The Facts:
On 21 March 2002, defendant was sentenced in Michigan to a two-year probation following his plea of guilty to attempted home invasion in the first degree under Criminal Law.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on 22 August 2003, defendant was charged in Bronx County with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and seventh degrees, respectively.
A team of police officers conducted a buy and bust narcotics operation. The undercover officer carried bills which had been photostatted and drove to the location where twelve people were standing near the area. The officer called out from his automobile asking if anyone had dimes. A New York Criminal Lawyer said based on records, the word dimes mean a $10.00 bag of heroin. The man then came over to the auto and asked the officer what he wanted. The officer then replied again the word dimes. Then, another man standing a few feet behind the first man asked the officer if he wanted Santa Claus. The officer being unfamiliar with the term ignored the other man. The officer again told the first man that he wanted dimes. The man asked how many and the officer replied to give him two. The man called over his shoulder the word duayduay and another man then walked to a tree about fifteen feet from the auto. He bent down, reached among the cobblestones at the base of the tree and removed some glassine envelopes. The first man told the officer to give him the money and he must give him one extra dollar. The officer gave the first man a ten, a five and five singles. The man then counted it and demanded the officer for another dollar. The officer gave him a five dollar bill and the man returned four singles. As the other man was returning to the car, another person walked over to the tree and the man yelled at him to get away. The other man then walked to the car and handed the officer the two glassine envelopes. The other man told the officer that he should get out of the area fast because it’s hot. The officer then left the area and made a transmission to his back-up team to arrest the two men. The police then recovered narcotics from the cobblestones at the base of the tree. The other man was found to have twenty dollars as recorded bills in his possession while only a single dollar bill was found on the first man.
The issue brought into the court was the argument whether the first man was an agent of the purchaser and whether the trial court’s charge on the defense of agency was damaging to the first man so as to require reversal of his conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the court then concluded that the first man was not an agent of the purchaser but rather played an active role as seller of the contraband.
As the court admitted the question of the first man’s status in the illegal transaction was a proper question for the jury and one in which they accurately determined that the first man was a seller of drugs. Based on records, it is important to remember that when the undercover officer drove to the prearranged locale, the man was not the only individual on the street, but was part of a group of twelve men. After the undercover officer asked of the congregation if anyone had dimes, the man then voluntarily emerged from the crowd and inquired as to what the officer desired and in what quantity. The second man approached and handed the narcotics directly to the officer. A few minutes later, the first and second man was arrested at which the second man had in his possession the twenty dollars of marked money while the first man was in possession of the additional dollar.
On October 10, 1979, three uniformed police officers in a marked police car approached the vicinity of Seventh Avenue between 143rd and 144th Streets. At that time, one of the police officers saw the defendant at 144th Street and Seventh Avenue, a known area for drug crimes. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the defendant was known to the police officers as he was arrested several times for marijuana possession. The officers had been instructed to keep that particular block clear of drug trafficking. In compliance with the orders, the police officer ordered the police vehicle to stop and called to defendant so that he might ascertain his address and instruct him to leave the area in the event that he did not reside in it.
The police officer called the defendant and asked him to approach the police car. The defendant walked toward the car, stopped at a distance of 15 feet away and refused to come closer. The police officer assured the defendant that he only wanted to talk with him, but the defendant refused to comply. In this instance, the police officer then emerged from the police car and the defendant, began to run. Neither officer drew his own gun at anytime. When the police officers were within ten or fifteen feet from the defendant in a schoolyard, the officers observed that the defendant reached into his waistband and threw an object to the ground. The object, a revolver, was retrieved. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the defendant was thereafter arrested and charged with two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree under criminal law.
The defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence based on the principle on search and seizure that where the abandonment was coerced by unlawful police action for lack of probable cause, the property may be not used for evidentiary purposes.
A 55 year old man, after violating a criminal law, has been placed under the Strict and Intensive Supervision and Treatment (SIST) under a sex offender civil management proceeding. Subsequently, the State filed for a petition to revoke the respondent SIST’s placement and requested the court for the respondent to be transferred under a Secure Treatment Facility under Article 10 of the Mental Health Law. The court denied the petition.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said the respondent acknowledged that he was a drug user from 1980 up to 1993. He admitted having marijuana possession and used it during his teenage years. His addiction relating to drug crime led him to commit several offences. In 1994, the court has found him guilty of Attempted Rape in the First Degree, Sexual Abuse in the First Degree and Burglary in the First Degree for entering an apartment of a lady and while holding a knife, placed her hand on his penis. Prior to this incident, he was a known exhibitionist masturbating in public places while his penis was partially exposed to public view. He admitted that he suffered from a Mental Health Abnormality thus the State entered an agreement for him to be placed and monitored under the SIST.
On August 11, 2010, the respondent placed his cellphone camera under the skirt of a woman in Union Square Park with the intention of photographing the victim. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the victim upon its discovery threw the cell phone and scuffled with the respondent. In course of the incident, the victim suffered physical injuries. In addition to this incident, a parole officer mandated to supervise him during the program testified that the respondent violated the terms of the agreement by masturbating in a public place. The respondent admitted to masturbating inside the stall of a public restroom and a library.
This case was brought in court to determine whether the rule applies even if the interrogator is unaware that an imprisoned man is represented by an attorney. Based on records, the right to counsel rule signifies that an accused in custody in connection with a criminal matter for which he is represented by counsel may not be interrogated in the absence of his attorney with respect to that matter or an unrelated matter unless he waives the right to counsel in the presence of his attorney.
The incident happened early 2002, when a man was murdered in his bodega. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the case remained unsolved for some time until an individual came forward and informed the police that a man had shot the victim. The informant explained that, shortly after the shooting, he was talking to a group of young men in the neighborhood about the incident. The informant asserted that during the conversation, the man had laughed and stated that he had shot the store owner. The informant further identified man whom he had known for years from a photo array.
After receiving the information, the investigating officer interviewed one of the young men who had been present during the conversation reported by the informant. The individual recalled that, on the day of the killing, either the man or the other individual had suggested to rob a store. Later that day, the man admitted to his friends that he had shot the store owner.
A police officer, a nine-year veteran of the NYPD who has made 500 narcotics-related arrests, investigates drug sales in lower Manhattan. On February 28, 2010, the police officer, together with his detective partner entered the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) building in Manhattan to conduct a “vertical” –a floor-by-floor patrol of the premises in order to search for loiterers, drug users, people consuming alcohol and trespassers.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said the Officer testified that, in housing projects, officers may question anyone they encounter to determine whether they are on premises lawfully. Sometimes, at his discretion, he requires residents to provide identification or a key and must prove that they are not trespassers. Likewise, persons claiming to be legitimate visitors must also supply corroboration.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said the police officer testified that he entered the premises at around 6:30 p.m. and observed defendant standing alone in the lobby. Thereafter, he approached the defendant and asked whether he resided in the building. Defendant replied that he was visiting a friend. When defendant did not supply a name and apartment number, the police officer arrested him for trespassing on NYCA premises. The detective searched the defendant and recovered 29 ziplock bags of cocaine from his waistband. The police officer performed a search and found $284 on defendant’s person. Thereafter, defendant was charged with criminal cocaine possession and trespassing.
A man was charged in an indictment of two counts of criminal heroin possession and sale. The first count was due to drug possession and sale committed on October 19, 1973 and the second count was due to heroin possession and sale committed on October 23, 1973.
On September 1, 1973, the legislature of New York passed a law which classified criminal heroin possession and sale as a A-III felony. Being classified as A-III felony, a conviction would be punishable with an indeterminate prison sentence of a minimum of one to eight years (for first time offenders) and a maximum of life imprisonment.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accused here seeks a dismissal of the information and the indictment against him on the grounds that the indictment for criminal heroin sale and possession violates his rights to due process, equal protection, and the right against cruel and unusual punishment.
A man was convicted of criminal cocaine possession and sale; and criminal marijuana sale when he sold cocaine and marijuana to an undercover police officer at nine different times and at nine different places.
Because of the sales of controlled substances to undercover police officers, the police had enough bases for a search warrant. When they searched the man’s apartment they found cocaine there. The man pleaded guilty to criminal sale and was sentenced to a prison term of 7 ½ to 15 years. After his conviction and pending his sentencing, the man was still out on bail. He undertook before the Court to appear whenever his presence was required and he also undertook not to be arrested on new charges.
During the time of his conditional release, the man had sex with a thirteen year old girl who was his neighbor’s daughter. He had sex with her in his apartment five different times. The thirteen year old girl got pregnant and the man moved to a different apartment in another building.
The complainants filed an action that alleges forty-six allegations of fact in support of three causes of action. Their first two causes of action claims include sexual assault by the creation of a hostile work environment and the constructive discharge. The third cause of action is for intentional infliction of emotional distress. A New York Criminal Lawyer said all of the complainants seek for a decision without trial on liability on the entire complaint.
The complaint alleges that the complainants were working at the clinic when they discovered that the doctor had installed and used a hidden camera in the only working restroom.
Consequently, a New York Criminal Lawyer said one of the complainant’s asserts thirty-eight allegations of fact in support of five causes of action. The first two causes of action claim consist of sexual assault by the creation of a hostile work environment, for intentional discrimination and constructive discharge. The third cause of action is for violation of the right to privacy. The fourth cause of action is for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The fifth is for tort. The said complainant seeks to have decision without trial on liability on the first, second and fourth reasons of action. She asserts that she was a medical office clerk at the clinic and at some point the doctor placed an air purifier containing a hidden surveillance camera in the employee’s bathroom positioned five feet away from and at the same height of the toilet seat. She further states that she used the bathroom at least twice a day. When she discovered the unlawful surveillance equipment and the placement of the monitor in the doctor’s office, she resigned.
The Facts:
Two witnesses testified at a fact-finding hearing.
On 7 September 1978, sometime after 5:30 P.M., the victim alleges that he heard rocks strike the side of his house. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that such an event had occurred previously and he testified that he knew that the persons who were responsible for those past acts lived across the street from him. Accordingly, he armed himself with a stick and proceeded to go across the street to a green house. The green house was the home of the two respondents. As he approached the house, the witness testified that sticks were thrown at him. While he was attempting to knock on the door, one of the respondents approached him shaking a stick. Fearful of being hit with the stick, the victim left the porch, intending to return to his own home. At that point he struck one of the respondents; it was not clear which one, on the “backside”. Two or three seconds later the other respondent spoke to him and said to him: “You hit my brother.” This respondent then struck the witness in the arm with a broom or shovel handle. The witness testified that he then fell to the ground and the same respondent struck him in the eye with a metal tipped stick which caused his eye to be enucleated. As a result, the victim has lost the sight of his left eye.
New York Criminal Lawyer Blog