Drug Possesion

Published on: May 25, 2012

Court Hears Petition to Change Name of Same Sex Couple

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is in regard to an application for Gena M. Daniels to amend her name to become Gena M. Zaks. The case is being heard in the Civil Court of the city of New York in New York County. The petitioner is represented by Yetta G. Kurland. The judge overseeing the case is Paul G. Feinman.

Case Background

The petitioner of the case, Gena M. Daniels is seeking to change her name to Gena M. Zak. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that Zak is the last name of her life partner of the same sex. Her partner has agreed to the application for the name change.

Published on: May 21, 2012

Defendant Contends Police Did Not Have Probable Cause for Stop

by Stephen Bilkis

Four police officers in Manhattan were assigned to the Street Crime unit. They report for duty in plain clothes and they drive/ride in taxicabs around the city looking for crimes in progress.

ON December 10, 1982, two police officers were in a yellow cab near 115th Street around 5:00 p.m. They saw a car with three passengers going very slowly. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the police in the cab followed them for nearly two blocks before the police officer saw that the car had a busted tail light. The police officers drove up next to the car and flashed their police badges and identification and told the driver to pull over.

The three men in the car pulled over. The police officer approached and they noticed that the three men inside the car looked nervously around at the two police officers who approached the car at the two front doors of the car.

Published on: May 19, 2012

Court Decides if There is a 14th Amendment Violation

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioner of the case is the Commissioner of Correction of Connecticut, John R. Manson. The respondent/defendant of the case is Nowell A. Brathwaite.

Case Issues

This case involves the issue of whether or not the Fourteenth Amendment, under the Due Process Clause requires the exclusion of pretrial evidence that was obtained by a police procedure that is deemed suggestive and unnecessary.

Published on: May 16, 2012

Defendant Contends Evidence Regarding Knife Inadmissible

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was charged with robbery in the first, second and third degrees, grand larceny in the fourth degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and unlawful possession of marihuana . A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that all proceedings have been completed and the case was sent to the Court for trial.

The charges stems from an incident in which the complainant was robbed with a knife. The knife allegedly used by the man during the said incident was not recovered. At a pre-trial conference, the jury requested the court’s permission to present evidence that approximately two weeks prior to the occurrence which comprises the charges in the instant case. It was a police officer who observed the man in possession of a knife which is similar to the description given by the complainant about the knife used in robbing.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the Supreme Court ruled that the testimony relating to the observation of the knife would be admissible at trial on the issue of identity and to complete the narrative. The man then claimed that the observation of the knife was the result of improper interference with his liberty by the police. An evidentiary hearing was held and the police officer was the only witness at the hearing. The court then found his testimony to be credible and made findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Published on: May 16, 2012

Court Rules Verdict Can Be Set Aside

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

Defendant, his brother, and another man entered the house of a woman and robbed her at gunpoint. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the woman identified defendant as the one who wielded the gun during the robbery. A police officer was on patrol when he saw three men run out of the woman’s house, followed by her screaming for help. The officer gave chase and managed to arrest the brother, who was found to have a loaded revolver in his front pocket. The brother provided defendant’s name and stated that the defendant had placed the gun in his pocket while they fled the woman’s residence.

Thereafter, defendant was arrested at his home. Upon arrest, defendant stated that the arresting officers got nothing on him and that they got the gun of his brother.

Published on: May 16, 2012

Case Deals with Drug Reform Act of 2009

by Stephen Bilkis

Three men committed class B felonies involving narcotics and were sentenced to undetermined prison terms under the Rockefeller drug laws which governed sentencing of drug offenders. A New York Criminal Lawyer said two of them received sentences of 2 to 6 years and the other man was sentenced with 5 to 10 years. All were paroled but violated it and all of them were sent back to prison. After the enactment of the drug law reform act of 2009, the three men applied for resentencing.

Based on records, the drug law reform act of 2009 allows certain prisoners sentenced under the so-called Rockefeller drug laws to be resentenced. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the court hold that prisoners who have been paroled and then re-incarcerated for violating their parole are not for that reason to banned from seeking relief under the law.

Further, the drug law reform act of 2009 is codified. It permits people imprisoned for class B drug felonies committed while the Rockefeller Drug Laws were in force to apply to be resentenced under the current, less severe, sentencing regime. It was stated that any person in the custody of the department of correctional services convicted of a class B felony offense defined in the law which was committed prior to January thirteenth, who is serving an indeterminate sentence with a maximum term of more than three years, may except as provided in the law, upon notice to the appropriate district attorney, apply to be resentenced to a determinate sentence in accordance with sections of the penal law in the court which imposed the sentence.

Published on: May 15, 2012

Family Conflict Results in Criminal Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

Family Court deals with many issues that cross over from criminal court. It is not unusual for a criminal court issue to have family court repercussions. That was the case for a family on Mother’s Day 2003. A sixteen year old boy exposed himself and masturbated in front of a five year old female cousin. The incident occurred at a family gathering where most of the family was present. The boy’s Aunt and her brother, his Uncle found themselves on different sides of the argument surrounding this boy’s behavior. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that since the entire family split over the events of that day, this brother and sister continued to argue and ultimately began to file criminal and family court petitions against one another.

It appears that shortly after Mother’s Day of 2003, the Aunt confronted the five year old while she was at school. The Aunt was an employee of the school. The Uncle claims that the Aunt interrogated the child about the events of that day and that this encounter left the child frightened. The child told her father that she did not want to talk to or see her Aunt ever again. The Uncle confronted his sister about this incident and the situation went downhill from this point. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said another family member became involved and rumors amongst the family members increased. This family member told the Aunt that she had spoken to the Uncle and that he had gotten orders of protection against the Aunt.

The Aunt filed suit in family court alleging that the Uncle had defamed her and caused interference with her employment. On December 20, 2004, the Uncle filed a motion to dismiss the complaint filed by the Aunt. On March 18, 2005, the Family Court granted the Uncles motion to dismiss the Aunt’s entire complaint. The Aunt appealed this decision. The court reviewed the topics under discussion.

Published on: May 15, 2012

Court Discusses Criminal Solicitation

by Stephen Bilkis

The accused parties filed motions to dismiss the charges against them of criminal solicitation on the ground that there exists some jurisdictional or legal impediment to their conviction and on the ground that the accusatory instruments are defective. The Court grants the motions to dismiss the charges of criminal solicitation.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said all of the accused were arrested on various streets in the City of Rochester allegedly attempting to buy small amounts of marijuana. The place has become known as open-air drug markets where marijuana, cocaine and heroin can be purchased on the streets. In some areas cocaine possession and heroin possession with intent to sell are rampant. 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 with the murder of a resident of the surrounding suburb of Penfield, New York. He was shot to death while reportedly attempting to purchase marijuana in one of the open-air drug markets.

In response to the public safety concerns of the neighborhoods, and in direct response to the murder, the City of Rochester Police Department began to station undercover police officers on the various streets with reputations for being open-air drug markets (drug possession). The officers then arrested individuals who approached them attempting to buy marijuana and other drugs. In the cases before the Court, all of the accused were charged with criminal solicitation in the fifth degree, a violation punishable by a maximum of 15 days in jail. The information alleges either that the accused were soliciting the officers to sell them marijuana, or were attempting to buy a marijuana-type substance or fake marijuana.

Published on: May 15, 2012

Defendant Claims Village Court Did Not Have Proper Jurisdiction

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. A New York Criminal Lawyer said 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. 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. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said 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 14, 2012

Court Decides Constitutionality of Seizure Law

by Stephen Bilkis

In the fall of 2005, residents of the six-story Housing Authority apartment building complained to the Police Department’s Housing Bureau about criminal law violations, trespassing in the building, crack possession and drug sales occurring in the building’s lobby. The police officer’s superiors in the Bureau passed on the complaint to him, and he thereafter performed daily vertical patrols of the building. During the fall and winter, he participated in ten to fifteen trespass or narcotics arrests in the building, most in the lobby. The prevalent illegal activity was not curtailed until early March.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said on the night of February 14, 2006, the police officer and his partner entered the building in plainclothes, their guns holstered but their shields displayed, to conduct a vertical patrol on their own initiative. As the officers entered the well-lit lobby, the accused, whom the police officer did not recognize, was standing by the lobby elevator, about ten feet from the officers and face-to-face with them, conversing with a man. The police officer could not hear what was being said.

The officer announced that they were the police. The man said something to the accused, and the accused fled towards a stairwell leading from the lobby to the upper stories of the building. The officers ran after him, calling them out to stop. As the accused ran up the stairs, between the ground and second stories, the officer, trailing shortly behind, saw the accused throw or drop several small green baggies. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the police officer recognized them from his training and past arrests to be characteristic crack-cocaine packaging, and believed they contained crack-cocaine. The officer called the accused to stop but he kept running.