Articles Posted in Nassau

New York is in the process of correcting a situation that involved handing out indeterminate sentences to drug offenders. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the 2004 Drug Law Reform Act and the Drug Law Reform Act of 2009 are efforts to correct some of the issues that have plagued the fair sentencing of drug crime offenders in New York. Political agendas and ill-advised legislators, decided that indeterminate sentencing would reduce crime and make them look tough on criminals. What it created instead was an overcrowding of the prison system with offenders who had no idea if they would be incarcerated for a day or ten years. That instability in their situations caused undue stress on the inmates and increased violence in the system. The indeterminate sentencing system was also found to be unfair. Two people would be arrested at the same time and one would get probation and the other might get an indeterminate sentence not to exceed ten years. These were much harsher sentences than even some violent offenders were receiving. Studies were conducted that revealed many more serious results of indeterminate sentences on inmates and the system. In fact, one of the most memorable studies demonstrated that female inmates were twice as likely to be given an indeterminate sentence as their male counterparts were. That was true even if they were arrested at the same time for the same offense. The political get tough on drug crime agenda was back firing on the politicians who drove the movement. They were forced to rethink their program.

Under modern sentencing guidelines, a New York Drug Possession Lawyer said these same criminals were getting less prison time and more alternative sentences like house arrest, half-way houses, and mandatory drug treatment. All of which relieve overcrowding in the prison system while supervising non-violent drug offenders at their own expense. The Drug Law Reform Act enabled people who were convicted of a Class B felony drug crime to apply to the courts for resentencing of their indeterminate sentences. The requirements for the program are that they must have an indeterminate sentence exceeding three years. They must not have committed a violent felony offense within ten years of the time that they make the application to have their case reevaluated. The ten-year look back rule does not start at the time of their offense, or at the time of their conviction. The clock starts at the time that they submit their request. It does not include any time that they were incarcerated for other offenses during that ten-year period. So if an inmate applied for resentencing in 2010. A Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said his sentence was indeterminate not to exceed 20 years. He was convicted in 2008 of a Class B felony drug crime. He committed a violent felony in 2000. He spent five years in prison as a result. That would mean that his violent felony conviction of 2008 adds five years to the ten years. In this example, he would not be exempt, even though his conviction was in 2000 and his request was in 2010, because of the five years in prison, he would have to have no violent crimes in his history going back to 1995. In this case, he would not qualify.

In one case, a Queens woman was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, a jury found her guilty and imposed an indeterminate sentence in July of 2001. In April of 2010 she applied for resentencing. She was granted her request. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said the District Attorney filed an appeal to the Supreme Court based on the fact that the resentence was invalid as a matter of law. When the court granted the woman’s request for resentencing, they failed to add on the time that she had been incarcerated on other offenses during the ten year period. That additional time that was added on puts her back to a violent offense that she committed in 1999 which was an offense that excludes her from being eligible for resentencing. The Supreme Court reversed her approval and returned her original sentence that she was serving prior to her request.

Continue reading

On April 14, 1972, a New York Drug Crime Lawyer said a reputed bookmaker and his wife and sister-in-law were at home relaxing. Two masked men forced their way into the home in Huntington, Suffolk County. After ransacking the house and stealing any valuables that were on hand, the men shot the bookmaker in the head. His wife was also shot and suffered from memory loss due to a stroke. She was never able to remember that night so she was unable to assist law enforcement in the investigation.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said then, in December of that year, the investigators were informed that a nineteen-year-old woman and her boyfriend/employer had information about the murder. The two had been arrested in reference to an unrelated kidnapping. Detectives were sent to interview the woman since they had not had any leads and the case had grown stale. She related that the night of the murder, she had been at her boyfriend’s house. She stated that she heard a heated discussion in reference to a crime, so she pretended to be asleep. What she stated that she overheard was a conversation between the defendant, his brother-in-law, another man, and her boyfriend about the murder. She heard the one man tell her boyfriend that he had shot the bookmaker. The defendant stated that he had shot the bookmaker’s wife. Her boyfriend talked about remaining in the car outside and how he had told the other two to only rob them and not to shoot anybody. The woman also stated that although her boyfriend had told her just the day before that he did not have any money, he gave her $25 the day after the murder. He had also told her several days before that he was going to rip off a bookie.

Within days of being interviewed by the detectives, she went to the office of the District Attorney in Queens, New York and began plea negotiations on the kidnapping indictment. The woman committed suicide before she was called to the stand to testify on the murder case. The detective was allowed to testify to the information that she had given him at trial as a declaration against her penal and pecuniary interest. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said her mother was also allowed to testify to conversations that she had with her daughter before her daughter’s death. She stated that she had asked her daughter for some money. Her daughter had told her that she could not afford to give her the $15 that the mother requested because she did not have it. She stated that her daughter told her that she would have it in a few days because her boyfriend was going to commit a gun crime against a bookie on Long Island who owed him money. The mother stated that the weekend following the murder, her daughter gave her the $15. She stated that when she heard about the murder, she asked her daughter if the boyfriend was involved. Her daughter told her at that time that he was not. However, she stated that after meeting with the detectives, she had contacted her mother and told her the same thing that she told the detective. The mother testified that when her daughter told her about the incident, she did not mention the names of the defendant or the other man who was present.

Continue reading

In criminal trials, issues involving the admissibility of evidence often comes down to a fine matter of law. The authority of an officer to stop a vehicle or a person is restricted by articulable reasonable suspicion. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that is a suspicion that can be put in to words that would lead a reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer given his training and experience, to believe that a crime is afoot. Case law has provided a further detail as far as the seizure or stop conducted by a police officer on a citizen. Whether the person is on foot or in a vehicle, if they flee upon sight of the readily obvious police officer, there is an immediate impression of a guilty mind. A guilty mind is also call mens rea. The evidence of flight when an officer attempts to initiate a traffic stop is also evidence of mens rea in a crime. This flight can become probable cause to make an arrest. Probable cause is that set of facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable and prudent person given the same set of facts or circumstances to believe that a crime, is, has, or will be committed and that the person of interest, is involved in that crime.

However, if the court finds that the officer failed to show articulable reasonable suspicion, then the vehicle or person stop, is considered an illegal seizure. Any evidence of any crime that is discovered as a result of an illegal seizure is inadmissible in court based on the exclusionary rule. The evidence becomes fruit of the poisonous tree unless the police officers can demonstrate that the evidence would have inevitably been discovered anyway.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that on September 16, 1975, at around one in the afternoon, an apartment building superintendent’s wife, noticed a man who was dressed in a white suit loitering around the back entrance to the building. She noticed that he glanced around in a furtive manner before entering the building located at 55 Lenox Road in Rockville Centre, Long Island. Around twenty minutes after she first noticed the man, she heard footsteps in an empty apartment above her own. She went upstairs to investigate and observed the man whom she had seen earlier, testing door knobs looking for unlocked apartments to enter. She went downstairs and notified her husband who went to the lobby and found the man just leaving the building. He noticed that the man had a large bunch of keys in his hand and he could hear more in his pocket.

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading

A fur store employee was present when the store was robbed by two-armed man. According to the employee’s statement, he and his employer were forced into the sales vault, handcuffed, and taped, and one of the gunmen hit him in the head with a gun. The employee was able to free himself and ran to the street, but the two robbers got away. Upon his return to the store, several police officers were on the scene. The man’s employer indicated that one of the robbers had left a gun on the bottom of the fur rack, and his employee saw it. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that according to the employee’s statement, the police officer picked up the gun, put it on the desk, and the gun went off. The employee’s previous statement states that he did not see the gun being picked up and was only aware that it had been moved after he was shot. He turned to the location from where the bullet had traveled and saw the smoking gun on the desk, with the police officer holding it. The employee also claims that the police officer hit him and apologized.

The police officer testified that she had received firearms training as part of her police academy training and every year thereafter she received re-qualifying training. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said she testified as to past experiences handling guns at scenes of crimes and unloading her weapon. She was assigned to evidence collection on the day of the gun crime. At the scene, she was instructed to pick up the weapon to determine its type and she took a couple of photographs of the gun before she picked it up with her left hand on the barrel and her right hand on the butt. She could not tell if the slide had been pulled back and did not know if there was a safety. She held it with her finger, placed it evenly on the table and did not place it pointed in any particular position. When she placed it on the desk, the gun went off though she did not touch the trigger and did not know why the gun fired. The alleged gun crime victim was treated for tinnitus.

The employee filed a notice of claim upon the State alleging negligence and personal injuries. He alleged that he was carelessly and negligently shot by an unknown female police officer acting with the scope of her duties, and that the State and the City Police Department had negligently hired, trained, and supervised the officer, and should have known she was unfit to perform her duties. The employee commenced an action by filing summons and verified complaint.

Continue reading

On the night of April 26, 1974, two Nassau County police officers were working undercover in plainclothes on a burglary sting in a well-lit shopping and entertainment area in Wantach, Long Island. There had been several burglaries in the area and they were attempting to apprehend the suspects. While they were watching, they observed a Buick driving slowly down the street. The vehicle slowed down perceptibly in front of a bar and all three of the occupants turned to look at the windows of the establishment. The vehicle proceeded farther down the street to a stop sign. The vehicle stopped at the sign and again, all of the occupants turned to examine the windows of another bar on the side of the road. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the officers considered this behavior to be consistent with the behavior of a person “casing” a building before attempting to burglarize it. They initiated a traffic stop of the vehicle.

Upon stopping the vehicle, the officers requested that the driver provide his driver’s license. He advised that he did not have a driver’s license. The officers requested the registration on the vehicle and the subjects stated that they did not have it. The vehicle was owned by the mother of one of the passengers. The men were later discovered to have her permission to drive the car. The occupants of the car were asked to exit the vehicle. When they were outside of the vehicle, the officers executed a terry stop and frisk of them. One of the officers felt a suspicious bulge in the pocket of one of the passengers. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said when he retrieved the items, they proved to be bullets. A subsequent search of the area within the subjects immediate control, led the officers to find a gun concealed under the front seat of the car.

The question of law in this case is whether the stop of the car was justified or was it an illegal seizure. The rules of law that dictate when an officer can stop a car are clearly documented in statutory law. It states that an officer may stop a vehicle that he observes committing a crime. In absence of an immediate crime, if the officer has articulable reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime is afoot, he may stop the vehicle to investigate. In this case, the officers stated that they had merely seen the occupants glance at two bars as they drove down the street. The fact that they stopped twice is not relevant since one of those stops was at a stop sign.

Continue reading

Parole Officer One has been employed by the New York State Division of Parole since August 1993. She was assigned to supervise the parole of the defendant in July 2006. The defendant had been paroled on a burglary conviction. Upon his release, he had signed the conditions of parole which included his consent to a search of his residence, person and property and required him to fully and truthfully answer any inquiry by his parole officer or other representative of the Division of Parole. When Officer One first met with the defendant, the consent to search provision was reiterated to him and he reaffirmed his consent. A private individual gave his residence as 87 East 31st Street in Kings County. No previous searches had been conducted by Officer One at the defendant’s residence.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the defendant, as a condition of his parole, was referred to a drug program in November 2006. In December 2006, and January and February 2007, the defendant tested “positive” for cocaine. On 15 March 2007, Officer One, in consultation with parole supervisors and Parole Officer Two, decided to do a home visit with the intention of doing a search. At that time, Officer Three was assigned to the “Targeted Offender Program” which was then doing visits in cases where the parolees, as the defendant, had been convicted of burglary.

On 16 March 2007, prior to conducting any home visits, Parole Officer Two met with other officers of the 67th Precinct Anti-Crime Unit who had been assigned to assist him in the execution of the home visits. Parole Officer Two had selected the parolees’ homes which would be visited and identified them to the police officers. He also told the police officers the number of people to expect at each home and the crime for which the parolee was on parole. Parole Officer One did not participate in the visit or search.