Published on:

Defendant Set Up in Sting Operation


When police officers make an arrest, it is important that they do so in the proper jurisdiction. The case must then be presented to the Grand Jury if it is a felony. A New York Criminal Lawyer said hat Grand Jury must be in the correct venue to draw an indictment. If it is not, then the case is not legal. One such case was served as a motion from a defendant on June 5, 2005. The defendant claimed that the indictment against him needed to be dismissed because the crime had not occurred in New York County.

The police detective contends that over a period of several weeks, he had telephone conversations with a confidential informant. This informant provided him with information that the defendant and several of his friends had a plan to rob some drug dealers. He stated that the group planned to stockpile some weapons (possession of a weapon) and create a robbing gang. This gang would target drug dealers and rob them of their drugs and cash. The informant contacted the police department. The police detective told the informant to give this robbing gang bad information about a non-existent drug dealer who had 60 kilos of cocaine and a large amount of money. The gang began to make their plans. The detective told the informant that the address that he was to give to the gang was an address in the Bronx. The defendant and his accomplices were arrested and indicted. They maintained that none of the telephone conversations that were the crux of the case occurred in New York County. Because they did not occur in New York County, the state could not prosecute the crimes of conspiracy to commit a crime and the numerous other charges that the gang was indicted on.

The prosecutor makes the argument that the intended target was an address in the Bronx which was in New York county. The prosecutor contends that the intended target would make the case venue New York County. The Supreme Court disagreed. A Long Island Criminal Lawyer said they made several disparaging remarks directed at the prosecutor and at the detectives involved in this case. They contend that the detective did not ascertain the jurisdiction that he or the confidential informant were in at the time that the phone calls were made. Since the jurisdictional issues cannot be formulated based on the locations of each party to the calls, then the court is not able to establish venue for the hearings. They contend that the argument that would apply the jurisdictional issue to the proposed target location is not realistic. The court contends that the crime took place at the location in which one or both of the parties to the telephone conversation were located at the time of the conversation. If the jurisdiction cannot be determined, then the case is not able to continue.

The prosecution again made an argument that the detective was located in New York County and that he should have the benefit of prosecuting the members of this group. The Supreme Court does not agree. They chastised the prosecutor for bringing a case before them without any indication of the locations where the conversations took place. The court told the prosecutor that the job that had been done on this case in an attempt to create a jurisdictional acceptance was not at all appropriate to the situation. Further, the judge continued by pointing out that the Special Narcotics Task Force did not have any authorization to conduct the type of operation that was conducted. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the problems with the case are so numerous that the court elected to dismiss the indictment against the defendant. However, the court did leave room for the prosecution to reopen the indictment once they have established proper venue.

At Stephen Bilkis & Associates with its drug crime Lawyers, have convenient offices throughout New York and Metropolitan area. Our defense lawyers can provide you with advice to guide you through difficult situations. Without a drug attorney, you could lose precious compensation to help your family.

Contact Information