New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: April 22, 2012

Woman Claims DWI Stop Was Not Lawful

by Stephen Bilkis

Many issues of law are important to cases of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. In some cases, these lines can be blurred. However, when it comes to what rights an officer has to stop a vehicle, the law has stated that an officer only needs to have articulable reasonable suspicion that a crime is afoot. However, to make an arrest, an officer must have probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person under suspicion was involved in the commission of that crime in one way or another. A New York DWI Lawyer said that sometimes, a person may attempt to have their case reviewed by the court in order to suppress some or all of the evidence against them. When this happens, it is clear that often it involves the legality of the traffic stop itself.

If the legality is not in place, the traffic stop is not legal. If the traffic stop is not legal then everything after that stop is not admissible. This is an example of the exclusionary rule. Any evidence that is obtained as the result of an illegal search or seizure is considered fruit of the poisonous tree. It is not admissible in a court of law. Therefore, if a defendant can prove that the traffic stop was illegal, then everything after that stop cannot be used against them in a court of law.

A New York DWI Lawyer said that in one case, which occurred in the Bronx, a woman was stopped after a police officer observed her executing a left turn without using her turn signal. The officer pulled in behind her and observed that she was talking on her cell phone as she executed a U-turn to return in her previous direction. The officer turned on his emergency equipment and executed a stop of her car. When he approached her car, he noticed a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage from about her person. He asked her if she would submit to field sobriety tests and she agreed. After the officer noted that she had not passed the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, the walk and turn, and the one leg stand, he asked her if she would take a portable Alco sensor test. She agreed, and tested positive for alcohol. A Queens County DWI Lawyer said she was arrested and transported the precinct for a breath test.

Published on: April 22, 2012

Woman Enters Plea Bargain for Gun Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that on June 9, 20009, police officers searched the apartment of a couple by virtue of a search warrant and seized drug paraphernalia, a .32 caliber hand gun, cocaine residue and the amount of $38,410.00.

The police arrested and charged the couple: the man was charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree; while his wife was charged with felony possession of a weapon.

The woman entered a plea bargain. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said she agreed to plead guilty to the lesser crime of Disorderly Conduct instead of being tried and possibly being convicted of the charge of felony possession of a weapon.

Published on: April 22, 2012

Defedant Claims he is a Victim of Malicious Prosecution

by Stephen Bilkis

A man moved for an order requiring his opponents to produce for an in camera inspection of employment and civilian complaint review board records for two police officers. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the opponent’s city opposes the motion and moves for an order to dismiss the complaint against it.

It started in a complaint report prepared by a police officer involving the man’s mother who stated that the man got upset and broke her cell phone when she presented him with a P.I.N.S. warrant. The man’s brother also stated that the man smacked/slapped his mother in the face with a notebook. No injuries were reported, nor arrests made but a domestic incident report was prepared. The police officer classified the incident as harassment.

Two hours after the incident, the mother was signed and swore to the incident report, on which the notation no offense was scratched out and replaced with harassment as offense description.

Published on: April 22, 2012

Woman Attacks Husband in Domestic Violence Incident

by Stephen Bilkis

The family court released a decision upon a fact-finding reason that a mother neglected her three children and now released two of the children to the custody of their father with 12 months of supervision by the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS). A New York Criminal Lawyer said the mother ordered by the court to comply with the terms of an order of protection. Based on records, the administration for children’s services protects the children from abuse and abandonment or even neglect. The administration for children’s services also provides neighborhood-based services with the help of the community partners, to ensure the children to grow up in safe, permanent homes with strong families

Majority of the evidence supports the court’s finding that the mother neglected her children below eighteen years of age, by committing acts of domestic violence against the children’s father in the children’s presence. Through such actions, the children’s physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of the parent to exercise a minimum degree of care.

The out of court statements made by one of the children regarding the mother’s attacks on the father were supported by the father’s testimony, the responding police officer’s testimony, and the out of court statements of the mother’s daughters. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that based on records, no expert or medical testimony is required to show that the violent acts exposed the children to an imminent risk of harm. Evidence also supports the court’s finding of educational neglect as to one of the children. The record shows that, for the 2008–2009 school year, the child missed 64 out of 181 days of school and was late 38 out of 181 days. It shows excessive unexcused absences from school that supports a finding of neglect. The child’s guidance counselor testified that he had contacted the mother on numerous occasions regarding the child’s absenteeism, and there is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations.

Published on: April 22, 2012

Court Discusses Battered Woman Syndrome

by Stephen Bilkis

Domestic violence laws have changed to become more responsive to the needs of battered victims even when their behavior seems to be erratic. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that victims of domestic violence do not respond in predictable ways, they do have certain patterns of behavior that are common. In 2005, the Federal Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (VAWA 2005) was signed into law. This law prevents victims of domestic violence from eviction from their homes following incidents of domestic violence. Prior to this law, it was common for property owners to evict domestic violence victims from their homes following a violent episode. It was tantamount to victimizing the battered twice.

VAWA 2005 (42 USC § 1437f[c][9][B]) states that “An incident or incidents of actual or threatened domestic violence. . .shall not be good cause for terminating the assistance, tenancy, or occupancy rights of the victim of such violence.” Section C(i) provides that “criminal activity directly relating to domestic violence. . .shall not be cause for termination. . .if the tenant. . .is the victim. . .of that domestic violence. . .” In essence, the property owner can evict the primary aggressor. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the property owner may not evict the victim of domestic violence.

This law is important since many times, the victim is evicted because keeping them on the property exposes the property owner to complaints from other residents. The home is disruptive to neighbors who complain to the property owner or manager. The easy way out is to evict everyone in that home and rent to a family who does not cause a disturbance. Clearly, this is not fair to the victim. In fact, offenders will often threaten their victims to submit quietly so that the neighbors do not complain and they suffer eviction.

Published on: April 22, 2012

Court Decides if City is Obligated to Provide Housing Subsidies to the Homeless

by Stephen Bilkis

Plaintiffs are a class of formerly homeless families and individuals for whom the City paid rent through a program called Advantage. The City induced these plaintiffs, many of whom are victims of domestic violence, to leave the relative safety of the shelter system and to enter into leases for apartments they could not afford. The City accomplished this by agreeing to pay all or a portion of plaintiffs’ rent for a year with the promise of a second year if they met the eligibility requirements for the Advantage program. However, a New York Criminal Lawyer said once plaintiffs took the City up on its offer and moved, the City terminated that funding during the lease term.

An action for specific performance, and declaratory and injunctive relief was filed where plaintiffs seek to bar termination of a rent subsidy program (the Advantage Program) run by the NYC Department of Homeless Services even though federal and state funding was withdrawn effective April 2011.

Plaintiffs argue that the various documents appertaining to the subsidy program (Certification Letters, Participation Agreements and Lease Riders) contractually obligate the City to continue the subsidies.

Published on: April 22, 2012

Court Decides Infant Murder Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The responsibility of the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) is to protect children in the state of New York from emotional or physical harm. This is the agency charged with stepping in to ensure that the home lives of children in the state of New York are safe. There are several laws that give authority to the ACS to conduct home examinations, require drug and alcohol testing, and even authorize the removal of children from their natural parents if it is necessary. However, because people are only human, the fact remains that sometimes mistakes happen. Unfortunately, when an employee of social services or children’s services makes a mistake, there are dire consequences. A New York Criminal Lawyer said in one case from August 2007, an infant girl child was killed at the hands of her mother’s companion. The case alleges that ACS employees were aware of the danger that the infant was in and did not take action to protect her.

The case states that because Brooklyn Family court had charged ACS with supervising the child’s home; and because ACS was familiar with many incidents of domestic violence in the home, the estate of the deceased child is due compensation for her death. The attorneys for ACS claim that since the child was killed by her mother’s companion, who is an outside party, that they are not responsible. The issue involved is whether the infant’s death was due to the gross negligence of ACS or was an unforeseeable event caused by an outsider.

In order to determine who is at fault for the infant’s murder, one must understand the laws that apply in this case. There are two arguments that affect the decision in this case. The first argument is that the representative for the little girl’s estate wants to serve interrogatories to determine who the estate will depose in this action. Under CPLR 3130, a party in a negligence action is not allowed to serve interrogatories and conduct depositions of the same party.

Published on: April 22, 2012

Court Determines Jurisdiction in Domestic Violence Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Domestic violence cases are not stationary crimes. Frequently, one party will flee to a different state, when that happens it is important that the court orders that are in effect follow them. Prior to 1994, that was not the case. The federal government stepped in and issued the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 which requires that the states give full faith and credit to any order of protection issued by a court in any state. There are some restrictions though. Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America requires that Full Faith and Credit is given to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of all of the states. Congress is required to prescribe the manner in which the orders of the states are to be proved and given effect. With these orders, Congress made their intent to protect women who cross state lines, obvious.

Whenever a situation arises where the New York courts must make a determination regarding a domestic violence order from another state, they must take all of this into consideration. It is not enough to have a protection order in place from a different jurisdiction. The victim must also be able to prove that the person whom the order is against has been given due process under the law. That can be tricky. A New York Criminal Lawyer said when a person obtains an order of protection, it becomes important that they ensure that the court personnel handle all of the paperwork correctly. If the paperwork does not demonstrate that the person was served correctly and given the opportunity to address the order in court, there is not proof of due process and the order may not be valid.

In one case out of Richmond County, in April 7, 1997, a woman was in Staten Island when she noticed that her estranged father was following her. There was a protection order in place in New Jersey stating that her father was not allowed to harass, stalk, or follow her mother or any other member of the family pursuant to a domestic violence problem within the home. Her mother took out the order, but she was named as a secondary party of the protection order.

Published on: April 21, 2012

DWI Defendant Claims Breathlyzer Machine was Inaccurate

by Stephen Bilkis

Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs has been a hot political topic for the past decade. The results of the political impact is that more laws and tougher laws have been enacted that are aimed at reducing DUI incidents. The problem is that whenever more laws are created, more people fall into the category. Twenty years ago, DUI cases were straightforward. The tests that the officers used in the field tested long term memory and coordination that were clearly indicative of impairment. Since, lower acceptable levels of blood alcohol have been established; the old tests were unable to detect this lower level. The reason is that the lower level is a point below what used to be considered impaired. Because of this, new field sobriety tests had to be created. The current tests are designed for failure, not for actually testing impairment.

The political atmosphere has created other problems as well. Government grants for DUI police units mean that police departments get money for catching more DUI drivers. A New York DWI Lawyer said it is no longer in the officer’s best interest to determine if the person is impaired or not. It is in the officer’s best interest to make an arrest, no matter how low the person’s blood alcohol content is.

Some states, like Florida, have made the penalty for first time DUI so harsh that refusing the test is a better option. In order for a person to fail a breath test, there are several things that can happen: The person can be actually over the legal limit of .08 for people over the age of 21 years; the machine can be faulty, as 80% of the Florida machines were determined to be in 2007; the officer can determine that the person is intentionally attempting to defeat the machine by not blowing fully into it; the person can put something, like gum, into their mouths after being instructed not to; or the person can pretend to blow into the machine while not expelling any air. It is also possible that the person speaks a language other than English and does not understand the instructions that are given to him.

Published on: April 21, 2012

Court Decides Gun Crime Charge

by Stephen Bilkis

The police searched the garage belonging to a man against whom a search warrant had already issued. The police found an automatic pistol which was loaded with eight cartridges. The automatic pistol was wrapped in a paper bag which was hidden in the folds of a sheet of tarpaulin which was owned by the man and which was placed in the garage by the same man.

In the same garage the police found a carbine among the tools and utensils owned by the man. It was not hidden as the loaded automatic pistol was. While searching the attic of the man’s house, the police also found a box containing cartridges similar to those loaded into the automatic pistol. Along with this box of cartridges, they also found an empty box of the same brand and make of cartridges.

All the relatives of the man, when questioned denied ownership of the gun and denied knowledge that it was hidden in the garage. Even the man himself denied the gun crime and knowledge of the gun hidden in his garage among his personal items belonging to him.