New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

The appellant of the case is Dude Emshwiller. The appellee in the case is the State of Florida. The case is being heard in the second district of the District Court of Appeal in Florida.

Appeal

Dude Emshwiller, the appellant is appealing his original judgment and sentencing. The original sentence is for three years on the charges of grand theft.

Case Discussion

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appeal that is presented to the court comes with a confused record of what exactly the appellant was charged with and convicted for. When discussing the case, we must determine the differences between retail theft as defined in the Florida Statutes 812.015 is a different offense than theft as described in the Florida Statutes under 812.014. We find that they are not separate criminal offenses and for this reason are in conflict with a previous case “Tobe versus State.”

The information that has been provided to us in this case states that the appellant unlawfully took possession of merchandise that was valued at over $100. Through the proceedings that took place, it is our understanding that the State of Florida, appellee, and appellant considered the appellant being charged with grand theft in the second degree. The appellant agreed to a form provided to the jury that offered the choices of guilty of grand theft, guilty of petit larceny, or not guilty. The jury came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of grand theft as charged.

When the jury came back with its verdict, the trial judge also entered a judgment. The judgment entered by the judge stated he was guilty of retail theft with grand theft entered in parenthesis. The sentencing was continued pending the completion of the presentencing investigations. When the appellant was sentenced another judgment was entered that only charged the appellant with retail theft and there is no reference to grand theft.

The problem with the sentencing comes into the fact that in a retail theft where the sale value of the merchandise can be proven is considered to be a second degree misdemeanor and is separated from a theft under the Florida statute 812.014. A Westchester County Criminal Lawyer said the jury instructions in a misdemeanor case are provided in this type of case. However, we are unable to find any evidence of the sale value of the merchandise being proven.

Court Opinion and Ruling

While we do not agree with the statement provided by the trial judge that states he did not believe that market value was being dealt with, we do find that the instructions that were given to the jury were sufficient. The judge instructed that the defendant was accused of retail theft and explained that the punishment for such a crime was based on the value of the merchandise that was stolen. He also went on to explain the differences between the terms of grand theft and petit theft. He also explained that the value of the property was the price it could be sold for at the time it was stolen.

After reviewing the case, we believe that there should not be a separate retail theft charge, but rather that the appellant was simply charged with grand theft. For this reason, the court will uphold the sentencing and conviction, but remand that the judgment be changed to reflect that the appellate was charged with grand theft and not retail theft.

At the law offices of Stephen Bilkis & Associates you will find a team of expert lawyers that are willing to help you through any type of legal situation that you find yourself in, whether it be for theft, sex crimes or drug possession. Our team will be happy to sit down with you and determine the best course of action. We have offices located in New York City for your convenience. Call and set up your free consultation today.

The petitioner of the case is Edgar Paul, et al. The respondent of the case is Edward Charles Davis, III.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said he original case was heard and argued on the fourth of November in 1975. The original verdict of the case was given on the 23rd of March in 1976. A rehearing of the case was denied in May of 1976.

The original case involves a photograph of the respondent that was being used in a flyer that had pictures of active shoplifters. This photograph was used after the respondent had been convicted of shoplifting near Louisville, Kentucky. The shoplifting (petit larceny) charge was dismissed and the respondent then brought this case up against the petitioner police chiefs that issued the flyers. He states that this was a violation of his constitutional rights. The original district court that heard the case granted a dismissal motion from the petitioners.

Flyer in Question

The flyer that the respondent is questioning was distributed to businesses throughout the Louisville area. The City of Louisville Police Department and the Chiefs of Jefferson County printed and distributed the flyer as a way to keep all of their officers advised about suspected shoplifting activity in the area. The flyer included the name and a photograph of individuals that had been arrested for shoplifting during 1971 and 1972. The flyer was 5 pages long and had photos arranged in alphabetical order. The respondent’s photo appeared in the middle of page two. There were two photos of the respondent along with his name, Edward Charles Davis III.

Davis III was included in the flyer because he had been arrested in Louisville on the fourteenth of June on charges of shoplifting. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said he pleaded not guilty to the charge and the case was filed to be reinstated and left the charge withstanding. When the flyer was printed, the shoplifting charge against the respondent had not been resolved. Shortly after the release of the flyer, the shoplifting charges against the respondent were dismissed.

The respondent worked as a photographer for a Louisville newspaper. When his supervisor saw the flyer he called the respondent into his office to hear his side of the story. The respondent was not fired, but warned that he should not find himself in this type of situation again.

District Court Reasoning

The district court reasoned that the petitioners distributing the flyer did not take away any of the respondents property and liberty rights that are guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment. Additionally, the reputation of a person alone cannot implicate the liberty or property that is offered procedural protection under the amendment.

Court Decision

In this particular case, there is an issue of giving police officials the ability to act on their own initiative to condemn innocent people of being criminals. Without any type of constitutional restraints in place for this type of oppressive behavior, no person could feel secure knowing that they will not be singled out for this type of punishment.

For these reasons, the court is reversing the original decision made by the district court. We feel that the respondent’s rights were violated in the fact that he was never actually convicted of the crime as portrayed on the flyer that was distributed throughout the city.

At Stephen Bilkis & Associates we can help you through any type of legal issue that you may have, whether you have been charged with sex crimes, drug possession or theft. Our team of expert lawyers can work with you to determine the best course of action for you to take. We have offices located all over the city of New York. You may contact us at any time to set up a free consultation.

The plaintiff and appellee in the case is Lynda L. Watt. The defendant and appellant of the case is the Police Department of the City of Richardson.

Appeal

A New York Criminal Lawyer the City of Richardson is appealing the finding of the district court that states that the strip search that was performed was constitutionally invalid.

Case Background

Lynda Watt was with her five year old son on the third of March in 1985. She was pulled over by a police officer because the vehicle that she was driving had an inspection sticker that was expired. She told the officer that she was borrowing the car from her mother’s estate and he issued a warning. However, when the officer conducted a routine computer check on Watt, he discovered a warrant that was outstanding for failing to license her dog. While this offense is only punishable by a fine, the police officer was required to arrest Watt.

Watt fully cooperated with the officer during her short custody. It was not apparent that she was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The search of Watt’s purse revealed nothing out of the ordinary. Additionally, a Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said she volunteered information about a previous arrest for a minor drug offense in 1974. This conviction had not shown up in the computer search done by the police until she gave her surname. The police conducted a pat down search.

During this time Watt was told that she would need to post bail of $160. She did not have the cash with her so she called a neighbor to bring the money and to pick up her son. The police were aware that she would be released shortly.

The police then told Watt that because she had a criminal history record that she would be required to submit to a visual strip search. This is in regard to a policy of the city that states that any individual who is detained on a drug charge, shoplifting (petit larceny) charge, or weapons charge, or has a history of any of these offenses, must be strip searched.

Watts protested the strip search, but finally submitted. This included a visual body cavity inspection performed by a female communications officer. The strip complied with the policy of city and took place in a cell that had no windows or television cameras. The strip search was negative as were the other searches.

Case Discussion and Verdict

Analysis of the policy of the city in regards to a strip search begins with the decision made by the Supreme Court in the case of Bell versus Wolfish, which approved a policy that allowed strip searches of detainees after they had contact with an outside visitor. The reasoning was that it would deter the smuggling of weapons and contraband being brought into the facilities.

In this particular case, it is not the city’s policy on strip searches that is in question. It is the question of whether or not the strip search was valid in this particular case. The police would not have known of the prior drug conviction of Ms. Watt had she not been forthcoming with the information. In addition, she was cooperative, obviously sober, and rational throughout the process. This behavior should have been considered before the strip search was conducted. For these reasons this court is affirming the prior courts judgment in the case.

At Stephen Bilkis & Associates we offer free consultations to anyone that is in need of legal advice, whether you have been charged with sex crimes, theft or a drug crime. We have several office locations throughout the metropolitan area of Manhattan for your convenience. You may call and talk to one of our expert lawyers at any time and set up an appointment to get the legal advice that you need.

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

Case History

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

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

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

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

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

Case Discussion and Ruling

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

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

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

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

The appellant in this case is Gladys Carol Hutchinson. The appellee of the case is the state of Florida. The case is being heard in the second district, District Court of Appeal in the state of Florida.

Appeal

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant is appealing is a plea of nolo contendere for drug charges that she reserved the right to review through this court and was denied the right to suppress the charges.

Case Background

The case begins when the defendant, Gladys Carol Hutchinson, was shopping in a store using a shopping cart and was noticed by Jerry Geisler, the assistant manager of the supermarket. Geisler states that the defendant aroused his suspicions because she had a large purse lying in her cart. The purse is described by Geisler as being approximately two feet across and about six to eight inches wide. He states that it looked like a carryon bag used on airlines. After observing the defendant he was convinced that she was shoplifting (petit larceny) and called the police.

The police arrived before Hutchinson had left the store. The police officer, Jerbie Bryan, instructed Geisler to go into the store and follow Hutchinson when she left. Bryan waited outside in the parking lot. Hutchinson left the store with her cart and the items that she had purchased. She was followed by Geisler and Bryan pulled his patrol car up next to Hutchinson’s vehicle. Geisler told the officer that Hutchinson was removing items from the purse and hiding them under the seat of her vehicle.

Office Bryan testified that he walked up to the vehicle and told Hutchinson that she was being accused of shoplifting. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said Hutchinson denied stealing anything. I asked to look in her bag and Hutchinson began taking things out of it. Bryan states that there were several small zip up bags and cloth bags inside the larger bag and Hutchinson opened some of the bags and refused to open some of the others. While this was going on Sergeant Robert Walker arrived on the scene.

When the process was completed, Office Bryan told Hutchinson to open all of the small bags. Bryan stated that Hutchinson opened a small bag and then immediately zipped it back up. His focus was then on this particular bag. He then asked to see the bag and she handed it to him. Inside was a container that held a white substance. He remembered seeing another jar with a similar substance in another bag.

The motion to suppress this evidence is made by the defendant as she stated the findings were based on an unreasonable search of her belongings. The state argues that the search is valid because Hutchinson agreed to it.

Case Conclusion

While the defendant seemed willing to allow a search of her belongings when being accused of shoplifting, it is also noted that she was reluctant to allow the small zipped up bags in her bag to be opened. Both officers admit that their suspicions were aroused because of the reluctance of the defendant to open one of the small zipped up bags.

For this reason, we find that the evidence found in the case should be suppressed as the search was not condoned by the defendant. We rule in favor of the appeal and reverse the previous decision that was made by the district court.

The law offices of Stephen Bilkis & Associates can help you through any type of legal situation, whether you have been charged with shoplifting, sex crimes or a drug charge. We have offices in the greater metropolitan area of Manhattan, making it easy to set up an appointment near where you live. You can call our office to set up a time to meet for your free consultation at any time.

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

Appeal

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

Case History

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

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

Previous Court Findings

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

The plaintiffs and appellee in the case is Virdie L. Smith et al. The defendants and appellants of the case are the Brookshire Brothers Inc. et al. The case is being heard in the fifth circuit of the United States Court of Appeals.

The Appeal

A New York Criminal Lawyer said in the original case, Donnie McClure and Virdie L. Smith sought damages against the Brookshire Brothers Inc, Kenneth Sandel and Glen Nevill. The reason for the case was malicious prosecution, civil rights violations, and false imprisonment. This particular suit was started because of the actions taken be Brookshire Brothers employees who took action against the appellee suspecting them of being shoplifters. In the original trial court damages were awarded to the plaintiffs and the defendants are appealing this verdict.

Original Case

On the 13th of September in 1971, Donnie McClure and Virdie Smith went to the Lufkin Brookshire Brothers to buy groceries. Virdie Smith put a few items in her cart and McClure placed a container of cold cream into the outer pocket of her purse. Smith went through the checkout and paid for the groceries. McClure was not leaving the store and had not gone through the checkout at this point, but was held by the defendants. Both women were taken to the back of the store where the Brookshire Brothers’ employees called the police. The policeman arrived at the store.

During his testimony the policeman states that he was not told how the plaintiffs were detained. He was simply informed that they had tried to take a container of cold cream. He took the women to the police station, on this basis alone, and proceeded to fingerprint them and book them. There was no written complaint filed when the women were transferred. The charges against the women were dropped as the district court stated that placing the container in her purse was suspicious, it was not grounds for detaining the woman for shoplifting (petit larceny) before she was given the chance to pay for it. The court also granted the plaintiffs each $6000 in damages for violation of their civil rights.

Case Discussion and Decision

For the defendants to be held liable in acting under the color of the law, evidence must be shown that detention of the plaintiffs without probable cause was being fostered. In this case, the police did not obtain the proper amount of information from the employees of Brookshire Brothers in order to make the arrest. A Bronx Criminal Lawyer said that according to the officer who detained the women the store had an agreement with the local police department in terms of dealing with shoplifters. When the employees suspected a shoplifter they would simply call the police and they would come and pick them up. When asked why Smith was detained as well, the police officer stated that in cases such as this it is likely the two are working as a team and had a plan before entering the store.

The district court found that there was enough evidence provided by the plaintiffs to show that they had no intention of stealing and that the store was acting under the color of the law. We affirm the original decision of the district court and the fine will stand in favor of the plaintiffs.

If you need legal advice whether it is for a theft crime, sex crimes or weapons charge, contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates for help. We have a team of lawyers that are willing to set up a free consultation with you in order to determine your best course of action. We have offices all over the city of New York for your convenience. There is no need to struggle over a legal situation alone as we are here to help.

Magnus Thorbenson was robbed by John Williams, also known as Larry Johnson, with another person. They held a knife to him as he arrived at Betty Hill’s apartment in Bronx. Mr. Thorbenson said they took his car keys, and that he saw them take off with his vehicle. A New York Criminal Lawyer found out that six days later Mr. Williams and his brother were caught in Mr. Thorbenson’s car. Both were charged with possession of a stolen property in New York County. Because of the information provided by Mr. Thorbenson and Ms. Hill, the police was able to ascertain that the two were suspects in the robbery which occurred in Bronx.

The Bronx police was notified by the New York County Assistant District attorney that they will be going for an indictment in New York County and will keep then updated in the progress. As for the Bronx police, they had Mr. Thorbenson’s photographic identification of Mr. Williams. He was then charged with the robbery and arrested within a few days of the filing said a New York Petit Larceny Lawyer.

Less than two months after his arrest and arraignment in Bronx County, the New York County District Attorney had agreed to charge him with a misdemeanor. Mr. Williams plead guilty to this and was sentenced to ninety-day imprisonment. The New York County District Attorney did not ask for adjournment to give the Bronx District Attorney a chance to get an indictment, according to a New York Possession of Stolen Property Lawyer.

Mr. Williams was placed in a line up in Bronx to be identified for the robbery. He asked for the case to be dismissed because of double jeopardy. A New York Robbery Lawyer said this protects a person from being tried multiple times for one act of crime. In this case, according to the Supreme Court, it is the act of stealing the car. Mr. Williams was already convicted of having possession of the stolen vehicle that rose from him having stolen it. If there was a difference in the aspect of the crime, it could still be tried, but both charges meant control over the car was taken without permission. The prosecution argues New York County did not have jurisdiction with the robbery committed. The court said, they knew of the case in Bronx and should have given the jurisdiction for both to Bronx, as it was the heavier crime. The ruling would have been different if New York County did not have knowledge of the prosecution in Bronx. The case was dismissed.

A case is judged by its own merit, but the law also protects a person from being prosecuted for the same crime more than once and be sentenced in addition to the first one. The prosecution cannot choose to charge with the lesser crime and charge with the bigger when one when evidence is available. There should be a different aspect presented.

If you have been convicted of a crime and in relation to that crime, you are charged again, you may have the jeopardy protection. Stephen Bilkis and Associates have experienced lawyers who can give you your options and go through with the process with you. We have offices all over New York and Long Island to serve you. They are in Queens, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Staten Island, and Manhattan, New York. In Long Island, the offices are in Suffolk County and Nassau County and Westchester County. Call us now at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW for legal assistance and a free consultation.

A suspected burglar has been caught on video tape in Queens and the search is on for a man who took some alcoholic beverages from a restaurant in Forest Hills, sources have revealed.
According to sources, the alleged thief broke in through the front window of the restaurant at 3 in the morning on March 29 and fled with some bottles of liquor.
In Brooklyn, a stripper and three of her friends, pole dancers, allegedly beat up an enemy of theirs in Sunset Park, authorities told New York Criminal Lawyers.
The 26-year-old woman and three other workers in her establishment are said to have attacked their victim at 4:10 a.m. on March 6 on the corner of 39th Street and Fourth Avenue.
Police explained in reports about the incident that the victim has been accused of pouring baby oil into the shoes of one of the women who later attacked her. No one yet knows why the victim would have done this, if it did indeed occur.
According to police, the vicious attack, in which the victim was punched and kicked in the head and face, resulted in brain swelling, some loss of vision, and a broken nose. She underwent surgery at Kings County Hospital.
The 26-year-old stripper later surrendered to police and faces charges of gang assault, menacing and harassment. According to her, she did nothing more than drive the vehicle which carried the other assailants. Police are still looking for the woman’s accomplices.
New York City Criminal Lawyers have heard of another alleged crime in Queens, this one involving a man who allegedly took cans of coffee from a Midwood supermarket at around 2 in the afternoon.
The 30-year-old suspect allegedly took 19 cans off coffee, packed them into a shopping back and walked past the registers and toward the exit, apparently not intending to pay for his caffeine craving.
Security confronted the suspect and he resisted, scratching a guard on the right cheek and nose in his attempt to get away, police indicated. The guard went to Lutheran Hospital, where his scratches were treated.

Continue reading "Stories from Queens and Brooklyn" »