Drug Possesion

Published on: July 18, 2012

Defendant Accused of Disseminating Information to Commit a Crime

by Stephen Bilkis

In 2005, a woman took a job working for the New York City Human Resources Administration as an Associate Staff Analyst Hearing Officer in the Employee Disciplinary Unit. As an officer of this department, she had access to confidential information relative to other employees in the department as well as in other departments in New York City Government. She was prohibited by contract and by law from accessing anyone else’s confidential information without express authorization from a supervisor.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the woman was having problems within her department. She felt that she was being discriminated against by supervisors and co-workers based on her race and gender. She began inquiring outside of the department about what she should do to file a lawsuit for discrimination. She obtained advise from a friend that she should gather as much evidence as she could about the department and some of the situations that existed within that department. One of the issues that was bothering her was a romantic relationship that she felt existed between two co-workers that was inappropriate in the workplace.

She went into the Human Resources computer base and accessed their personal information so that she could provide the information to her attorney for use in her lawsuit. She admitted that she had done this in a deposition pursuant to the case. When the department discovered that she had obtained this information illegally, they fired her without notice. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said she appealed her termination on the grounds that she did not violate the law since she did not disseminate the information that she had obtained and she did not use the information to commit a crime.

Published on: July 18, 2012

Defendant Contends Abuse of Discretion by Trial Court

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

A member of the New York City Police Department was detailed to work with the Drug Enforcement Administration Task Force (Task Force). His usual assignment with the Task Force was as an undercover officer (office-one), and that was the assignment he was performing, when, on 16 July 1981, he met with an informant who later introduced him with the co-defendant.

Thereafter, meetings were set and arrangements were made for officer-one to buy quantities of cocaine (cocaine possession). The co-defendant said that he could deliver a pound from someone that he knew, the herein defendant. Accompanied by another officer (officer-two), upon their meet, defendant only promised to deliver two ounces of cocaine for the reason that they didn’t know each other. Subsequently, the parties agreed to buy the two ounces of cocaine. Shortly after officer-two produced a brown bag with money, and, while defendant was looking into the money bag, officer-two placed defendant under arrest.

Published on: July 18, 2012

Defendant Claims Court Abused its Discretion

by Stephen Bilkis

Appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court were made. The proceedings found the accused man to be a dangerous sex offender and confined him to a secure treatment facility.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accused man has an extensive psychiatric and criminal history that includes convictions for two rapes and forcible touching involving three different female victims. At age 23, he was charged with rape in the third degree, sodomy in the third degree and endangering the welfare of a child for having sexual relations with a girl under the age of 17 who was living with him.

According to the victim, they initially had a consensual (but illegal) sexual relationship, but the accused man thereafter repeatedly forced her to have sexual contact with him against her will. The accused man claimed that it was consensual and that he believed she was 17 years old, although he admitted having been advised that she was younger. He entered a guilty plea in satisfaction of all charges, and was sentenced to five months in jail and 10 years of probation. While on probation, the accused was charged with forcible touching for forcibly grabbing the private body parts of an 18-year-old employee of his drywall business. He later entered an Alford plea to that charge and was sentenced to a two-month jail term. After a hearing, New York Criminal Lawyer said the accused man was classified as a risk level III sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act. That same month while still on probation, the accused was charged with first-degree rape for an incident in which he went with a friend to a female acquaintance’s apartment and forcibly held her down and raped her in her bedroom where he had lured her by deceiving her into believing that they needed to speak privately. He again was permitted to enter an Alford plea to the proceedings. Although he was released on parole supervision, the accused man’s parole was revoked months later when he was charged with numerous instances of violating the conditions of his release, including having prohibited contact with women and viewing erotic images of women, and admitted to one parole violation charge of exchanging electronic messages with a woman.

Published on: July 17, 2012

Defense Finds Discrepancy in Handling Juvenile Proceedings

by Stephen Bilkis

In November of 2010, a situation was brought to the attention of the Queens County court system that they found disturbing. The situation involved a discrepancy in the handling of juvenile proceedings. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the courts had been using a computer generated report from the New York Department of Probation that prepared a numerical value that was supposed to predict the recidivism rate of juvenile offenders. This rate was then used to determine if the offender needed high supervision or no supervision from the Department of Probation.

The problem was brought to the attention of the courts by a defense attorney who became concerned about the supervision level that was recommended for his client. He began to do the math manually and discovered that the program was written to discriminate against male offenders. The program assigned a numerical score to several risk factors that were considered a sign that the offender might commit the same or similar offenses in the future. In this case, the computer program assigned fifteen points if the offender was a male. That meant that from the beginning, a male offender was considered in need of more supervision than a female offender who had committed the same crime, or even one that was more serious. The fifteen points that were assigned solely based on the gender of the offender was clearly gender discrimination. After evaluating all of the other risk factors, it became obvious that the risk factor appointment of an additional fifteen points to male offenders, made a significant difference in their chances for a less restrictive probationary regime.

The fact that the rate could increase by fifteen points solely based on gender was so offensive to this defense attorney and he presented eight cases that demonstrated the gender bias that was being committed by the use of this computer program to evaluate juvenile offenders. The Juvenile Department of Probation defended the computer system by claiming that the point system was merely an evaluation tool and that it would not be appropriate to disclose the exact process that was used to evaluate each offender. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the court did not accept this explanation and ordered the disclosure of the process. The court, upon discovering the obvious gender bias associated with the use of the program required the Juvenile Department of Probation to explain why it was defending the process. The Department presentatives claimed that they were attempting to find a way of evaluating each offender that limited the individual influence of probation officers in an attempt to remove personal bias from the process.

Published on: July 17, 2012

Court Discusses Conspiracy to Sell Drugs

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, drug crimes are prosecuted according to the specifics of the case. Each case is determined on the merit of the totality of the circumstances. A New York Lawyer said issues such as the type of drug, amount of the drug, and whether or not a weapon was involved are considered when determining the severity of the offense. In New York, the courts also consider if the person is a drug addict, or a person who is involved in the sale and distribution of a narcotic drug. There are several actions that are available to assist a person who is convicted in New York of a drug offense if they can demonstrate that they are driven by a compulsion because of addiction to the drug. On the other hand, if the person is not an addict, but a dealer at any level of a criminal conspiracy to sell drugs, they are punished more severely

Another issue of relevance in a drug offense in New York, depends on the actions of the person engaged in the illegal conspiracy to sell drugs. A person becomes an agent of a dealer or purchaser of narcotic drugs when they actively take part in either the distribution or procurement of the illegal substance. In New York, the statute establishes a rule that anyone who acts solely as the agent of a purchaser of narcotics cannot be convicted of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance.

In one case, an undercover police officer was assigned to infiltrate the drug underworld in a certain area and make arrests based on the evidence that he uncovered. He began going to bars in the neighborhood, and eventually noticed that one particular man kept showing up. The undercover officer befriended the man and eventually asked him where he could purchase some narcotics. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man stated that he knew where some narcotics could be procured, and he estimated the cost of four ounces of the narcotics would cost about three to four thousand dollars. The undercover officer stated that he was interested and the two men exchanged phone numbers.

Published on: July 15, 2012

Defendant Claims He was not Prosecuted in a Timely Manner

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case of appeal involving the appellant, the People of the State of New York and the respondent, William Balken. The judges overseeing the appeal case are Santucci, J.P., H. Miller, and Joy S. Miller.

Case Background

This case arises from an accident involving one vehicle that occurred on the seventh of December, 1996. The defendant was driving his vehicle at almost twice the legally posted speed limit in the area. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer was passing a friends vehicle by driving in a center turn lane on the road. While driving at this fast rate and in a turn lane the defendant lost control of his vehicle on a curve in the road. This caused the vehicle to turn over and two of the passengers of the vehicle died as a result.

Published on: July 15, 2012

Court Hears Case Involving Wire Fraud

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiffs in this case are Michael and Mary Marcantonio. The defendants in the matter are Michael Picozzi, III, Viola, Benedetti, Azzolini & Morano, LLC, Project Real Estate, Inc., and John McHugh. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Nassau County. Judge Michele M. Woodard is hearing the case.

Case Information

In the first motion sequence the defendants Michael Picozzi, III, and Viola, Benedetti, Azzolini & Morano, LLC have moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that there is no cause of action stated.

Published on: July 15, 2012

Defendant Gives Voluntary Confession

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the District Court of Suffolk County, First District. Judge Salvatore A. Alamia is hearing the case. The plaintiff of the case is the People of the State of New York. The defendant in the case is Colin O’Reilly.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant has been charged with driving while intoxicated, failing to maintain lane violating traffic law 1128, and two counts of failing to stop at a stop sign, violating traffic law 1172.

Published on: July 14, 2012

Defendant Bring a Motion for Return of His Vehicle

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff and claiming authority in this case is Christine Malafi. Malafi is the County Attorney for the County of Suffolk in New York. The defendants in the matter are Richard J. Hartman, Daimler Chrysler Financial Services of America, LLC, and a 2002 Dodge with the VIN number ID7H18Z92J20663. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Suffolk County.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said this case is a civil forfeiture preceding that involves a 2002 Dodge with the VIN number ID7H18Z92J20663. The plaintiff, Christine Malafi, the Suffolk County Attorney is seeking forfeiture of this vehicle from the owner, defendant Richard J. Hartman. Daimler Chrysler Financial Services of America, LLC is the lien holder of the vehicle.

Published on: July 14, 2012

Defendant Contends He Should Not Be Required to Enter Willard Program

by Stephen Bilkis

Caleb Christiansen and the State of New York are the plaintiffs in this matter. The defendant is a Warden of the County of the Suffolk County Jail, Charles Ewald. The case is being heard in the Suffolk County Court. The Honorable Emily Pines is the Justice overseeing the case.

The petitioner of the case has written a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner has requested to be released from the Suffolk County Jail. The Petitioner does not wish to be transferred to the Willard Program, which is a drug treatment facility. A New York Criminal Lawyer said there has been a stay issued on behalf of Caleb Christensen, that has not allowed him to be transferred to the Willard Program until a hearing could be held to determine the legality of his detention and whether or not he should be entered into the 90 day Willard Program.

Case History