Drug Possesion

Published on: November 20, 2012

Court Discusses 5th Amendment Double Jeopardy Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

On the morning of December 15, 1971 two men and a woman were observed entering the New York residence of the husband and his wife carrying empty shopping bags or, in Grant’s case, with a collapse valise. A New York Criminal Lawyer said when they departed, the three left with their once empty receptacles, filled. They were then followed to different distribution points where they were arrested. Searches conducted incident to the arrests revealed that they each had over one pound of heroin possession (drug possession). A subsequent search of the couple’s residence produced large amounts of narcotics, money, weapons and drug packaging materials.

On December 28, 1971 the three were indicted by the Bronx County Grand Jury which, by five indictments, charged the three and the wife with criminal law violation through crack possession. The indictments also charged one of the three complainants with two counts of attempted murder, two counts of reckless endangerment and possession of a weapon; and the complainant couple with two counts each of possession of weapon and criminally using drug paraphernalia.

Thereafter, in November, 1972 the complainants and 14 others were indicted by a Federal Grand Jury for conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute narcotic drugs. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said the indictment set forth 18 overt acts that the complainants allegedly committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, the last of which stated that the three together with the husband did distribute and possess with intent to distribute a total of eight and one-half (8 1/2) kilograms of heroin hydrochloride, and, in addition, did obtain $70,000 income and resources from prior heroin distributions.

Published on: November 20, 2012

Court Discusses Whether Constitution Rights of Inmates has been Violated

by Stephen Bilkis

Respondent inmates brought this class action in Federal District Court challenging the constitutionality of numerous conditions of confinement and practices in the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC), a federally operated short-term custodial facility in New York City designed primarily to house pretrial detainees for federal criminal offense. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the District Court, on various constitutional grounds, enjoined, the practice of housing, primarily for sleeping purposes, two inmates in individual rooms originally intended for single occupancy (“double-bunking”); enforcement of the so-called “publisher-only” rule prohibiting inmates from receiving hard-cover books that are not mailed directly from publishers, book clubs, or bookstores; the prohibition against inmates’ receipt of packages of food and personal items from outside the institution; the practice of body-cavity searches of inmates following contact visits with person from outside institution; and the requirement that pretrial detainees remain outside their rooms during routine inspections by MCC officials. The Court of Appeals affirmed these rulings, holding with respect to the “double-bunking” practice that the MCC had failed to make a showing of “compelling necessity” sufficient to justify such practice.

The issue in this case is whether the constitutional rights of the inmates has been violated because of the conditions of confinement and practices imposed by the MCC, a facility designed to house a pre-trial detainees who committed federal criminal offense.

The Court held that, “double-bunking” practice does not deprive pretrial detainees of their liberty without due process of law in contravention of the Fifth Amendment.

Published on: November 17, 2012

Court Discusses Search Warrant

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is about the validity of a search warrant which authorized a search of the premises where defendant resided, and also of another residential unit distantly located. A New York Criminal Lawyer said whether the warrant itself is sufficient; and whether by collateral estoppel the infirmity of the warrant may be argued or applied to the other residence; has to be determined by the Court.

On September 10, 1985, a New York City Police officer applied by telephone to a Queens County Criminal Court Judge for a search warrant for two premises in Queens: 155-47 116th Avenue; and the second floor of a two family dwelling at 116-66 231st Street. The application was based on the information provided to the Police Officer by an unregistered and unidentified informant, who had provided information in the past. According to the informant, there were two black males who had been abducted, beaten and were near death from a ruined drug crime transaction (drug possession) at the 116th Avenue location. The informant also said to the Police Officer that he had just left the location twenty minutes earlier and that he had been in the company of three of the suspects who were going to the 231st Street location, at about 8:00 P.M., in order to cut and distribute drugs.

The judge authorized a “no-knock” search of both premises and authorized the arrest of all persons found therein, as well as the seizure of any contraband found. The search of the 116th Avenue location resulted in the arrest of seven people and the recovery of misdemeanor quantities of narcotics and several rifles. The search of the 231st Street location, which is defendant’s home, resulted in the arrest of defendant and five others, and the recovery of substantial amount of narcotics, handguns, cash, and drug paraphernalia.

Published on: November 16, 2012

Court Discusses Elements of a Criminal Conspiracy

by Stephen Bilkis

The two accused men, charged with the crimes of Criminal Sale of a Dangerous Drug and Conspiracy (drug possession), move to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the prosecution puts them in jeopardy again for crimes of which they already have been convicted in another jurisdiction. They contend, in short, that their prosecution in Nassau County of the crime of Conspiracy included therein acts which are alleged in this indictment and thus fall within the proscriptions of the Criminal Procedure Law which prohibit such a second prosecution. The Court ordered a hearing on the contentions of the accused men and the facts and circumstances of the issues as testified to at the hearing.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accused men with others met the undercover Police Officer who was accompanied by an informer at a restaurant owned by one of the accused in Queens County Restaurant. There was a discussion concerning the buying and selling of cocaine and the accused men quoted prices to the undercover detective. An agreement was made the next day to meet at the same place for the purchase of 1/8 of a kilo and at the subsequent meeting the accused delivered the 1/8 of a kilo to the officer and received from him the sum of $4,000 as a payment. Having established a basis for doing business, the accused men and undercover officer, entered into another deal at a Restaurant for the sale of a kilo for $32,000. The actual sale for the kilo was made in Nassau County.

Subsequently,a Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said the accused men were indicted in Queens County charged with the crime of Criminal Sale in the First Degree, involving the $4,000 sale and the conspiracy which led up to that substantive crime. They were also indicted by the Nassau County Grand Jury for crimes involving the $32,000 sale, Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance, Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance and Conspiracy.

Published on: November 12, 2012

Appellant Seeks to Preclude Testimony of Lower Court

by Stephen Bilkis

On this proceeding, a real estate company and a man move for a relief, in which both of them seek inspection of the grand jury minutes, suppression of evidence, discovery and disclosure. The real estate company and the man are both charged under count one with attempted promoting prostitution in the third Degree.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the City of New York’s proof consisted of the testimony of two undercover police officers. The first undercover officer testified that when he entered in the real estate’s office with another undercover officer and spoke to a real estate agent, he indicated that he wanted to rent a house in the neighborhood. The real estate agent arranged to show a house to the undercover officer. While walking to the house, the real estate agent explained that the owner wanted the house to be used for commercial purposes. The undercover officer speaks with the agent in Spanish language explaining that it would not be a problem because he was in the people’s business and that the house would be the house of prostitution. A Long Island Criminal Lawyer said the real estate agent then allegedly explained to the undercover officer that the house they were going to see would not be suitable for that purpose because it had recently been used as a house of prostitution. It had been closed down by the police, with extensive media coverage. The real estate agent said that he would try to find another house that would be more suitable.

Afterwards, the undercover officer returned to the real estate’s office. On that occasion, the original real estate agent was assisted by the man who was introduced to the undercover officers as being a real estate agent who had some prior knowledge with that kind of business. The man suggested a house that was in a secluded area.

Published on: November 12, 2012

Defendants Move for Summary Judgment

by Stephen Bilkis

This involves a case where the Supreme Court Appellate division held that conceivability is not equivalent to foreseebility. The Court herein granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the plaintiff was a tenant in a building located at 584 Academy Street in Manhattan, owned by defendant holding company and managed by defendant development company. In the early afternoon of February 26, 2002, 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.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries, claiming that defendants failed to provide adequate security for the building. Specifically, a New York Criminal Lawyer said the plaintiff’s theory of liability is that defendants failed to maintain a working lock on the door to the tenants’ entrance, which failure allowed the assailant to gain entry to the building and assault plaintiff.

Published on: November 11, 2012

Defendant Denied Right to Counsel

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is about the Prosecution’s appeal from the order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 12, 1982, which granted defendant’s motion to suppress certain statements since his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights were violated by the Police Officers.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said on March 12, 1981, the defendant was arrested on charges of murder in Pemberton, New Jersey. The murder occurred on May 23, 1980 in Queens County, New York. The detectives took the defendant to the local police station in Pemberton, where he was read his Miranda rights. He was then transported to the Burlington County’s prosecutor’s office where he was again given his Miranda rights. Later that day, at approximately 3:00 P.M., defendant was produced before a Judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey where he waived his right to extradition and agreed to return voluntarily to New York.

Specifically, the New Jersey Judge exhaustively explained to defendant his options as well as the concept of extradition considering that he is also wanted in the City of New York for the crime of murder. The said Judge also offered to give him a lawyer if he could not afford one, in case he opts for extradition. After having been apprised of his options, Defendant unequivocally chose to go back to New York voluntarily, thereby waiving his right to extradition.

Published on: November 11, 2012

Court Discusses Doctor Patient Privledge

by Stephen Bilkis

Hospitals in 1955 were required by the statutory law of New York to report all procedures that involve the termination of a pregnancy. The superintendent of all New York hospitals is required to report each procedure and to subdivide the procedures into categories that reflect the nature of the termination of the pregnancy. In 1955, abortions were illegal in the state of New York. The only permitted abortions were those that were necessary to save the life of the mother. This type of abortion was termed a therapeutic abortion. The only other categories of abortion were natural and illegal. A New York Criminal Lawyer said any time that a woman naturally aborts the fetus, it is called a spontaneous abortion. There is nothing that can be done to prevent a spontaneous abortion. Sometimes, nature just detects something that modern medicine cannot and the pregnancy is self terminating. The illegal abortions are called induced. An induced abortion may be caused by actions or omissions by the mother, or by some other person. Some doctors have been known to perform illegal abortions for women in the state.

New York law requires that the superintendent of a hospital to accurately report the number of therapeutic, spontaneous, and induced abortions that are performed, or that occur in their establishment. In 1955, the prosecutor in Kings county suspected that the superintendent of Kings County Hospital in Brooklyn was not ensuring that his doctors were reporting the numbers accurately. In order to determine if any illegal abortions were being performed in the hospital the prosecutor needed to be able to examine the records of all of the abortions that were performed in the hospital for that year. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said he demanded that an emergency Grand Jury be convened to demand that the hospital provide all of the medical records of all of the abortions that occurred in the hospital that year.

The superintendent of the hospital refused to provide the records. He claimed that the demand for the records of women who had committed no crimes would be an illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The prosecutor filed charges of contempt of court against the superintendent of Kings Hospital following his refusal to disclose the personal information of innocent women in the state of New York who had not been charged or found guilty of any crime. In fact, there was no probable cause to suspect that any of them had been guilty of a crime. There was little more than a hunch on the part of the prosecutor that someone may have avoided being turned in for an illegal abortion in the hospital. By riffling through innocent American’s personal medical records, the prosecutor hoped to find a few who were guilty of a crime. Many women who had suffered through miscarriages would be forced to have their personal information reviewed by the court. Many who had to suffer through therapeutic abortions to ensure that they survived would have to explain their choices to a prosecutor. A Bronx Criminal Lawyer said the superintendent of the hospital flatly refused to deliver the medical records of the patients of his hospital to the Grand Jury for review.

Published on: November 9, 2012

Defendant Retracts Her Confession

by Stephen Bilkis

On 2009, a seventeen years old girl was arrested and subsequently accused of felony charges in two separately docketed felony complaints. She was charged with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (drug possession) when an undercover police officer alleged in the complaint that she along several others, were selling narcotics from a first-floor apartment window of a building. The officer specifically alleged that the girl, who he saw at the window inside the apartment, handed three bags of crack cocaine to his colleague, who was standing on the sidewalk outside the window. The man then immediately delivered the crack cocaine in her possession to the officer.

In a separate complaint, a New York Criminal Lawyer said the girl was also charged with crack possession. Another police officer alleged that, at about the same time the sale occurred, he entered the aforementioned apartment and found the girl and a twenty-three-year-old man, inside. The officer further stated that he recovered fifteen clear bags containing crack cocaine sitting in plain view on the dining room table. While the police officers were in the apartment, the girl’s brother entered and asked what is going on. The brother was also arrested, along with the girl and the man.

The girl appeared for her arraignment and the court assigned the public defender organization to represent her. A very experienced staff attorney from the organization was designated to be the girl’s attorney. The attorney met with the girl to discuss the case prior to her court appearance. He went over the factual allegations in the accusatory instruments with her, and she then told the attorney her version of the events. When the girl appeared, she entered pleas of not guilty to all charges. The cases were deferred for grand jury action.

Published on: November 7, 2012

Court Finds No Probable Cause for Search

by Stephen Bilkis

On January 20, 1984, two police officers were on patrol in a marked police car, when they observed a white, 2-door Pontiac stopped or standing adjacent to a fire hydrant, at the intersection in the Bronx. The police officer who had been operating the patrol car stopped and requested the woman to move the auto from the hydrant, whereupon she stated that she did not have a license and that it was not her car. The officer maneuvered the patrol car so that its headlights faced the front of the Pontiac and both officers exited their vehicle carrying flashlights, with the patrol car driver proceeding to the passenger side and his fellow officer to the driver’s door.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said one of the officers asked the woman to produce her operator’s license, registration and insurance certificate. She responded that she did not have a license but the registration was produced from the glove compartment, although the record does not reflect whether it was retrieved by the car owner or by the woman. In any event, after the woman was unable to state the name of the owner in response to the officer’s inquiry, the police officer, who was shining a flashlight into the car, noticed a closed, brown paper bag, resting against the seat, between the car owner and the woman. He inquired as to the contents of the bag, whereupon the woman picked up the bag, handed it out the window and stated that it’s only boxes of envelopes. According to the police officer, she became confused at that point, and didn’t understand him. She complied with the command and handed the bag out the window. The other officer, who was positioned on the sidewalk behind the passenger door, only heard highlights of what had transpired between his fellow officer and the woman.

The officer took the bag and placed it on the roof of the car. He then shook it and heard a metallic sound. Contrary to the fact-finding analysis, the police officer did not testify that he believed the bag to contain a hidden weapon or an object heavy enough to be a weapon. Without any further inquiry, he opened the bag to examine the contents and discovered two tan stationery-type boxes. When he opened the first, he found hundreds of glassine envelopes and yelled to his fellow officer to watch out because he got something. Although the officer did not examine the contents, he saw that it contained what appeared to be glassine envelopes and believed that they had powder in them. Actually, the envelopes had no powder and were empty.