New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: May 12, 2012

Defendant Contends with Premises Liability Issues

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts of the Case:

A New York Drug Posession Lawyer said the plaintiff was a tenant in a building located at Academy Street in Manhattan, owned by defendant-one and managed by defendant-two.

On 26 February 2002, in the early afternoon, plaintiff entered the building through the lone entrance available to the tenants. A man whom plaintiff did not recognize entered the building immediately after her. The man walked ahead of plaintiff up a staircase, which plaintiff was using to reach her unit on the second floor. As plaintiff opened the door to her apartment, the man, who had continued up the staircase when plaintiff walked from the staircase to her unit, ran down the staircase and pushed plaintiff into the apartment. The man then sexually assaulted plaintiff at gunpoint.

Published on: May 12, 2012

Court Finds Witness Testimony Uncredible

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts of the Case:

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that on 10 September 1992 evening, two people arrived at the corner of East 213th Street and Bronxwood Avenue in a BMW. Already present were Defendant and seven (7) other people, two of which were brothers. All of these individuals were known to each other, had some type of criminal background. Four (4) of them all sold drugs in the vicinity, with one working for Defendant.

Meanwhile, two other brothers, one went into a nearby restaurant while the other did the same or used a nearby telephone.

Published on: May 12, 2012

Defendant Contends Police Initiated Contact Inappropropriate

by Stephen Bilkis

On 23 January 1997 at approximately 3:30 A.M., an investigator from the Albany County Sheriff’s Department boarded a bus which had arrived from New York City. The investigator, wearing civilian clothing with his police badge prominently displayed on his coat, was accompanied by two other officers. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the investigator announced that they were conducting a drug interdiction and asked everyone on board, approximately fifteen passengers, to produce bus tickets and identification. He then proceeded to the back of the bus to begin examining those items from each passenger.

As the investigator was walking to the rear of the bus, he observed defendant and a female companion, sitting in the last row of seats, push a black object between them. He approached the two individuals and asked for their identification and bus tickets. The investigator then obtained consent to search defendant’s bag which led to the discovery of a digital scale; asked defendant and his companion to stand at which time he saw a black jacket on defendant’s seat. The officer found more than two ounces of cocaine in the jacket pocket (drug possession).

Defendant was indicted on one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, drug crimes.

Published on: May 11, 2012

Defendant Contends Lack of Jurisdiction for Warrant

by Stephen Bilkis

Issues surrounding search warrants can become complicated, especially if the court that issues the search warrant is not sure if they are even able to issue a search warrant. On September 25, 2003, an associate village justice signed a search warrant for a building inspector. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the building inspector was seeking to inspect a single family home in the Village of Westbury that he believed was being used as a multiple family dwelling. He had conducted several days of observation of the dwelling and noticed that there were two entrances, one entrance into the home in the front of the house and one entrance in the back.

There were eight bicycles parked in back, and six cars parked in front. The garbage was deposited on the curb in front of the house, and more was located at the back door. The estimated garbage load was four to five times the amount that the garbage collector stated that he collected from other houses. The building inspector had received several complaints from the neighbors based on the number of people who were living in the dwelling. The estimate was around 17. The building inspector, who had previously worked in a different village, was familiar with obtaining search warrants in his previous village. He had attempted to inspect the property on numerous occasions and he had been denied entry. He counted the number of people going in and out of the residence. The cars were registered to that address, but they had owners with several different last names.

The justice authorized the warrant for a police officer of Nassau County. The warrant specifically detailed that the evidence to be collected was to be limited to photographs of evidence that the house had been converted into a multiple family dwelling. A New York Criminal Lawyer said when the warrant was served, it was served on the house at six in the morning. Several of the people who were living in the house were only partially clothed. The officers took photographs documenting the locks on each room that denoted private living quarters inside the single family dwelling. They documented exposed wiring, plumbing, and other dangerous additions that had been made so that multiple people could reside in the single family home. In these pictures were some of the residents of the house, some of them were only partially clothed.

Published on: May 11, 2012

Drug Possession Defendant Contends No Probable Charge for Search

by Stephen Bilkis

One early morning in August of the year 2000, a police officer and his partner were on patrol in uniform in a marked patrol car. The officer testified that he had been a member of the New York City Police Department for four years and had made approximately 10 arrests involving cocaine possession or marijuana possession, had received training with respect to narcotics and marijuana at the police academy, and been involved in over 100 criminal law and drug crime related arrests. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the officer also testified that he considered interaction with criminals as part of his training on the subject of narcotics, and that he had been involved with hundreds of suspects who were under the influence of alcohol or marijuana. Specifically, the officer testified that he had seen loose tobacco in piles in stairwells, on sidewalks, and most commonly alongside glassine envelopes, and based upon these experiences as a police officer, he had learned that the presence of loose tobacco was a result of an individual emptying out a Philly Blunt cigar and refilling it with marijuana and/or cocaine.

At approximately 4:00 A.M. on August 7, while in the patrol car, the officer observed the accused standing next to a parked automobile. The car was parked on the parking apron in front of a closed auto repair shop. The officer testified that the location is in the vicinity of a nightclub. The officer testified that the neighborhood near this club is patrolled more heavily because there are a lot of problems that stem from the said nightclub. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the the officer stopped at a red light, he saw the accused standing outside the open driver’s door, throwing garbage over his shoulder which landed several feet behind him. The officer also observed a passenger in the front seat of the car.

The officer pulled his patrol car into the lot behind the accused man’s vehicle and approached the accused. The accused apologized for throwing the trash and began picking it up. The officer asked the accused for his license, registration and insurance. The officer asked the accused whose car it was and the accused responded that it was his car. The accused then gave the officer a New Jersey license which had the name and bore his photograph. The officer observed that the accused had glassy eyes, was unsteady on his feet, had trouble responding to the officer’s questions, and had slurred speech. The passenger of the car had exited the car and began yelling at the officer.

Published on: May 11, 2012

Defendant Charged with Possession of a Controlled Substance

by Stephen Bilkis

The Court of Appeals held that a conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance premised upon an offering for sale theory must be supported by evidence of a bona fide offer to sell, which means that the evidence must show that the accused had both the intent and the ability to proceed with the sale. The accused assert that the evidence supporting the conviction was insufficient because no drugs were recovered by the police upon their arrest. A New York DWI Lawyer said they also claim that the court erred in failing to specifically instruct the jury that it could convict the accused only if it found that they had both the intent and ability to proceed with the sale.

The case originates from community complaints received by the New York City Police Department regarding drug crime and narcotics sales in Manhattan. A New York DWI Lawyer said in response, an undercover buy-and-bust operation was organized for the afternoon of April 24, 1998, in which undercover officer would attempt to purchase drugs at the location, a location where he had previously purchased crack and guilty of cocaine possession.

On that day, the undercover approached a group of individuals using the street term for crack, asked where he could get some. The accused the undercover what he was looking for and the undercover responded. The accused told the undercover he only had $10 per bag and the undercover ordered two dimes.

Published on: May 11, 2012

Defense Takes Issue with Warrantless Search

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was convicted on his guilty plea of marijuana possession in the first degree. His motion to cover up the evidence of marijuana cultivation seized by state police on a search warrant was denied. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the appellate division generally affirmed in a memorandum agreeing with the court’s conclusion that the man’s act of posting no trespassing signs about every 20 to 30 feet around the perimeter of his property, which consisted of 165 acres of rural, hilly, undeveloped, uncultivated fields and woodlands except for the man’s cultivation of marijuana, did not establish an expectation of privacy cognizable under the right to privacy protection of the constitution.

On execution of the search warrant, the state police with assistance of sheriff’s department searched the property owned by the man. The application for the warrant included the in camera testimony of a private citizen, who had shot and wounded a deer and followed it onto the man’s property. The private citizen observed what appeared to be the remnants of a marijuana growing operation. When the private citizen entered the property again, he testified that he saw approximately 50 marijuana plants under cultivation. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the private citizen reported the information to the state police and gave a leaf that he obtained from one of the plants on the property. Consequently, an investigator accompanied the private citizen to the site where the investigator personally observed the plants. None of the entries of the Investigator or the private citizen was with the man’s knowledge or permission.

The warrant application contained tax maps showing that the property belonged to the man and a report of an anonymous telephone tip that the man was growing marijuana on the said property. The court then found that the property was noticeably marked with no trespassing signs which is clearly visible and indeed observed by not only the private citizen but the police units entering the property. The residence consisted of a mobile home with no utilities which located near the road. The marijuana plants were not found within the area around the man’s mobile home but some 300-400 yards away.

Published on: May 11, 2012

drug

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was charged with four counts of the drug crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance, four counts of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and seventh degree.

The charges contained pertaining to four sales and cocaine possession allegedly made by the man to two undercover police officers. The incident took place in a public school, a junior high school, where the man was employed as a security guard.

At the trial, the case against the man is consisted of the testimony of a detective and a police officer. The detective testified that he was assigned to the narcotics unit of the police department as an undercover police officer and he was instructed to conduct an investigation inside the public school. The investigation was done with the knowledge of the board of education which provided him with bogus credentials. The detective was identified as another person and a staff analyst for the board. According to the detective’s testimony, during the first few days at the school he became acquainted with staff members, initiated conversations about the subject of drugs with some staff members, who were under age forty, since persons of that age were more likely to be involved in drugs. The investigator first spoke to the man, who the witness knew to be a security guard. Another conversation with the security guard was done by the investigator and followed again by another person but neither one of those occasions did they discuss the subject of drugs.

Published on: May 11, 2012

Court Discusses Probable Cause in Drug Possession Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The police officers of the 32nd precinct in New York City were assigned to conduct surveillance over the corner of 128th Street and 8th Avenue because this was known as a high-drug crime area. Many arrests for cocaine possession and heroin possession have been made at this corner.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that tne police officer saw perched atop a condemned building, holding binoculars and observing the goings on at the street corner. His partner was near the street corner, waiting for a signal from his partner on the rooftop.

At 1:30 pm of February 26, 1977, the police officer on the rooftop saw one man at the corner. Most passersby hurry on by but that man stayed put. He kept having brief conversations with those who come by him but those people moved on. The man stayed. The officer observed the man for forty-five minutes.

Published on: May 11, 2012

Court Decides if Defendant’s Sentences Should Run Concurrently

by Stephen Bilkis

At approximately noon on July 12, 1982, defendant savagely attacked a man in his apartment. After defendant took certain items of jewelry from the man, defendant’s accomplice bound the man, and defendant slashed the man’s neck twice with a knife. The perpetrators then foraged around the apartment for loot. The defendant returned to check the man’s pulse, and stabbed him several times in the back of the neck. After a final search of the apartment, the accomplice, an acquaintance of the man, told defendant to “make sure”. The defendant returned and stabbed the man twice in the chest. The perpetrators then placed two mattresses over the man, set them afire, and left. The man miraculously survived, due to a blood clot in his jugular vein.

Subsequently, the defendant was arrested and, following a jury trial, was found guilty of attempted murder in the second degree, two counts of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, two counts of assault in the first degree, and two counts of burglary in the first degree.

The sentencing court found that the attempted murder occurred after the robbery and burglary were completed.