Drug Possesion

Published on: May 11, 2012

Defense Takes Issue with Warrantless Search

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was convicted on his guilty plea of marijuana possession in the first degree. His motion to cover up the evidence of marijuana cultivation seized by state police on a search warrant was denied. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the appellate division generally affirmed in a memorandum agreeing with the court’s conclusion that the man’s act of posting no trespassing signs about every 20 to 30 feet around the perimeter of his property, which consisted of 165 acres of rural, hilly, undeveloped, uncultivated fields and woodlands except for the man’s cultivation of marijuana, did not establish an expectation of privacy cognizable under the right to privacy protection of the constitution.

On execution of the search warrant, the state police with assistance of sheriff’s department searched the property owned by the man. The application for the warrant included the in camera testimony of a private citizen, who had shot and wounded a deer and followed it onto the man’s property. The private citizen observed what appeared to be the remnants of a marijuana growing operation. When the private citizen entered the property again, he testified that he saw approximately 50 marijuana plants under cultivation. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the private citizen reported the information to the state police and gave a leaf that he obtained from one of the plants on the property. Consequently, an investigator accompanied the private citizen to the site where the investigator personally observed the plants. None of the entries of the Investigator or the private citizen was with the man’s knowledge or permission.

The warrant application contained tax maps showing that the property belonged to the man and a report of an anonymous telephone tip that the man was growing marijuana on the said property. The court then found that the property was noticeably marked with no trespassing signs which is clearly visible and indeed observed by not only the private citizen but the police units entering the property. The residence consisted of a mobile home with no utilities which located near the road. The marijuana plants were not found within the area around the man’s mobile home but some 300-400 yards away.

Published on: May 11, 2012

Court Discusses Probable Cause in Drug Possession Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The police officers of the 32nd precinct in New York City were assigned to conduct surveillance over the corner of 128th Street and 8th Avenue because this was known as a high-drug crime area. Many arrests for cocaine possession and heroin possession have been made at this corner.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that tne police officer saw perched atop a condemned building, holding binoculars and observing the goings on at the street corner. His partner was near the street corner, waiting for a signal from his partner on the rooftop.

At 1:30 pm of February 26, 1977, the police officer on the rooftop saw one man at the corner. Most passersby hurry on by but that man stayed put. He kept having brief conversations with those who come by him but those people moved on. The man stayed. The officer observed the man for forty-five minutes.

Published on: May 11, 2012

Drug Possession Defendant Contends No Probable Charge for Search

by Stephen Bilkis

One early morning in August of the year 2000, a police officer and his partner were on patrol in uniform in a marked patrol car. The officer testified that he had been a member of the New York City Police Department for four years and had made approximately 10 arrests involving cocaine possession or marijuana possession, had received training with respect to narcotics and marijuana at the police academy, and been involved in over 100 criminal law and drug crime related arrests. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the officer also testified that he considered interaction with criminals as part of his training on the subject of narcotics, and that he had been involved with hundreds of suspects who were under the influence of alcohol or marijuana. Specifically, the officer testified that he had seen loose tobacco in piles in stairwells, on sidewalks, and most commonly alongside glassine envelopes, and based upon these experiences as a police officer, he had learned that the presence of loose tobacco was a result of an individual emptying out a Philly Blunt cigar and refilling it with marijuana and/or cocaine.

At approximately 4:00 A.M. on August 7, while in the patrol car, the officer observed the accused standing next to a parked automobile. The car was parked on the parking apron in front of a closed auto repair shop. The officer testified that the location is in the vicinity of a nightclub. The officer testified that the neighborhood near this club is patrolled more heavily because there are a lot of problems that stem from the said nightclub. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the the officer stopped at a red light, he saw the accused standing outside the open driver’s door, throwing garbage over his shoulder which landed several feet behind him. The officer also observed a passenger in the front seat of the car.

The officer pulled his patrol car into the lot behind the accused man’s vehicle and approached the accused. The accused apologized for throwing the trash and began picking it up. The officer asked the accused for his license, registration and insurance. The officer asked the accused whose car it was and the accused responded that it was his car. The accused then gave the officer a New Jersey license which had the name and bore his photograph. The officer observed that the accused had glassy eyes, was unsteady on his feet, had trouble responding to the officer’s questions, and had slurred speech. The passenger of the car had exited the car and began yelling at the officer.

Published on: May 11, 2012

Defendant Contends Lack of Jurisdiction for Warrant

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. 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. A New York Criminal Lawyer said 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. 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 10, 2012

Court Rules on Warrantless Search for Drugs

by Stephen Bilkis

Many people believe that juvenile drug issues are a modern problem. However, history demonstrates that these are problems have been consistent throughout the history of the United States. One case from 1963, demonstrates that juvenile drug dealers were a problem in New York even then.

On July 19, 1963 at around 1830 hours, an off duty juvenile corrections officer was in a location to observe the corner of 14th Street and 31st Avenue in New York, Queens County. He observed a teenager around fifteen years of age at that corner. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the teen appeared intoxicated and walked with an unsteady gait. He watched the boy for a moment and observed a second youth approach him. The second boy put a one-dollar bill on top of a mail collection box. The first boy took the bill off of the box and slipped the other boy something from his hand. The other boy turned and left. The corrections officer did not see what had been in the boy’s hand. He watched the boy turn and go into a corner market. Again, he followed behind. Once inside the store, he kept the boy under surveillance for several minutes.

After a while, he approached the boy and asked him if he could frisk down his outer clothing. The boy complied and the officer felt two pill bottles in the front right pants pocket of his clothing. That was the pocket that the boy had removed whatever he had passed to the other boy from. The boy removed two pill bottles that did not have any labels. The boy told the officer that one of the bottles contained Doriden and the other contained barbiturates. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that Doriden was a pharmaceutical name for an opiate that was popular in the 1960’s as a mood lifter. The boy voluntarily stated at that point that he had been selling the drugs on the corner when the correctional officer saw him. The correctional officer arrested the boy and he was transported to juvenile detention.

Published on: May 10, 2012

Court Decides Larceny Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 7 December 2001, defendant and two acquaintances approached a man as he was walking with his friends in Queens, New York. Defendant held out his hand and that man, believing that the stranger was attempting to greet him, returned the gesture by slapping him “five.” A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant told the man, however, that he did not want a greeting; he made clear that he wanted the man’s compact disc player. Defendant snatched the player out of the man’s hand, walked away and allegedly began listening to the “Busta Rhymes” CD in the disc player.

The man followed defendant, repeatedly asking for his disc player back, at which time one of defendant’s acquaintances, codefendant, approached the man and told him to “run his pockets”, meaning, to give co-defendant his money. The man told co-defendant he did not have any money and then turned to continue following defendant, whereupon co-defendant repeatedly punched the man from behind, causing a laceration on the ear.

Published on: May 10, 2012

Court Discusses Probable Cause in Drug Possession Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The police officers of the 32nd precinct in New York City were assigned to conduct surveillance over the corner of 128th Street and 8th Avenue because this was known as a high-drug crime area. A New York Criminal Lawyer said many arrests for cocaine possession and heroin possession have been made at this corner.

One police officer saw perched atop a condemned building, holding binoculars and observing the goings on at the street corner. His partner was near the street corner, waiting for a signal from his partner on the rooftop.

At 1:30 pm of February 26, 1977, the police officer on the rooftop saw one man at the corner. Most passersby hurry on by but that man stayed put. He kept having brief conversations with those who come by him but those people moved on. The man stayed. The officer observed the man for forty-five minutes.

Published on: May 9, 2012

Court Decides Case Based on New Sentencing Guidelines

by Stephen Bilkis

Prior to January 2005, indeterminate sentencing was considered the norm. It was originally designed as a means of tailoring the sentence to the crime. The belief was that since everyone is an individual, indeterminate sentences allowed a defendant the option of faster improvement. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said it was hoped that the indeterminate sentence would encourage defendants to demonstrate good behavior in an attempt to shorten their overall term of incarceration. The experiment was a dismal failure. Rather than encouraging good behavior, it instilled a feeling of helplessness in the inmate population. The sentences were sometimes completely different for persons involved in the same crime. The disparate sentences that some offenders received soon became regarded as a problem. The violence that some of these offenders demonstrated while incarcerated was also higher than the levels of violence demonstrated by offenders with definitive sentences. The hopelessness of having no way of knowing when the end of their sentences might arrive created an air of hostility and despair in the inmate population. By 2005, the trend of indeterminate sentencing had been recognized as a failure and sentencing reform laws were initiated to correct the problem.

These sentencing reform guidelines had several necessary provisions. They were designed to allow defendants who were charged with non-violent drug offenses to be given determinate sentences that were often much lower than their original indeterminate sentences were. The guidelines state that the person must be a non-violent offender and cannot have committed a violent offense within 10 years of the application for determinate sentencing.

In the present case, the defendant was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence and is attempting to be approved for resentencing under the Drug Law Reform Act to a determinate sentence of three and one half years as a second non-violent felony offender. The original date of his offence was August 26, 2003 and no final adjudication had been made at the time of his request. He states that the revised sentencing guidelines are an amendment of a failed method and because of that, he is entitled to be sentenced under these guidelines as opposed to sentencing under the old ones. His crime was committed prior to the enactment of the new statute.

Published on: May 8, 2012

Court Decides if Accomplice will be Convicted

by Stephen Bilkis

Five men formed a gang whose only purpose was to prey on drug dealers. They targeted drug dealers who were always awash with cash and robbed them. They also took the drugs they found on the drug dealers and sold these on the street. One night, on February 12, 1997, all five men planned to rob a drug dealer who had a first floor apartment on Riverside Drive.

Of the five men, one was to be the driver and wait for them in the car while the others entered the apartment of the drug dealer. A New York Criminal Lawyer said their plan was to ring the doorbell and when they were buzzed in, they would force themselves inside the apartment of the drug dealer. The group came late and they missed the drug dealer who had already left his apartment. There was no one home. So the five men went their separate ways.

A few hours later four of the five men came together to see if the drug dealer had come back to his apartment; the driver did not go back with his four friends on the second robbery attempt. He went home.

Published on: May 8, 2012

Court Discusses Various Degrees of Robbery

by Stephen Bilkis

In just one afternoon of April 7, 2009 a man snatched the purse of an old lady as she was about to enter a store inside a shopping mall. Later that afternoon, that same man walked into a bank. He walked up to the counter and grabbed a teller by her shirt and jacket. He pulled the teller onto the counter and made her give him money. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the teller gave the man the cash that was available to her in the sum of $1464. The man took the money and escaped running from the bank.

Two days later, the man came to a police station in Schoharie County and surrendered. He confessed to the robbery he committed. He was charged with first degree robbery, fourth degree grand larceny for the bank robbery and grand larceny for snatching the old lady’s purse. Because the man had voluntarily surrendered and confessed to the commission of the robbery and the larceny, he was tried without a jury. The trial was only to submit evidence other than the man’s confession that a crime had been committed by the man.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man was convicted of the same charges of robbery and grand larceny, He was later sentenced to concurrent prison terms. He was sentenced to serve ten and a half years for robbery and one to four years of grand larceny. But the trial court ordered that the prison sentence for the other grand larceny charge be served consecutive to the other grand larceny sentence. The trial court also ordered the man to pay restitution to the bank of $1500 plus a 5% surcharge. The man appealed his conviction.