New York

Published on: April 6, 2013

Defendants Claim Faulty Search Warrant

by Stephen Bilkis

On September 25, 2003, the Associate Village Justice of this Court signed a search warrant directed to “any police officer of the County of Nassau.” A New York Criminal Lawyer said the search warrant provided: “Proof, by affidavit, having been this day made before me by Senior Building Inspector, Village of Westbury, Public Works, Village of Westbury and Department of Public Works, Village of Westbury that there is probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant, as set forth in the affidavit and Exhibits attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein; you are therefore, commanded to make a search with Senior Building Inspector and his agents, between 09/25/03 and 10/02/03 in the hours between 6:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. of the entire premises designated and described as 335 Princeton Street, Westbury, New York. “The seizure of the foregoing evidence shall be limited to the taking of still photographs and videotape pictures of the inside and outside of the premises. This warrant must be executed within 10 days of the date of signing and a return to court 10 days thereafter. “If you find the same or any part thereof you are hereby directed to return and deliver said evidence to the undersigned Justice of the Village Court without unnecessary delay.”

A Bronx Criminal Lawyer said that, the Senior Building Inspector submitted what may be described as an exhaustive affidavit in support of the application. This Court wonders why, in view of the thoroughness of this affidavit and the apparent pre-warrant investigation, that a search and search warrant were needed at all unless the Village is simply trying to test the legal waters in this case to determine whether they may have another tool at their disposal, namely search warrants, that they may use to enforce the Village’s zoning and building code laws. The application for and the execution of a search warrant may in themselves deter the proliferation of illegal housing. The execution of a search warrant is an extremely frightening event for those subject to it. The court questions the need for this warrant because there is no legal requirement that a warrant be obtained in order to take photos of the outside of the premises from a public thoroughfare in front of the home. However, this Court finds that the Village has acted in good faith attempting; for example, to obtain the homeowner’s consent for the search prior to seeking the warrant and no doubt believing that similar actions have been approved and utilized in other villages without challenge.

A Bronx Criminal Lawyer said that, the subject property, 335 Princeton Street, is a two story house within the Incorporated Village of Westbury, New York. As shown on the records of the Department of Buildings of the Village of Westbury it is located on a quiet residential block consisting of one (1) family homes neatly maintained on a tree lined block.

Published on: March 18, 2013

Defendant Contends She Did Not Know She was Possessing Drugs

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal Lawyer said this case involves a 17 year old juvenile who is challenging an adjudication made against her for possession of drug paraphernalia.

Case Background

The girl was driving her car with three friends. She was involved in a car accident. When the police arrived at the scene of the accident the driver’s side door was opened. The juvenile stated that the car belonged to her mom, but she used it quite often. The officer looked in the car through the open door and saw a glass item on the floorboard. He recognized it as a pipe that is often used to smoke illegal substances.

Published on: December 16, 2012

Court Discusses Alleged Heroin Conspiracy

by Stephen Bilkis

A Georgia Intent to Distribute Lawyer said that, the defendant appeals his conviction after trial to a jury for conspiring to possess cocaine (drug possession) with intent to distribute it, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 846, and to distribute it, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1). This court recently affirmed an earlier conviction of defendant for conspiracy to possess and to distribute heroin. On the present appeal a Georgia Heroin Lawyer said that defendant contends that the government arbitrarily has carved a single conspiracy to deal in narcotics into separate heroin and cocaine conspiracies in violation of his Fifth Amendment right against twice being placed in jeopardy for the same offense.

A Georgia Heroin Lawyer said that, the government’s proof in the heroin conspiracy trial established that defendants arranged sales of heroin for their cocaine customer a Detective, who unknown to them was an undercover DEA Agent. Co-defendant, who pled guilty, and the Detective testified against defendant in both trials. The government presented to the jury portions of defendant’s own testimony from the heroin conspiracy trial in the trial on the cocaine conspiracy charge. During July 1976, conspiratorial negotiations involving cocaine and heroin went on simultaneously. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the major events proven in defendant’s trial on the heroin conspiracy charge which we discussed in our earlier opinion affirming that conviction, were also central to the government’s proof against defendant’s in the trial on the cocaine conspiracy charge.

The issue in this case is whether defendant’s claim for double jeopardy should be granted.

Published on: November 8, 2012

Defendant Raises Issues Regarding 6th and 14th Amendments

by Stephen Bilkis

Under Massachusetts procedure, a ‘two-tier’ system is utilized for trial of a variety of criminal charges. The initial trial under this system is in a county district court or the Municipal Court of the City of Boston. No jury is available in these courts, but persons who are convicted in them may obtain a de novo trial, with a jury, in the appropriate superior court by lodging an ‘appeal’ with that court. At the de novo trial, all issues of law and fact must be determined anew and are not affected by the initial disposition. In effect, the taking of the appeal vacates the district court or Municipal Court judgment, leaving the defendant in the position of defendants in other States which require the prosecution to present its proof before a jury.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said in January 1974, appellant was charged with knowing unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, an offense under Mass.Gen.Laws, c. 90 § 24(2)(a). The offense is subject to the two-tier system described above. Prior to trial in the Municipal Court, appellant moved for a jury trial. The motion was denied and the trial before the court resulted in a judgment of guilty. A one-year prison sentence was imposed. Appellant thereupon lodged an appeal in the Superior Court for SuffolkCounty.

Without awaiting proceedings in Superior Court, appellant appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court, seeking to establish that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require that a jury be available in his first trial, whether it be in the Municipal Court or the Superior Court. He also raised speedy trial and double jeopardy contentions as bars to his retrial before a jury.

Published on: October 1, 2012

Court Discusses the Blockburger Test

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, the appellant appealed his convictions and sentences for fraudulent sale of a counterfeit controlled substance, and felony petit theft. He argued that both charges arose out of the same acts, and that this double conviction should be barred by section 775.021(4)(a) and (b), Fla.Stat.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the record of this case established that Appellant told an undercover officer that he had rock cocaine for sale. He sold the officer a substance which proved not to be cocaine. For the fraudulent sale, he was sentenced as a habitual offender to ten years in prison. For the felony petit larceny, he received a consecutive two-year term on community control followed by three years on probation.

The Florida Legislature has announced its intent that there should be separate and multiple convictions for each statutory offense that is committed during the course of a criminal transaction or episode. In section 775.021(4)(b) the Legislature set out basically only two exceptions to this policy. Subsections 1 and 3 are encompassed by the Blockburger test: statutory offenses which require proof of all of the same elements of proof; and those that require fewer, but identical elements of proof, which are necessarily included in the elements of the greater offense. Subsection 2 excepts “degree” crimes, such as the various forms of homicide.

Published on: August 29, 2012

Defendant Arraigned on a Fugitive from Justice Complaint

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 20 May 2009, defendant was arraigned on a fugitive from justice complaint based on an arrest warrant issued on 11 May 2009, Delaware County of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The arrest warrant charged the defendant with the following felonies: one count of Criminal Solicitation, two counts of Criminal Solicitation and one count of Criminal Use of a Communication Facility, all of which were allegedly committed on 2 October 2008.

On 27 October 2009, defendant sought to withdraw the Waiver of Governor’s Warrant of Extradition and Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Waiver of Extradition”) executed by him on his arraignment as a fugitive of justice from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on 20 May 2009.

Published on: August 15, 2012

Court Reverses Rape Conviction

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the respondents in this case. The defendant and appellant in the matter is Edward Murphy. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the case is being heard in the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. The defendant is appealing an order made by the Supreme Court of Bronx County that convicted him after a jury trial of the crime of rape in the first degree and sentenced him to a lesser sentence concurrent with a conviction of rape in the first degree.

Court Records

In review of the case it is found that the defendant offered statements to the court standing by his plea of guilty. He bargained for this plea and did not want to withdraw it. The statements made to the probation officer that were thought by the court to be a protestation of innocence were not inquired into the court in any extent. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the order of the court to vacate the guilty plea must be set aside in this particular case.

Published on: June 18, 2012

Court Determines if Unlawful Surveillnce is a Sex Crime

by Stephen Bilkis

A 55 year old man, after violating a criminal law, has been placed under the Strict and Intensive Supervision and Treatment (SIST) under a sex offender civil management proceeding. Subsequently, the State filed for a petition to revoke the respondent SIST’s placement and requested the court for the respondent to be transferred under a Secure Treatment Facility under Article 10 of the Mental Health Law. The court denied the petition.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the respondent acknowledged that he was a drug user from 1980 up to 1993. He admitted having marijuana possession and used it during his teenage years. His addiction relating to drug crime led him to commit several offences. In 1994, the court has found him guilty of Attempted Rape in the First Degree, Sexual Abuse in the First Degree and Burglary in the First Degree for entering an apartment of a lady and while holding a knife, placed her hand on his penis. Prior to this incident, he was a known exhibitionist masturbating in public places while his penis was partially exposed to public view. He admitted that he suffered from a Mental Health Abnormality thus the State entered an agreement for him to be placed and monitored under the SIST.

On August 11, 2010, the respondent placed his cellphone camera under the skirt of a woman in Union Square Park with the intention of photographing the victim. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the victim upon its discovery threw the cell phone and scuffled with the respondent. In course of the incident, the victim suffered physical injuries. In addition to this incident, a parole officer mandated to supervise him during the program testified that the respondent violated the terms of the agreement by masturbating in a public place. The respondent admitted to masturbating inside the stall of a public restroom and a library.

Published on: May 25, 2012

Sex Crime Causes Court to Weigh Penal Law 125.27

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Kings County Supreme Court. The Justice overseeing the case is Joel M. Goldberg. The defendant in the case is Otis Carr who is represented by Robert M. Baum from the Legal Aid Soc. The plaintiff in the case is the People of the State of New York. The People are represented by the Kings County District Attorney Charles J. Hynes and the Kings County Assistant District Attorney John Barker.

Case Issue

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the matter at hand involves whether the statutory language that is found in Penal Law 125.27 and states “more than 18 years old” means “at least 19 years old” as contended by the defendant.

Published on: May 10, 2012

Policeman Charged with Recieving a Bribe

by Stephen Bilkis

Police operated sting operations can be set up for many different reasons. Most of the time, they are set up like drag net to catch everyone that they can in a determined crime and location. However, sometimes, a sting operation can be set up in order to trap one person whose actions are so abhorrent to the public definition that to allow their conduct to continue would be a breach of justice. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that is usually the case when a public servant who has been entrusted with the well-being of the society goes astray and violates that sacred public trust.

When a police officer violates that public trust, the case is even more important to the other police officers whose names have been sullied by the dishonor that another person has placed on their positions. In August of 1994, the police in Queens County received information from an informant that a police officer was engaging in illegal activities. The police department decided to set up a sting in order to catch this criminal police officer in the act. They arranged for an officer that the criminal officer did not know to pose as a drug dealer. This undercover officer was assigned to approach the suspected officer with a deal to protect a felony shipment of drug money for the undercover officer who was posing as a drug dealer. The two officers met and surveillance officers were taping the encounter. A deal was struck for the criminal police officer to work for the drug dealer to ensure that the drug money was transported safely. The police officer was arrested and charged with a bribery for public service in the third degree, receiving reward for official misconduct in the second degree, official misconduct, and computer trespass.

The defendant appealed his conviction on the grounds that he would not have considered the offense if it had not been created and sold to him so effectively. While this allegation may sound like entrapment, it falls just short of entrapment in that the officers conducting the sting were acting on a tip from an informant. They did not simply single this officer out in an arbitrary manner to tempt him into committing a crime. The officer contends that it is exactly what they did. He claims that he was innocent of any crime until the sting operation seduced him into committing the crime.