Westchester County

Published on: April 24, 2013

Court Discusses Elements of Grand Larceny

by Stephen Bilkis

A man knocked on an apartment door. He claimed to be delivering something for the resident in the apartment. He asked the resident for some personal identification. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the resident of the apartment left the apartment door open and left the man at the door while she went inside the apartment to get her ID. With the apartment door left open, a television set can be seen which was put on a stand situated very near the open apartment door. On the floor near the television, there were sweaters scattered all over. The man took the TV and the sweaters on the floor.

A Westchester County Criminal Lawyer said the man was seen by another delivery man who was making a delivery in a nearby apartment at the same time. He saw the bogus delivery man go inside the apartment and leave holding the TV set and the sweaters. He also saw the bogus delivery man leave the apartment and ride a bike while carrying the TV set and the sweaters. The delivery man followed the bogus delivery man and saw that at the nearest corner, the bogus delivery man dropped the TV and the sweaters. He left them there on the street where they fell. And he rode the bike all the way to a nearby restaurant. At the restaurant premises, the bogus delivery man left the bike. He went to the parking area of the restaurant and rode in a car. The delivery man wrote down the license plate of the bogus delivery man’s car. When a police cruiser came by, the delivery man told them his story and gave them the license plate of the bogus delivery man. He also led them to the spot where the TV and the sweaters were dropped.

The bogus delivery man was later arrested. He was charged with two crimes in one information: he was charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny and grand larceny. The bogus delivery man moved for a trial without a jury. The man was convicted with breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny but he was convicted only of petit larceny and not grand larceny because the prosecution failed to prove that the properties taken were valued beyond $100.

Published on: April 22, 2013

Defendant Moves to Supress Evidence in Vehicular Manslaughter Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts of the Case:

On around 18 to 19 of October 2007, at around midnight, the defendant went to a nightclub with his girlfriend “A”, a friend of his girlfriend “B”, and another individual “C”. A New York Criminal Lawyer said after drinking alcohol at the nightclub, the defendant and “C” left and went to a nearby parking lot. According to “B”, defendant did not appear intoxicated at that time; that defendant stated in the parking lot that he lost his shit, presumably referring to drugs, and the defendant became upset. The defendant then went into the trunk of his car and searched for something. Thereafter, the defendant began arguing with his girlfriend. At approximately 3:15 A.M., several witnesses heard gunshots, but no one reported having seen the defendant fire a gun. The defendant then angrily ordered B to leave with his girlfriend. B did and drove the defendant’s girlfriend home. The defendant and C then entered the defendant’s vehicle, with the defendant driving. When police officers arrived at the parking lot only minutes later, at about 3:20 A.M., the defendant had left, and the officers recovered several 9–millimeter shell casings in the parking lot. At approximately 3:30 A.M., the defendant’s vehicle was seen traveling west in the eastbound lanes of the Southern State Parkway at a speed of 70 to 75 miles per hour. According to numerous witnesses, the defendant’s vehicle traveled in the wrong direction, from about exit 19 to exit 13, a distance of approximately five miles. According to a witness, the defendant was driving directly at him while changing lanes; that he had to immediately pull his vehicle onto the shoulder to avoid a collision; that the defendant continued driving the wrong way; that he observed the other vehicles on the parkway split apart in order to get away from the defendant; that the defendant was steadily going, not braking.

Another witness, a Police Sergeant, was also driving in the proper direction in the left eastbound lane of the parkway. According to the Sergeant, as he passed exit 14, he observed the defendant’s vehicle driving towards him at a high rate of speed which caused him to violently turn his steering wheel to the right to avoid a collision; that the defendant’s car came within inches of the Sergeant’s vehicle; that the defendant made absolutely no effort to get out of the way. Near exit 13, the defendant’s vehicle, without ever having slowed down, collided with the victim’s vehicle, killing the victim instantly and incinerating the victim’s vehicle. When emergency services and police arrived on the scene and attempted to remove the defendant from his damaged vehicle, the defendant was agitated and his breath emitted a strong odor of alcohol. The police then arrested defendant, and following his arrest, a blood sample taken from him at 4:49 A.M., just over an hour after the accident, indicated that his blood alcohol content (hereinafter BAC) was 0.19%. When the defendant was arrested, he was then removed from his vehicle, and the police thereafter began conducting an inventory search of the vehicle. The discovery of several 9–millimeter rounds in the trunk, however, transformed the search from inventory to investigatory, during which the police recovered a 9–millimeter semiautomatic pistol, what was later determined to be .395 grams of cocaine beneath the front passenger seat, and 41 rounds of 9–millimeter bullets contained in a partially loaded magazine and a box in the trunk. The gun recovered from the defendant’s vehicle matched the shell casings found in the parking lot near the nightclub.

Published on: April 9, 2013

Court Discusses Constructive Possession in Drug Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant in this case was found guilty of possession of more than 20 grams of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion for dismissal for the paraphernalia offense and the possession of a felony amount of marijuana offense because the state did not have enough evidence to support a conviction on these charges.

The defendant concedes that the state had enough evidence to convict her of the lesser charges of a misdemeanor offense for possession of marijuana for the two partially smoked joints that were in plain view.

Case Background

Published on: March 19, 2013

Defendants Contend Evidence was Not Admitted Properly

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendants and appellants in this case were convicted on a number of different accounts that involved trafficking marijuana. They are raising a number of different claims against their convictions. The main issues that are being raised are whether or not the district court properly denied motions to suppress the evidence that was seized from a search warrant that was executed and if the evidence was admitted properly. A New York Criminal Lawyer said they further question whether or not the evidence was sufficient to support their convictions.

Case Background

A federal grand jury issued an indictment with 27 charges against the seven defendants. There were numerous offenses related to the trafficking of marijuana (drug possession). There were also charges of conspiracy, criminal enterprise, importation, possession with the intent to distribute, and possession with the intent to distribute on board a United States vessel.

Published on: February 8, 2013

Defendant Contends that Initial Police Stop was Pre-Textual

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant in this case is challenging a judgment and sentence that she received for trafficking methamphetamines, a felony marijuana possession of drug paraphernalia. She was charged with carrying a concealed weapon as well. In support of her challenge the defendant states that the court made a mistake by not allowing her motion to suppress that alleged the vehicle stop was pre-textual. She also states that the evidence presented in the case is insufficient to support her convictions.

Case Background

The defendant started a romantic relationship with a gentleman in January of 1994. The gentleman always had a large amount of money and access to drugs. While they were dating he would supply the defendant with cash, methamphetamines, and take her on trips. In March of 1994, he came to her home and asked her if she wanted to go on a trip. She agreed, but stated that she did not have any luggage. He told her that she could pack her stuff in one of his bags. She carried a small bag with her in which she had a small amount of marijuana.

Published on: February 1, 2013

Defendant Contends Police Lacked Probable Cause in Drug Possession Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Case Background

The police responded to a citizen’s report that marijuana was being grown in an open field. When the police officer arrived at the area described he found between 40 and 50 marijuana plants growing about a hundred yards from a home that was occupied. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he reported the find and the next day he and another officer returned to dig the plants up.

When the officers were gathering the plants the appellant of this case drove up to the house located near the field. The appellant got out of his care and one of the officers called him over. The officer asked him if he owned the home and he said no, but one of his friends did. The officers asked if the owner was home and the appellant told them to come to the house to find out.

Published on: January 7, 2013

Court Hears Case Based on Professional Misconduct

by Stephen Bilkis

On February 20, 1967, the then City Manager of respondent city of Independence, appointed petitioner to an indefinite term as Chief of Police. In 1972, petitioner and a new City Manager, engaged in a dispute over petitioner’s administration of the Police Department’s property room. In March of that year, a handgun, which the records of the Department’s property room stated had been destroyed, turned up in Kansas City in the possession of a felon. A New York Criminal Lawyer said this discovery prompted the City Manager to initiate an investigation of the management of the property room. Although the probe was initially directed by petitioner, the City Manager soon transferred responsibility for the investigation to the city’s Department of Law, instructing the City Counselor to supervise its conduct and to inform him directly of its findings.

Sometime in early April 1972, the City Manager received a written report on the investigation’s progress, along with copies of confidential witness statements. A Westchester County Criminal Lawyer said that although the City Auditor found that the Police Department’s records were insufficient to permit an adequate accounting of the goods contained in the property room, the City Counselor concluded that there was no evidence of any criminal acts or of any violation of state or municipal law in the administration of the property room.

A Suffolk Criminal Lawyer said that, the City Manager asked petitioner to resign as Chief of Police and to accept another position within the Department, citing dissatisfaction with the manner in which petitioner had managed the Department, particularly his inadequate supervision of the property room. He warned that if petitioner refused to take another position in the Department his employment would be terminated, to which petitioner responded that he did not intend to resign.

Published on: January 3, 2013

New York law provides that the murders must have been committed by the person engaged in the commission of or an attempt to commit a felony

by Stephen Bilkis

A man who owned a bar saw two of his customers having an argument while inside the bar. He went over to them and told them to take their argument outside. The two men left the bar and stayed on the sidewalk just outside the bar and the argument escalated into a very heated argument. One man pushed the other man down. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man who pushed the other drew a gun from his backside and fired into the crown inside the bar which by then was rubber-necking the argument outside. A patron inside the bar got hit when the ma outside fired into the bar. That man lay seriously wounded on the floor of the Bar.

Unnoticed by the man outside the bar, a police officer on beat patrol heard the commotion and the shots fired. On the other side of the street, as the gunman fired into the bar, the police officer engaged the gunman in a gunfight. A few seconds later, a car pulled up near the gunman and the gunman got inside the car. The police officer gave chase while still firing upon the car.

In the meantime, when the bar keeper and owner of the bar heard that shots were fired by the gunman outside the bar, he went behind the bar and took out his shotgun. When he heard the screeching of the tires on the street, he came out of the bar and stood next to the police officer. He fired his shotgun at the car.

Published on: December 17, 2012

Court Decides Parole for Sex Offender

by Stephen Bilkis

Petitioner is an inmate at a correctional facility at Franklin County. He filed the petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to question his imprisonment under the custody of the New York correctional services wherein the accused asserted the limitations and conditions set for his particular residence amounted to question his custody by the law enforcement agency and he further alleged that his period of assessment for his final parole had already expired that granted his release to a parole supervisor.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said in 1997, the inmate was sentenced for incarceration for a period of 7 to 14 years. Later in 2006, he was released under the parole supervision but was afterward revoked then again restored that placed him at a drug treatment campus. Then a year after, petitioner violated his community-based parole supervision, as such, he was returned to the custody of correctional services as a parole violator. He then again violated his most recent release under parole supervision in year 2008. He had several counts of violation of release and such report was served and given to him at a county jail where he was detained for new criminal charges.

A final parole hearing was conducted for the revocation of petitioner’s final parole wherein he pleaded guilty for the violation of the conditions set for his release under parole supervision, specifically, a crime for possession of marijuana found inside his room (drug possession). The defendant’s parole was revoked and was given a delinquent time assessment, which will expire after 16 months from the date of the revocation hearing. During the period of assessment, the felon had existing rape charges against him and was later on convicted for crimes of sexual misconduct and endangering the welfare of a child, as such, petitioner was declared as a “sex offender.”

Published on: November 24, 2012

Court Discusses Concept of Reasonable Suspicion

by Stephen Bilkis

In this criminal case, at the hearing, the People called two witnesses: New York Drug Enforcement Administration Special Agent Salvador Aceves, and New York City Police Department Detective John Reilly. The defense called no witnesses.

Agent Aceves testified that on April 3, 2008, he, along with his supervisor, K.B, and the members of his field team, conducted surveillance at West 225th Street and Broadway in Bronx County based on information received from an undisclosed source that a drug crime trafficking organization was planning to engage in a transaction that evening. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the agents were informed that the seller would arrive in a vehicle containing approximately ten to fifteen kilograms of cocaine and enter the Target parking lot located on West 225th Street near Broadway. With the cocaine remaining inside, the seller would give the vehicle to the purchaser, who would remove it, place the money inside, and return the vehicle.

A Bronx Drug Crime Lawyer said that, while conducting surveillance during the daylight hours of April 3, 2008, Agent A. observed individuals, who he referred to as the sellers; arrive in a black BMW, for the purpose of negotiating the transaction details he was advised would occur that evening. Agent A., however, neither identified those individuals nor provided a factual basis upon which to conclude they had engaged in negotiating the transaction.