New York

Published on: May 12, 2012

Mother’s Day Gathering Ends in Disaster

by Stephen Bilkis

On this proceeding, the man moves to be granted judgment without trial to dismiss the complaint against him.

The man is the brother of the complainant woman. The siblings separated since an event that occurred during mother’s day at a family gathering. Based on records, there have been numerous family court matters involving their family.

On the said event, a New York Criminal Lawyer said a sixteen year old nephew of the complainant and the man exposed himself and masturbated in front of the man’s five year old daughter. The said incident caused a huge schism in the family, with various family members taking sides against each other. At some point after the incident, the complainant, who was a hall monitor at an old elementary school, confronted the daughter of the man. According to the man, the complainant cross examined his daughter about the incident. As a result on the said confrontation to the child, the man alleged that her daughter became frightened and did not want to see or speak to the complainant.

Published on: May 12, 2012

Court Discusses Felony Murder Rule

by Stephen Bilkis

An appeal was made by a woman for a gun crime that killed a police officer. The woman and her boyfriend drove to New York City to visit some friends. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that after the first few nights, the couple settled in at the Hempstead Motor Inn. On the afternoon of Saturday, as the couple drove past a woman’s clothing store, the stated that she like the black dress. They entered the boutique, which is located near the intersection, through the front door. The bathroom of the boutique has a window which looks out onto the rear parking area. The window was covered by wooden slats and glass slats. The woman went into the fitting room to try on some clothes, but his boyfriend wasn’t in sight when she came out. The sales attendant informed the woman that her boyfriend had asked to use the bathroom. The woman went back to the fitting room and when she again came out, her boyfriend was standing by the front window, front door and he had picked out a blouse for her to try on. Although she didn’t buy anything she had seen, she did buy the blouse picked out for her by her boyfriend and they left the store without buying anything.

In her statement given after complete Miranda warnings, the woman said that on the afternoon of the gun crime incident, she and her boyfriend went into Manhattan, where he purchased an ankle holster for his gun; that she remained outside the store while her boyfriend bought it, and she wasn’t aware of what he had bought, notwithstanding the fact that she put the bag into her purse. Later, in the early hours of the morning after, the couple decided to get something to eat and the woman changed her clothes. They drove to a bar, when they arrive, her boyfriend told her to stay in the car while he looked for a man. Her boyfriend returned a short time later and they drove around, finally backing into an alleyway and turning out the lights. When the woman asked what he was doing, he allegedly replied not to worry.

The woman stayed in the car to watch for the cops while her boyfriend broke into the back window of the clothing boutique.

Published on: May 12, 2012

Defendant Charged with Murder

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was convicted of gun crime murder of another man whom he personally knew. The murder occurred one Sunday of March 1975 at two o’clock in the morning. A woman, who is a sole nonparticipant eyewitness to the gun crime, lived in a one-family residence on the north side of the crime scene. A New York Criminal Lawyer said she was in her early forties and did not wear eyeglasses. During the week she was a government postal employee and had a part-time job delivering newspapers every Sundays.

One Sunday morning, the witness planned to arise at 2:00 A.M. and set her alarm clock accordingly. Just before the alarm went off, she heard a noise that sounded like a fire cracker but when she got up and looked, she saw what it was. She turned off the alarm and walked to her front door, a matter of only a few steps. The interior of the house was in complete darkness.

An automobile was parked right outside her house, on the north side of the street, facing west. Illumination was provided by a mercury vapor overhead streetlight. The car was parked under the light. The witness viewed the killing from about 80 feet away.

Published on: May 12, 2012

Defendant Charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon

by Stephen Bilkis

Two plainclothes police officers were sitting in an unmarked car which was parked near a high crime area just outside a bar. For the past two weeks prior to the incident, there had been hold-ups in the neighborhood. They noticed a car with African-American males in it slow down in front of the bar and stop their car briefly. A New York Criminal Lawyer said they looked around and all three occupants of the car stared at the bar.

The police officer followed the car. The car stopped at a stop sign. And the car went again and slowed down in front of another bar. They briefly paused in front of the bar and all the males stared at the bar. Then they went on their way. The police car still followed them for half a block and then the police officer stopped the car.

The police officer asked for the license and registration. The driver of the car got out of the car and tried to explain to the police officer that he had forgotten his wallet in the house. The other two passengers in the car bent down over their seats. The other two men didn’t have any IDs either.

Published on: May 12, 2012

Court Charges Accomplice with Robbery

by Stephen Bilkis

A man met some friends one afternoon and drove with them in his car to another friend’s house. There they all spent the night. The next morning, two of his friends asked him to drive them to an address in Queens where he was going to see a man about a job. The friend who owned the car agreed to drive his two friends to Queens.

During the drive to Queens, the driver/owner of the car observed and saw one of his friends in possession of a gun. He dropped off his two friends. Before drove away, one of his friends came back to the car, showed him the gun and told him that they were planning to rob the house. The driver/owner of the car drove away.

A few minutes after he drove away, he was accosted by police officers on the road just a short distance from the address where he dropped them off. He was asked by the police officers who stopped him if he knew the two men he dropped off. He said he knew them. He admitted that he had dropped them off. What he did not admit was that he knew that they had planned to rob the house where he dropped them off. He never told the police that he saw one of his friends in possession of a gun.

Published on: May 11, 2012

Court Discusses Probable Cause in Drug Possession Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The police officers of the 32nd precinct in New York City were assigned to conduct surveillance over the corner of 128th Street and 8th Avenue because this was known as a high-drug crime area. Many arrests for cocaine possession and heroin possession have been made at this corner.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that tne police officer saw perched atop a condemned building, holding binoculars and observing the goings on at the street corner. His partner was near the street corner, waiting for a signal from his partner on the rooftop.

At 1:30 pm of February 26, 1977, the police officer on the rooftop saw one man at the corner. Most passersby hurry on by but that man stayed put. He kept having brief conversations with those who come by him but those people moved on. The man stayed. The officer observed the man for forty-five minutes.

Published on: May 11, 2012

Defense Takes Issue with Warrantless Search

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was convicted on his guilty plea of marijuana possession in the first degree. His motion to cover up the evidence of marijuana cultivation seized by state police on a search warrant was denied. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the appellate division generally affirmed in a memorandum agreeing with the court’s conclusion that the man’s act of posting no trespassing signs about every 20 to 30 feet around the perimeter of his property, which consisted of 165 acres of rural, hilly, undeveloped, uncultivated fields and woodlands except for the man’s cultivation of marijuana, did not establish an expectation of privacy cognizable under the right to privacy protection of the constitution.

On execution of the search warrant, the state police with assistance of sheriff’s department searched the property owned by the man. The application for the warrant included the in camera testimony of a private citizen, who had shot and wounded a deer and followed it onto the man’s property. The private citizen observed what appeared to be the remnants of a marijuana growing operation. When the private citizen entered the property again, he testified that he saw approximately 50 marijuana plants under cultivation. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the private citizen reported the information to the state police and gave a leaf that he obtained from one of the plants on the property. Consequently, an investigator accompanied the private citizen to the site where the investigator personally observed the plants. None of the entries of the Investigator or the private citizen was with the man’s knowledge or permission.

The warrant application contained tax maps showing that the property belonged to the man and a report of an anonymous telephone tip that the man was growing marijuana on the said property. The court then found that the property was noticeably marked with no trespassing signs which is clearly visible and indeed observed by not only the private citizen but the police units entering the property. The residence consisted of a mobile home with no utilities which located near the road. The marijuana plants were not found within the area around the man’s mobile home but some 300-400 yards away.

Published on: May 11, 2012

Drug Possession Defendant Contends No Probable Charge for Search

by Stephen Bilkis

One early morning in August of the year 2000, a police officer and his partner were on patrol in uniform in a marked patrol car. The officer testified that he had been a member of the New York City Police Department for four years and had made approximately 10 arrests involving cocaine possession or marijuana possession, had received training with respect to narcotics and marijuana at the police academy, and been involved in over 100 criminal law and drug crime related arrests. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the officer also testified that he considered interaction with criminals as part of his training on the subject of narcotics, and that he had been involved with hundreds of suspects who were under the influence of alcohol or marijuana. Specifically, the officer testified that he had seen loose tobacco in piles in stairwells, on sidewalks, and most commonly alongside glassine envelopes, and based upon these experiences as a police officer, he had learned that the presence of loose tobacco was a result of an individual emptying out a Philly Blunt cigar and refilling it with marijuana and/or cocaine.

At approximately 4:00 A.M. on August 7, while in the patrol car, the officer observed the accused standing next to a parked automobile. The car was parked on the parking apron in front of a closed auto repair shop. The officer testified that the location is in the vicinity of a nightclub. The officer testified that the neighborhood near this club is patrolled more heavily because there are a lot of problems that stem from the said nightclub. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the the officer stopped at a red light, he saw the accused standing outside the open driver’s door, throwing garbage over his shoulder which landed several feet behind him. The officer also observed a passenger in the front seat of the car.

The officer pulled his patrol car into the lot behind the accused man’s vehicle and approached the accused. The accused apologized for throwing the trash and began picking it up. The officer asked the accused for his license, registration and insurance. The officer asked the accused whose car it was and the accused responded that it was his car. The accused then gave the officer a New Jersey license which had the name and bore his photograph. The officer observed that the accused had glassy eyes, was unsteady on his feet, had trouble responding to the officer’s questions, and had slurred speech. The passenger of the car had exited the car and began yelling at the officer.

Published on: May 11, 2012

Defendant Contends Lack of Jurisdiction for Warrant

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. 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. A New York Criminal Lawyer said 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. 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 10, 2012

Court Decides Larceny Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 7 December 2001, defendant and two acquaintances approached a man as he was walking with his friends in Queens, New York. Defendant held out his hand and that man, believing that the stranger was attempting to greet him, returned the gesture by slapping him “five.” A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant told the man, however, that he did not want a greeting; he made clear that he wanted the man’s compact disc player. Defendant snatched the player out of the man’s hand, walked away and allegedly began listening to the “Busta Rhymes” CD in the disc player.

The man followed defendant, repeatedly asking for his disc player back, at which time one of defendant’s acquaintances, codefendant, approached the man and told him to “run his pockets”, meaning, to give co-defendant his money. The man told co-defendant he did not have any money and then turned to continue following defendant, whereupon co-defendant repeatedly punched the man from behind, causing a laceration on the ear.