Nassau

Published on: May 9, 2012

Court Decides Case Based on New Sentencing Guidelines

by Stephen Bilkis

Prior to January 2005, indeterminate sentencing was considered the norm. It was originally designed as a means of tailoring the sentence to the crime. The belief was that since everyone is an individual, indeterminate sentences allowed a defendant the option of faster improvement. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said it was hoped that the indeterminate sentence would encourage defendants to demonstrate good behavior in an attempt to shorten their overall term of incarceration. The experiment was a dismal failure. Rather than encouraging good behavior, it instilled a feeling of helplessness in the inmate population. The sentences were sometimes completely different for persons involved in the same crime. The disparate sentences that some offenders received soon became regarded as a problem. The violence that some of these offenders demonstrated while incarcerated was also higher than the levels of violence demonstrated by offenders with definitive sentences. The hopelessness of having no way of knowing when the end of their sentences might arrive created an air of hostility and despair in the inmate population. By 2005, the trend of indeterminate sentencing had been recognized as a failure and sentencing reform laws were initiated to correct the problem.

These sentencing reform guidelines had several necessary provisions. They were designed to allow defendants who were charged with non-violent drug offenses to be given determinate sentences that were often much lower than their original indeterminate sentences were. The guidelines state that the person must be a non-violent offender and cannot have committed a violent offense within 10 years of the application for determinate sentencing.

In the present case, the defendant was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence and is attempting to be approved for resentencing under the Drug Law Reform Act to a determinate sentence of three and one half years as a second non-violent felony offender. The original date of his offence was August 26, 2003 and no final adjudication had been made at the time of his request. He states that the revised sentencing guidelines are an amendment of a failed method and because of that, he is entitled to be sentenced under these guidelines as opposed to sentencing under the old ones. His crime was committed prior to the enactment of the new statute.

Published on: May 8, 2012

Defendant Alleges Faulty Search Warrant

by Stephen Bilkis

Warrants to search and arrest on drug crimes are often more complicated than those of other crimes. The case law on drug crimes seems to change on a daily basis depending on the political motivations at the time of the case. Currently, officers are allowed more latitude to rely on experience for articulable reasonable suspicion to stop a person even on a Terry stop than they were just a few years ago. The ground of probable cause based off of the articulable suspicion then becomes convoluted. It is not uncommon for a warrant to be signed that is later ruled inadmissible due to many unforeseeable factors. The scope of the search may be overstated, or understated. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the officers involved in the search may overstep their boundaries. The information that the warrant was issued on may even be proven false or incorrect in a later hearing of the facts of the case. Just because the police have obtained a warrant, does not mean that the warrant cannot be challenged.

On December 6, 1999, a search warrant was executed in Queens County by the detectives who had obtained the warrant. They had presented their probable cause to obtain the warrant based on the fact that they had a confidential informant who had purchased marijuana at the first floor apartment on two previous occasions. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the detectives had gone to the location and observed the actions that were taking place there. They had checked with the utility company and verified that the location was a residence. The confidential informant had stated that the drugs had been purchased by a man known only to him as Greg and that Greg had gone into the first floor apartment to retrieve the drugs. The officers described the location as a first floor and basement apartment of a two story red brick building. The apartment is located behind a restaurant at the same address.

When the officers executed the search warrant, they located several items in plain view. They recovered marijuana, drug paraphernalia, and other drug related items. During the search of the residence per the warrant, one of the defendants made several exculpatory statements to the detectives. The defendants were arrested and charged with their crimes. They filed motions to suppress the evidence and statements on the grounds that the search warrant affidavit failed to establish proper probable cause for the warrant to be valid. The items were suppressed and the prosecution filed an appeal of the suppression.

Published on: May 7, 2012

Jury Given Incorrect Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

In 1988, a man and his friend along with their two wives were running a drug enterprise out of a one room apartment with an attached kitchen located on 88th street in Queens, New York. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said an undercover police officers had been focused on this apartment for several weeks. In fact, they had conducted undercover narcotics purchases on three separate occasions.

They were made on September 13, September 20, and September 29. After making all of these purchases, the police officers were able to obtain a search warrant to search the residence. After making the purchase on the 29th, the officers executed the search warrant on the residence. They uncovered several tinfoil packets of cocaine and angel dust. One packet of cocaine was located on the floor in between the couch and the wall. It was about a four or five inch space between the wall and the sofa. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer reported that six dollars was located in a closet that had cocaine residue on it. In another closet officers recovered $110 which was the money that was marked by them as the money that they had used to purchase narcotics at that location. The $110 was mixed in with another $850 in cash that was hidden in a child-sized purse. In the last closet, they located $3,630 in cash.

All four of the defendants were present when the search warrant was executed. They were all charged with possessing a narcotic with the intent to sell it. It is legal practice to charge everyone in a room with the possession of a narcotic that is in the room since all of the people are found to have knowledge of or should reasonably have known that the drugs were there. The drugs do not necessarily have to be in plain view. The drugs can be in a container or other item that is accessible to any of the occupants of the room. The narcotics can be in a completely separate room if they are visible to the occupants of a different room. In this case, the narcotics that were in the room, was the one packet that was located between the sofa and wall. a Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said the court ruled that that particular packet could not be deemed as accessible to everyone in the room or that all of the occupants of the room would have known that it was there. The fact that it was not in open view or in a container in open view makes it impossible for the police to assume that anyone other than the one owner could possibly have known that it was there. When it is determined that narcotics or other illegal drugs are in open view and in close proximity to persons, it is referred to as the drug factory presumption of Penal Law §220.25 (2).

Published on: May 5, 2012

Defendants Claim Their 14th Amendment Rights Violated

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiffs and appellants in the case are Lois White et al. The defendants and appellees in the case are the Scrivner Corporation et al. The case is being heard in the fifth circuit of the United States Court of Appeals.

Case History

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said one night Lois and her daughter Sandra White, along with her sister Gloria Pratt, went shopping at a food store owned by Scrivner Corporation, the assistant manager of the shop accused Lois of taking a roast out of the meat department of the store. The assistant manager requested that Lois and her daughter and sister come with him to an area located at the rear of the store. He asked for permission to search through their purses and while looking through the women’s purses he found a pistol located in Lois Whites purse. He told the women to stand by the wall and he made a call to the police department. The police arrived and arrested White for having a weapon that was concealed. The food goods that White was accused of stealing were never found.

Published on: May 4, 2012

Defendant Contends Prior Conviction not an Aggravated Felony

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff and appellee in the case is the United States of America. The defendant and appellant of the case is Alexander Antoine Christopher. The case is being heard in the Eleventh Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals.

Appeal

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the defendant, Alexander Antoine Christopher is appealing the district court’s sentencing of 77 months for illegally reentering the country and violating 18 of the United States Constitution. The issue he is raising on appeal is he feels there was an error made by the district court when they enhanced his criminal record score by 16. He states that his prior conviction of theft does not qualify as an aggravated felony.

Published on: May 3, 2012

Defendant Charged with Child Endangerment in Drug Crime

by Stephen Bilkis

Whenever a child is involved or present at the time that a criminal act is committed, it becomes more serious. Child endangerment charges are especially applicable in cases where there has been a drug crime committed. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said sometimes, the case is as mundane as an aunt or uncle who brings marijuana into the home where children are located. The children need never see the drugs for the aunt or uncle to be charged with child abuse or child endangerment. If there is even a possibility, no matter how remote, that the child may be able to obtain the drug and ingest it, the person who brought it in to the home will be charged.

Most people think that in order to be charged with child endangerment or abuse, that they have to use the drug in front of the child. Some even think that they have to provide the drug to the child. Neither one of these situations is accurate. The mere presence of the drug in the home constitutes a drug crime. That drug crime can constitute child neglect or abuse depending on the circumstance.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said on one such case, a woman was arrested for endangering the welfare of a child as well as possession of cocaine. The incident that led to the woman’s arrest occurred when a police officer was in her apartment legally in reference to a different situation. While he was in the apartment, he observed a glassine bag on top of the defendant’s refrigerator that in his experience as a law enforcement officer appeared to be cocaine. The woman later admitted that it was cocaine and that she was a person who would use cocaine every now and then.

Published on: May 2, 2012

Defendant Contends He was Denied Right to Counsel

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff and appellee in the case is the United States of America. The defendant and appellant of the case is Norman L. Haymer. The case is being heard in the fifth circuit of the United States Court of Appeals.

Appeal

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the defendant and appellant in the case, Norman L. Haymer, is appealing his original sentence. He states his right to counsel as provided by the sixth amendment was violated as a misdemeanor conviction that was uncounseled was included when determining his criminal history score.

Published on: May 1, 2012

Court Discusses Felony Murder Rule

by Stephen Bilkis

At approximately 8:00 p.m., a man obtained a ride going to a shopping center. Ten minutes later, he entered a delicatessen, showed a gun and demanded money from the clerk. The clerk then turned over about $145 in cash and checks. After the robbery, the man left the shopping center and walked through the surrounding neighborhood. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the man eventually arrived at the county line bowling alley. Meanwhile, the robbery had been reported to the police department and an alert was transmitted over the police radio. Consequently, two officers arrived at the delicatessen just minutes after the man had left. A description of the robber was attained and reported over the police radio. A normal police procedure require that unassigned patrol cars proceed to the vicinity of the crime area and any nearby major intersections in an effort to seal off potential avenues of escape. As the man walked onto the parking lot of the bowling alley, he saw a police car turn and enter the lot. The man hid under a parked car. The lone officer in the car come out from his vehicle and walked over to man’s hiding place. The man got up from underneath the car with his gun concealed between his legs. The officer ordered the man to put his weapon on the car hood but the man turned and fired. The officer was mortally wounded and struggled to get back to his police car. The officer then attempted to use the radio to call for the assistance of brother officers and then collapsed on the seat. The man took the automobile of a bowling alley patron and fled. An off-duty police officer used the patrolman’s radio to broadcast a signal for help and the report of the shooting went over the police radio at 8:24 p.m. The eyewitnesses fixed the time of the argument at approximately 8:25 p.m. The bowling alley was located less than one-half mile from the robbed delicatessen.

The man was subsequently captured, identified by eyewitnesses and indicted. A motion to suppress his confession was denied, as was a motion to suppress evidence of a pretrial, police station lineup.

After a jury proceeding, the man was convicted of manslaughter, felony murder, robbery and grand larceny. The appellate division generally affirmed the judgment of conviction, without opinion. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the principal issue on that appeal is whether the jury was properly permitted to conclude that the shooting of the patrolman occurred in the immediate flight from the delicatessen robbery.

Published on: April 30, 2012

Defendant Claims Unlawful Arrest for Shoplifting

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff and appellant of the case is Sharon McNulty. The defendants and appellees in the case are J.C. Penney #2168, J.C. Penney Corporation, J.C. Penney Company, Eric Green, and John Doe Defendants. The case is being heard in the fifth circuit of the United States Court of Appeals.

Appeal

Sharon McNulty, the appellant is challenging the original grant of a summary judgment made by the district court. McNulty was arrested at a J.C. Penney store located in Ridgeland, Mississippi after she had been accused of shoplifting on the 25th of March in 2005.

Published on: April 28, 2012

Court Considers Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Allegation

by Stephen Bilkis

Plaintiff and defendant are brothers. The parties have been estranged since an event which occurred on Mother’s Day in 2003 at a family gathering. There have been numerous Family Court matters involving this family.

The allegations:

For the First Cause of Action – A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the defendant has falsely accused plaintiff of a serious crime, namely filing a false police report, a criminal violation of New York State Penal Law. That accusation by defendant was a false and defamatory statement of and concerning plaintiff; specifically that she had filed a false criminal complaint against him for threatening her by brandishing a gun. Defendant made this false accusation to third parties, including but not necessarily limited to, family members.