Articles Posted in Drug Possesion

The matters before the Criminal Court on the defendants’ motions to dismiss the charges against them of criminal solicitation in the fifth degree on the ground that there exists some jurisdictional or legal impediment to the defendants’ conviction and on the ground that the accusatory instruments are defective. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motions to dismiss the charges of criminal solicitation in the fifth degree.

A New York Criminal attorney said that all of the defendants were arrested on various streets in the Northeastern section of the City of Rochester allegedly attempting to buy small amounts of marijuana. Those streets, among them Hudson and Conkey Avenues and Berlin Street, have become known as open-air drug markets where marijuana, and in some areas cocaine and heroin, can be purchased on the streets. 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 in January 1995 with the murder of an individual, a resident of the surrounding suburb of Penfield, New York, was shot to death while reportedly attempting to purchase marijuana in one of these open-air drug markets on Berlin Street.

Continue reading

In this Criminal case, the question presented is whether a positive toxicology for marijuana and a respondent mother’s admission to prior marijuana use are sufficient to establish neglect pursuant to Family Ct Act § 1012 (f) (i) (B) or § 1046 (a) (iii). The Administration for Children’s Services (hereinafter, “ACS”) contends that they are. ACS asserts that the mother’s repeated use of marijuana establishes a prima facie case of parental culpability and that a prima facie case is not rebutted by a showing that the children were never harmed or in danger of harm and were always healthy, well kept, clean and well fed. According to ACS, dismissal of the petition based on its failure to present any specific evidence of actual impairment or imminent danger of such impairment would constitute error as a matter of law.

A New York Criminal lawyer said that Respondent mother contends that a newborn’s positive toxicology for marijuana alone is insufficient to support a finding of neglect because the test result, in and of itself, does not prove that the child was physically, mentally or emotionally impaired, or in imminent danger of being impaired. She contends that relying solely on a positive toxicology for a neglect determination fails to make the necessary causative connection to all the surrounding circumstances that may or may not produce impairment or imminent risk of impairment in the newborn child.

Additionally, respondent mother asserts that the record is insufficient to establish a prima facie case since no evidence was elicited establishing the quantity, frequency or effect of marijuana use upon her or her ability to care for her children. She emphasizes that she never used or was under the influence and criminal marijuana possession or any other drug while in the presence of any of her children. She underscores that the older children were in the care of the maternal grandmother during these occasions.

Continue reading

The judgment of the Supreme Court convicting the defendant, after jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and seventh degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 2 1/2 to 5 years and 1 year, respectively is affirmed.

The defendant relies on the decision which concluded that the knowingly requirement of Penal Law, setting forth the elements of criminal drug possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, applies also to the weight of the controlled substance, and that the trial evidence was insufficient to satisfy that mental culpability element. The defendant’s challenge here to the sufficiency of proof as to his knowledge of the weight of the controlled substance, however, was not preserved; he failed to object to the charge as given to the jury, and the court’s consideration of his claim is foreclosed as a matter of law.

Moreover, even if the issue had been preserved, it has not been shown that the trial evidence here was insufficient to satisfy the mental culpability element. In examining the record for legal sufficiency, the evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the People to determine whether there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational jury could have found the elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant had thirteen vials of crack containing, in all, 1099 milligrams of cocaine, more than twice the 500 milligram element of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree set forth in Penal Law. It is not that he would be expected to know the weight of the cocaine by hefting the vials in his hand but that a rational jury might conclude that a person observed making hand-to-hand contacts with several passers-by in the street and in possession of thirteen vials containing 1099 milligrams of cocaine when the police thereafter approached him, would know the nature and weight of the essential element in the product he was carrying. The Court of Appeals recognized that often there will be evidence from which the requisite knowledge may be deduced. However, the Court was dealing with a conviction for attempted possession of psilocybin, a hallucinogen, in a package of mushrooms, and noted that the same inference may be unavailable for such controlled substances measured by pure weight for purposes of the statutory definitions of the crime but customarily combined with other substances to facilitate handling and use. Penal Law, for violation of which the defendant here was convicted, is similarly in terms of pure weight, but of cocaine, a much more common drug in our society and one commonly sold in the form of crack in vials. Here the test being described whether sufficient evidence was presented at trial from which it could be inferred that the defendant had the requisite knowledge of weight would have been met if the question had been preserved. No marijuana was found.

Continue reading

This is an appeal where defendant was convicted defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of six years to life, unanimously affirmed.

A New York Criminal lawyer said that in March 2001, New York Police Department Sergeant was supervising a group of detectives in an undercover narcotics operation, and, along with a Detective was parked in an unmarked van on Riverside Drive, when a white Mazda with New Jersey license plates parked in front of them, next to a fire hydrant. The officers watched as defendant exited the Mazda’s passenger side, and a man exited the driver’s side. The two men walked north to a stairway which led to an underpass beneath Riverside Drive.

Approximately 15 minutes later, defendant and the mane returned to the Mazda, and looked around them before getting into the car and driving away. The Mazda drove north on Riverside Drive, then made a U-turn between 138th and 139th Streets, crossing over double yellow lines and pavement “zebra striping,” which designated that crossing and turning were not permitted.

Continue reading

A criminal investigator was assigned to investigate border crimes. He approached a man outside a hotel and asked to speak with him. The investigator had been conducting surveillance of the man since the day before after receiving a tip from an informant. Eventually, the investigator found a bag of what he suspected to be marihuana in the man’s backpack. The tests confirmed it was 15.9 ounces of marijuana. The man was then escorted to his room where his co-offender had been awakened by another agent who was already present in the room. The agents searched the luggage and room. They then found four small bags containing rocks of crack cocaine and cocaine which had an aggregate weight of seven grams was found inside a closed camera bag, which also contained a roll of approximately $500 in cash and the co-offenders identification. The man and his companion were then arrested and read their Miranda rights.

After a hearing, the court denied the offender’s motion to suppress the drugs and other evidence. The court, however, precluded the complainant from introducing any of the offender’s statements to police after the discovery of the marihuana in his backpack. As a result, no Huntley hearing was held.

Sources revealed that prior to the trial the man’s co-offender entered a plea of guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, the sole count against her, admitting she possessed the cocaine in her camera bag with intent to sell it.

Continue reading

On 2 September 1998, a first meeting was had between CI and JC. However, CI postponed the transaction. Thus, on 3 September 1998, a second meeting was had and it was where CI met with DM on a Queens Street. DM then told CI to come to his house but CI refused and the two then walked on where they met up with JC who was driving a Maxima. DM allegedly said that the $2M was in the rear seat of this car and both DM and JC asked the “seller”, CI, to enter the vehicle to check out the money. CI refused to do so. DM then removed a suitcase (contents unknown) from the rear seat and placed it in the trunk. Again, CI was asked to inspect the money which was allegedly in the suitcase. At that point, DM and JC each held a semi-automatic handgun, each defendant pulled back the slide of his handgun in order to load a bullet into the chamber, and each defendant then pressed the nuzzle of his handgun against the rib area of the CI, and DM stated, in substance, “Get in the car, or I’ll put one in your side.”

Detective JL, who was in charge of the operation recovered a loaded semi-automatic handgun from the ground where he saw DM throw it and other members of his team recovered a similar weapon from the trunk of the car, which had remained open, where they saw JC throw it.

DM and JC were arrested and charged with Attempted Criminal Possession of Drugs in the First Degree, Kidnapping in the Second Degree, Criminal Possession of a Weapon (a loaded firearm) and Attempted Robbery in the First Degree. DM was held without bail and was later indicted for these crimes.

An offender was charged with one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree and one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. A hearing was held to determine whether probable cause existed to arrest the offender and whether cocaine alleged to have been recovered from his person is admissible at trial.

A police officer testified that he was employed as a sergeant and supervised a narcotics investigation of cocaine-dealing in the county. As part of the investigation two undercover police officers were used to make purchases of cocaine.

The primary target of the investigation was a man known to the police. Prior to the date of the arrest, approximately five purchases of cocaine had been made by the undercover police officers. The first purchase of cocaine was made by the first undercover police officer directly from the man. The balance of the purchases thereafter was made by the second undercover police officer and involved other individuals assisting the man. The said other individuals acted in various role such as lookouts, distributor of the drug and handlers of currency. The police officer further stated that the man was either present or aware based on phone communications of each of the narcotics transactions.

Continue reading

July 7, 2010, the Judge of the New York City Criminal Court reviewed and approved a warrant authorizing the search of 105 West 128th Street, Apartment 4, New York, New York and seize cocaine and crack/cocaine and drug paraphernalia as well as any records and currency that would be indicative of drug trafficking. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that, defendant is charged with Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Third and Fifth Degrees, two counts of Criminally Using Drug Paraphernalia in the Second Degree and Unlawful Possession of Marijuana. Defendant moves to controvert the search warrant on the ground that it was issued without reasonable cause. Specifically, defendant claims that there is no nexus between the apartment that is the subject of the search warrant and the facts upon which the search of the apartment was ordered. Defendant also moves, pursuant to CPLR 2221(d), for leave to reargue the Court’s Order which granted the People’s ex-parte motion for a Protective Order pertaining to paragraphs 6 and 7 of the search warrant affidavit.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, according to defendant, he resided at 105 West 128th Street, Apt. 4, New York, New York for the past ten years. On July 8, 2010, at approximately 12:45 a.m., as defendant entered the ground floor lobby of 105 West 128th Street, the police rushed into the building and summarily seized and searched him. Two cellular phones, two keys to defendant’s apartment and $26.00 in United States currency was recovered from defendant. He was then handcuffed and subjected to a custodial interrogation in the lobby of his residence, which resulted in defendant making a statement to the police. The police had a search warrant for defendant’s apartment. However, defendant was not the subject of the warrant and the warrant did not authorize the search or seizure of any person “thereat or therein.”

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that, upon execution of the search warrant, the police recovered 3,104 mg. of marijuana, 3,278 mg. cocaine, a .32 caliber magazine, six .32 caliber bullets, scales, zip lock bags, $70.00 in United States currency, an identification card in defendant’s name, a letter addressed to defendant and a computer. According to defendant the police recovered a total of $889.00 in this case. The warrant affidavit basically sets forth in substance, the following facts, namely, that the Detective received information from an undercover police officer relating to the sale of cocaine at the barber shop located on the ground and first floor level of 237 Lenox Avenue. Those observations were set forth in the affidavit for a search warrant.

Continue reading

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, the People’s evidence consists mainly of testimony by the Police Officer that on June 12, 1977, he peered through the partially opened window of the brightly lit rest room at the rear of premises used as a bar. He observed the defendant enter with three or four other individuals. Defendant took a clear plastic bag containing white powder from the crotch of his pants and used a silver plastic spoon to scoop powder out of the bag. Although their backs faced the window, the Officer concluded that the defendant’s companions were snorting, i. e., partaking of the white powder the defendant offered to them. Defendant spooned the white powder from the bag separately for each of his companions. As defendant raised the spoon to each man’s face, the Officer could see the powder in the spoon. As defendant withdrew the spoon after the powder had been “snorted,” Anderson saw that the spoon was empty. He drew his conclusion from the motions they made with their hands, as well as from the noises they made.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that, the Officer radioed his observation, including a description of defendant, to back-up officers who then entered the tavern. then observed a fellow officer enter the rest room and direct defendant and his one remaining companion (the others having left in the interim) to place their hands on the wall. Defendant dropped the contraband as he complied with this directive. The Officer then left his observation post, entered the tavern, proceeded to the rest room, and upon entering the latter, retrieved the bag of narcotics (cocaine) from the floor. He preliminarily frisked defendant for weapons in the rest room. At the station house, he searched the defendant and found a silver quarter teaspoon (measuring spoon) and $1,111 cash 1 in defendant’s pocket. The police testimony was credited by the Justice presiding at the Suppression Hearing and subsequently by the jury at trial, resulting in a judgment convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

A New York Cocaine Possession Lawyer said that, on appeal, defendant urges that the Officer’s surveillance of the rest room constituted a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment not justified by exigent circumstances and without benefit of a warrant. He concludes that since the narcotics, the spoon and the money were seized as a result of the surveillance, these items should be suppressed.

Continue reading

A Kings Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant, is charged with one count Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree under P.L. § 220.03. He moves to dismiss the accusatory instrument on the grounds that the original complaint was facially insufficient and as a result, his right to a speedy trial has been violated under C.P.L. § 30.30. The People oppose the defendant’s motion.

A Kings Marijuana Possession Lawyer said that, the Police Officer is informed by the sworn statement of another Police Officer shield number 16694 that, on or about July 21, 2011 at approximately 8:10 p.m. at a location opposite 130 Palmetto Street in Kings County, New York State, the informant observed the defendant in possession of a quantity of cocaine which Informant recovered from the ground where co-defendant, dropped it. The complaint is accompanied by a supporting deposition from the Police Officer dated July 21, 2011 as well as a positive lab test for cocaine, dated July 29, 2011.

The issue in this case is whether defendant’s motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument on the grounds that the original complaint was facially insufficient and as a result, his right to a speedy trial has been violated under C.P.L. § 30.30.

Continue reading