New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: July 28, 2012

Police Uncover Drugs on Traffic Stop

by Stephen Bilkis

A police officer testified that he is a six-year member of the New York City Police Department and had worked as an anti-crime officer for approximately the past 3 ½ years. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he testified that he was on anti-drug crime duty on June 8, 2007 at 6:10 P.M. in the vicinity of West 145th Street. The police officer was seated in the rear passenger seat of an unmarked car traveling eastbound on West 145th Street driven by his partner. A police sergeant was traveling in the front passenger seat of the vehicle.

From approximately two or three car lengths ahead, the police officer stated that he observed a Mercedes-Benz, also traveling eastbound on West 145th Street, drive erratically by weaving in and out of lanes and attempt to make a U-turn. The officers responded by accelerating to catch up to the vehicle and putting on signals, lights, and sirens to indicate to the car’s driver that he should pull over. While the Mercedes-Benz was slowing down, but before it came to a complete stop, the police officer testified that he observed a tennis ball thrown from the right side of the car. The police officer stated that on prior occasions in the scope of his law enforcement duties he has seen tennis balls used as containers for narcotics. At an unspecified later point in time, the tennis ball was recovered and shown to the police officer who observed that the ball contained a slit that would allow narcotics to be placed inside of it. While the police officer stated that he was told by the other police officer that the tennis ball contained contraband, the parties entered into a stipulation that no contraband was ever recovered from inside the tennis ball.

After stopping the vehicle, the other police officer approached the driver and asked him for his license, registration and proof of insurance. The police officer stated that he observed his fellow officer ask the driver to get out of the vehicle and pat him down. The driver was then taken to the rear of the Mercedes-Benz where the police officer was standing with the police sergeant. The other police officer took the individual seated in the rear driver side out of the vehicle, patted him down and handcuffed him.

Published on: July 28, 2012

Defendant Moves to Suppress Physical Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

A detective led a police team that was investigating the deaths of a two man. The bodies of the two victims were discovered in the bathroom of the other man’s apartment. Both men had been bound with duct tape and shot through the head. When the detective and his colleague went to the apartment, they smelled a strong odor of marijuana and observed marijuana residue (marijuana possession). The police later discovered that the other man had been a low-level drug dealer.

A witness, who claimed to have been a close friend of the other victim undergone interview with the detective, during their discussions, the witness stated that he knew the victim and they had been friends for fifteen years. The witness also stated that the victim had been a marijuana dealer with regular clientele. He also revealed that he had been present in the victim’s apartment when the victim sold between a half-pound and a pound of marijuana to another man. The witness also asserts that the victim had also been well acquainted with his client, whom he sold the pound of marijuana. The witness further states that the victim told him about a shipment of 30 to 50 pounds of marijuana and had some out-of-town buyers for it. The victim was nervous about so large a shipment and his client was present when the victim mentioned the prospective sale to the witness.

The police utilized the information from the witness to obtain a photograph of the victim’s client. They put the photograph into a computer-generated photo array which they showed the witness. The witness identified the person pictured in the photograph as the client who purchased the marijuana from the victim. The police also obtained a number of addresses of locations that were linked to the client. Another detective informed the head detective that the victim’s client had a reputation for robbing drug dealers. At about 7:00 pm that same day, the detectives visited one of the apartments in the hope of finding the victim’s client.

Published on: July 28, 2012

Court Discusses Jurisdiction in Drug Crimes Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The grand jury of the special narcotics courts voted a verdict against the four men charging them with four counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, four counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and two counts of conspiracy in the fourth degree. However, the four men filed discovery motions. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the state of New York then supplied the grand jury minutes to the court for in camera examination. After examining the minutes, the court ordered the parties to submit additional memoranda of law on two jurisdictional questions.

First, the charges does not contain any drug crime related charge, does the grand jury of the special narcotics courts have subject matter jurisdiction? Second, the special narcotics grand jury has subject matter jurisdiction, does it also have geographic jurisdiction?

On the proceeding, the state of New York alleges that a confidential informant contacted a man to offer an opportunity to rob drug dealers with a valuable supply of narcotics and/or cash. The man allegedly accepted the informant’s offer and engaged the three other men to be part of the robbery gang. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the case detectives instructed the informant to tell the four men that the robbery location was in Bronx. Apparently, it is also alleged that the informant and the four men loaded two vehicles with a number of weapons and went to that Bronx location with the intention to commit a burglary and a robbery.

Published on: July 28, 2012

Teenager Faces Drug Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

On January 23, 1990 a police detective was looking through a one-way mirror at the passengers lined-up waiting for a bus to go to Virginia. The detective noticed a girl who looked no more than 13 years old lined up all by herself without a parent or guardian travelling with her. The detective also noticed that she had a bulge underneath her zipped-up coat.

Aware that some drug dealers used teenagers as drug mules to bring drugs across through state lines, and fearing that the teenager may be a runaway, the detective approached her and talked to her.

The detective sat behind her on the bus. The detective asked her first if she didn’t mind speaking to her and she assented. He asked her if she was travelling alone, how old she was and where she was headed. The girl confirmed that she was travelling alone and that she was on her way to visit family in Norfolk. She also claimed that she was 18 years old.

Published on: July 28, 2012

Defendant Claims Initial Questioning by Police was Unjustified

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

An NYPD Officer, a nine-year veteran, investigates drug sales in lower Manhattan. He has made 500 narcotics-related arrests.

On 28 February 2010, the officer and his partner entered the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) building. They were there to conduct a vertical floor-by-floor patrol of the premises during which the officers search for loiterers, drug users, people consuming alcohol and trespassers. In housing projects, unlike police procedures applicable to private apartment buildings, officers may question anyone they encounter to determine whether they are on the premises lawfully. Sometimes, at his discretion, the officer requires that purported residents provide identification or a key. Such individuals must prove that they are not trespassers and persons claiming to be legitimate visitors must also supply corroboration.

Published on: July 27, 2012

Court Discusses Search and Seizure in Traffic Stop

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff in the case is the People of the State of New York. The defendant in the case is Craig W. Dixon. The case is being heard in the District Court of Suffolk County, First District. Judge Howard M. Bergson is hearing the case.

The defendant, Craig W. Dixon has been charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI), refusing to submit to a field sobriety test, and failing to maintain a line. A Dunaway, Huntley, and refusal hearing has been held in the matter to determine the evidence found against the defendant that will be admissible in trial.

Case Facts

Published on: July 27, 2012

Defendant Questions Charges of Alcotest

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs in the case. The defendant is Leonard DiBari. The case is being heard in Westchester County, Justice City of the Town of North Castle. Judge Elyse Lazansky is overseeing the case.

The defendant, Leonard DiBari, is charged with driving while ability impaired by alcohol. During the course of the non-jury trial and pretrial hearings the defense has objected the prosecution’s use of simulator solution certificates and certified calibration records.

Case Background

Published on: July 27, 2012

Court Discusses Wire Transfer Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiffs in this case are Michael and Mary Marcantonio. The defendants in the matter are Michael Picozzi, III, Viola, Benedetti, Azzolini & Morano, LLC, Project Real Estate, Inc., and John McHugh. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Nassau County. Judge Michele M. Woodard is hearing the case.

Case Information

A New York Criminal Lawyer said in the first motion sequence the defendants Michael Picozzi, III, and Viola, Benedetti, Azzolini & Morano, LLC have moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that there is no cause of action stated.

Published on: July 27, 2012

Attorney Accused of Mail Fraud

by Stephen Bilkis

This case deals with the respondent Lewis Novod who is an attorney and counselor at law. The petitioner in the matter is the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, and First Department.

Case Background

The respondent, Lewis Novod was admitted to practice law in the state of New York by the First Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the state of New York on the 14th of October, 1972. The respondent has maintained his practice of law in the First Judicial Department.

Published on: July 27, 2012

Defendant Seeking Funds from Sale of a Home

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff in the case is Joachim Harris. The defendants in the case are Chandra M. Young, et al. The case is being heard in the New York State Supreme Court. The Honorable Melvin S. Barasch is the justice hearing the case.

Case Facts and Background

The action in this case comes from the sale of a real property that was owned by the plaintiff. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the property is located at 176 Malta Street in the city of Brooklyn. The plaintiff sold the property to defendant Michael Greene on the 24th of August, 2001. The price was $255,000. The plaintiff states that he was defrauded by the plaintiffs as they withheld all but $180,000 from the sale of the home.