Criminal Procedure

Published on: April 27, 2012

Victim Killed During Burglary

by Stephen Bilkis

On March 28, 1982, a young woman was alone in her apartment in Nassau County New York, when an assailant broke in to her apartment. A New York Lawyer said the assailant gagged her and put a belt around her neck. The young woman died that night due to asphyxiation as a result of the strangulation caused by the gag and belt. Her body was found the following day. The detective assigned to the case discovered that a man who was known to be a burglar of the type that had broken into the woman’s apartment, was known to her.

On March 31, 1982, the detective went to 46 Elm Avenue. He had information that the suspect lived there. He spoke to one of the suspect’s neighbors and left his business card with them to have him call. At 9:25 in the morning April 1st, the suspect called the detective ad agreed to meet with them on April 2nd; The suspect did not show up for the meeting. Upon looking into the suspect’s whereabouts more closely, the detective discovered that the suspect was on parole and had been at the time of the murder. He notified the suspect’s parole officer. The fact that the suspect had been requested to contact the police on April 1st and that he had not notified his parole officer was in essence a parole violation that the suspect could be arrested for.

On April 3rd, the detective met with the parole officer and the parole officer informed the detective that he had been unsuccessful in locating the suspect at his last known address. The police informed the parole officer that they had been informed by the suspect’s girlfriend that he had moved out of that apartment and that she did not know where he had moved to, but that he had not committed a gun crime.

Published on: April 27, 2012

Court Discusses Miranda Warning at DWI Stop

by Stephen Bilkis

Driving while Intoxicated or Driving Under the Influence of alcohol or drugs has become a more commonly charged offense than it has ever been. The reason for this is that the legally intoxicated limit has been substantially reduced in recent years. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the current intoxicated level is .08, but someone with an even lower limit can be charged with DUI if there are circumstances where the officer can prove that the driver was acting in a less safe manner. What that means is that even if the person exhibits no symptoms or behaviors of being intoxicated, the officer can charge them with DUI if they can show that the driver was less safe. What does a court consider less safe? It can be anything from missing a stop sign to having a fatal car accident. Less safe has not been sufficiently defined so that anyone can reasonably protect themselves from this type of charge.

There are several rules that anyone should know when it comes to being charged with DUI or DWI. The first is that the officer is supposed to have articulable suspicion to stop your car. Articulable suspicion means that the officer has observed driving mannerisms that either do constitute a traffic violation, or indicate that the driver may be impaired. Either way, the officer must show that he or she had a reason to stop the car. If there is no reason, or the reason is improper, everything after the stop is inadmissible in court.

Also, as soon as a police officer makes contact with a driver, they are attempting to determine if that driver is intoxicated or not. In order for a police officer to arrest a person for an offense, they must have probable cause to believe that that person is involved in a criminal pursuit. In the case of DUI, the officer must prove that he has probable cause to believe that the driver is intoxicated and less safe to drive the car.A Queens Criminal Lawyer said that means that all voluntary tests requested of you on the side of the road, are designed not to prove your innocence, but rather to obtain probable cause to place you under arrest.

Published on: April 26, 2012

Husand Moves to Violate Order for Protection

by Stephen Bilkis

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

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

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

Published on: April 25, 2012

Court Rules on Legality of Wiretapping

by Stephen Bilkis

On November 13, 1963, abortion was illegal in the state of New York. However, that does not mean that illegal abortions were not being performed. Abortion was treated like any other crime in New York and the following case describes the criminalization and fear that was attached to such crimes. A New York Criminal Lawyer said on May of 1962, a woman appeared before the Grand Jury of the state of New York and testified that three men were forcing her to be involved in a criminal abortion of the fetus that she carried. With this information in hand, the police set out to arrest the men involved in providing illegal abortions.

They obtained a court order from a Supreme Court judge for a wiretap of the woman’s phone. It was over this wiretap, that the police intercepted several telephone conversations arranging for the woman to pay the men $500 to conduct an illegal abortion. The wiretaps revealed that there was a criminal conspiracy to conduct this felony act in the state of New York. In order for a warrant to be obtained for a wiretap, the police officer must request the order from a judge and be deposed as to the facts of the case that warrant the necessity of such an order. In the present case, the judge also deposed the woman who stated the facts as she had stated them to the police officer. The wiretap was granted. Several months later, off of the record, the woman claimed that she had committed perjury before the grand jury in making the statements that she did. That perjury was subject to making the wiretap and all of the evidence that was obtained through it, illegal.

A few months later, the court sought an extension of the original order based on the same information as the first. The woman stated that on November 13, 1963 she went to 88-24 Merrick Boulevard for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. She stated that one of the three men gave her drugs in order to cause an abortion. A Bronx Criminal Lawyer said when that did not work, she gave the men $500 for the purpose of obtaining a doctor who had agreed to perform the abortion. At the time of the arrest in November, several items of the type used to induce an abortion were seized by the police and placed into evidence.

Published on: April 25, 2012

Appeal Looks at Defendant’s Special Condition of Parole

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: April 25, 2012

Court Decides Divorce in Light of Domestic Violence Allegations

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: April 25, 2012

Injured Security Guard Seeks to Make Worker’s Compensation Claim

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: April 25, 2012

Court Discusses Subject Matter Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendants in three cases challenge the rules promulgated by the Chief Judge and Chief Administrative Judge that created either the Bronx Criminal Division or Integrated Domestic Violence Part in Supreme Court, which resulted in the transfer of their misdemeanor prosecutions from local criminal courts to Supreme Court for trial. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that although they did not object to the transfer procedure in the trial court, they argued on appeal that Supreme Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over their trials and that the rules violate the New York Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Law.

The first case:

In January 2007, defendant was charged by misdemeanor information filed in New York City Criminal Court, Kings County, with multiple counts of aggravated harassment in the second degree after he contacted his former paramour by telephone 62 times in one evening and repeatedly threatened her with physical harm. Defendant and the complainant had been involved in multiple prior Family Court cases regarding disputes about their two children. After his arraignment in New York City Criminal Court, the case was transferred to the IDV Part in Kings County Supreme Court where a nonjury trial was conducted. Defendant was convicted of three counts of attempted aggravated harassment in the second degree and sentenced to concurrent terms of one year’s probation. He was also directed to participate in a variety of domestic violence accountability and other programs.

Published on: April 25, 2012

Court Discusses Jurisdiction of the IDV Court

by Stephen Bilkis

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

A New York DWI Lawyer said on 26 January 2011, the People declared their readiness for trial and defendant served motions on the Erie County District Attorney on 1 February 2011. While this Buffalo City Court action was pending, three petitions were simultaneously pending in Erie County Family Court between the defendant, complainant and a third family member concerning the custody of the defendant and complainant’s child. The pendency of these simultaneous criminal and Family Court matters with the underlying issue of domestic violence prompted a screening by the herein Court, the Supreme Court Integrated Domestic Violence (hereinafter IDV) Part, located in Erie County.

Accordingly, the Court determined that a transfer of the family’s cases to the IDV Part was appropriate by finding that said “transfer of the case to the Supreme Court would promote the administration of justice” pursuant to the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts for Integrated Domestic Violence Parts.

Published on: April 25, 2012

Court Looks at Possible Fraud in Domestic Violence Case

by Stephen Bilkis

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

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

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