A couple drove from Florida to New York City to visit some of their friends. After the first few nights, they settled in a motor inn. Later, as the couple drove past to a boutique, a woman’s clothing store, the woman stated that she like the black dress and wanted to check the sizes. The man then parked the car and the woman told him to go back way.
They entered the boutique through the front door. The bathroom of the boutique has a window which looks out onto the rear parking area. The woman went into the fitting room to try on some clothes, but the man wasn’t in sight when she came out. The proprietor of the boutique informed the woman that her companion had asked to use the bathroom. According to the proprietor, the man was there for about 10 minutes. The woman then went back to the fitting room and when she again came out, the man was already standing at the front window, front door and he had picked out a blouse for her to try on. Even if the woman didn’t buy anything she had seen, she did buy the blouse picked out for her by the man. The couple then left the store without incident.
Afterward, the couple went into Manhattan, where the man purchased an ankle holster for his gun. The woman remained outside the store while her partner bought it, and she wasn’t aware of what the man had bought. After that, the couple decided to get something to eat and the woman changed her clothes. They drove to a place and when they arrived, the man told his partner to stay in the car while he looked for another person. The man returned and they drove around, finally back into an alleyway and turning out the lights. When the woman asked her criminal partner what he was doing, he allegedly replied that he had some business there. The woman then stayed in the car to watch for the cops or watch for anybody while her partner broke into the back window of what turned out to be the dress boutique.
After entering the boutique, the man started throwing some stuff out the window and yelled out to put the stuff in the car. The woman was putting the clothes which had been thrown out of the window into the trunk when she saw a light go on across the street. That time the man went back into the store. The woman noticed a pair of headlights in a gas station across the street. She then left the car and hid behind some trash cans in the alleyway. A police car pulled into the alleyway and a police officer shone a flashlight at her. She then got up and walked over to the police officer. She told the officer that she’s looking for her cat. The police then asked for some identification and she presented an address book, but her name was not in it. And, while she was being questioned, the criminal yelled to her to run. She thereafter heard a shot. The officers immediately ran around to the front of the store, with her following behind them, and in the consequent confusion, she ran away.
The record further makes it clear that what had happened was that the burglary had been interrupted by the police officer while on motor patrol. At that point, a bystander informed the officer that he saw or heard someone banging at the front door of the dress shop. The officer told the bystander to go across the street and yell if he saw anyone run out of the front of the store. At about that time the officer, and his partner, spotted the criminal woman behind the car and near the trash cans in the driveway. She came forward out of the shadows. The officer also observed the open window and a garment lying underneath it. Also, at about that time, another officer pulled up to the front of the store in a police ambulance answering the officer’s call for assistance. Both officers asked the other officer to watch the front of the store. The officers asked the criminal woman what she was doing there and she replied that she was looking for her calico cat. The entire questioning lasted from one to three minutes.
During that time, the bystander was watching to the front of the store across the street. He was soon joined by another man. They both observed the officer at the store’s entrance way. They then observed the man leave the store and saw the officer approach him. The bystander observed the officer place his hand on the man’s shoulder. But, he did not see a gun in the man’s hands. Suddenly, the man turned, faced the officer and shot him. The officer dropped to the ground and the criminal man ran. The other witness stated that when the officer approached the man, the man kept moving. The man then turned, fired a shot and the officer dropped to the ground. When they reached the officer, the officer’s gun was still in his holster. Further, they had not heard whether the officer told the criminal that he was under arrest. The other witness testified that the shooting occurred as the officer attempted to push the man up against the front wall.
The other two officers heard a shot and a groan. Both officers ran to the front of the store and the woman fled. Another officer, who had just arrived, gave chase, but lost her. Meanwhile, stricken officer was taken to the hospital, where he remained until he died.
Shortly after the shooting, the police officers conducted an extensive dragnet. The woman’s description was circulated by the police to the various motel attendants in the area.
Afterward, an attendant of a motor hotel, found the woman attempting to gain entry into the motel. The attendant called the police, who arrived shortly, and took her into custody.
Three officers arrested the criminal woman in the motel lobby. As they approached her, she said that she didn’t mean to do it and she doesn’t want to get in trouble. The woman was placed into a police vehicle and given her four-fold Miranda warnings, which she said she fully understood. The police wanted to know the identity and the location of her male accomplice. The woman responded that she and the man had been forced at gunpoint to do the burglary by an unknown white male.
The woman was transported to the police mobile command bus situated at the boutique. Once there she was turned over to the detectives. The detective again gave her the four-fold Miranda warnings, which she said she completely understood. She indicated that she would talk to the detective without an attorney being present. The woman then repeated the story that she had given the arresting officers to the effect that she and the man had been forced to commit the burglary.
Consequently, the woman was convicted of murder in the second degree, burglary in the second degree, grand larceny in the second degree, possession of burglar’s tools, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and unlawful possession of noxious materials.
It is difficult to get involved in a crime where another person is the real one liable about it.
Whenever you need help with the gun crime related dispute you can ask legal assistance from Queens County Criminal Lawyer. Further, you can call Stephen Bilkis and Associates office if you need another expert or opt to have a new attorney such as Queens County Possession of a Weapon Attorney with regards gun crime issues.