New York

Published on: May 16, 2012

Case Deals with Drug Reform Act of 2009

by Stephen Bilkis

Three men committed class B felonies involving narcotics and were sentenced to undetermined prison terms under the Rockefeller drug laws which governed sentencing of drug offenders. A New York Criminal Lawyer said two of them received sentences of 2 to 6 years and the other man was sentenced with 5 to 10 years. All were paroled but violated it and all of them were sent back to prison. After the enactment of the drug law reform act of 2009, the three men applied for resentencing.

Based on records, the drug law reform act of 2009 allows certain prisoners sentenced under the so-called Rockefeller drug laws to be resentenced. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the court hold that prisoners who have been paroled and then re-incarcerated for violating their parole are not for that reason to banned from seeking relief under the law.

Further, the drug law reform act of 2009 is codified. It permits people imprisoned for class B drug felonies committed while the Rockefeller Drug Laws were in force to apply to be resentenced under the current, less severe, sentencing regime. It was stated that any person in the custody of the department of correctional services convicted of a class B felony offense defined in the law which was committed prior to January thirteenth, who is serving an indeterminate sentence with a maximum term of more than three years, may except as provided in the law, upon notice to the appropriate district attorney, apply to be resentenced to a determinate sentence in accordance with sections of the penal law in the court which imposed the sentence.

Published on: May 15, 2012

Court Discusses Criminal Solicitation

by Stephen Bilkis

The accused parties filed motions to dismiss the charges against them of criminal solicitation on the ground that there exists some jurisdictional or legal impediment to their conviction and on the ground that the accusatory instruments are defective. The Court grants the motions to dismiss the charges of criminal solicitation.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said all of the accused were arrested on various streets in the City of Rochester allegedly attempting to buy small amounts of marijuana. The place has become known as open-air drug markets where marijuana, cocaine and heroin can be purchased on the streets. In some areas cocaine possession and heroin possession with intent to sell are rampant. Those who live and work in those areas have become frustrated at the misuse of their neighborhoods for drug activity, that activity bringing with it increased public safety concerns for themselves and their families. The potential for violence in connection with the open-air drug trafficking was illustrated and underscored with the murder of a resident of the surrounding suburb of Penfield, New York. He was shot to death while reportedly attempting to purchase marijuana in one of the open-air drug markets.

In response to the public safety concerns of the neighborhoods, and in direct response to the murder, the City of Rochester Police Department began to station undercover police officers on the various streets with reputations for being open-air drug markets (drug possession). The officers then arrested individuals who approached them attempting to buy marijuana and other drugs. In the cases before the Court, all of the accused were charged with criminal solicitation in the fifth degree, a violation punishable by a maximum of 15 days in jail. The information alleges either that the accused were soliciting the officers to sell them marijuana, or were attempting to buy a marijuana-type substance or fake marijuana.

Published on: May 15, 2012

Family Conflict Results in Criminal Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

Family Court deals with many issues that cross over from criminal court. It is not unusual for a criminal court issue to have family court repercussions. That was the case for a family on Mother’s Day 2003. A sixteen year old boy exposed himself and masturbated in front of a five year old female cousin. The incident occurred at a family gathering where most of the family was present. The boy’s Aunt and her brother, his Uncle found themselves on different sides of the argument surrounding this boy’s behavior. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that since the entire family split over the events of that day, this brother and sister continued to argue and ultimately began to file criminal and family court petitions against one another.

It appears that shortly after Mother’s Day of 2003, the Aunt confronted the five year old while she was at school. The Aunt was an employee of the school. The Uncle claims that the Aunt interrogated the child about the events of that day and that this encounter left the child frightened. The child told her father that she did not want to talk to or see her Aunt ever again. The Uncle confronted his sister about this incident and the situation went downhill from this point. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said another family member became involved and rumors amongst the family members increased. This family member told the Aunt that she had spoken to the Uncle and that he had gotten orders of protection against the Aunt.

The Aunt filed suit in family court alleging that the Uncle had defamed her and caused interference with her employment. On December 20, 2004, the Uncle filed a motion to dismiss the complaint filed by the Aunt. On March 18, 2005, the Family Court granted the Uncles motion to dismiss the Aunt’s entire complaint. The Aunt appealed this decision. The court reviewed the topics under discussion.

Published on: May 15, 2012

Defendant Claims Village Court Did Not Have Proper Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

Issues surrounding search warrants can become complicated, especially if the court that issues the search warrant is not sure if they are even able to issue a search warrant. On September 25, 2003, an associate village justice signed a search warrant for a building inspector. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the building inspector was seeking to inspect a single family home in the Village of Westbury that he believed was being used as a multiple family dwelling. He had conducted several days of observation of the dwelling and noticed that there were two entrances, one entrance into the home in the front of the house and one entrance in the back.

There were eight bicycles parked in back, and six cars parked in front. The garbage was deposited on the curb in front of the house, and more was located at the back door. The estimated garbage load was four to five times the amount that the garbage collector stated that he collected from other houses. The building inspector had received several complaints from the neighbors based on the number of people who were living in the dwelling. The estimate was around 17. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the building inspector, who had previously worked in a different village, was familiar with obtaining search warrants in his previous village. He had attempted to inspect the property on numerous occasions and he had been denied entry. He counted the number of people going in and out of the residence. The cars were registered to that address, but they had owners with several different last names.

The justice authorized the warrant for a police officer of Nassau County. The warrant specifically detailed that the evidence to be collected was to be limited to photographs of evidence that the house had been converted into a multiple family dwelling. When the warrant was served, it was served on the house at six in the morning. Several of the people who were living in the house were only partially clothed. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the officers took photographs documenting the locks on each room that denoted private living quarters inside the single family dwelling. They documented exposed wiring, plumbing, and other dangerous additions that had been made so that multiple people could reside in the single family home. In these pictures were some of the residents of the house, some of them were only partially clothed.

Published on: May 14, 2012

Court Decides Constitutionality of Seizure Law

by Stephen Bilkis

In the fall of 2005, residents of the six-story Housing Authority apartment building complained to the Police Department’s Housing Bureau about criminal law violations, trespassing in the building, crack possession and drug sales occurring in the building’s lobby. The police officer’s superiors in the Bureau passed on the complaint to him, and he thereafter performed daily vertical patrols of the building. During the fall and winter, he participated in ten to fifteen trespass or narcotics arrests in the building, most in the lobby. The prevalent illegal activity was not curtailed until early March.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said on the night of February 14, 2006, the police officer and his partner entered the building in plainclothes, their guns holstered but their shields displayed, to conduct a vertical patrol on their own initiative. As the officers entered the well-lit lobby, the accused, whom the police officer did not recognize, was standing by the lobby elevator, about ten feet from the officers and face-to-face with them, conversing with a man. The police officer could not hear what was being said.

The officer announced that they were the police. The man said something to the accused, and the accused fled towards a stairwell leading from the lobby to the upper stories of the building. The officers ran after him, calling them out to stop. As the accused ran up the stairs, between the ground and second stories, the officer, trailing shortly behind, saw the accused throw or drop several small green baggies. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the police officer recognized them from his training and past arrests to be characteristic crack-cocaine packaging, and believed they contained crack-cocaine. The officer called the accused to stop but he kept running.

Published on: May 12, 2012

Defendant Contends Police Initiated Contact Inappropropriate

by Stephen Bilkis

On 23 January 1997 at approximately 3:30 A.M., an investigator from the Albany County Sheriff’s Department boarded a bus which had arrived from New York City. The investigator, wearing civilian clothing with his police badge prominently displayed on his coat, was accompanied by two other officers. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the investigator announced that they were conducting a drug interdiction and asked everyone on board, approximately fifteen passengers, to produce bus tickets and identification. He then proceeded to the back of the bus to begin examining those items from each passenger.

As the investigator was walking to the rear of the bus, he observed defendant and a female companion, sitting in the last row of seats, push a black object between them. He approached the two individuals and asked for their identification and bus tickets. The investigator then obtained consent to search defendant’s bag which led to the discovery of a digital scale; asked defendant and his companion to stand at which time he saw a black jacket on defendant’s seat. The officer found more than two ounces of cocaine in the jacket pocket (drug possession).

Defendant was indicted on one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, drug crimes.

Published on: May 12, 2012

Defendant Contends with Premises Liability Issues

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts of the Case:

A New York Drug Posession Lawyer said the plaintiff was a tenant in a building located at Academy Street in Manhattan, owned by defendant-one and managed by defendant-two.

On 26 February 2002, in the early afternoon, plaintiff entered the building through the lone entrance available to the tenants. A man whom plaintiff did not recognize entered the building immediately after her. The man walked ahead of plaintiff up a staircase, which plaintiff was using to reach her unit on the second floor. As plaintiff opened the door to her apartment, the man, who had continued up the staircase when plaintiff walked from the staircase to her unit, ran down the staircase and pushed plaintiff into the apartment. The man then sexually assaulted plaintiff at gunpoint.

Published on: May 12, 2012

Police Officer Killed in the Process of a Burglary

by Stephen Bilkis

On October 4, 1975 a man and a woman went inside a boutique. The woman tried on dresses but did not buy any. While the woman was trying on dresses, her boyfriend asked the boutique owner if he could use her bathroom. The man observed that there was a big window in the bathroom that faced a back alley.

Three days later, the lovers parked their car in the back alley with the trunk of their car facing the back window of the bathroom. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the woman stayed near their car while her boyfriend entered the store and took clothing items and gave them to his girlfriend who stashed the clothes in the trunk.

A police officer on routine patrol passed through on his cruiser down the back alley and saw the woman; he saw clothes being pushed out of the widow, and the woman stashing the clothes in the trunk. He called for back-up and he saw the woman hide behind the car. The police officer approached and talked to the woman and asked her what she was doing. The police officer did not immediately place her under arrest.

Published on: May 12, 2012

Court Dicusses Drug Rehabilitation Program

by Stephen Bilkis

A 17-yr old defendant’s motion places in prospective whether his satisfactory “second chance” experience, as a full-time participant in a residential drug rehabilitation program, designed to return addicts (ex) or substance abusers to society, constitutes such a compelling factor, consideration or circumstance to warrant dismissal of the two top counts of the indictment Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance In The Second Degree and Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance In The Third Degree, which counts require mandatory minimums of incarceration upon conviction; cocaine possession or crack possession, a drug crime violative of criminal laws.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the People contend that the moving defendant who has no prior criminal record assisted a co-defendant in the sale of 7/8ths of an ounce of cocaine to an undercover police purchaser. Defendant was then a drug user with a dependency problem.

A pre-sentence evaluation of defendant by the Department of Probation indicates in part that he is a resident of an upstate drug program apparently raised by interested and caring parents who began abusing drugs at approximately the age of 13; apparently unable to come to terms with his abuse problems until his instant arrest; voluntarily committed himself to the Renaissance Project; he no longer denies that he has a problem and is apparently taking some action to deal with his drug abuse problem.

Published on: May 12, 2012

Defendant Contends Illegal Search and Seizure

by Stephen Bilkis

One evening, a detective was assigned as backup to an undercover police officer who was attempting to buy controlled substances at a social club. Nowhere in the records is it showed that the undercover officer was able to achieve such objective. However, later that night, the undercover officer advised the backup detective by radio transmission that a tall white male with a pony tail approached her inside the social club and asked her “if she wanted to take a hit of cocaine”. The undercover officer referred to the subject by name. It is not clear from the records of the case whether the undercover officer and the subject engaged in any additional conversation.

At about six hours after the undercover officer was offered with cocaine, she left the social club. Thereafter, the detective and other police officers arrived at the social club. The police directed its occupants to leave, and “stopped” and searched the defendant and “everybody when they came out”. The detective recovered a packet of cocaine from the defendant’s jacket pocket (drug possession) and a .38 caliber automatic gun (gun crime) from the defendant’s boot.

It is uncertain from the record whether the defendant was arrested before or after the search.