. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the appellate division generally affirmed in a memorandum agreeing with the court's conclusion that the man's act of posting no trespassing signs about every 20 to 30 feet around the perimeter of his property, which consisted of 165 acres of rural, hilly, undeveloped, uncultivated fields and woodlands except for the man's cultivation of marijuana, did not establish an expectation of privacy cognizable under the right to privacy protection of the constitution.

On execution of the search warrant, the state police with assistance of sheriff's department searched the property owned by the man. The application for the warrant included the in camera testimony of a private citizen, who had shot and wounded a deer and followed it onto the man's property. The private citizen observed what appeared to be the remnants of a marijuana growing operation. When the private citizen entered the property again, he testified that he saw approximately 50 marijuana plants under cultivation. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the private citizen reported the information to the state police and gave a leaf that he obtained from one of the plants on the property. Consequently, an investigator accompanied the private citizen to the site where the investigator personally observed the plants. None of the entries of the Investigator or the private citizen was with the man's knowledge or permission.

The warrant application contained tax maps showing that the property belonged to the man and a report of an anonymous telephone tip that the man was growing marijuana on the said property. The court then found that the property was noticeably marked with no trespassing signs which is clearly visible and indeed observed by not only the private citizen but the police units entering the property. The residence consisted of a mobile home with no utilities which located near the road. The marijuana plants were not found within the area around the man's mobile home but some 300-400 yards away.

Apparently attaching significance to the illegality of activities sought to be kept private like growing marijuana, rather than the nature of the efforts to assure privacy, the court held that the man’s expectations of privacy were not legitimate.

The law had recognized the owner's right to prohibit entry on land in the posting provisions of the environmental conservation law and in general obligations law, enacted for the purpose of dissuading landowners from posting their property and encouraging them to admit the public. Despite the arguments, the court did not dismiss so lightly the fact that the police were violating the man's property rights and committing criminal law and civil trespass by entering the land. Significantly, the court in suppressing the evidence has adverted to the illegal conduct of the police in obtaining the evidence through a trespass on private property.

Subsequently, the appellate division vacated the guilty plea of the man and the man’s motion to suppress the evidence is granted. Further, the indictment is also dismissed.

In connection with the abovementioned case of the man, another case related to the unreasonable searches and seizures.

A five-member team from the auto crime division arrived at a vehicle dismantling operation to conduct a random warrantless inspection of the premises. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said that upon their arrival, the members of the team entered the business's front office, where they identified themselves as police officers and announced that they were present to perform an administrative inspection. Upon the officers' request, the owner and operator of the business produced various permits and vehicle dismantler's license. Two of the officers then proceeded to the premises' yard, where they randomly selected vehicle identification numbers from several auto parts. After entering the numbers into a mobile computer located in their patrol car, the officers discovered that two of the parts were from automobiles which had been reported stolen. The owner was then ordered to produce his so-called police book, in which entries relating to the purchase of vehicle parts were required to be recorded. After it was ascertained that the owner’s police book did not contain the required entries pertaining to the stolen parts, the owner was placed under arrest. A detailed search of the premises, subsequently conducted pursuant to a search warrant, revealed some 35 other automobile parts which had also been reported stolen.

Based on records, the Supreme Court held that vehicle and traffic law, which authorizes the police to conduct random warrantless searches of vehicle dismantling businesses to determine whether such businesses are trafficking in stolen automobile parts, and it does not violate the fourth amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The owner was thereafter charged with multiple counts of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree. rior to trial, he moved to cover up the physical evidence which had been seized from his vehicle dismantling business. A Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said in support of his motion, the owner argued that the police violated the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures contained in article. The court agreed and granted the man's motion to suppress.

On appeal, a divided appellate division reversed the decision. Noting that the Supreme Court had already upheld the legal provisions for warrantless administrative searches of vehicle dismantling businesses against the fourth amendment challenge and the appellate division found no reason to reach a different conclusion under the article of the state constitution.
Based on records, privacy is without question and it is an important constitutional and societal value. However, the nature and scope of the privacy attribute at issue, and the persons or entities entitled or intended to be within the field of the state protection. It should be analyzed in the concrete application and consequences of the peculiar cases. Those are not cases dealing with a general right to privacy and associated right to be left alone. Rather, the fourth amendment cases should be analyzed in their proper analytical framework which consists of the reasonable, legitimate, cognizable expectation of privacy in a traditional criminal jurisprudence context. The court has failed to analyze the privacy right in the proper setting, and that is one of our principal differences with the court's approach.

Further, the legislature has determined that the auto dismantling industry needs close administrative supervision and regulation. The legislative memorandum filed in support of vehicle and traffic law which clearly reflects the objective underlying the ruling that to provide a system of record keeping so that vehicles can be traced through junk yards and to assure that such junk yards are run by legitimate businesses rather than by auto theft rings. Most other legislatures have also judged it necessary to adopt similar law permitting warrantless inspections of the records and inventories of vehicle dismantlers and automobile junkyards .The court today points to no history or tradition of the state creating a peculiar state or local concern warranting extra state privacy protections to such commercial operations, or that vehicle dismantlers in state have historically expected or been accorded greater protection than that afforded by the Supreme Court in previous cases to the rest of the nation.

Apparently, the order was reversed and the case was remitted to the appellate division for further proceedings.

The broad concept of law and lot of opinions from different legislature makes it harder for most people to understand it. Most of us need guidance especially when we are in trouble with the law. The NY Drug Crime Lawyer can provide you a better fight in court. The New York Criminal Attorneys at Stephen Bilkis and Associates can also be your most trusted ally in your court case.

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 Facts:

On 7 December 2001, defendant and two acquaintances approached a man as he was walking with his friends in Queens, New York. Defendant held out his hand and that man, believing that the stranger was attempting to greet him, returned the gesture by slapping him "five." A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant told the man, however, that he did not want a greeting; he made clear that he wanted the man’s compact disc player. Defendant snatched the player out of the man’s hand, walked away and allegedly began listening to the "Busta Rhymes" CD in the disc player.

The man followed defendant, repeatedly asking for his disc player back, at which time one of defendant's acquaintances, codefendant, approached the man and told him to "run his pockets", meaning, to give co-defendant his money. The man told co-defendant he did not have any money and then turned to continue following defendant, whereupon co-defendant repeatedly punched the man from behind, causing a laceration on the ear.

Shortly thereafter, the man alerted a passing police car and identified defendant and his acquaintances as having taken his disc player and punched him. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the police arrested defendant at the scene and recovered the disc player. Defendant and his co-defendant were charged with two counts of robbery in the second degree — aided by another person actually present, and causing physical injury, as well as criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree.

In a prosecution for robbery of a specific chattel, is a defendant who in good faith believed that the property was his entitled to a "claim-of-right" jury instruction? Both because the Legislature has limited the availability of the statutory claim-of-right defense to prosecutions for larceny by trespass or embezzlement and because public policy considerations militate against encouraging the use of forcible self-help to recover property, the court concludes that he is not.

The Ruling:

Penal Law provides that "in any prosecution for larceny committed by trespassory taking or embezzlement, it is an affirmative defense that the property was appropriated under a claim of right made in good faith." In one landmark case, however, the court held that section 155.15 was unconstitutional insofar as it made a good-faith claim of right an affirmative defense because to do so impermissibly shifted the burden onto the defendant to disprove the element of intent.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the court’s holding recognized that a good-faith claim of right negates larcenous intent, otherwise, a claim of right would not impermissibly shift the burden of proving an essential element of the crime and could remain an affirmative defense. Indeed, larceny is committed when one wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds property from an owner thereof with intent to deprive the owner of it, or appropriate it to oneself or another. Owner is defined in Penal Law as one who has a right to possession [of the property taken] superior to that of the taker, obtainer or withholder.

The current larceny statute provides simply that "a person steals property and commits larceny when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or to a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property from an owner thereof". The statute, however, cannot properly be read to require merely the intent to take property, rather than the intent to take property from a person with a superior right to possession.

It is clear that when the Legislature amended the statute and eliminated the reference to the intent to take property from its owner, it meant no substantive change to larceny's intent element but only simplified the definition of larceny and eliminated the distinction among different types of theft. Moreover, when there is a single mens rea requirement in a criminal statute, it is presumed to apply to every element of the offense. Thus, to commit larceny, a larcenous actor must act with the "intent" to take property "from an owner thereof".

Indeed, because the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to take property from someone with a superior right to possession, a good-faith but mistaken claim of right might defeat a robbery prosecution. And, as here, a defendant is, of course, free to make that argument to the jury.

However, simply because a jury might be convinced by a claim-of-right argument, it does not follow that a claim-of-right charge, derived from a statutory defense limited to certain types of larceny, is also available to defendants in robbery prosecutions. Such an instruction by the court, over and above an instruction on the element of intent, unquestionably aids the defendant by underscoring one aspect of the proof, or lack of proof. The Legislature did not provide that additional assistance where the defendant employs physical force.

Moreover, the jury convicted the defendant of second-degree robbery, even though the lesser included third-degree robbery charge was also available. Hence, defendant is foreclosed from challenging the court's refusal to charge the more remote lesser included offense of petit larceny, if indeed such a charge was available on the facts.

Accordingly, defendant's contentions regarding the court's responses to jury notes are without merit; the decision is affirmed.

For a free consultation, get in touch with Stephen Bilkis & Associates. We have lawyers from all over the country with vast experiences in various fields. A New York Criminal Lawyer from our firm shall be standing by to wait for your call. Whether you need assistance with a theft charge, sex crimes or drug possession, we are here to help.

Many people believe that juvenile drug issues are a modern problem. However, history demonstrates that these are problems have been consistent throughout the history of the United States. One case from 1963, demonstrates that juvenile drug dealers were a problem in New York even then.

On July 19, 1963 at around 1830 hours, an off duty juvenile corrections officer was in a location to observe the corner of 14th Street and 31st Avenue in New York, Queens County. He observed a teenager around fifteen years of age at that corner. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the teen appeared intoxicated and walked with an unsteady gait. He watched the boy for a moment and observed a second youth approach him. The second boy put a one-dollar bill on top of a mail collection box. The first boy took the bill off of the box and slipped the other boy something from his hand. The other boy turned and left. The corrections officer did not see what had been in the boy’s hand. He watched the boy turn and go into a corner market. Again, he followed behind. Once inside the store, he kept the boy under surveillance for several minutes.

After a while, he approached the boy and asked him if he could frisk down his outer clothing. The boy complied and the officer felt two pill bottles in the front right pants pocket of his clothing. That was the pocket that the boy had removed whatever he had passed to the other boy from. The boy removed two pill bottles that did not have any labels. The boy told the officer that one of the bottles contained Doriden and the other contained barbiturates. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that Doriden was a pharmaceutical name for an opiate that was popular in the 1960’s as a mood lifter. The boy voluntarily stated at that point that he had been selling the drugs on the corner when the correctional officer saw him. The correctional officer arrested the boy and he was transported to juvenile detention.

At the time of his hearing, the lab results had not yet returned on the pills in the bottle. The attorney for the defense requested that the charges be dropped since the results that would definitively state what the pills were, would not be available to the court. The court ruled that since the boy had appeared in an intoxicated state and he had voluntarily informed the officer that he was intoxicated as a result of taking the pills, that the court could reasonably assume that the pills in the boy’s possession were drugs. However, the determination of the legitimacy of the search and arrest that recovered the drugs was not as straightforward.

The law states that a police officer may make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor that he observes. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said the http://criminaldefense.1800nynylaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1406760.htmlcorrectional officer is a peace officer and not a police officer. It is not his usual assignment to make observations and arrest suspects. In this case, he had frisked the boy. Since the boy had voluntarily agreed to the frisk, the frisk was allowable. If the boy had refused, the peace officers lesser standing to a police officer would have prevented the case from going any further. The drugs were secured when the boy voluntarily removed them from his pocket and gave them to the officer. His statement was also voluntary. A Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said that therefore, the court determined that the search was valid because the boy cooperated voluntarily. The officer was not permitted to arrest the boy unless the crime was a felony if he was acting as a regular citizen.

The court determined that the correctional officer was within his rights to stop the boy, frisk him, recover the evidence and arrest him because the crime had occurred in his presence. Based on the boy’s own statements he is guilty of the offense.

At Stephen Bilkis & Associates is a Queens Criminal Lawyer can meet you in convenient offices throughout New York and the Metropolitan area. Drug Court issues are often far reaching. Our Queens Drug lawyers can provide you with advice to guide you through any situation.

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.

Prior to January 2005, indeterminate sentencing was considered the norm. It was originally designed as a means of tailoring the sentence to the crime. The belief was that since everyone is an individual, indeterminate sentences allowed a defendant the option of faster improvement. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said it was hoped that the indeterminate sentence would encourage defendants to demonstrate good behavior in an attempt to shorten their overall term of incarceration. The experiment was a dismal failure. Rather than encouraging good behavior, it instilled a feeling of helplessness in the inmate population. The sentences were sometimes completely different for persons involved in the same crime. The disparate sentences that some offenders received soon became regarded as a problem. The violence that some of these offenders demonstrated while incarcerated was also higher than the levels of violence demonstrated by offenders with definitive sentences. The hopelessness of having no way of knowing when the end of their sentences might arrive created an air of hostility and despair in the inmate population. By 2005, the trend of indeterminate sentencing had been recognized as a failure and sentencing reform laws were initiated to correct the problem.

These sentencing reform guidelines had several necessary provisions. They were designed to allow defendants who were charged with non-violent drug offenses to be given determinate sentences that were often much lower than their original indeterminate sentences were. The guidelines state that the person must be a non-violent offender and cannot have committed a violent offense within 10 years of the application for determinate sentencing.

In the present case, the defendant was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence and is attempting to be approved for resentencing under the Drug Law Reform Act to a determinate sentence of three and one half years as a second non-violent felony offender. The original date of his offence was August 26, 2003 and no final adjudication had been made at the time of his request. He states that the revised sentencing guidelines are an amendment of a failed method and because of that, he is entitled to be sentenced under these guidelines as opposed to sentencing under the old ones. His crime was committed prior to the enactment of the new statute.

The prosecutor’s office disagrees. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said they stated that the sentencing guidelines are only applicable to crimes that occurred after January 13, 2005 which is well after the August 2003 date of the defendant’s crimes. The prosecutor states that the new law specifically prohibits any kind of retroactive application to offenses that were committed prior to the enactment of the law.

Currently, the defendant is facing an indeterminate sentence of between four and one half and nine years and twelve and one half to twenty-five years. This is because he has a prior non-violent felony conviction. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said if this request is approved, he could be anticipating a reduction in the sentence to a mere three and one have years and twelve years. The new guidelines would reduce his sentence to only half of what he was originally sentenced.

The Supreme Court agreed with both parties in part. The law does specifically deny any retroactive sentencing based on the enactment date. However, even though the defendant’s crime was committed before the enactment of the law, his case is still actively pending in the court. That means that according to the view of the Supreme Court Justices, this case is still active after the date of the enactment of the new sentencing guidelines and the defendant is allowed to be sentenced under the new guidelines. The defendant’s motion to be sentenced under the new guidelines is approved by the court. A Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said that often something as simple as a delay in a sentencing date can mean the difference of more than twenty years of time spent behind bars. A good attorney can help you if you find yourself in a situation like this one.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates has experienced Queens Criminal Lawyers. An experienced Criminal Attorney can make the difference in your case as well. They have convenient offices throughout New York and the Metropolitan area. A Queens Drug lawyer can help you with your defense.

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

In 1988, a man and his friend along with their two wives were running a drug enterprise out of a one room apartment with an attached kitchen located on 88th street in Queens, New York. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said an undercover police officers had been focused on this apartment for several weeks. In fact, they had conducted undercover narcotics purchases on three separate occasions.

They were made on September 13, September 20, and September 29. After making all of these purchases, the police officers were able to obtain a search warrant to search the residence. After making the purchase on the 29th, the officers executed the search warrant on the residence. They uncovered several tinfoil packets of cocaine and angel dust. One packet of cocaine was located on the floor in between the couch and the wall. It was about a four or five inch space between the wall and the sofa. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer reported that six dollars was located in a closet that had cocaine residue on it. In another closet officers recovered $110 which was the money that was marked by them as the money that they had used to purchase narcotics at that location. The $110 was mixed in with another $850 in cash that was hidden in a child-sized purse. In the last closet, they located $3,630 in cash.

All four of the defendants were present when the search warrant was executed. They were all charged with possessing a narcotic with the intent to sell it. It is legal practice to charge everyone in a room with the possession of a narcotic that is in the room since all of the people are found to have knowledge of or should reasonably have known that the drugs were there. The drugs do not necessarily have to be in plain view. The drugs can be in a container or other item that is accessible to any of the occupants of the room. The narcotics can be in a completely separate room if they are visible to the occupants of a different room. In this case, the narcotics that were in the room, was the one packet that was located between the sofa and wall. a Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said the court ruled that that particular packet could not be deemed as accessible to everyone in the room or that all of the occupants of the room would have known that it was there. The fact that it was not in open view or in a container in open view makes it impossible for the police to assume that anyone other than the one owner could possibly have known that it was there. When it is determined that narcotics or other illegal drugs are in open view and in close proximity to persons, it is referred to as the drug factory presumption of Penal Law §220.25 (2).

The trial court in this case chose to relax the standards on allowing the presumption on the basis of the packet of drugs behind the sofa. A Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said the trial court erred according to the Supreme Court. Without the packet of drugs that were discovered behind the sofa, there was no legal application to the drug factory presumption. This is in spite of the fact that several purchases of narcotics were made on different dates by undercover officers. The fact that the jury was directed to include this information in consideration by using the drug factory presumption was an error that cannot be ignored. There is no way for the Appellate Division to determine that the jury was not swayed in their decision by applying the drug factory presumption. It is for that reason that the case was overturned and returned to the courts for retrial without any implication of the drug factory presumption.

At Stephen Bilkis & Associates there is a group of experienced Queens Criminal Lawyers. They have convenient offices throughout New York and the Metropolitan area. Their Queens Drug lawyer is the best choice for your defense.

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 plaintiffs and appellants in the case are Lois White et al. The defendants and appellees in the case are the Scrivner Corporation et al. The case is being heard in the fifth circuit of the United States Court of Appeals.

Case History

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said one night Lois and her daughter Sandra White, along with her sister Gloria Pratt, went shopping at a food store owned by Scrivner Corporation, the assistant manager of the shop accused Lois of taking a roast out of the meat department of the store. The assistant manager requested that Lois and her daughter and sister come with him to an area located at the rear of the store. He asked for permission to search through their purses and while looking through the women’s purses he found a pistol located in Lois Whites purse. He told the women to stand by the wall and he made a call to the police department. The police arrived and arrested White for having a weapon that was concealed. The food goods that White was accused of stealing were never found.

Lois White and her sister and daughter filed a suit against the Scrivner Corporation and their employees stating that the search and detention infringed upon their fourteenth amendment rights. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the case was tried in front of a district court and there was not a jury present. The judge found in favor of the defendants and ruled that no rights were violated. This is the verdict that is being appealed in court today.

Case Discussion and Conclusion

In order to make a claim under the United States Constitution 42, the plaintiffs must prove that the defendants were acting under the color of the state laws and deprived them of a right that is preserved by the Constitution. The plaintiffs have offered three arguments to meet this requirement. First, the plaintiffs argue that by detaining them and searching through their belongings the employees were performing an act that is reserved specifically for the state. Second, the plaintiff’s state that the act should be found as the defendants acted under a statute made by the state that allows suspected shoplifters to be detained. Finally, the plaintiffs argue that the state action is part of this case because the defendants acted with the police in order to seize and search their property and to detain them.

The defendants searching the women’s purses cannot be characterized as functions that are reserved only for the state. While it is true that most of the time these actions are performed by the police, it is not uncommon for the shop owner to search someone who is expected of shoplifting. This is to attempt to discover whether or not goods have been stolen before contacting the police. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said when the gun was found, detaining the individuals was not unacceptable. It is quite common for a private citizen to intervene when they feel that a crime is being committed.

A Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said the arguments of the plaintiffs fail to show the defendants acted under the color of the law. These arguments are not backed by significant evidence to prove these facts. For this reason, we affirm the original ruling in the case in favor of the defendants. All counts in the case are dismissed and there is no recovery for damages given to the plaintiffs.

When it comes time to consult a lawyer about your situation, the law offices of Stephen Bilkis & Associates are here to help. We have several conveniently located offices in New York and expert lawyers in every field of law. If you need legal advice, contact our office to set up your free consultation today.

The plaintiff and appellee in the case is the United States of America. The defendant and appellant of the case is Alexander Antoine Christopher. The case is being heard in the Eleventh Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals.

Appeal

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the defendant, Alexander Antoine Christopher is appealing the district court’s sentencing of 77 months for illegally reentering the country and violating 18 of the United States Constitution. The issue he is raising on appeal is he feels there was an error made by the district court when they enhanced his criminal record score by 16. He states that his prior conviction of theft does not qualify as an aggravated felony.

Case History

The Immigration and Naturalization Service agents discovered in 1999, that Christopher was being held by the Clayton County Detention Center on a probation violation. The Immigration and Naturalization Service discovered that Christopher had been born in Bermuda and that he entered the U.S. through Miami, Florida. It was discovered that he had been arrested on five different occasions in Georgia for driving while intoxicated. He was charged with a felony offense in 1994 for being a habitual violator. He was voluntary deported from the United States in 1995. He then reentered the United States a short time later.

In the year 1997, Christopher was convicted of shoplifting and obstructing an officer, both misdemeanor offenses. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said he was sentenced to 12 months in prison for each of these crimes. After this conviction he was deported again. Christopher reentered the country again, without the necessary consent of the Attorney General. This is a violation of the United States Constitution, 8. He was charged on this violation and sentenced to 77 months in prison. When determining his sentence for this offense, the court added 16 to his base offense level based on his prior conviction of shoplifting, which was determined to be an aggravated felony.

Case Discussion

Christopher argues that the shoplifting charge is not considered an aggravated felony by definition. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said he argues that the term of imprisonment for a shoplifting charge is at the most a year and not at least a year. He also states that the language of the law defining sentencing is applicable to only crimes that are obviously felonies by their very nature.

We find that the intent of the statute is stated to include a crime that has a penalty of at least a year of imprisonment. While in this case the maximum sentence is up to a year, we feel it still qualifies to be determined as an aggravated assault based on the language of the law. Even though his sentence in the case was suspended, that is irrelevant in this particular case for appeal.

Case Result

The argument made by the defendant and appellant, Christopher is that the shoplifting charge should not be considered an aggravated felony. However, we have concluded that the statute in the state laws defines an aggravated felony as any offense that has a term of imprisonment that is at least a year. A Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said the shoplifting violation qualifies under this reasoning.

The court finds in favor of the plaintiff and the initial sentencing stands. The addition of 16 points to Christopher’s base offense level was fair and is hereby affirmed.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates can help you through any type of legal trouble you find yourself in. Our law offices offer teams of expert lawyers that can walk you through your case to determine your rights. We are located throughout the city of New York for your convenience. Call to set up your free consultation today.

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.

Whenever a child is involved or present at the time that a criminal act is committed, it becomes more serious. Child endangerment charges are especially applicable in cases where there has been a drug crime committed. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said sometimes, the case is as mundane as an aunt or uncle who brings marijuana into the home where children are located. The children need never see the drugs for the aunt or uncle to be charged with child abuse or child endangerment. If there is even a possibility, no matter how remote, that the child may be able to obtain the drug and ingest it, the person who brought it in to the home will be charged.

Most people think that in order to be charged with child endangerment or abuse, that they have to use the drug in front of the child. Some even think that they have to provide the drug to the child. Neither one of these situations is accurate. The mere presence of the drug in the home constitutes a drug crime. That drug crime can constitute child neglect or abuse depending on the circumstance.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said on one such case, a woman was arrested for endangering the welfare of a child as well as possession of cocaine. The incident that led to the woman’s arrest occurred when a police officer was in her apartment legally in reference to a different situation. While he was in the apartment, he observed a glassine bag on top of the defendant’s refrigerator that in his experience as a law enforcement officer appeared to be cocaine. The woman later admitted that it was cocaine and that she was a person who would use cocaine every now and then.

The officer also observed a small female child in the apartment living room. The girl was about two to three feet tall and about 40 pounds. The woman stated that the child was her granddaughter. The defendant maintains that the child could not have obtained the cocaine because it was on top of the refrigerator and was therefore out of her reach. The state maintains that simply putting a hazardous substance out of a child’s reach will not necessarily protect them from obtaining it.

The state set forth several scenarios in which the baggie could fall or be blown off of the top of the refrigerator. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said that would put it in the reach of the child who could ingest the material. Such a young child could easily die from ingesting cocaine. The state also maintains that the child can walk and climb. A child of that age would certainly be able to climb up onto a kitchen counter to reach the top of the refrigerator. Children of this age are known to be climbers and getting up on the kitchen counter is not unusual for any child that age. They are accustomed to having to climb up onto the counters in order to reach a cup, cereal, or other daily items. A child could reasonably decide to investigate the substance in the bag on top of the refrigerator. There was great emphasis placed on the fact that the drugs were not locked up or secured away from the child in any way. The woman was tried by a jury and convicted.

The defendant disagreed with her conviction and applied for an appeal. The justices who heard the appeal determined that the state had made an excellent case for the fact that the child could have obtained the drugs. Merely placing them on top of the refrigerator did not secure them from the curiosity of a child. A Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said the most appropriate thing that the grandmother could have done would have been not to bring the drugs into the apartment in the first place. However, since she did take the drugs into the apartment, she should have taken steps to ensure the safety of the child by placing them somewhere that they could be locked up away from the child. It is important that anyone who has been arrested for drug offenses 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 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.

The plaintiff and appellee of the case is the United States of America. The defendant and appellant of the case is Douglas Dedeker. 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 1990, Douglas Dedeker, the appellant was convicted of helping a federal prisoner escape in the state of Colorado. After the appellant admitted to helping the individual and negotiated his plea of guilty, he was then interviewed by a probation officer who was in charge of preparing his presentencing report. During the meeting with the probation officer the defendant stated that he had not been found guilty of a crime since his initial release in July of 1988. However, the probation officer determined that he had been recently convicted on a shoplifting offense. For this offense he received a 30 day suspension sentence and a $300 fine. At this conviction Dedeker was not represented by a lawyer and received a fine and a suspended sentencing.

When being sentenced for the federal crime, the conviction for shoplifting was not considered when determining the calculation of his criminal history. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the reasoning was that the conviction in the shoplifting case was a misdemeanor and it was an uncounseled conviction. However, based on the defendants failure to disclose information about this crime to his probation officer, his offense level on his criminal history record was raised by two points. This was applied to his sentencing and his category was found to be IV. His range for sentencing was between 24 to 30 months. The defendant received 24 months incarceration. This was the lowest sentence possible based on his point status and the crime that was committed.

Case Discussion

The defendant is appealing his original sentencing, focusing on the requirement that is necessary to enhance a presentence or nondisclosure. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said he states that the court submitted the obstruction addition to his sentencing as the withholding of the information about the shoplifting conviction was not meaningful to the case as it would not affect the criminal history category under the current guidelines.

We find that this argument is true as the shoplifting charge would not be included in the calculation of his criminal history as he was not properly represented by a lawyer in the case. However, the case is not about whether or not he committed the crime, but rather whether or not he lied about the charge. His offense level was not increased based on the shoplifting crime, but rather was increased because he failed to acknowledge the offense.

Case Ruling

In this case we find that the district court that ruled in the defendant’s case did not make an error when adding two points to his criminal history point sheet. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the main reasoning for this is because the points were not added to his criminal point’s history because of the shoplifting conviction. However, the points were added based on the fact that he did not fully disclose the facts of the case during his probationary hearing for his pretrial criminal point’s history calculation. Had the defendant been honest about this conviction in the initial meeting, these two points would not have been added to his case and he would have been entitled to a lower criminal status.

With offices located throughout the metropolitan area of Manhattan, Stephen Bilkis & Associates can help you through any type of legal issue. We have a team of lawyers ready to work with you directly to determine the best course of legal action. You may contact any of our offices to set up a free consultation.

The plaintiff and appellee in the case is the United States of America. The defendant and appellant of the case is Norman L. Haymer. The case is being heard in the fifth circuit of the United States Court of Appeals.

Appeal

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the defendant and appellant in the case, Norman L. Haymer, is appealing his original sentence. He states his right to counsel as provided by the sixth amendment was violated as a misdemeanor conviction that was uncounseled was included when determining his criminal history score.

Previous Case

Previously, Haymer had submitted a plea of guilty to a charge of possession of cocaine with the intent to sell. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the probation officer who issued the presentence report recommended that Haymer be sentenced to anywhere from 53 to 63 months. He based this calculation on a 22 offense level and a category III criminal history. The score included 2 points for committing a crime while on probation, a point for a conviction that occurred in 1987, and a point for a charge of shoplifting in 1991. It is the shoplifting charge that is currently being appealed.

The records of the shoplifting case indicate that Haymer was arrested on the 22nd of May in 1991 and entered a guilty plea. He was fined $300 plus the cost of court. Haymer was later arrested for contempt of court because he failed to pay the court costs and fine. However, the defendant states that he performed 18 days of work at a Hinds County Penal Farm as opposed to paying the charges.

Haymer did not file any written objections to the presentence report, but he objected during his sentencing hearing about the shoplifting charge being included. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said his reasoning was that he was not represented by a lawyer at the time of the conviction. If the shoplifting charge is excluded his score would be lowered and the result would be a lower sentence time of a maximum 57 months instead of a maximum 63 months.

Defendant Argument

The defendant states that at the time of the shoplifting incident he was working and took a pack of cigarettes. He was arrested at the time and paid bond to be released. During his court date he told the judge that he did not take the cigarettes. He states that he was in the judge’s chamber and assumed that if he pleads guilty to the charges he would receive a low fine. However, the fine was $300, which I could not afford. This lead to me being arrested and put in jail to work the fine off. I was never told that I had the right to a lawyer and if I was given the choice I would have chosen to obtain a lawyer.

Court Ruling

A Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said the court finds that because there was no term of imprisonment involved in his shoplifting sentencing, the uncounseled prosecution of the time is not unconstitutional. For the purpose of this particular case the court finds that including the conviction for shoplifting when determining his criminal history score. While Haymer may have served time for the conviction, it was not part of the initial judgment. Regardless of the previous conviction or fine for the shoplifting crime, it is not considered unconstitutional. Additionally, the result of incarceration for the crime was not used to determine the score, but rather the fact that he was previously arrested for the charge.

When you find yourself in any type of legal situation it is important to contact a lawyer for advice. At Stephen Bilkis & Associates, we can help you determine the necessary steps to take in your situation. We have offices located throughout the metropolitan area of Manhattan. You may contact us to set up a free consultation at any time.

At approximately 8:00 p.m., a man obtained a ride going to a shopping center. Ten minutes later, he entered a delicatessen, showed a gun and demanded money from the clerk. The clerk then turned over about $145 in cash and checks. After the robbery, the man left the shopping center and walked through the surrounding neighborhood. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the man eventually arrived at the county line bowling alley. Meanwhile, the robbery had been reported to the police department and an alert was transmitted over the police radio. Consequently, two officers arrived at the delicatessen just minutes after the man had left. A description of the robber was attained and reported over the police radio. A normal police procedure require that unassigned patrol cars proceed to the vicinity of the crime area and any nearby major intersections in an effort to seal off potential avenues of escape. As the man walked onto the parking lot of the bowling alley, he saw a police car turn and enter the lot. The man hid under a parked car. The lone officer in the car come out from his vehicle and walked over to man's hiding place. The man got up from underneath the car with his gun concealed between his legs. The officer ordered the man to put his weapon on the car hood but the man turned and fired. The officer was mortally wounded and struggled to get back to his police car. The officer then attempted to use the radio to call for the assistance of brother officers and then collapsed on the seat. The man took the automobile of a bowling alley patron and fled. An off-duty police officer used the patrolman's radio to broadcast a signal for help and the report of the shooting went over the police radio at 8:24 p.m. The eyewitnesses fixed the time of the argument at approximately 8:25 p.m. The bowling alley was located less than one-half mile from the robbed delicatessen.

The man was subsequently captured, identified by eyewitnesses and indicted. A motion to suppress his confession was denied, as was a motion to suppress evidence of a pretrial, police station lineup.

After a jury proceeding, the man was convicted of manslaughter, felony murder, robbery and grand larceny. The appellate division generally affirmed the judgment of conviction, without opinion. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the principal issue on that appeal is whether the jury was properly permitted to conclude that the shooting of the patrolman occurred in the immediate flight from the delicatessen robbery.

Based on records, a felony murder is committed when a person, acting alone or in concert with others, commits or attempts to commit one of nine predicate felonies, of which robbery is one, and in the course of and in furtherance of such crime or of immediate flight there from, or another participant causes the death of a person other than one of the participants. By law, the intent necessary to sustain a murder conviction is conditional from the intent to commit a specific, serious, felonious act, even though the accused, in truth, may not have intended to kill.
The jury at trial and its verdict found that the man did not possess a murderous intent. The question then arises in whether the jury properly found that the killing of the patrolman was in the immediate area from the robbery, therefore triggering the application of the felony murder principle. In resolving the issue, it is first necessary to refer to the checkered case law in the state, applying the felony murder concepts to cases, such as the said case, where the fatal wounds were inflicted in the course of escape.

Based on records, the 1967 Penal Law is limited to the application of the felony murder concept to nine serious and violent predicate felonies. At the same time, a Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said it was provided that the doctrine would apply to a killing committed in immediate flight. The change was intended to do away with many of the old technical distinctions relating to abandonment or completion.

Further, under the new formulation, the issue of whether the homicide occurred in immediate flight from a felony is only rarely to be considered as a question of law for resolution by the court. Only where the record requires the inference that the person was not in immediate flight and a murder conviction be set aside on the law. Significantly, the question is to be submitted to the jury, under an appropriate charge. A Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said the jury should be instructed to give consideration to whether the homicide and the felony occurred at the same location or, if not, to the distance separating the two locations. The weight may also be placed on whether there is an interval of time between the commission of the felony and the commission of the homicide .The jury may properly consider such additional factors as whether the offender had possession of the fruits of criminal activity, whether the police, watchmen or concerned citizens were in close chase, and whether the offender had reached a place of temporary safety. These factors are not exclusive and others may be appropriate in differing factual settings. If anything, past history demonstrates the fruitlessness of attempting to apply rigid rules to virtually limitless factual variations. No single factor is necessarily controlling. It is the combination of several factors that leads to a justifiable conclusion.

In the case, the jury properly finds, as a question of fact that the killing of the patrolman occurred in immediate flight from the delicatessen robbery. The shooting occurred less than 15 minutes after the robbery and less than a half mile away. The man had made off with cash proceeds and was attempting to secure his possession of the robbery. The police had reason to believe that the robber was still in the immediate vicinity and had taken steps to seal off avenues of escape. With regards to the absence of proof as to why the officer turned into the bowling alley parking lot has no deficiency. The standard is not whether the police officer subjectively believed that the man was the robber. Indeed, the man's own anxiety may be more valuable. The man's response to the observation of the police car was to seek an immediate hiding place. And, it indicates that the man perceived that the police were on his trail. The record does not indicate that the officer knew that the man committed a crime and it does indicate that the man feared that the officer possessed such knowledge. Additionally, the man had not reached any place of temporary safety. In short, there is evidence from which the jury could conclude, as it did, that the man was in immediate flight from the robbery and that he shot the officer in order to make a good escape. The jury was properly charged as to the relevant considerations and the court sees no basis for disturbing its findings.

As to the man's contention that he was deprived of a right to counsel at the lineup, the previous decision in court established that there is no absolute right to counsel at a prearraignment lineup. The other claims of the man, that the lineup was suggestive and that physical evidence was improperly received at the trial, are without merit.

A lot of people nowadays tend to hook into something bad just to gain easy money. Unfortunately, people happen to get killed because of other people’s selfish desires. If you want justice for your loved ones, you can ask assistance from Nassau County Criminal Lawyer. If you wish to have the Nassau County Arrest Attorney at Stephen Bilkis and Associates in your legal action, feel free to call the team who will be pleased to give you outstanding legal service for your lawsuit.

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.

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.

The plaintiff and appellant of the case is Sharon McNulty. The defendants and appellees in the case are J.C. Penney #2168, J.C. Penney Corporation, J.C. Penney Company, Eric Green, and John Doe Defendants. The case is being heard in the fifth circuit of the United States Court of Appeals.

Appeal

Sharon McNulty, the appellant is challenging the original grant of a summary judgment made by the district court. McNulty was arrested at a J.C. Penney store located in Ridgeland, Mississippi after she had been accused of shoplifting on the 25th of March in 2005.

Original Case and Background

Sharon McNulty is female and African American. She states to be disabled. While she was shopping on the 25th of March at the Northpark Mall located in the city of Ridgeland in Mississippi, she entered the department store of J.C. Penney’s. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said when she entered the store she already had shopping bags from Dillard’s and McRae’s, where she had previously been shopping.

While visiting J.C. Penney’s, an associate became suspicious of her and stated that he had seen her enter the fitting rooms repeatedly with merchandise. Eric Greene was working as the security guard at the time. He viewed a security camera and watched McNulty choose a number of different items and place them in her cart. She was observed for over 30 minutes. She continued to gather items and place them on top of her bags that were already in the cart. She paid for the items, but a brassiere that was attached to the front of her cart was not paid for. During his statement Greene said that McNulty acted suspiciously during her time at the store and then left. When she exited the store she was stopped and taken to the security office. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said she was kept in the office until a police officer arrived.

During her time in detainment McNulty became very upset and claims that a number of ailments were developed, including stress related blindness that was temporary.

A Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said Sharon McNulty was found not guilty on this charge of shoplifting and proceeded with a lawsuit that was moved to a federal court and accused Eric Greene, an employee of J.C. Penney, and the company J.C. Penney of false imprisonment, assault, battery, malicious prosecution, defamation, negligence, invasion of her privacy, discrimination based on her disability, discrimination due to race, discrimination that was gender based, and discrimination based on her religion.

Case Discussion and Case Ruling

On the 25th of March the district court dismissed the claims of intentional torts as the one year statute of limitations as stated by the laws of Mississippi. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said she is not challenging this order.

The remaining claims including negligence, and unlawful arrest were all dismissed through a summary judgment that was granted in favor of the appellees on the 23rd of May, 2008.

After reading through the evidence that has been provided, we have found no proof in regards to the claims made by McNulty. For this reason, we affirm the decision that was made by the district court and the motion for summary judgment is upheld.

We offer free consultations to anyone that finds themselves in need of legal advice, whether you have been charged with shoplifting, a drug crime or sex crime. With offices located throughout the city of New York, Stephen Bilkis & Associates makes it easy to set up an appointment at a time that suits your needs. If you need help through any type of legal matter let our experts walk you through each step along the way.

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.

New York is in the process of correcting a situation that involved handing out indeterminate sentences to drug offenders. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the 2004 Drug Law Reform Act and the Drug Law Reform Act of 2009 are efforts to correct some of the issues that have plagued the fair sentencing of drug crime offenders in New York. Political agendas and ill-advised legislators, decided that indeterminate sentencing would reduce crime and make them look tough on criminals. What it created instead was an overcrowding of the prison system with offenders who had no idea if they would be incarcerated for a day or ten years. That instability in their situations caused undue stress on the inmates and increased violence in the system. The indeterminate sentencing system was also found to be unfair. Two people would be arrested at the same time and one would get probation and the other might get an indeterminate sentence not to exceed ten years. These were much harsher sentences than even some violent offenders were receiving. Studies were conducted that revealed many more serious results of indeterminate sentences on inmates and the system. In fact, one of the most memorable studies demonstrated that female inmates were twice as likely to be given an indeterminate sentence as their male counterparts were. That was true even if they were arrested at the same time for the same offense. The political get tough on drug crime agenda was back firing on the politicians who drove the movement. They were forced to rethink their program.

Under modern sentencing guidelines, a New York Drug Possession Lawyer said these same criminals were getting less prison time and more alternative sentences like house arrest, half-way houses, and mandatory drug treatment. All of which relieve overcrowding in the prison system while supervising non-violent drug offenders at their own expense. The Drug Law Reform Act enabled people who were convicted of a Class B felony drug crime to apply to the courts for resentencing of their indeterminate sentences. The requirements for the program are that they must have an indeterminate sentence exceeding three years. They must not have committed a violent felony offense within ten years of the time that they make the application to have their case reevaluated. The ten-year look back rule does not start at the time of their offense, or at the time of their conviction. The clock starts at the time that they submit their request. It does not include any time that they were incarcerated for other offenses during that ten-year period. So if an inmate applied for resentencing in 2010. A Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said his sentence was indeterminate not to exceed 20 years. He was convicted in 2008 of a Class B felony drug crime. He committed a violent felony in 2000. He spent five years in prison as a result. That would mean that his violent felony conviction of 2008 adds five years to the ten years. In this example, he would not be exempt, even though his conviction was in 2000 and his request was in 2010, because of the five years in prison, he would have to have no violent crimes in his history going back to 1995. In this case, he would not qualify.

In one case, a Queens woman was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, a jury found her guilty and imposed an indeterminate sentence in July of 2001. In April of 2010 she applied for resentencing. She was granted her request. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said the District Attorney filed an appeal to the Supreme Court based on the fact that the resentence was invalid as a matter of law. When the court granted the woman’s request for resentencing, they failed to add on the time that she had been incarcerated on other offenses during the ten year period. That additional time that was added on puts her back to a violent offense that she committed in 1999 which was an offense that excludes her from being eligible for resentencing. The Supreme Court reversed her approval and returned her original sentence that she was serving prior to her request.

It is important that the people who have been arrested for drug offenses contact a Queens Drug Lawyer. A Queens Criminal Lawyer can represent your interests and help you regain your freedom.

The Drug Reform act of 2009 was created as an effort to divert drug addicts and alcoholics who’s crimes are committed due to their addiction, from the criminal courts and into a treatment facility where they can shed their addiction. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that unfortunately, the temptation of judicial diversion means that many people attempt to take advantage of the system to reduce the time that they will be incarcerated. On such case, a subject had managed to maintain a 20-year career of felony drug crimes. In July of 2009, the subject made a motion to the court to divert his two outstanding drug sales cases to provide him the opportunity to enroll in a long-term residential drug treatment program.

The defendant alleges that even though he has been arrested several times for dealing drugs and for drug crimes in school zones, that he would benefit from a drug treatment program. One evaluator agreed with him, but it was later discovered that he had not mentioned to her that he has never tested positive for alcohol or drugs at the time of any arrest. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he stated that the reason he never had drugs in his system at the time of his arrests was because he was only a “sporadic” user of cocaine.

The state contends that each time the subject was arrested, he was arrested for sale of drugs and not for mere possession or intoxication. The details of his arrests and incarceration reveal the picture of a man who deals drugs for a living. The Drug Rehabilitation Act is aimed at being an intervention program to divert addicts and those who deal only to support their own habit. In this case, even though the defendant claims that he has a drug addiction, the evidence does not support this claim.

Each time that he was arrested, he had a large amount of money in various denominations. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that each time that he was arrested, he was not charged with intoxication, and there was never a positive blood test showing any kind of drugs in his system. The court contends that this defendant, rather than being an addict who might benefit from a drug treatment program, is actually a drug dealer. The defendant’s history shows that he is a drug dealer for profit. He is not a drug dealer to support his own habit. The court does not reject the notion that this subject has used drugs. There is no contention that this defendant has not binged on drugs and alcohol on occasion.

This dealer was known to be an occasional recreational drug user. That does not imply that the recreational user is an addict that judicial diversion could help. This defendant has repeatedly been to prison for dealing narcotics, each time that he gets out of prison; he has gone back to dealing drugs. By his own admission, he stated that he had not used any narcotics in about a year. This is not the behavior of an addict.

The court recognizes that there are many addicts in need of treatment that they would not get if they are just incarcerated for their crimes. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the drug reform laws are designed to give these offenders a chance to get help so that they do not commit similar offenses in the future. They provide a chance to help these people get training to get jobs. By his own admission, this offender stated that he holds down two jobs and that he has never been terminated from a job. He stated that he was not in need of any additional job training. Again, this is not the case with addicts whose addiction invades every aspect of their lives and leaves them with no means of employment.

This defendant’s motion for an appeal for his case to be diverted is not granted. It is important that anyone who thinks that they could benefit from judicial diversion as the result of a criminal offense contact a New York Criminal Lawyer. A New York Arrest Lawyer can help protect your rights and ensure that you receive a fair trial.

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.

A telecoms company owns the premises leased by an out of possession landlord. The telecoms company contracted a security agency for their security services including the presence of a security guard in the premises. The premises had been a victim of gun crime robbery and homicide. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the assigned security guard was shot in his stomach, inside the premises, by an unknown attacker during a robbery and died of his wounds later that evening. He was employed by the telecom’s parent company. The security guard’s estate sued the landlord and the telecoms company for negligent security and wrongful death, and the security guard’s father sued for loss of his son's services.

The assailant was forcing a customer and the security guard to the rear of the store with the gun in the back of the customer, when the gun went off grazing the customer and hitting the security guard. He died shortly after arriving at the Hospital.

According to the depositions of the store manager, everyday during closing time, a cashier at the store followed various procedures, which included bringing into the store a coin-operated kiddie rides about 30 minutes prior to closing, and then lowering various gates about 15 minutes prior to closing.

The store manager testified that there was a central alarm system in her office, at the rear of the store. She said that the security agency had a guard stationed by the door, checking bags, overseeing the floor and making sure that everything goes smoothly. The guard usually was an unarmed and uniformed man. The security guard’s duties included assisting with closing procedures, making sure that customers left the store and bringing down and locking gates in the front of the store. At the time of the incident, the store manager was behind a cash register when she saw fighting in the front of the store. A Queens Criminal Lawyer said she stated that she believes there were three males wearing yellow rain jackets, masks on the faces and duct tape on them, and she saw her security guards were fighting with the males. She described the three perpetrators as wearing black ski masks, having hoods covering their heads, and their mouths covered with duct tape. She subsequently ran to her manager's office in the rear of the store, locked the door behind her, rang the alarm button and called the police. The security guard reported to the telecom supervisor who controlled and directed his work duties. He worked at the telecom company to further the needs of its mother company who had the power to reassign him and terminate him. The telecom company had no supervisors present at the premises. In fact, the telecom company, the corporate shell, had no employees. The mother company who owned the telecom company created it to limit its liability at the premises. Thus, the telecom company cannot be the special employer of the security guard or any of its company’s employees at the telecom store.

There are no triable issues of fact as to whether the security guard was the telecom company’s special employee. The security guard, as a matter of law, was not a special employee of the telecom company. He was only a general employee of the mother company. Therefore, the accused companies are not precluded by the Workers' Compensation Law from suing the telecom company.

The telecom company’s attempts to provide security at the premises has issues capable of trial of fact as to whether the telecom company, the lessee in possession, had a duty to provide security because of its knowledge of prior criminal activity at the premises. Further, a Westchester County Criminal Lawyer said in providing security personnel for the premises, there are issues capable of trial of fact as to whether the telecom company provided premises security with due care.

The landlord established its legitimate entitlement to summary judgment and dismissal of the complaint and all cross-claims against it by demonstrating that it relinquished control of the leased premises to the telecom company and that no statutory violations existed. In opposition, the telecom company and the landlord failed to demonstrate the existence of issues of material fact as the out of possession landlord bearing any responsibility for premises' security.

Employers expect their employees to do everything for the sake of the company. In return, employees expect their employers to take care of them and their families in times of work-related troubles. If you are become a victim of crime, whether it involves gun possession, drug possession or assault, feel free to contact the Nassau County Criminal Lawyers. When you are wrongfully detained, call the office of Stephen Bilkis and Associates to speak with a Nassau County Arrest Attorney.

On April 14, 1972, a New York Drug Crime Lawyer said a reputed bookmaker and his wife and sister-in-law were at home relaxing. Two masked men forced their way into the home in Huntington, Suffolk County. After ransacking the house and stealing any valuables that were on hand, the men shot the bookmaker in the head. His wife was also shot and suffered from memory loss due to a stroke. She was never able to remember that night so she was unable to assist law enforcement in the investigation.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said then, in December of that year, the investigators were informed that a nineteen-year-old woman and her boyfriend/employer had information about the murder. The two had been arrested in reference to an unrelated kidnapping. Detectives were sent to interview the woman since they had not had any leads and the case had grown stale. She related that the night of the murder, she had been at her boyfriend’s house. She stated that she heard a heated discussion in reference to a crime, so she pretended to be asleep. What she stated that she overheard was a conversation between the defendant, his brother-in-law, another man, and her boyfriend about the murder. She heard the one man tell her boyfriend that he had shot the bookmaker. The defendant stated that he had shot the bookmaker’s wife. Her boyfriend talked about remaining in the car outside and how he had told the other two to only rob them and not to shoot anybody. The woman also stated that although her boyfriend had told her just the day before that he did not have any money, he gave her $25 the day after the murder. He had also told her several days before that he was going to rip off a bookie.

Within days of being interviewed by the detectives, she went to the office of the District Attorney in Queens, New York and began plea negotiations on the kidnapping indictment. The woman committed suicide before she was called to the stand to testify on the murder case. The detective was allowed to testify to the information that she had given him at trial as a declaration against her penal and pecuniary interest. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said her mother was also allowed to testify to conversations that she had with her daughter before her daughter’s death. She stated that she had asked her daughter for some money. Her daughter had told her that she could not afford to give her the $15 that the mother requested because she did not have it. She stated that her daughter told her that she would have it in a few days because her boyfriend was going to commit a gun crime against a bookie on Long Island who owed him money. The mother stated that the weekend following the murder, her daughter gave her the $15. She stated that when she heard about the murder, she asked her daughter if the boyfriend was involved. Her daughter told her at that time that he was not. However, she stated that after meeting with the detectives, she had contacted her mother and told her the same thing that she told the detective. The mother testified that when her daughter told her about the incident, she did not mention the names of the defendant or the other man who was present.

Within days of the first meeting with the woman, the detectives had secured arrests on the defendant, the other man, and the boyfriend for murder, burglary, and robbery. The defendant who was functionally illiterate signed a statement, which detailed his involvement in the same light that the woman had reflected it. The statement was written by the detective and witnessed by him and another detective. The defendant later testified that he was not informed of his Miranda rights and that he had not dictated that statement. He stated that he had signed the paper after hours of interrogation, beatings, and threats. These claims presented issues of fact that were extensively litigated by both sides. Ultimately, the facts were resolved in favor of the police officers. The resulting statements was admitted at trial. The defendant was assigned a court appointed attorney to represent him. Two weeks after his arrest while he was incarcerated in the county jail, the defendant advised a Lieutenant at the Jail that he wanted to make a statement. He advised the Lieutenant that he had been at the murder location in the car outside the house, but that he had not gone inside. The defendant’s attorney made a motion to suppress the statement. The trial Judge denied the motion because it was made voluntarily and as a spontaneous utterance.

The defendant’s case was separated from the other defendants in the case in October, 1973. There was no identification evidence linking him to the crime. None of the other defendants testified at his trial. The entire case was established on the substance of out-of-court statements. Some of those statements, the most damning ones, were made by the woman. At the time of this trial, she had already committed suicide and was unable to testify. The others were the ones made to the detective and the one made to the Lieutenant. He was found guilty to each of the counts and sentenced to twenty years to life on the murder conviction alone. The other offenses received lesser time to run concurrently with the sentence for the murder.

Six months later, the cases against the remaining defendants: the other man and the boyfriend, were dismissed. The trial Judge in that case found that since the woman was dead, that it was impossible for the prosecution to establish a prima facie case. The case of the defendant went to appeal and the conviction was upheld.

The defendant’s gun crime attorney submitted a request to have the judgment set aside and a new trial ordered. A Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said he cited that the defendant’s statement in the jail to the Lieutenant was not made as a spontaneous utterance that could allow for an absence of the defendant’s attorney. Rather, he maintains that the mere fact that the defendant was incarcerated would have enabled the officer to wait until the attorney could be notified and present.

Additionally, he argues that admitting the hearsay testimony of the deceased woman did not qualify as a declaration against interest exception to the hearsay rule. The concept of a statement made as a declaration against interest is that most people do not make statements against their own interests. When a person does make a statement of that nature, it is believed that he must be responding to a truth-revealing compulsion as strong as if he was cross-examined as a witness.

In this case, the court decided that it was an error against law to allow the dead woman’s mother to testify to what her daughter had said to her since it was in no way a declaration against interest. Since, there was no acceptable exception to the hearsay rule she should not have been allowed to testify. The court also determined that the sentence should be reversed based on the fact that the woman had ulterior motives to make the statements. The spontaneity involved in the statement to the Lieutenant was considered admissible, but since the rest of the testimony was not, the case was overturned.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates with

In criminal trials, issues involving the admissibility of evidence often comes down to a fine matter of law. The authority of an officer to stop a vehicle or a person is restricted by articulable reasonable suspicion. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that is a suspicion that can be put in to words that would lead a reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer given his training and experience, to believe that a crime is afoot. Case law has provided a further detail as far as the seizure or stop conducted by a police officer on a citizen. Whether the person is on foot or in a vehicle, if they flee upon sight of the readily obvious police officer, there is an immediate impression of a guilty mind. A guilty mind is also call mens rea. The evidence of flight when an officer attempts to initiate a traffic stop is also evidence of mens rea in a crime. This flight can become probable cause to make an arrest. Probable cause is that set of facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable and prudent person given the same set of facts or circumstances to believe that a crime, is, has, or will be committed and that the person of interest, is involved in that crime.

However, if the court finds that the officer failed to show articulable reasonable suspicion, then the vehicle or person stop, is considered an illegal seizure. Any evidence of any crime that is discovered as a result of an illegal seizure is inadmissible in court based on the exclusionary rule. The evidence becomes fruit of the poisonous tree unless the police officers can demonstrate that the evidence would have inevitably been discovered anyway.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that on September 16, 1975, at around one in the afternoon, an apartment building superintendent’s wife, noticed a man who was dressed in a white suit loitering around the back entrance to the building. She noticed that he glanced around in a furtive manner before entering the building located at 55 Lenox Road in Rockville Centre, Long Island. Around twenty minutes after she first noticed the man, she heard footsteps in an empty apartment above her own. She went upstairs to investigate and observed the man whom she had seen earlier, testing door knobs looking for unlocked apartments to enter. She went downstairs and notified her husband who went to the lobby and found the man just leaving the building. He noticed that the man had a large bunch of keys in his hand and he could hear more in his pocket.

He followed the prowler and came upon another apartment building superintendent walking down the street. They followed the man as he got into his car in the parking lot. The two men got in to a car belonging to the other superintendent and followed the suspect. They pulled up beside the suspect to get a better look at him. When they did, the other superintendent recognized the man as a prowler from his own building recently. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said the two men wrote down a detailed description of the man and his license plate number. The superintendent called the police and gave them a description of the man.

While the officers were taking down the information from the superintendent, another officer located the suspect still in the area. He attempted to stop the suspect and the suspect took flight. He made several evasive maneuvers in his car, including putting the car in reverse to elude the police officers. He was arrested and his attorney filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the burglary tools that were located in the suspect’s car at the time of arrest.

The County trial court suppressed the evidence because they felt that the stop was an illegal seizure because the vehicle was stopped based on a description given to the police by a civilian witness. The case was appealed by the state and the appeals court upheld the verdict to suppress. A second appeal, determined that the trial court erred in suppressing the evidence. The state met its burden of proof that the subject was exhibiting behavior that a reasonable and prudent person would believe was indicative that a crime was afoot. This is evidenced by the fact that three different individuals observed the subjects behavior and interpreted it as indicative that a crime was afoot. The description of the suspect was provided in detail and the patrol officer attempted to stop the vehicle.

When the suspect observed the police officer’s emergency lights on the marked patrol car, he took flight. He was obviously attempting to elude the police when his vehicle maneuvers were so out of the ordinary as to include driving in reverse. A Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said the final appeals court pointed out that prior case law upholds the fact that mens rea can be established at the time that the subject takes flight when he observes a police officer. In this case, the subject cannot deny that he took flight. He cannot deny that he could identify the marked patrol car with flashing lights and siren, as a police officer. His actions indicate mens rea.

Since the traffic stop of the subject was in fact, a legal seizure, the burglary tools that were ultimately recovered from the vehicle are also admissible. The appeals court found that the burglary tools were improperly suppressed by the County Court at the time of trial. Since the traffic stop was legal, the evidence is admissible. The defendant lost his motion to uphold the suppression of the evidence and a new trial that includes the evidence is ordered.

This case demonstrated how specific the law can be as it relates to the admissibility of evidence. The protection against illegal search and seizure as provided by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is taken very seriously. Under no circumstances can any evidence be used that is the product of an illegal search or seizure. The exclusionary rule ensures that all evidence that is the result of an illegal search or seizure is not admissible in court. However, in a situation like this one, where there was an abundance of probable cause to arrest the subject and conduct an administrative search of the vehicle that he was occupying; there is no doubt that the evidence should be admissible. It is not fruit of the poisonous tree.

In this case, the defendant might have had a minor argument for exclusion of the evidence if he had not attempted to elude the police officers. If that had occurred, then the officers would have only had the testimony of the superintendent. The judge has already ruled that the superintendent’s testimony was credible as to the suspicious nature of the suspect’s behavior. The superintendent knows more than anyone else what is suspicious in his building. The exclusionary rule is designed to protect the rights of all Americans in all areas. It just was not applicable in this situation. There are some exceptions to the exclusionary rule that can be of importance in criminal cases. Don’t trust your freedom and independence to the interpretation of others.

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.

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.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that on June 9, 20009, police officers searched the apartment of a couple by virtue of a search warrant and seized drug paraphernalia, a .32 caliber hand gun, cocaine residue and the amount of $38,410.00.

The police arrested and charged the couple: the man was charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree; while his wife was charged with felony possession of a weapon.

The woman entered a plea bargain. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said she agreed to plead guilty to the lesser crime of Disorderly Conduct instead of being tried and possibly being convicted of the charge of felony possession of a weapon.

The County of Nassau commenced an action to forfeit the sum of $38,410.00 which was seized from the couple. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said the man now seeks to dismiss the forfeiture action on the ground that the case cannot be heard and tried without the presence of his wife who is a necessary party to the forfeiture case. The man and the woman filed a sworn affidavit claiming that the sum was their marital property and that it was the wife’s inheritance from her father’s estate.

The County of Nassau did not dispute that the woman had an interest in the money sought to be forfeited in the action but they dispute that she is a necessary party. They instead contend that she is a mere material witness to the proceedings who can testify as to the ownership of the funds.

The only question before the Court is whether or not the forfeiture case should be dismissed seeing that the wife has not been joined as a party to the case.

The Court held that a necessary party is one who might be inequitable affected by a judgment in the action. The reason why a necessary party must be compulsorily joined in an action is to protect their rights from being jeopardized if they have a material interest in the subject matter of the case.

The wife has a material interest in the money sought to be forfeited by the County. She claims that the money was her inheritance from her father’s estate and that it is a property of their marriage. It is clear that her material interest in the cash sought to be forfeited has been alleged. Her interest is that of owner or part-owner of the money sought to be forfeited.

A Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said the only question that must now be addressed is whether or not the failure of the County to join the wife as a necessary part is ground for dismissal of this action. The Court ruled that the case should not be dismissed.
The man contends that the case should be dismissed because the 120-day statute of limitation to commence an action against his wife has already expired. Thus, the wife can no longer be joined as a party because the action against her is time-barred.

The Court disagreed with the defendant. There is already an action that has been brought within the statute of limitations. The joining of the wife as a necessary party is not the commencement of a new action. She will only be brought under the jurisdiction of the court which has already taken cognizance of the case which is already being heard.

The Court then ruled that the wife may be joined as a defendant and if she so desires, she may assert the defense that the action against her is barred by the statute of limitations. This defense that the action against the wife is time-barred belongs properly to the wife and it cannot be asserted by the husband for and in her behalf.

The Court ordered the plaintiff County to serve the wife with supplemental summons and a copy of the complaint, a copy of this Order within twenty days. The wife is further given a period of 30 days from receipt of the summons and copies of the complaint and this Order to file her answer.

Have you been arrested for criminal possession of a weapon? Have any of your personal monies been seized as well? An experienced lawyer will tell you that you have the right to contest the seizure of monies seized in connection with the seizure of illegal weapons found in your possession. A skilled lawyer will also advice you that you must establish that the monies seized are not related to the illegal weapons seized. At Stephen Bilkis and Associates, their New York Gun Crime Attorneys are willing to advice, assist and defend you. Come and speak with any of the New York City Gun Crime attorneys at Stephen Bilkis and Associates. See them at any of their offices at Nassau County.

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 fur store employee was present when the store was robbed by two-armed man. According to the employee’s statement, he and his employer were forced into the sales vault, handcuffed, and taped, and one of the gunmen hit him in the head with a gun. The employee was able to free himself and ran to the street, but the two robbers got away. Upon his return to the store, several police officers were on the scene. The man’s employer indicated that one of the robbers had left a gun on the bottom of the fur rack, and his employee saw it. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that according to the employee’s statement, the police officer picked up the gun, put it on the desk, and the gun went off. The employee’s previous statement states that he did not see the gun being picked up and was only aware that it had been moved after he was shot. He turned to the location from where the bullet had traveled and saw the smoking gun on the desk, with the police officer holding it. The employee also claims that the police officer hit him and apologized.

The police officer testified that she had received firearms training as part of her police academy training and every year thereafter she received re-qualifying training. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said she testified as to past experiences handling guns at scenes of crimes and unloading her weapon. She was assigned to evidence collection on the day of the gun crime. At the scene, she was instructed to pick up the weapon to determine its type and she took a couple of photographs of the gun before she picked it up with her left hand on the barrel and her right hand on the butt. She could not tell if the slide had been pulled back and did not know if there was a safety. She held it with her finger, placed it evenly on the table and did not place it pointed in any particular position. When she placed it on the desk, the gun went off though she did not touch the trigger and did not know why the gun fired. The alleged gun crime victim was treated for tinnitus.

The employee filed a notice of claim upon the State alleging negligence and personal injuries. He alleged that he was carelessly and negligently shot by an unknown female police officer acting with the scope of her duties, and that the State and the City Police Department had negligently hired, trained, and supervised the officer, and should have known she was unfit to perform her duties. The employee commenced an action by filing summons and verified complaint.

A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said that according to the Police Department's supervisor in charge, the department records show a handgun was vouchered and categorized as investigatory. The gun was held for five months when it was delivered to the warehouse for disposal. The records show that the gun was destroyed three months after it was disposed.
The Police Department gunsmith who tested the gun testified the gun had already been tested in the ballistics lab and have been fired four times. It was found to be operable. He conducted various tests, including trying to reproduce the events that caused the gun to discharge. When he completed his assessment, the gun was returned to the unit handling the overall investigation. The gunsmith found that the gun had a light trigger pull off and it discharged inappropriately. When asked whether he could render an opinion to a reasonable degree of firearm certainty as to the cause of the discharge, he stated that the gun's sear was defective and did not sufficiently hold the hammer in position which would result in a discharge if there was impact to the weapon. He noted that the gun was likely dropped to the floor which may have caused the hammer and sear to shift and thus would not have required a lot of impact for it to go off. He could not determine whether the gun being dropped on the floor as distinguished to its being placed on the table was the proximate cause of its discharge. He said that placing the gun gently on the table would not cause it to discharge. He stated it was possible that an examination of the weapon might assist in determining what would be the proximate cause.

The employee moves to preclude the State and the City Police Department from presenting any evidence at trial regarding the testing or condition of the gun. The gun was destroyed more than two years after he filed his notice of claim and more than a year and a half after commencing his lawsuit. He argues that he is severely prejudiced because it was never made available for independent testing.

Given that the employee is severely hindered in prosecuting his claim because the gun which shot him is no longer in existence, although it was in the City's possession and destroyed more than a year and a half after the action was commenced, the employee's motion to preclude testimony and evidence concerning the condition of the gun is granted.

The employee seeks production of copies and transcripts of all tape recordings of interviews of all police and non-police witnesses related to the subject incident and a copy of the Final Report concerning the subject incident. He also seeks to produce authorization to obtain the police officer’s medical records for the date of the incident, and the training materials for handling of guns at crime scenes or for recovery of guns at crime scenes.

The State and the City Police are directed to produce tapes and transcripts only of eyewitnesses to the events. A Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said that the transcripts are to be stamped and shall be produced within 60 days of the date of entry of this decision and order. The branch of the employee's motion seeking to produce an unedited copy of the Final Report is denied.

The State and the City Police are to provide an authorization within 10 days of entry of the decision and order for the release of the police officer’s visit to the Hospital and to arrange for these records to be produced to the court for review to determine if they contain information as to statements recording what the police officer said as to the way the accident causing her injury occurred.

The State and the City Police counsel’s has agreed to direct a further search for police training materials. As noted, the employee seeks the training materials addressing the handling and recovery of guns at crime scenes. However, his attorney's reply affirmation asks not only for these materials but also a witness to be deposed on the limited issue of training provided to the Police Department Officers and members of the Crime Scene Recovery Unit. If no materials are found, then they must produce an individual with knowledge who undertook the search for the training materials. The employee request for a witness is denied as it was not part of the initial relief requested in his motion. The State and the City Police are directed to search diligently and produce any pertinent training materials within 45 days of the date of entry of the decision and order. If no materials are found, they shall produce an affidavit signed by the person or persons who undertook the search within the same 45-day period and shall detail the qualifications of any person who undertook the search, provide a detailed description of the reasonable efforts used to locate and produce the materials, including the date, time, and place of each search, and a meaningful explanation as to why such materials are not available or do not exist.

Negligence of one person can cause serious harm to others. The Nassau County Criminal Lawyer can work to make sure that whoever mishandled the weapon that caused you hurt would be dealt with properly.

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.

The police searched the garage belonging to a man against whom a search warrant had already issued. The police found an automatic pistol which was loaded with eight cartridges. The automatic pistol was wrapped in a paper bag which was hidden in the folds of a sheet of tarpaulin which was owned by the man and which was placed in the garage by the same man.
In the same garage the police found a carbine among the tools and utensils owned by the man. It was not hidden as the loaded automatic pistol was. While searching the attic of the man’s house, the police also found a box containing cartridges similar to those loaded into the automatic pistol. Along with this box of cartridges, they also found an empty box of the same brand and make of cartridges.

All the relatives of the man, when questioned denied ownership of the gun and denied knowledge that it was hidden in the garage. Even the man himself denied the gun crime and knowledge of the gun hidden in his garage among his personal items belonging to him.
The man was charged with felony possession of a pistol. He pleaded not guilty and trial ensued. At the trial, the People presented testimony of one of the police officers who conducted the search that the man at first denied that he had knowledge of the gun and also denied ownership of the same gun. At the police precinct, he contradicted his earlier statement by saying that he didn’t remember hiding the gun in the garage but if the police said that they found the gun in his garage then he must have put it there.

The man was convicted by a jury at the trial court and his conviction was affirmed by the appellate division.

The man appealed his conviction on the ground that criminal possession of a loaded pistol was not proved by the People. He cites the evidence presented at trial that his garage was open, it had no lock. Several people in his house had free access to the garage and anybody could have come in and hidden that loaded pistol amongst his belongings.

He also decries as highly prejudicial, the presentation of the District Attorney of evidence that he was a parole violator. He claims that the District Attorney presented details of his former arrest and details of the events that precipitated his earlier arrest. He also questions the admission into evidence of the tools in his garage as he claims that these are not relevant evidence. He claims that his right to a fair trial because incompetent, immaterial and prejudicial evidence was admitted against him. He asks for a new trial.

The only question before the Supreme Court is whether or not the People established felony possession of a weapon beyond reasonable doubt.

The majority ruled that the criminal possession of a weapon was established beyond reasonable doubt because the loaded pistol was found in a part of a house owned by the man. The gun was found not only in his house but in a garage that was under his control. It didn’t matter that the garage had no lock, it was under his control and the gun was found amongst things belonging to and used by him in the regular course of his life. The man also admitted that if the gun was found in his garage then he must have put it there.

While the majority concedes that the trial court may have made errors in admitting certain pieces of evidence, admission of those pieces of evidence did not affect the result. The criminal possession of a pistol was duly established.

A New York Gun Crime Lawyer will advice you that you need not own the gun for you to be found guilty of possession. They will tell you that it is enough to prove the crime of criminal possession of a gun if the gun is found on your person or among your things over which you exercise control. As conviction for this crime carries with it consequences other than just imprisonment, it will serve you well to be able represented at trial. At Stephen Bilkis and Associates, experienced lawyers are willing to assist in your defense, whether you have been charged with drug possession, a gun crime, or a theft crime.

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.

On the night of April 26, 1974, two Nassau County police officers were working undercover in plainclothes on a burglary sting in a well-lit shopping and entertainment area in Wantach, Long Island. There had been several burglaries in the area and they were attempting to apprehend the suspects. While they were watching, they observed a Buick driving slowly down the street. The vehicle slowed down perceptibly in front of a bar and all three of the occupants turned to look at the windows of the establishment. The vehicle proceeded farther down the street to a stop sign. The vehicle stopped at the sign and again, all of the occupants turned to examine the windows of another bar on the side of the road. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the officers considered this behavior to be consistent with the behavior of a person “casing” a building before attempting to burglarize it. They initiated a traffic stop of the vehicle.

Upon stopping the vehicle, the officers requested that the driver provide his driver’s license. He advised that he did not have a driver’s license. The officers requested the registration on the vehicle and the subjects stated that they did not have it. The vehicle was owned by the mother of one of the passengers. The men were later discovered to have her permission to drive the car. The occupants of the car were asked to exit the vehicle. When they were outside of the vehicle, the officers executed a terry stop and frisk of them. One of the officers felt a suspicious bulge in the pocket of one of the passengers. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said when he retrieved the items, they proved to be bullets. A subsequent search of the area within the subjects immediate control, led the officers to find a gun concealed under the front seat of the car.

The question of law in this case is whether the stop of the car was justified or was it an illegal seizure. The rules of law that dictate when an officer can stop a car are clearly documented in statutory law. It states that an officer may stop a vehicle that he observes committing a crime. In absence of an immediate crime, if the officer has articulable reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime is afoot, he may stop the vehicle to investigate. In this case, the officers stated that they had merely seen the occupants glance at two bars as they drove down the street. The fact that they stopped twice is not relevant since one of those stops was at a stop sign.

The officer who executed the stop testified, that he just knew that a crime was about to happen. The justices note that the officer’s instincts were probably correct, but that the officers responded too quickly. They state that the officers would have done better to observe the car for a longer amount of time to determine what the occupants were up to. A Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said that under the circumstances, to claim that driving down the road and glancing at bars would be enough to satisfy the requirement for articulable reasonable suspicion would be a reach. The justices overturned the verdict based on the fact that the stop of the vehicle constituted an illegal seizure on the part of the officers involved.

The defendant was released based on the overturned verdict as far as the gun crime was concerned. However, he was on probation at the time of the traffic stop. His proximity to the gun and the circumstances involved in the traffic stop were enough to place him in violation of his probation. His case was remanded back to the courts for a trial of fact as it relates to his violation of probation.

A Stephen Bilkis & Associates with Nassau County Criminal Lawyer can help you if you are arrested. They have convenient offices throughout New York and Metropolitan area. A Nassau County Arrest Lawyer can provide you with advice and protect your rights. Without a Nassau County Possession of a Weapon Lawyer, you could lose your freedom

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.

On October 23, 1974, a resident of 272 Pennsylvania Avenue , in the County of Kings, stated that he returned home from work at about 12:05 AM. He stated that he parked his car in his parking spot and started to walk towards the side entrance of his building. He stated that as he approached the door, the defendant came out from behind another car and started to follow him. He stated that the defendant threatened him and he began to run. The defendant chased him and put a knife to his throat. He forced the man into the lobby of the building. Once in the lobby, the defendant removed the victim’s ring, watch and money from his wallet. They were in the lobby for about five minutes before the victim’s wife came in. The defendant told the victim that he was going to have to get him out of the situation.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant then forced the victim and his wife back out to their car by holding the knife to the victim’s chest. He forced them in to the car and drove away with the victim’s wife driving. The defendant told them that he had six or seven children that he could not take care of and that was why he was robbing them. The wife began to cry and he told her to pull over. He started to drive. He did not know how to drive and nearly hit a bus before stopping and taking the keys. He put them outside of the car near a pole and fled on foot. The couple was inside of the car with the assailant for about ten minutes.

The question of law is whether the ten total of 15 minutes being held by the defendant was enough to constitute the crime of kidnapping. There was also some discussion about whether the crime was actually a drug possession crime. New York maintains that if the holding of the person against their will is an integral part of the execution of a greater crime, then the crime of kidnapping is absorbed into the other crime and not charged separately. The question rests on a legal term called asportation. Asportation is the removing a person to another locality.

If the asportation involved is not part of the initial crime, but occurs as a subsidiary incident then the crime of kidnapping is valid. If there is no asportation of the victims and the holding of the person is only subsequent to the act of the robbery, then there is no kidnapping. In the case discussed, the robbery had already occurred at the time that the asportation of the victims was affected. However, a Queens Criminal Lawyer said in the landmark Levy case, it was decided that under the kidnapping statute that the detention or asportation of a victim for a relatively short time as an incident to robbery is not enough to prosecute the defendant for the additional kidnapping. So what is considered to be a short time?

The additional question is if it is affected by the Levy-Lombardi rule that the asportation of the victims from their home to a point down the street was part and parcel to the actual robbery or if it was a separate crime altogether. The justices in this case determined that the Levy-Lombardi rule did not apply because it was in fact a completely separate offense. A Westchester Criminal Lawyer said the robbery had already been accomplished when the defendant opted to remove the victim and his wife to a point down the street and away from their homes.

The court recognized that the intent of the Levy-Lombardi rule was intended to prevent ordinary robberies, rapes, and assaults to the more serious crime of kidnapping simply due to the wording of the stature. Stephen Bilkis & Associates with its Queens Criminal Lawyers, have convenient offices throughout New York and Metropolitan area. Our Queens Drug Lawyers can represent you even in complicated issues such as these.

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.

Parole Officer One has been employed by the New York State Division of Parole since August 1993. She was assigned to supervise the parole of the defendant in July 2006. The defendant had been paroled on a burglary conviction. Upon his release, he had signed the conditions of parole which included his consent to a search of his residence, person and property and required him to fully and truthfully answer any inquiry by his parole officer or other representative of the Division of Parole. When Officer One first met with the defendant, the consent to search provision was reiterated to him and he reaffirmed his consent. A private individual gave his residence as 87 East 31st Street in Kings County. No previous searches had been conducted by Officer One at the defendant's residence.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the defendant, as a condition of his parole, was referred to a drug program in November 2006. In December 2006, and January and February 2007, the defendant tested “positive” for cocaine. On 15 March 2007, Officer One, in consultation with parole supervisors and Parole Officer Two, decided to do a home visit with the intention of doing a search. At that time, Officer Three was assigned to the "Targeted Offender Program" which was then doing visits in cases where the parolees, as the defendant, had been convicted of burglary.
On 16 March 2007, prior to conducting any home visits, Parole Officer Two met with other officers of the 67th Precinct Anti-Crime Unit who had been assigned to assist him in the execution of the home visits. Parole Officer Two had selected the parolees' homes which would be visited and identified them to the police officers. He also told the police officers the number of people to expect at each home and the crime for which the parolee was on parole. Parole Officer One did not participate in the visit or search.

Parole Officer Two chose to visit the defendant's residence at 87 East 31st Street first because it was geographically the closest address to the precinct house. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said Parole Officer Two, in the company of the police officers, knocked on the door of the defendant's second floor apartment. When the defendant opened the door, Parole Officer Two explained to the defendant that he wanted to conduct a parole search of his apartment. After the defendant orally consented to the search, Parole Officer Two and the police officers entered the premises. The defendant was directed to sit on a couch which was in the middle of the living room. The defendant was not handcuffed during the search. The defendant's teenage daughter, who was still in her pajamas, was told to get dressed and to take a seat on the couch.

Parole Officer Two then walked into a bedroom to the left of the living room and asked the defendant if it was his room. The defendant replied that it was his room.

The Police Officer who was standing directly in front of and to the right of the defendant had a direct view of Parole Officer Two inside the bedroom. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said the defendant also had a direct view of the Parole Officer. Parole Officer Two walked over to an armoire and asked the defendant if it was his. The defendant replied that the armoire was his. Parole Officer Two then opened the door to the armoire and asked the defendant if the clothing inside was his. The defendant stated that the clothes were his. Parole Officer Two continued his search of the armoire and subsequently removed two large blocks of a white, powdery substance that were vacuum sealed. These blocks were approximately, one to one and a half (1½) inches thick and probably about the size of an eight by ten. Parole Officer Two asked the defendant what they were. The defendant replied: "You know what that is, it appears to be cocaine" and thereafter acknowledged that they were his. Parole Officer Two then collected a large amount of money from various locations in the bedroom.

Officer Two continued his search in the living room. At the entertainment center, Parole Officer Two opened two doors underneath the television set and pulled out a duffel bag. Inside the duffel bag, he discovered a shoe box that contained a firearm. Parole Officer Two gave the firearm to one of the Police Officers who put it in his waistband for safekeeping; he was also given the two large blocks of white powder which he put inside the shoe box along with the bullets from the firearm. The defendant was handcuffed and placed under arrest. During the search, the defendant had not been threatened or promised anything to elicit any admissions or statements. There was no evidence of any coercion. In response to pedigree questioning, the defendant admitted that he lived at this address.

From the time the defendant was placed under arrest to the time he was taken to the precinct approximately 10 to 30 minutes passed. During this time, the defendant's daughter's aunt, had arrived in response to a phone call to pick up the defendant's daughter. The aunt stood in the living room. The defendant was sitting with his daughter on the couch having a conversation. The defendant was overheard encouraging his daughter to take her school bag, which was in the living room, when she left with her aunt. One of the police officers described the bag as a backpack which a child or teenager would normally carry. When the defendant's daughter picked up the bag and started to leave with it, the police searched the bag. A large amount of money and a couple of sets of car keys were recovered from the bag. The defendant's daughter had neither a driver's license nor a car. The defendant's daughter was about 15 to 16 years old. The defendant's daughter was placed under arrest. The police officer explained that the defendant's daughter was arrested because it appeared that she knew of the situation in the apartment, i.e., the narcotics and firearm and may have played a role in what was going on in the apartment and that she was trying to leave with money and car keys.

After the defendant's daughter was arrested, the defendant and his daughter were in the same room. No one said anything to the defendant at that time about his daughter's arrest. A Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said the defendant and his daughter were subsequently transported to the 67th Precinct.

Later that day, the two Parole Officers were present with the defendant for approximately 1½ to two hours at the District Attorney's Office. The defendant's daughter was also present. Miranda warnings were never administered to the defendant in Parole Officer One’s presence. The defendant was told that his daughter could also be charged. Thereafter, the defendant said that: "It's all mine." The People conceded that this admission could not be used as evidence-in-chief but sought to use it as impeachment material if the defendant testified at his trial.
A Huntley hearing was conducted.

At a hearing to suppress a statement made to law enforcement officials, the People have the burden of demonstrating, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant's statement was voluntary in the traditional sense and, if applicable, that the defendant had knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his or her Miranda rights prior to making the statement.
Miranda warnings are only required when a defendant is subjected to custodial interrogation by law enforcement officials. The test for determining whether a defendant was in custody at the time of his statement is whether a reasonable person, in the defendant's position, innocent of any crime, would have believed that he or she was under arrest.

Here, the defendant was not in custody at the time he was asked about the bedroom, the armoire, the clothing and the two large vacuum sealed blocks found inside the armoire. At the time of this questioning, the defendant was sitting on a couch in his living room while Parole Officer Two was posing questions from inside the bedroom. The police officers present were merely standing in the living room. They did not have their guns drawn. Moreover, the defendant had not been handcuffed and had not been placed under arrest. Thus, there was nothing in this environment or the questioning of the defendant which would have caused a reasonable person, innocent of a crime, to have believed that he was in custody.

Ordinarily, in a noncustodial setting, law enforcement questioning would not need to be preceded by Miranda warnings to render any responses admissible. However, since this case involves questioning by a parole officer, this finding may not be determinative.

It must be noted that in the case of People v Parker and subsequent cases, the Appellate Division, Second Department, in a landmark case did not create a per se rule that any questioning of a parolee by a parole officer concerning criminal activity must be preceded by Miranda warnings to render any statement admissible at a criminal trial. If the affirmance by the Court of Appeals had endorsed such a per se rule, the Court would not have had to caution that its ruling in another case, People v English, was limited and that the Court had not decided the issue in cases of noncustodial questioning. The Parker holding had two elements, i.e., noncustodial questioning by a parole officer regarding suspected criminal activity, and, second, charges of criminal activity against the defendant and/or his or her representation by counsel. Thus, while binding in its limited factual context, it is distinguishable from this case and thus does not control the result.

The court must next decide what ruling to follow. As is obvious, the court finds the ruling in the other case overly expansive and contrary to the narrow holding in Parker. Clearly, the reasoning enunciated in another case rejecting a per se rule is more compelling as the Appellate Division properly distinguished Parker and its ruling is in conformity with federal constitutional law which permits the noncustodial interrogation of a parolee by his parole officer without Miranda warnings.

Defendant's statements to Parole Officer Two are admissible. While the parole officer suspected that the defendant may have been involved in criminal activity based on his positive drug tests, no charges were pending, no felony complaint had been filed and the defendant's right to counsel had not attached. The questions asked of the defendant were reasonably related to the officer's role in effecting an authorized search of the defendant's apartment and limiting the scope of that search. The defendant was not in custody when Parole Officer Two made his inquiries. Therefore, based on the conclusion that People v Parker, is factually distinguishable and relying on People v Edwards, the court finds that the parole officer was not required to give Miranda warnings prior to asking his questions.

The court also finds that the defendant's response to the parole officer's questions were voluntary in the traditional sense. The defendant's answers were not the product of any coercion, threats, promises or deprivation. The defendant was not handcuffed at the time.
Accordingly, defendant's motion to suppress his alleged statements in his apartment is denied.
If you find yourself in a situation related to or similar with the above, get legal representation immediately. Rights are crucial in the inquiry stage prior to arrests. Rights could be waived without your knowledge. To know more, get in touch with Stephen Bilkis & Associates. Have a free consultation with a New York DWI Lawyer or a New York Criminal Lawyer from our firm.

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

On 22 November 2006, defendant stood accused, by felony complaint filed, of criminal possession of marijuana in the first degree, a class C felony (drug crime); on account of an incident that occurred on 21 November 2006. At his 22 November 2006 arraignment, the court conditionally released defendant, to the supervision of the Department of Probation, and adjourned the case to Part 9, which thereafter transferred the case to County Court. On 25 January 2007, the case was returned to Part 9 of the herein court, and adjourned to 20 March 2007. On 20 March 2007, the court revoked defendant's conditional release status, evidently because of his failure to participate in therapy as directed by the Department of Probation, and because of his arrest on 18 February 2007 for assault in the third degree. The court fixed bail at $25,000 bond, $15,000 cash and adjourned the case for three days, to 23 March 2007, for disposition. Defendant did not post bail.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said according to the transcript of a joint plea proceeding conducted on 23 March 2007, another individual was arrested with defendant, also for felony possession of marijuana on account of the incident on 21 November 2006, and both defendant and the other individual were represented from the outset by a lawyer. During the course of the single plea proceeding conducted on 23 March 2007, the court converted the felony complaint pending against defendant, and the felony complaint pending against the other individual, to accuse each of misdemeanor possession of marijuana. No supporting deposition demonstrating that scientific tests were performed on the substance forming the basis of the prosecution is annexed to the converted document, designated as a misdemeanor complaint, has been filed against defendant. Moreover, by the factual part of the document, the complainant attests only that defendant "possessed" more than 10 pounds of a "greenish brown leafy substance believed to be marijuana," and that "the arresting detective who recovered the evidence believes the substance to be marijuana based on his years of training as a police officer and detective, its appearance, color, odor and texture and its packaging which is commonly used by drug dealers. But while the other individual pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of disorderly conduct, defendant pleaded guilty to violating the Penal Law of possessing more than two ounces of marijuana, the crime of which he then stood accused. The court sentenced each to a conditional discharge and the maximum fine permissible for the offense to which each pleaded guilty.

Neither defendant nor the other individual waived the right to be prosecuted by information when arraigned on the converted accusatory instruments immediately before entering their pleas of guilty. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said during the course of the joint plea allocution, the court asked defendant and the other individual if they consented to one attorney representing both of them. Each answered "yes." The court then asked if there is no conflict of interest in any way. Each responded "no." When both were asked if they had discussed the case with their attorney before pleading guilty, each answered "yes". Following questioning about educational background and mental status, defendant stated he has a fifth grade education; the other completed high school. The court asked defendant if he understood that he was pleading guilty to a crime, that he would have a criminal record, and that the crime is punishable by up to a year in jail, a fine, or a combination of both, and the defendant responded "yes." Defendant also answered "yes" when the court asked if he understood that, by pleading guilty, he was also waiving his right to a trial and his right to appeal. Oddly, when the court asked "do you wish to plead guilty to a crime," defendant and the other individual each answered "yes." Ultimately, defendant admitted that on 21 November 2006, he possessed marijuana, the weight of which was not specified. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said the other individual admitted that he behaved in a disorderly manner on that date. As noted, the court sentenced each to a conditional discharge and a fine. Other than noting his appearance, joining in the People's application to reduce the charge, waiving a reading of the new charge, and, at the conclusion of the proceeding, addressing defendant's bail status, defendant’s counsel (for the plea) stated nothing on the record. Included in the court file is a certificate of relief from civil disabilities, based on an application defendant made on 6 November 2008, by which he specifically sought a certificate that will relieve him from any bars that would prevent him from traveling.

On 18 August 2010, defendant made an application to vacate the judgment of conviction and underlying plea entered on 23 March 2007. Asserting that his lawyer at that time affirmatively misrepresented the effect that his guilty plea would have on his immigration status, that his lawyer was burdened with a conflict of interest, and that his lawyer did not properly advise him about that conflict; defendant based his application on ineffective assistance of counsel.
Defendant brought to the court’s attention a decision dated 24 May 2011 issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding a ruling that an alien who violates an order of protection "is deportable."

The court has reviewed and takes judicial notice of the court file concerning defendant's arrest in 2007 that was one of the triggers of the revocation of his bail status in the herein case.
A Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said the review reveals that on 18 February 2007, defendant was accused of assault in the third degree, that he was released on bail during the pendency of the action, that on 13 November 2007 he pleaded guilty to harassment as a violation, that he was on that date sentenced to a conditional discharge and a $200 fine which he paid, that the court vacated a temporary order of protection issued in favor of another person, and that the court did not issue a permanent order of protection. The court has reviewed, not only the plea minutes defendant submits, but also the court file in a matter concerning his 2009 arrest, for criminal contempt in the second degree where defendant retained the same lawyer to represent him again, to which the People point as a claimed demonstration that the lawyer’s representation was effective.

A review of the court file reveals that the court issued a temporary order of protection in favor of another person in yet another matter, apparently now sealed, that defendant was accused of violating that order of protection, that he was released on bail during the pendency of the prosecution, that on 23 November 2010 he pleaded guilty to attempted criminal contempt in the second degree, a class B misdemeanor, and that he admitted that notwithstanding the existence of a "stay away" order of protection he was in close proximity to the named person in the order on 10 September 2009. The court made a commitment that he would not be sentenced to jail, and on 24 January 2011, the court sentenced defendant to one year of probation.

It must be noted that, in order to prevail on an application to vacate a judgment of conviction on account of the ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must demonstrate that his or her attorney's professional services were deficient, that they fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that he or she is thereby prejudiced; that absent the deficiency, the result would have been different. Where the services rendered involve negotiating a plea, the defendant must satisfy the prejudice component by demonstrating that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he or she would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.

Moreover, the United States Supreme Court recently made it clear that not only does affirmatively misinforming a client about the immigration consequences of conviction premised on a guilty plea constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, so, too — assuming, obviously, that the defendant is not a citizen — does failing to render any advice whatsoever on that topic. The Appellate Term recently ruled that the holding in the aforesaid case should be applied retroactively, thus making that ruling applicable in the case at bar.

Every defendant is entitled to zealous, conflict-free representation by someone single-mindedly devoted to his or her best interests, and taking on representation that will burden the attorney with conflicting loyalties also constitutes ineffective assistance. Where a defendant demonstrates the existence of an actual conflict of interest, prejudice can be presumed.
Here, the court finds the defendant’s and the other individual’s testimonies essentially credible. Moreover, even if their lawyer did not affirmatively misinform defendant of the immigration consequences of his plea, it is clear that, at best, he was silent on the subject.

Against the backdrop of the lawyer’s candid admission that, in March, 2007, he was unaware that Congress had in 1996 significantly changed the law regarding the mandatory immigration consequences resulting from certain convictions beyond those involving "moral turpitude" — most notably convictions stemming from possession-of-more-than-30-grams-of-marijuana and possession-of-a-controlled-substance charges — coupled with his similarly candid admission that, even though he thought defendant was Jamaican, he did not ask defendant about his immigration status, and that status did not enter into his considerations when he was negotiating with the People, or, tacitly, when advising defendant to accept their offer. The court must find that he did convey to both defendant and the other individual (whom he essentially dealt with jointly and who each acknowledged during the perfunctory plea allocution that they were pleading guilty to a crime) that the only real consequence of each of the pleas was payment of a fine; that both pleas were "no biggy."

The court is even more disturbed by what the lawyer acknowledges is the "inherent" conflict of interest under which he labored, a conflict that became more acute when the People presented him with "no split" offers compelling one of two defendants to plead guilty to a misdemeanor so that the other could plead guilty to a violation. And the court’s concerns are not assuaged by the lawyer’s without-inquiry acceptance of the People's rationale for the differing offers, most notably the claim that defendant exhibited consciousness of guilt by running from someone in "regular clothes" who was pointing a gun at him in his crime-ridden neighborhood and who did not announce herself as a police officer.

In the instant case, it is clear that defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel; a fact that does not retroactively disappear merely because defendant later retained the same lawyer, whom he had trusted, to represent him in another matter. Indeed, the real issue to be determined is whether defendant was prejudiced by the ineffectiveness of his representation. The court concludes that he was.

As the United States Supreme Court has itself recognized, being able to remain in the United States is often more important to a defendant than any potential jail sentence. In this case, although defendant was incarcerated on the day he entered his plea of guilty, the judge, upon revoking defendant's conditional-release status, adjourned the case for "disposition" for only three days; that he did so to briefly punish defendant for violating the conditions of his at-arraignment release. Since any attorney single-mindedly devoted to defendant's bests interests would have made an appropriate application for adjustment of defendant's bail status if he elected to proceed to trial, and since defendant made bail on his other pending cases, there is no support for the People's speculation that defendant would have remained in jail awaiting trial if he rejected their plea offer. Furthermore, the chance that Defendant would be sentenced to any significant jail time if convicted of the original charge of criminal possession of marijuana in the first degree is remote, and the probability that he would be sentenced to probation without jail is high, whereas, it appears, the immigration consequence — automatic removal — is the same whether defendant were convicted of the original felony charge laid against him, or of the misdemeanor possession-of-marijuana charge to which he pleaded guilty. These circumstances alone demonstrate that it is at least reasonably likely that, had the lawyer properly advised him about the immigration consequence of his misdemeanor plea, defendant would have rejected the offer and insisted on going to trial. Indeed, given the paucity of real, direct evidence of defendant's guilt, not only would rejection of the plea offer have been rational, it would have been prudent.

On the question of whether defendant's other legal difficulties also have adverse immigration consequences so as to render his claims of prejudice, in this regard, moot, defendant has come forward with a recently decided Board of Immigration Appeals case which suggests that his conviction for attempted criminal contempt in the second degree may subject him to removal. But apart from the fact that the conviction challenged here subjects defendant to the more dire consequence of automatic removal, defendant raised another issue which, standing alone, warrants vacatur of the plea and judgment, i.e., the inherent, and ultimately impossible conflict of interest burdening the lawyer, who also represented the other individual charged in the marijuana possession.

The record demonstrates that, while the lawyer actually conferred at least once with the other individual, alone, outside of court, the lawyer never met with defendant alone, and that he always had his discussions with him in the presence of the other individual charged, in court, where conversations are often hurried and somewhat public. Indeed, there is no indication that the lawyer even consulted with defendant in "the pens." The record also demonstrates that it was only through the other individual that the lawyer received payment for his services to defendant. The record thus at least suggests that the lawyer regarded the other individual charged as his primary client, even as it demonstrates that he regarded the disparate legal positions of his two clients as essentially the same, and that he conveyed that sameness to both of them. Because the People here insisted that their offer to the other individual of a plea to a non-criminal offense was conditioned on defendant's acceptance of a plea that gave him a criminal record, a consequence that has lasting adverse effects, even for those who are not subject to deportation, the lawyer could not possibly single mindedly represent either of them without compromising his obligations to the other.

Hence, the court finds that there was an actual conflict of interest, and that the conflict infected defendant's plea of guilty. Moreover, the People's assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, the perfunctory inquiry conducted on an apparently defective accusatory instrument during the equally perfunctory plea allocution does not demonstrate either that defendant understood the nature of the conflict, or that he knowingly waived it.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction with its underlying plea of guilty is ordered vacated; the felony complaint is restored, the matter is referred back to Criminal Term Part 9P, and defendant is directed to appear with counsel in that part.

The freedom to choose counsel for legal representation is vital to the success of one’s case. The question of whether an accused may or may not be convicted lies greatly on the counsel’s efficiency. Thus, it is best to choose wisely. We, at Stephen Bilkis & Associates have the best lawyers available. Our legal teams are highly competitive with extensive experiences in criminal law. Contact us for a free consultation and speak with our Queens Criminal Attorneys or Queens Drug Attorneys.

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 New York Drug Possession Lawyer said an accused man appealed from a summary judgment of the Supreme Court. He was convicted for violating criminal law through committing drug crimes. The accused man was sentenced for his alleged criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, crack possession in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said after hearing, the appeal brings up for review the denial of that branch of the accused man’s compilation of motion which was to suppress certain physical evidence.

The accused man was observed by the undercover police officers selling crack cocaine to the passengers of a BMW automobile during a drug crime surveillance operation. The BMW was stopped nearby and the passengers were arrested for a vial of crack cocaine possession that was recovered from the floor of the car. When the back-up officers arrived at the scene of the sale to make the arrests, they approached the accused man because he matched the description of the drug seller broadcast over the police radio. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said as the police officers approached, the accused man fled, dropping a plastic bag containing 100 vials of crack cocaine during the pursuit. On appeal, the accused man argues that the back-up officers did not possess a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a crime, allowing them to detain or pursue him and, therefore, the crack cocaine he discarded during the chase should have been suppressed as the fruit of an unlawful detention. A said the accused man makes the same argument as to the crack cocaine possession that was found on the floor of the BMW automobile.

A Nassau Criminal Lawyer said because the accused man did not move to suppress the crack cocaine found in the BMW automobile, the issue has not been preserved for appellate review. In any event, the accused man failed to articulate the requisite privacy interest to warrant a finding that he had standing to challenge the admission of the evidence and, as the discovery and seizure of the crack cocaine in the BMW occurred prior to the police's attempted detention of the accused man, it could not have been a fruit of that detention. With regard to the crack cocaine discarded during the flight, the court finds that the hearing court, which saw and heard the witnesses, correctly denied suppression.

A said the Court of Appeals noted that when a police officer entertains a reasonable suspicion that a particular person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a felony or misdemeanor, the criminal law authorizes a forcible stop and detention of that person. A reasonable suspicion is sufficient to permit a police officer to pursue a fleeing offender. A Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer said that reasonable suspicion is that quantum of knowledge sufficient to induce an ordinarily prudent and cautious person under the circumstances to believe that criminal law violation and activity is at hand. The facts reveal that the back-up officers, justifiably relying on the radio transmissions of their fellow officers describing the drug seller, possessed the requisite reasonable suspicion that the accused man had just committed a crime to both stop and forcibly detain him and to pursue him when he fled. Thus, the hearing court properly denied suppression of the crack cocaine abandoned by the accused man as he fled the police.

In addition, the accused man failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that the evidence was legally insufficient. In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the court finds that it was legally sufficient to establish the accused man’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of the court’s factual review power, the court is satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence.
Drug addiction always put us in the losing end. If you find yourself wrongfully charged of any legal action, feel free to contact the office of Stephen Bilkis and Associates to find a Queens Drug Attorney that can defend you suitably in court. When your drug-related lawsuit resulted to crime, hire a Queens Criminal Lawyer to acquaint you with the proper action to pursue.

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.

A man appealed from a decision of the Supreme Court from convicting him drug possession and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree upon a jury decision, and imposing a sentence. A revised decision of the same court revoked a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court upon finding that he had violated a condition and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

The accused man evidently sold a packet of cocaine to an undercover police officer. The undercover officer called the description of the seller to his backup team however the police were unable to locate the seller at that time. After three days, while observing the area from a rooftop, the undercover officer saw the man walking down the street. He called his backup team, and the man was arrested in a nearby restaurant. The undercover officer subsequently identified the man as the person of cocaine possession and sold him the controlled substance. No drugs or prerecorded buy money were found on the accused man. At the trial, the man's wife testified that he was with her in their apartment the entire evening of the date of the transaction.

On appeal, the accused man contends that the questioning of his alibi witness and comments on summation deprived him of a fair proceeding. During the questioning of the man's wife, the prosecutor deliberately bring forth that the man was involved in a drug treatment program at the time of his arrest. The court erred in permitting such questioning because the testimony would have no other purpose than to show a tendency to commit violation of the criminal law being charged. The information was not relevant to the elements of the drug crime charged or to the man's alibi defense.

The city contends that the witness initially volunteered that the man was involved in the drug treatment program. The record reveals that the witness responded when the prosecutor asked her who, besides the police, had called her about the man's arrest. However, the court overruled an objection by the defense counsel, and the prosecutor then proceeded to press the witness about the nature of the program. The court is not satisfied with her response that the program was for people who need to be rehabilitated. The prosecutor wanted to know the purpose of the rehabilitation. When the witness was apparently hesitant to respond, the prosecutor suggested that she was being guarded all of a sudden questions because she is not prepared to answer. Finally the prosecutor asked if it is a drug program and the witness agreed.

Finally, the prosecutor's summation went well beyond the bounds of fair advocacy by frequently characterizing the alibi witness as untruthful, by suggesting that the man was selling drugs on the night of his arrest, and by suggesting that the alibi was invented after the witness met with defense counsel. The court finds that the collective damaging effect of the prosecutor's improper conduct warrants a new trial.

Consequently, the accused man was found to have violated the conditions of a previously imposed sentence of probation on his conviction for attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance and was resentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment. However, since the record is inadequate to determine if the man was found to have violated probation based solely on his conviction under the law which the court have set aside, or based on allegations that he violated other conditions of his probation, the court reverse and remit the matter to the Supreme Court for further proceedings.

Along with the growing and developing technology, there is a problem that destroys the life of our every individual. Controlled substance can bring a lot of trouble to people when it is used the wrong way. If your child needs help for any drug related crime, sex crime or gun possesion charge, ask the Queens Drug Lawyers so they can provide what is essential for you and your family member. If you want utmost representation, you can call the team of Queens Criminal Lawyers at Stephen Bilkis and Associates and assist you with the criminal issues you are involved with.

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.

A man appealed from the order of the Supreme Court, which after a hearing granted the man's set of motion to suppress physical evidence.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the relevant facts brought forward at the suppression proceedings claims that the housing police officer saw a man and another male making an exchange of money for an unknown substance while patrolling in a radio motor patrol vehicle in the vicinity of a playground known as a location for drug crime activity.

The police officer over the course of the previous year and one-half had made 10 to 15 arrests involving narcotics. The officer continued to observe the man for another three to five minutes as he spoke with two or three other males. The officer noticed that the man was continually grabbing a bulge in his left side of his jacket. The officer did not otherwise describe the bulge. The officer called for assistance and then approached the man stating he wanted to speak to him. Apparently, the man immediately fled. The officer however chased the man on foot while his partner followed in a patrol vehicle. After about three blocks, the officer managed to stop the man, whereupon the man reached into his left jacket pocket where the officer had observed the bulge. The officer drew his service revolver and ordered the man to remove his hand from his pocket and put his hands against a wall. A New York Criminal Lawyer said a search to the man produced a loaded .38 caliber revolver and eight vials of crack cocaine.

Based on records, the Supreme Court erred in granting suppression of the physical evidence recovered from the man. The man's conduct in a location known for drug crime activity in the early hours of the morning provided the necessary objective and credible reason to warrant the officer's approach to the man in a noncoercive fashion in order to implement the common-law right of inquiry. A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said the man's abrupt action upon the approach of the police coupled with the officer's other observations gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that the man had committed or was committing a crime so as to warrant the greater level of imposition inherent in pursuit by the police. Moreover, when the officer observed the man reaching toward the bulge in his pocket, the officer was justified in conducting a limited pat-down search of the man to allay his fears for his own safety. The possible cause to arrest the man existed upon the discovery of a firearm and the crack cocaine possession. Therefore, the physical evidence was not obtained as a result of illegal police conduct and the hearing court erred in granting suppression.

The judge concluded, as does the majority and as did the hearing court, that the housing police officer’s observations at a location known for drug activity in the early morning hours provided him with the objective and credible reason necessary to warrant the exercise of his common-law right of inquiry. A Queens Criminal Lawyer however, after the trial court's determination, the judge with his view that the trial court correctly found that the man's action in implementing his constitutional right not to respond to the officer's inquiry and to take flight did not provide the missing element of reasonable suspicion of the man being engaged in a criminal activity to justify pursuing him. The judge also stated that there is nothing to establish that a crime has been or is being committed. The man’s flight and refusal to answer, is an inadequate basis for seizure or for the limited detention that is involved in chase.

Consequently, the court’s order to reverse the man's set of motion which was to suppress physical evidence is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings.

Drugs and medicines are essential in providing cure to those who are ill. When people abuse drugs, it beats its main purpose. When you need legal guidance involving actions on controlled substance, you can call the Queens Drug Lawyers. If you want to explore the proper lawsuits to consider in your crime-related actions, contact the Queens Criminal Lawyers at Stephen Bilkis and Associates.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

A man stayed for two to three hours and had three Scotch & Sodas at a popular bar in Poughkeepsie, New York. After he left the bar shortly after 3:00 a.m., he was drove his white Chevy pick-up truck going northbound on Route 9 near the Vanderbilt Mansion. A state trooper was on that same road going the same direction and he was right behind the pick-up truck.
The state trooper noticed that the pick-up truck had swerved left and right on the lane two or three times. The wheels crossed the double yellow lines in the middle of the road and the fog line on the right side of the road. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the state trooper decided to pull the pick-up truck over.

When the state trooper went over to the driver’s side to ask for the driver’ license and registration, he noticed the driver’s red glassy eyes and the heavy smell of liquor on him. The state trooper then asked the driver to alight from his pick-up truck.

The state trooper asked the man to look at his finger and to follow his finger with his eyes without moving his head. The man could not follow the state trooper’s finger. The state trooper asked the man to walk heel-to-toe and then turn. The man could not keep his balance;, he swayed and could not walk a straight line. He asked the man to stand on one leg but the man could not even raise his leg without swaying and losing his balance. The state trooper then asked him to count to 30 but the man could only count up to 19. The state trooper asked the man to touch the tip of his nose with his index finger but he kept missing it. The state trooper then administered the breath analyzer test and found that the blood alcohol level of the man was three times the legal limit. So he gave the man the Miranda warnings and placed him arrest for driving while intoxicated.

A New Yorkt Drug Possession Lawyer said that at trial, the man wanted the evidence for the People suppressed. The evidence he wanted suppressed consisted of the State Trooper’s testimony, and all the other blood and urine tests taken subsequent to his arrest, including his admission that he had been drinking scotch and soda at a bar before starting to drive. He claims that he was not driving while intoxicated at all. The State Trooper had no probable cause to stop him on the road; and he had no probable cause to administer the sobriety tests to him. He claims that he was not Mirandized prior to being made to take the sobriety tests and so all the evidence acquired after that should not be used in the trial against him.

The man also testified that he had a companion with him in the pick-up truck which the State Trooper did not mention at all. He claims that the State Trooper’s memory of the events and his testimony at trial were all conjectures and fabrications.

The trial court convicted him. He now appeals his convictions.

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.

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.

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.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that a police officer from New York City was almost struck by a truck while he was inside his vehicle patrolling the streets just before midnight. The officer testified that the truck went backward into the junction from on-street parking space without its rear lights illuminated. He also simultaneously sounded his horn and put his vehicle in reverse to avoid a collision. The truck then pulled forward, returning to its parking space. When the officer parked his vehicle and approached the truck, he saw that the man was seated in the driver's seat with the engine running. The officer asked the man where he was going and responded that he was heading home. After the officer obtained his license and registration information, the man turned off the engine and went out of the truck. Noticing a strong odor of alcohol, the officer asked whether the man had been drinking. The man acknowledged that he had consumed few beers at a bar on the adjacent corner.

Subsequently, the man's father came out from the bar and began yelling at the officer. The man handed his father set of keys and the father returned to the bar after being directed by the officer to stand back from the area. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said field sobriety tests were administered in which the man failed, and was placed under arrest. Based on the record, field sobriety tests are evaluations done by law enforcement officers in making roadside assessment as to whether a motorist is under the influence of alcohol or drugs. At the trial, the man stipulated to the propriety, reliability and admissibility of the succeeding breathalyzer test which revealed that his blood alcohol content was 0.15%.

In contrast to the officer's version of the events, the man claimed that he left the bar to lock the truck and did not operate the vehicle at that time. He also offered the testimony of family members and friends and asserted that they were drinking with him in the bar when he announced that he was going outside to lock his truck. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said they claimed that the man intended to return to the bar and was planning to spend the night at a friend's house which was within walking distance. The witnesses acknowledged that they didn’t see what happened outside after he departed from the bar. Hence, the bottom of the defense was that since the man left his keys on the bar, he was unable to operate his truck. Only one witness, his brother-in-law, was able to identify the keys as those to the ignition of the truck.

Even though the man acknowledged that he was intoxicated at the time in question, he still contends on the appeal that the verdict convicting him of two counts of DWI (driving while intoxicated) was unsupported by adequate proof and against the weight of the evidence due to the court’s failure to demonstrate that he operated the motor vehicle. However, a Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said that in the police officer's statement that he saw the truck move back and forth into the parking space with the man sitting on the driver's seat with the engine running as he approached the vehicle was sufficient enough to establish operation of the vehicle. The verdict against the weight of the evidence as the officer's account was not directly disproven by any of the defense witnesses, none of whom were outside the bar at the relevant time. The statement to the effect that the man could not have been operating the truck because his keys remained in the bar presented credibility questions which the jury, reasonably resolved in the court's favor. Accordingly, the decision is affirmed.
There are instances in our lives when we are incapable of defending ourselves and nobody is willing to testify to tell the truth. NY DWI Lawyers at Stephen Bilkis & Associates are capable of protecting you against these events. You may visit our offices which are located all throughout the New York Metropolitan area.

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.

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.

According to a New York Drug Crime Lawyer, a 59-year old man is currently serving an aggregate prison term of 21-1/2 years to life arising out of his 1982 convictions for various drug crimes, including marijuana possession, and attempted escape from prison. The prisoner challenged the denial of his application for parole before the Board of Parole. .

The court held that record demonstrates that the Board appropriately considered the statutory factors, including the seriousness of the prisoner's crimes, his prior criminal history, positive program achievements while incarcerated and post-release plans.

While the dissent minimized the seriousness of the prisoner's offenses, describing them as neither violent nor accompanied by a history of violent crimes, the record before the Board showed that the prisoner petitioner had been a drug dealer for 10 years and that his activities escalated to high-level cocaine trafficking that did, in fact, directly lead to the violent death of one police officer and the grievous wounding of another at the hands of his co-defendant brother. The court said that, contrary to the dissent's view, the Board could reach its conclusion after weighing the prisoner's accomplishments in prison against the level of violence associated with the drug trafficking and the drug crimes of which he was convicted without improperly considering matters outside the record

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that the court also said that it is not its role to assess whether the Board gave the proper weight to the relevant factors, nor articulate each factor in its decision, and it is permissible for the Board to emphasixe the seriousness of a petitioner's offense. It is only important to determine whether the Board followed the statutory guidelines and rendered a determination that is supported, and not contradicted, by the facts in the record. The court further said that it could not effectively review the Board's weighing process, given that it is not required to state each factor that it considers, weigh each factor equally or grant parole as a reward for exemplary institutional behavior.

The dissent noted that the 1980 drug crime committed by the prison involved a large amount of cocaine, but, unlike many other cases in which the Board has relied primarily on the seriousness of an offender's crimes in denying parole, the prisoner's crimes were neither violent nor accompanied by a history of other serious or violent crimes. The dissent further noted that the prisoner had a perfect disciplinary record for at least 15 years, completed all of the recommended programs, overcome drug and alcohol addictions, and participated in various vocational and educational programs. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said the prisoner's post-release plan include participation in a veterans' transitional employment program and volunteering in programs for substance abusers.

Accordingly, a Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said that the court concluded that as the Board's determination in this case is supported by the record and does not display irrationality bordering on impropriety. The court declined to disturb the denial of the application for parole.

Drug addiction is a rampant problem in society and affects everyone. Being involved in a lawsuit arising from this crime is difficult. There 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 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.

Two adult men appealed from judgments of a state court convicting them after a joint trial of the drug crimes of sale of a dangerous drug and marijuana possession and sentencing each of them to seven years imprisonment.

According to a New York Drug Crime Lawyer, one of the accused argued on appeal that the court had previously accepted a plea of guilty to the lesser crime of attempted criminal possession of a dangerous drug, a Class E felony, to cover the entire indictment; that thereafter, the court unilaterally set aside that plea and directed a trial upon which the defendants were convicted of the Class C felony for which they were indicted and for which they have now been sentenced. In essence, they assert a claim of double jeopardy.

Sources, however, showed that during the joint trial the accused applied to withdraw his plea of guilty and the court granted that application, and this was the understanding of all at the time. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said it is apparent that the court thought that the defendant was moving to withdraw his plea and not that the court was acting unilaterally.

The court explained that a major purpose of requiring a party to make known his objection to an action by the court is so that the court shall have an opportunity of effectively changing the same. The court pointed out that if the defendant's attorney at that point in the joint trial had thought and said that he had not made an application to withdraw the plea of guilty, there can be no doubt that the court would have required him to say whether he was or was not moving to withdraw the plea. The court noted that the defendant's attorney did not suggest in any way to the court that the court's interpretation was incorrect. But now appellate counsel reading the cold record urges the court to interpret what took place in a way different from what the parties understood at the time.

A Nassau Count Drug Possession Lawyer commented that if the court had unilaterally and improperly purported to set aside a plea of guilty, the defendant would have had an a defense of previous prosecution to any further proceedings, which would be the subject matter of a motion in the trial court to dismiss the indictment. However, the defendant never raised that argument. Plainly, rather than be sentenced to something more than one year imprisonment, defendant chose to gamble on a trial.

The court thinks there was abuse of discretion and that a reversal of the indictment is not warranted. The court noted that the defendant had what the court at sentence called 'an extensive criminal background.' A Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said that these crimes, as brought out in connection with the motion, included assault and robbery, a grand larceny automobile arrest which had apparently resulted in a felony conviction for which he served time in state prison, possession of drugs, resisting arrest, and criminal sale of dangerous drugs.

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.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates with its NY Criminal Law Lawyers, has offices throughout the New York Metropolitan area including Corona, NY. 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.

Stephen Bilkis and Associates will also recommend Substance Abuse Lawyers who will help you.

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 Criminal Lawyer, 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 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.

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.

A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said that 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.

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.

Whether you have been charged with sex crimes, or a drug offense, contact our office for assistance. Stephen Bilkis & Associates has offices throughout the New York Metropolitan area. Our office can provide you with advice to guide you through your difficult situations. Without our legal help, you may lose your rights which may cost you a significant amount of money.

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.

According to a New York Drug Crime Lawyer , a 33-year old man was indicted by a jury and charged with marijua posssession. Court records showed that the defendant was a second felony offender but not a violent offender. During the course of plea negotiations, the defendant was offered by the State a plea to a B felony in satisfaction of the indictment with a minimum sentence of four and a half years to nine years in state prison. Prior to defendant's plea, the New York State Legislature passed the Drug Law Reform Act, which was signed into law in 2004.

The People took the plea with a minimum sentence but the sole issue in contention is, what is the minimum state prison sentence now allowed by law given the passage of the new law.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that the defense attorney argued that the newly enacted DLRA should be applied retroactively and authorized not only a plea to a B felony reduction from an A-I felony but also the appropriate sentence should be a three and a half year determinate prison term with postrelease supervision set by the court at a determinate time of the minimum of one and a half years to a maximum of three years.

According to the court, the new DLRA was the response of the New York State Legislature to a long-time call to amend the so-called Rockefeller drug laws which some have argued were outdated and draconian.

The new criminal laws applicable to this case provide, in substance, for allowing a plea to a B felony drug offense from an A-I or A-II drug offense. The New Penal Law, which provides guidelines for sentencing of drug offenders, set sentence for a second felony drug offender (nonviolent) convicted of a B felony at a determinate term from a minimum of three and a half years to a maximum of 12 years and postrelease supervision of a determinate term of a minimum of one and a half years to a maximum of 3 years.

A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said there is no question that the crimes that the defendant is charged in this case were committed prior to the effective date of the relevant criminal law provisions. The court did not agree with the defense's argument that the relevant law should be applied retroactively. The court explained that the general rule is that non-procedural statutes are not to be applied retroactively absent a plainly manifested legislative intent to that effect. An exception is when the Legislature passes an ameliorative amendment that reduces the punishment for a particular crime.

Accordingly, the court found that the sentencing statute is not retroactive to crimes committed prior to the effective date of the said statute and that it is not the province of the trial judiciary to change the clear and unambiguous language of duly enacted law unless its application would effect an unconstitutional, illegal or harmful act.

A Queens Criminal Lawyer cautions that 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.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates with its team of criminal lawyer, 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.

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 44-year old man was convicted, following a jury trial, of various crimes stemming from a shootout during which two innocent bystanders were injured. The defendant thereafter was sentenced as a second felony offender to an aggregate term of 30 years in prison with five years of post-release supervision. The defendant appealed his conviction.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer explained that prior to trial, evidence was introduced showing that the defendant has been convicted with drug crimes, based on guilty pleas, and the other man involved in the shoot-out has been convicted with crack cocaine possession, with the intent to sell. Following the shootout, the other man involved in the shootout was again found in possession of crack cocaine, leading to several drug-related crimes.

The prosecution argued that the prior conviction was probative of the defendant's intent to act in concert with the other man to constructively possess and sell the cocaine; the State also sought to introduce evidence of the defendant's alleged gang affiliation and other prior drug dealing and gun possession charges as additional evidence of intent and motive.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that the appellate court, after review of the record, found that the trial court balanced the prejudice to defendant against the probative value of the proffered evidence, and ultimately permitted the introduction of the prior drug-related conviction as relevant to the prosecution's theory of the case that defendant and the other man involved in the shootout were accomplices in the newly charged drug-related crimes, but denied the prosecution's request to introduce evidence of gang affiliation and the other prior charges.

The defendant also argued that the jury's finding that he possessed and fired a weapon was against the weight of the evidence because none of the prosecution's witnesses testified to actually seeing him hold and fire a weapon during the shootout. The appellate court disagreed, based on the strong circumstantial evidence supporting the jury's findings. Testimony from witnesses established that the defendant was in possession of a handgun the day prior to the incident, and that the defendant and the other man involved in the crime had each armed themselves with handguns shortly before the shooting.

The appellate court also rejected the defendant's remaining contentions, mentioned a Nassau County Criminal Lawyer, finding that he was not prejudiced by the prosecutor's reference during summation to defendant in the context of the other man's statement to police. The prosecutor, according to the appellate court, properly referred only to the other man's redacted statement, and his use of the statement to draw inferences about defendant's participation in the crime by linking it to other trial evidence was permissible. Nor did the appellate court find any basis to justify a reduction in the defendant's sentence, which was within the statutory guidelines under relevant penal laws, given the brazen nature of defendant's crimes and his lengthy criminal history. Accordingly, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's conviction.

A Queens Criminal Lawyer mentioned that drug addiction is a rampant problem in society and affects everyone. Suffering personal injuries and being involved in a lawsuit arising from such is difficult. There are skilled 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 has offices throughout the New York Metropolitan area. Our attorneys can provide you with advice to guide you through your difficult situations.

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.

Avery Maggio was charged with eight counts involving different sex crimes. According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, the charges were based on claims that he had sexually abused another child who rode the school bus with him on different occasions in 2005, 2006 and 2007. Mr. Maggio was convicted of three counts of committing a criminal sexual act in the first degree and two counts of first degree sexual abuse. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison and subsequently appealed his case to the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division, Third Department.

The appellate court was charged with determining whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to warrant a conviction. Mr. Maggio’s criminal defense attorney argued that while his client admitted engaging in inappropriate sexual contact with a minor child, the evidence did not prove that he ever compelled the victim to participate through verbal or physical force. Under New York Penal Law, forcible compulsion must be considered from the victim’s perspective and weighed against their age, the size and strength of the person perpetrating the sex crimes and their relationship to the victim.

The court noted that Mr. Maggio was four years older than the victim at the time the sex offenses occurred and that the sexual contact began when the victim was only nine. The victim testified that when he was 12, Mr. Maggio had threatened him with physical harm if he did not agree to the sex acts. The victim also said that on another occasion, Mr. Maggio had forced his head down and ordered him to perform oral sex. Mr. Maggio also allegedly grabbed the victim’s testicles, arms, legs and knees on other occasions and threatened to kill both him and his mother if he did not comply.

A New York Criminal Lawyer commented that with regard to Mr. Maggio’s appeal, the court argued that his ability to actually carry out the alleged threats was immaterial. What mattered factually was the victim’s perception of his ability to do so. The court also noted that the jury apparently did not believe Mr. Maggio’s theory that his victim had consented to the forcible sex acts, hence his conviction. Subsequently, the court held that the jury’s determination in finding him guilty of the sex crimes was supported by the evidence. Furthermore, the appellate court found that no error had been committed in allowing evidence to be admitted of Mr. Maggio’s prior uncharged sex crimes or in allowing the testimony of an expert witness knowledgeable about child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. Accordingly, the court chose to affirm the original conviction and found no grounds for supporting a reduction in the sentence.

While Mr. Maggio’s New York criminal defense attorney worked hard to defend his rights, ultimately, the court could not find sufficient reason to reverse his conviction based on the evidence.

Being charged with sexual abuse, a drug crime, or theft crime can be an unsettling experience . If you or someone you love has been arrested for rape, sexual assault or any other sex offense, you need to contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates today to protect your rights. The firm’s team of experienced criminal defense lawyers can be reached at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW or by visiting one of their numerous New York area office locations. If convicted of a sex offense, you may face fines, imprisonment and have to register as a sex offender. Stephen Bilkis and Associates can provide you with the legal help you need to achieve the best resolution possible for your case.

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.

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.

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

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.

In an undercover operation, federal agents busted a man trying to sell them eight ounces of cocaine in Rochester, New York. According to the primary witness of the drug crime, he knew the defendant for seven years and they were introduced by a mutual friend. The witness called the defendant and informed him that some interested buyers were willing to make a drug deal. The defendant, who was residing in Florida, flew to New York to meet the buyers.

In exchange for the cocaine, the primary witness received $9000 in $100 bills then went home. The defendant then came over to the house of the witness to count the bills and check for any markings left by the authorities. According to the witness, the defendant left his home with $8000 in cash as part of his profit from the sale then boarded a flight back to Florida.

The testimony of the witness was corroborated by his fiancée who also had knowledge of the drug deal. Evidence against the defendant consisted of nine surveillance tapes and recordings of phone conversations. Prior to the cocaine sale, police already obtained a court order to monitor the conversations between the witness and the defendant.

The case went on trial and the jury found the defendant guilty for his drug possession. The trial is over but the defendant has appealed his case. The defendant objects to the evidence presented to the court. According to him, there were errors in handling evidence and believes the recordings are tampered. In addition to his appeal, the defendant has asserted that the tapes were not sealed properly and in the absence of a judge as witness.
The defendant’s appeal invoked the Criminal Procedure Law 700.50 (2), “Immediately upon the expiration of the period of an eavesdropping warrant, the recordings of communications made pursuant to subdivision three of section 700.35 must be made available to the issuing justice and sealed under his directions.”

The defendant contested the interpretation of the criminal law phrase ‘under his directions’. According to the defendant’s interpretation, the tapes should be sealed in the presence of a justice. However, this conclusion was not supported.

Similar court cases that are relevant to the statute have a different interpretation of the statute being questioned. Based on court decision, there was no clear provision that recordings are to be sealed in the presence of a judge. The statute only directs that the tape recordings be sealed under the direction of the judge and not necessarily requires his presence. In the defendant’s case, the tape recordings were presented before the court and sealed according to the directions of the judge. There was proper sealing of evidence as mandated by the statute.
Aside from citing the statute violation for his appeal, the defendant also claimed that the tape recordings were tampered. He further implied that the Sheriff’s deputy had something to do with it. The box of evidence contained seven tapes but upon opening it during presentation of court evidence, the box had eight tapes. The deputy explained this issue by saying that he miscalculated the number of tapes inside the box.

However, the court did not find the deputy guilty of any intentional tampering but concluded that it was just a simple error on the part of the primary witness. The court ruled out the possibility of tampering. The defendant could also not prove his final claim of an alleged break in chain of custody. The court did not find any basis for the defendant’s claim that he was prejudiced by the district attorney or discriminated against by the justice system. Despite the defendant’s contention, the court upholds the judgment of conviction and is affirmed unanimously.

Getting involved in a lawsuit can be stressful for everyone. Whether you have been charged with cocaine possession, marijuana possession, or other criminal offense, skilled legal counsel is always ready to help your case. Competent legal advice is what you need to get you through a lawsuit. If you are in need of a New York Criminal Lawyer, Stephen Bilkis & Associates have offices located in the metropolitan area to accommodate you and your legal needs.

If you know someone who needs an expert New York Criminal Lawyer, consult Stephen Bilkis & Associates for immediate action.

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.

Two police officers spotted a 26 year old suspect smoking marijuana at 6:15 PM at a street corner, a New York Criminal Lawyer said. The officers approached the suspect and attempted to place him under arrest when the suspect became unruly and decided to resist arrest. The officers were attempting to handcuff him at the time he opposed them. The suspect then somehow managed to gain access to the gun of one of the officers and tried to fire a bullet. A struggle then ensued with both suspect and officer attempting to gain possession of the weapon. The officer did manage to keep one hand on the barrel of the gun before the gun was fired.

The suspect discharged the gun once and although firing at point blank range, the bullet did not strike anyone or cause any damage. The suspect was attempting to fire a second time but was unable to do so because the shell casing was jammed inside the gun.

The officer was then able to regain full possession of his weapon after a major struggle and the suspect was handcuffed and placed under arrest without further incident. Charges against the suspect and further information is still pending at this time.

Both officers, however, had to be taken to the hospitall for injuries sustained in the altercation. One of the officers suffered an injured elbow. The other officer was treated for injuries to both his back and shoulder.

Anyone facing criminal charges should not be without adequate representation. Whether you have been charged with drug possession, a theft crime, or a DWI, speak to Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice and guidance. We have offices to serve you throughout New York, incuding 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 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.

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.

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 twenty year-old man from Macomb faces charges for driving under the influence, marijuana possession, and a possible charge for contempt, as he spit on the floor in the courtroom during his hearing. The Illinois State Police arrested the accused early on Sunday, where he was driving with a suspended/revoked license, found to be in possession of marijuana, and driving under the influence of drugs.

Since the man failed to appear in court in the past, he is also wanted in the state of Tennessee. His hearing was held on Monday at the McDonough County Circuit Court, where in order to be released he would have to post $450 to make bail, but he claimed that he could only account for $300 total. The man seemed outwardly troubled, as he shared about the difficulties of traveling place to place, and struggling with family problems. A New York Criminal Lawyer expounds, that while the man was walking toward his seat in the courtroom, he allegedly spit on the floor, and was later questioned by the Sheriff's deputy as to whether this was an accident or not.

After the accused was dismissed, an assistant county prosecutor filed an appeal that the act of spitting was a direct sign of contempt toward the court. No ruling has been made yet, regarding the petition against the accused for spitting on the floor. The man is currently residing in the McDonough County Jail, until his next hearing on Wednesday.

Sometimes situations happen in life that set us back and leave us feeling trapped, but with the help of a skilled legal counse, you can find hope. There is no reason to try and navigate the legal system alone without any guidance, but with the assistance of a Stephen Bilkis and Associates you will have solid professional support on your side.

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.

Acting on a tip, officers from the Lexington County Multi-Agency Narcotics Enforcement Team (NET) raided a home near Lexington, SC, led to the arrests of two men and two women, sources revealed to a reporter.

A Lexington County Sheriff’s Department spokesman said that NET officers had received a tip that the four persons were manufacturing meth at a clandestine meth lab in the home of one of those arrested. Officers from the multi-agency cooperative effort executed a search warrant just after 2:00pm Friday and found that meth was being manufactured in the master bedroom. Officers said that a small amount of marijuana was also located inside the home.

Local firefighters from the Lexington County Fire Service were on the scene and assisted the officers to dismantle the meth lab and to assist with the disposal of any chemicals and other hazardous substances that were associated with the meth lab.

Those arrested have been charged with multiple drug related charges including distributing meth, manufacturing meth, possessing marijuana, and possessing illegal narcotic drugs. All of those arrested are currently being detained in the Lexington County Detention Center, where they are awaiting a bond hearing.

Methamphetamine, a form of amphetamines, in various forms has been around since it was first discovered in Japan in 1919. The patterns of abuse have persisted in New York and Suffolk ever since Methamphetamine abuse can be extremely debilitating, and has caused many problems over the years. This powerful narcotic stimulates the central nervous system after the user smokes, snorts, orally ingests, or injects the drug into their system. Some of the side effects of meth include convulsions, high body temperature, stroke, stomach cramps, and shaking. Chronic abuse can lead to psychotic behavior, paranoia, and many others.

Manufacturer of methamphetamine is a process that those involved literally take their own lives into their hands. Without going into much detail, producing meth requires the use of some very hazardous chemicals, and reports of meth labs exploding are plentiful. These have resulted in the physical injuries and even deaths of anyone who happened to be in the dwellings at the time of the explosions, including any children who are nearby, since many meth labs are contained in people’s homes.

Continue reading "Officers Take Out Meth Lab, Arrest 4 in Lexington County" »

It was all about a heroin addiction with two homeless men, Suffolk police told a source. They committed a number of burglaries to pay for their expensive habit and are charged with drug possession.

The two men, 41 and 42 years of age, were arrested by police, following a chase. The police were tipped off after a witness saw the pair breaking into a home in Dix Hills.
Police said the two men are suspected of committing eight burglaries. Seven of them were in Dix Hills, and they attempted two others.

According to the police lieutenant, they were not only charged with the burglaries, but two counts of second-degree assault, four counts of second-degree criminal mischief, resisting arrest, and unlawfully fleeing a police officer. The police chased the pair to a dead-end street, where their car, a Chevrolet Blazer, tried to bull through four marked police cruisers, as the suspects attempted to escape.

The police lieutenant said that two officers were injured during the arrest. One sprained his wrist and fingers. He did not detail the extent of the injuries the other officer suffered.
The 42-year-old suspect was held on $365,000 bond or $182,500 cash bail when he was arraigned at First District Court in Central Islip.

The second suspect was sent to the hospital with undisclosed injuries. Any information about his arraignment is also currently unknown. Police say both of these men suffered from a drug habit. The entire point of the robbery was to get money to buy more drugs.

“Anything they could steal, really,” the police lieutenant said. “They were looking for cash or items they could sell quickly.”

Witnesses had already given police information to find the two men, learning more in the last sighting that led to the final arrest of the suspects. Police tried to stop the burglary, but instead were led on a chase, according to the police lieutenant. The pair fled at high speed, tracked by both police cruisers and a helicopter.

Police in New York and Suffolk County encounter similar types of crime involving drug use and robbery.

Continue reading "Police Charge Two Homeless Men in Long Island with Eight Burglaries" »

A group of citizens told a New York Criminal Lawyer that a couple was blamed for having videotaped their toddler who is 23 months old and was allegedly smoking pot. The couple was arraigned in court for charges of negligence.
The police told reporters that they got a tip about the incident from an anonymous person. The Sheriff of the country went to the accused couple’s home and found the twenty year old mother and 24 year old father of the child. The police said that the video did, in fact, show that the toddler was smoking pot from a pipe. This incident occurred about three times. The pipe had residue of marijuana in it as seen on the video. The video has become the main evidence in the case and will be kept into evidence and not released.
The parents were charged for child cruelty and neglect. An investigation into the case was done and that was when the couple was officially charged. Both parents were not booked at the same time. The mother was brought into custody first and then the father surrendered the next day.
The Police told a A New York Criminal Attorney is set to transact business in court for any criminal case.

Both parents were held in jail on a bail of $100,000. According to law enforcement, the parents seem to be remorseful for their behavior and have since understood that they did not make a good decision in this case. According to law enforcement investigators, both parents owned medical marijuana cards. The toddler was taken away from the parents and put in custody. In the Bronx and New York this behavior is not condoned by the courts.

Continue reading "Pot Smoking Toddler’s parents arrested " »

In Arizona, the controversy continues surrounding the status of illegal immigrants. Despite recent legislative changes in the treatment of illegal immigrants, little has been solved regarding the treatment of these people who are living in the United States illegally. The United States Border Patrol has enacted new policy which includes sending illegal immigrants back across the border.

The new unofficial policy is to send anyone illegally crossing the United States-Mexico border to be sent back to Mexico instead of being arrested. Local law official say that sending people back to Mexico does little to solve the problem; they report that people tend to make multiple attempts to cross the border if the first attempt is unsuccessful.

There are some accusations that the new policy is politically motivated. The theory is that the change in policy is attempting to keep the number of border arrests down to improve the security statistics. By sending the border crossers back to Mexico, the number of arrests along the border has decreased and politicians are using this statistic to suggest that the US-Mexico border has become more secure.

Local law enforcement does not appreciate the new policy as the lower number of people being arrested may cause an increase in the number of people attempting to cross the border. They suggest that this increase in attempts actual decreases the security of the communities near the border. The lack of consequence for illegal entering the country may promote the idea that there is little or no consequence for breaking federal laws.

While immigration has always been a particularly complex issue in the United States, the new policy further complicates the legal process. The selective arresting of some border crossers while others are simply turned back calls into question the fairness of the process.Many supporters of the bill believe that the undocumented people are involved with the smuugling of a variety of drugs ranging from marijuana to heroin as well as a illegal guns.

Federal officials have officially denied that this is a new official policy; however, many people in the organization have said that they were given these orders. A NY City Criminal Lawyer explains that local law enforcement officials continue to argue against this new policy, whether official or not.

Continue reading "New Illegal Immigrant Policy at the US-Mexico Border" »