Drug Possesion

Published on: May 8, 2012

Defendant Alleges Faulty Search Warrant

by Stephen Bilkis

Warrants to search and arrest on drug crimes are often more complicated than those of other crimes. The case law on drug crimes seems to change on a daily basis depending on the political motivations at the time of the case. Currently, officers are allowed more latitude to rely on experience for articulable reasonable suspicion to stop a person even on a Terry stop than they were just a few years ago. The ground of probable cause based off of the articulable suspicion then becomes convoluted. It is not uncommon for a warrant to be signed that is later ruled inadmissible due to many unforeseeable factors. The scope of the search may be overstated, or understated. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the officers involved in the search may overstep their boundaries. The information that the warrant was issued on may even be proven false or incorrect in a later hearing of the facts of the case. Just because the police have obtained a warrant, does not mean that the warrant cannot be challenged.

On December 6, 1999, a search warrant was executed in Queens County by the detectives who had obtained the warrant. They had presented their probable cause to obtain the warrant based on the fact that they had a confidential informant who had purchased marijuana at the first floor apartment on two previous occasions. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the detectives had gone to the location and observed the actions that were taking place there. They had checked with the utility company and verified that the location was a residence. The confidential informant had stated that the drugs had been purchased by a man known only to him as Greg and that Greg had gone into the first floor apartment to retrieve the drugs. The officers described the location as a first floor and basement apartment of a two story red brick building. The apartment is located behind a restaurant at the same address.

When the officers executed the search warrant, they located several items in plain view. They recovered marijuana, drug paraphernalia, and other drug related items. During the search of the residence per the warrant, one of the defendants made several exculpatory statements to the detectives. The defendants were arrested and charged with their crimes. They filed motions to suppress the evidence and statements on the grounds that the search warrant affidavit failed to establish proper probable cause for the warrant to be valid. The items were suppressed and the prosecution filed an appeal of the suppression.

Published on: May 7, 2012

Jury Given Incorrect Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

In 1988, a man and his friend along with their two wives were running a drug enterprise out of a one room apartment with an attached kitchen located on 88th street in Queens, New York. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said an undercover police officers had been focused on this apartment for several weeks. In fact, they had conducted undercover narcotics purchases on three separate occasions.

They were made on September 13, September 20, and September 29. After making all of these purchases, the police officers were able to obtain a search warrant to search the residence. After making the purchase on the 29th, the officers executed the search warrant on the residence. They uncovered several tinfoil packets of cocaine and angel dust. One packet of cocaine was located on the floor in between the couch and the wall. It was about a four or five inch space between the wall and the sofa. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer reported that six dollars was located in a closet that had cocaine residue on it. In another closet officers recovered $110 which was the money that was marked by them as the money that they had used to purchase narcotics at that location. The $110 was mixed in with another $850 in cash that was hidden in a child-sized purse. In the last closet, they located $3,630 in cash.

All four of the defendants were present when the search warrant was executed. They were all charged with possessing a narcotic with the intent to sell it. It is legal practice to charge everyone in a room with the possession of a narcotic that is in the room since all of the people are found to have knowledge of or should reasonably have known that the drugs were there. The drugs do not necessarily have to be in plain view. The drugs can be in a container or other item that is accessible to any of the occupants of the room. The narcotics can be in a completely separate room if they are visible to the occupants of a different room. In this case, the narcotics that were in the room, was the one packet that was located between the sofa and wall. a Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said the court ruled that that particular packet could not be deemed as accessible to everyone in the room or that all of the occupants of the room would have known that it was there. The fact that it was not in open view or in a container in open view makes it impossible for the police to assume that anyone other than the one owner could possibly have known that it was there. When it is determined that narcotics or other illegal drugs are in open view and in close proximity to persons, it is referred to as the drug factory presumption of Penal Law §220.25 (2).

Published on: May 7, 2012

Court Erred on Motion for Severance of Actions

by Stephen Bilkis

A manager was with another employee when they were on route in a company van to one of its nearby stores with a bag containing the cash receipts. A New York Criminal Lawyer said after noticing that a vehicle in front of his van pulled off onto the shoulder of the road, the van made a strange noise and lost power. As he pulled onto the shoulder, the manager observed the previously stopped vehicle reenter the roadway and stop in front of his stalled van. Two individuals (or defendants) in dark clothes wearing masks and brandishing shotguns approached the van from both sides and shouted orders to the manager and his companion. The manager, seeing the weapons, took the bag containing the cash receipts and held it out the open window. The robbers took the money, duct-taped the manager and the employee companion side-by-side on the floor of the van, and drove with them at gunpoint. When the robbers fled, the manager and his employee companion were left in the van. Ultimately, they acquired police assistance.

Notwithstanding an extensive investigation, police authorities were unable to solve the robbery until they received a telephone call from an individual (or the caller), whom they later identified. The caller met with the investigators and provided both the details and names of three individuals involved in the robbery.

Over the next few months, the investigation led to defendants’ arrests.

Published on: May 7, 2012

Court Discusses Alford Plea

by Stephen Bilkis

The plea that is entered in a criminal case is of great importance in how the crime and the person convicted of the crime is treated in the system of jurisprudence. Some people accept plea agreements without thoroughly understanding what these agreements entail. One of the most frequently misunderstood pleas that a defendant can enter is an Alford-Serrano plea. Most courts call it an Alford plea for brevity sake. An Alford plea is a plea that a person can enter without admitting guilt to the offense. A New York Criminal Lawyer said an Alford plea is in essence a way for a defendant to state that they are innocent, but that they believe that based on the evidence, a jury would find them guilty of the offense. A person will use an Alford plea as an attempt to reduce the overall jail time.

Some of the issues that most defendants do not understand as they relate to an Alford plea is that even though the person is proclaiming their innocence, they are considered by the court just as guilty as a person who enters a regular guilty plea. There is no difference in the treatment of an Alford guilty offender, and one that pleads just plain guilt. Sometimes, especially in the case of sexually based offenses, this can pose a problem for the defendant.

In one case, which occurred in Richmond County New York, in 1994, a man took an Alford plea in the rape case of his own fifteen-year-old daughter. The child is of limited intelligence and unable to process the experience, however, it appears that when the child was around 12 or 13 years of age, during a three-month period, he had sexual relations with his daughter. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant adamantly denied that he ever had sex with his daughter, however, everyone involved was concerned that the child would be overly traumatized by having to testify against her own father in court. In order to prevent her from having to endure any more trauma than she already had, her father took an Alford plea to one count of rape in the third degree. The prosecutors, the mother, and the child all firmly stand by the evidence that the father raped her. The rape had occurred approximately two years prior to the conviction under the Alford plea.

Published on: May 5, 2012

Defendants Claim Their 14th Amendment Rights Violated

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiffs and appellants in the case are Lois White et al. The defendants and appellees in the case are the Scrivner Corporation et al. The case is being heard in the fifth circuit of the United States Court of Appeals.

Case History

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said one night Lois and her daughter Sandra White, along with her sister Gloria Pratt, went shopping at a food store owned by Scrivner Corporation, the assistant manager of the shop accused Lois of taking a roast out of the meat department of the store. The assistant manager requested that Lois and her daughter and sister come with him to an area located at the rear of the store. He asked for permission to search through their purses and while looking through the women’s purses he found a pistol located in Lois Whites purse. He told the women to stand by the wall and he made a call to the police department. The police arrived and arrested White for having a weapon that was concealed. The food goods that White was accused of stealing were never found.

Published on: May 4, 2012

Defendant Contends Prior Conviction not an Aggravated Felony

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff and appellee in the case is the United States of America. The defendant and appellant of the case is Alexander Antoine Christopher. The case is being heard in the Eleventh Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals.

Appeal

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the defendant, Alexander Antoine Christopher is appealing the district court’s sentencing of 77 months for illegally reentering the country and violating 18 of the United States Constitution. The issue he is raising on appeal is he feels there was an error made by the district court when they enhanced his criminal record score by 16. He states that his prior conviction of theft does not qualify as an aggravated felony.

Published on: May 4, 2012

Defendant Charges with Possessing a Pipe Bomb

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff and appellee in this case is the United States of America. The defendant and appellant of the case is Roy L. Schmidt, III. The case is being heard in the Fifth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals.

Appeal

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant, Roy L. Schmidt, III, is appealing the conviction that he is an Armed Career Criminal as defined by the Armed Career Criminal Act. Roy L. Schmidt, III in the original case pleaded guilty to the conspiracy of possessing a pipe bomb and of being a convicted felon with possession of the pipe bomb. He is challenging the sentencing from the district court. His reasoning is that the determination of his sentencing used a prior conviction of theft of a firearm was listed as a violent felony for the purpose of convicting him under the Armed Career Criminal Act.

Published on: May 4, 2012

Court Hears Shoplifting Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellants of the case are Tynesha M. Rivers, Nikina D. Cunningham, and Stacy L. Rivers representing herself and as the parent/custodian of minor Tevon J. Elmore. The appellees in the case are James Donohoe, Linda Love, and a Florida Corporation, Dillards Department Store, Inc.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on the 20th of August in 1994, Tynesha Rivers, Nikina Cunningham, Stacy Rivers and her son Tevon all went to Dillards Department store to shop. Stacy and her son went to the upstairs part of the store and Tynesha and Nikina went to shop for shoes in the shoe department. The girls were waiting for a salesperson to bring them a pair of shoes to try on when they were approached by officer Donohoe, a security guard for the store. Officer Donohoe asked them for their identification, but did not tell them why he wanted it. The two girls gave him their identification and he took it and walked away. Tynesha continued shopping and paid for a pair of shoes.

Published on: May 3, 2012

Defendant Charged with Child Endangerment in Drug Crime

by Stephen Bilkis

Whenever a child is involved or present at the time that a criminal act is committed, it becomes more serious. Child endangerment charges are especially applicable in cases where there has been a drug crime committed. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said sometimes, the case is as mundane as an aunt or uncle who brings marijuana into the home where children are located. The children need never see the drugs for the aunt or uncle to be charged with child abuse or child endangerment. If there is even a possibility, no matter how remote, that the child may be able to obtain the drug and ingest it, the person who brought it in to the home will be charged.

Most people think that in order to be charged with child endangerment or abuse, that they have to use the drug in front of the child. Some even think that they have to provide the drug to the child. Neither one of these situations is accurate. The mere presence of the drug in the home constitutes a drug crime. That drug crime can constitute child neglect or abuse depending on the circumstance.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said on one such case, a woman was arrested for endangering the welfare of a child as well as possession of cocaine. The incident that led to the woman’s arrest occurred when a police officer was in her apartment legally in reference to a different situation. While he was in the apartment, he observed a glassine bag on top of the defendant’s refrigerator that in his experience as a law enforcement officer appeared to be cocaine. The woman later admitted that it was cocaine and that she was a person who would use cocaine every now and then.

Published on: May 3, 2012

Defendant Appeals Sentence

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the plaintiff and appellee of the case is the United States of America. The defendant and appellant of the case is Paul Darvin Lamm. The case is being heard in the Fifth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals.

Appeal

Paul Darvin Lamm, the defendant has been convicted and sentenced for a previous crime. The crime that is currently in question is a guilty plea to being a user of a controlled substance and possessing a firearm. This is referred to as the instant offense. His appeal is only in regard to his sentencing. He is contesting that the petty theft shoplifting charge not be included when determining his criminal history points for calculation of his prison sentencing. This appeal brings into question whether or not an offense of petty theft is similar to an insufficient funds check, which is excluded from an individual’s criminal history report under a set of specific conditions.