Published on:

he 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution

Defendant is charged with two counts of violating Penal Law § 160.10(1), Robbery in the Second Degree as a class C felony; one count of violating Penal Law § 160.05, Robbery in the Third Degree as a class D felony; and three counts of violating Penal Law § 155.30(1), Grand larceny in the Fourth Degree as a class E felony. Codefendant Dwight Washington is charged with two counts of violating Penal Law § 160.10(1), Robbery in the Second Degree as a class C felony; one count of violating Penal Law § 160.05, Robbery in the Third Degree as a class D felony; two counts of violating Penal Law § 155.30(1), Grand larceny in the Fourth Degree as a class E felony; and one count of violating Penal Law § 155.25, Petit Larceny as a class A misdemeanor.

A Nassau County Criminal lawyer said that on January 13, 17, 18, 19, and 23, 2012, upon stipulation by the attorneys, this Court conducted a Huntley, Mapp, and Wade hearing.. The Huntley hearing pertained to various oral and written statements allegedly made by defendants. The Mapp hearing pertained to money allegedly seized from defendants, and various other items allegedly seized from the car owned.

The People called four (4) witnesses at the hearing. The Court finds the testimony of these witnesses to be credible.

Defense counsels argue that there was no reason or basis for the stop of the Toyota Camry in which the defendants were traveling. Defense counsels point out that at the time of the car stop, the Police had no information that a bank robbery had occurred and there was no Vehicle and Traffic Law basis to stop the vehicle. Criminal Defense counsels contend that all the Police had observed prior to the car stop were two individuals in heavy clothes running out of a bank. Further, defense counsels assert that the testimony adduced at the hearing failed to establish a basis for the defendants to be removed from the car and searched. Defense counsels conclude that everything occurring after the defendants were removed from the car should be suppressed.

The People respond that the Officer had a basis to stop the Toyota Camry based on the defendants’ suspicious actions; i.e., wearing inappropriate clothing for the season, pulling up hoods over their heads before entering a bank, and running out of the bank a minute later. The People argue that the defendants were properly removed from the Toyota Camry based on the excessive amount of money in the car. The People further argue that the search of the defendants, the duffel bag, and the car, including the trunk, were all proper since they occurred incident to a lawful arrest.

If you are a victim of robbery, our Nassau County Robbery Attorneys herein Stephen Bilkis and Associates will file the necessary complaint before the courts against the assailant. For other crimes, our Nassau County Criminal Lawyers are here to serve you.

Contact Information