Drug Possesion

Published on: April 28, 2012

Court Explains Sentencing Guidelines for Drug Crimes

by Stephen Bilkis

New York is in the process of correcting a situation that involved handing out indeterminate sentences to drug offenders. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the 2004 Drug Law Reform Act and the Drug Law Reform Act of 2009 are efforts to correct some of the issues that have plagued the fair sentencing of drug crime offenders in New York. Political agendas and ill-advised legislators, decided that indeterminate sentencing would reduce crime and make them look tough on criminals. What it created instead was an overcrowding of the prison system with offenders who had no idea if they would be incarcerated for a day or ten years. That instability in their situations caused undue stress on the inmates and increased violence in the system. The indeterminate sentencing system was also found to be unfair. Two people would be arrested at the same time and one would get probation and the other might get an indeterminate sentence not to exceed ten years. These were much harsher sentences than even some violent offenders were receiving. Studies were conducted that revealed many more serious results of indeterminate sentences on inmates and the system. In fact, one of the most memorable studies demonstrated that female inmates were twice as likely to be given an indeterminate sentence as their male counterparts were. That was true even if they were arrested at the same time for the same offense. The political get tough on drug crime agenda was back firing on the politicians who drove the movement. They were forced to rethink their program.

Under modern sentencing guidelines, a New York Drug Possession Lawyer said these same criminals were getting less prison time and more alternative sentences like house arrest, half-way houses, and mandatory drug treatment. All of which relieve overcrowding in the prison system while supervising non-violent drug offenders at their own expense. The Drug Law Reform Act enabled people who were convicted of a Class B felony drug crime to apply to the courts for resentencing of their indeterminate sentences. The requirements for the program are that they must have an indeterminate sentence exceeding three years. They must not have committed a violent felony offense within ten years of the time that they make the application to have their case reevaluated. The ten-year look back rule does not start at the time of their offense, or at the time of their conviction. The clock starts at the time that they submit their request. It does not include any time that they were incarcerated for other offenses during that ten-year period. So if an inmate applied for resentencing in 2010. A Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said his sentence was indeterminate not to exceed 20 years. He was convicted in 2008 of a Class B felony drug crime. He committed a violent felony in 2000. He spent five years in prison as a result. That would mean that his violent felony conviction of 2008 adds five years to the ten years. In this example, he would not be exempt, even though his conviction was in 2000 and his request was in 2010, because of the five years in prison, he would have to have no violent crimes in his history going back to 1995. In this case, he would not qualify.

In one case, a Queens woman was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, a jury found her guilty and imposed an indeterminate sentence in July of 2001. In April of 2010 she applied for resentencing. She was granted her request. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said the District Attorney filed an appeal to the Supreme Court based on the fact that the resentence was invalid as a matter of law. When the court granted the woman’s request for resentencing, they failed to add on the time that she had been incarcerated on other offenses during the ten year period. That additional time that was added on puts her back to a violent offense that she committed in 1999 which was an offense that excludes her from being eligible for resentencing. The Supreme Court reversed her approval and returned her original sentence that she was serving prior to her request.

Published on: April 28, 2012

Court Hears Motion to Supress Evidence in Gun Crime

by Stephen Bilkis

An appeal was filed by a man from a judgment convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon as a felony upon a jury verdict and from a judgment of the same court upon his plea of guilty to violation of probation. The appeal also brings up for review the denial of the man’s motion to suppress certain evidence.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the incident happened at about 11:30 p.m. when a detective was sitting in plain clothes in a parked car observing a bar and an officer was with him. Both of them observed a car with three black males passing by the bar at 5 m.p.h. The car stopped for about 1 to 2 seconds and the three men in the car turned their heads towards the bar. The car then continued down the street at 5–10 m.p.h. After making their observations, the police followed the car. Thereafter, the car stopped at a corner in deference to a stop sign and all three heads again turned to observe a bar near the corner. In half-way down the next block, the officers pulled the car over. As they were stopping, the detective observed that one of the man inside the car bend over in the front seat. The driver came out from the car and stated that he did not have the registration or his license because he had forgotten his wallet. The two other males were also unable to produce identification. The latter two were then asked to get out of the car. The officer began questioning the other man who he observed that the hands were in his pockets. When the officer instructed the man to remove his hands from his pocket, the officer observed a bulge in his right side pants’ pocket. The officer conducted a pat down and the bulge felt like steel. The officer believed that the item was a blade, but when the man removed it from his pocket, it revealed that it was a clip with five .25 caliber bullets. The officer told his co-officer that there was probably gun around. The other officer quickly search for it and found it under the front seat.

The officer was aware when he stopped the car that there had been two gas station stick-ups and several office break-ins in the vicinity. The officer stated that when he observed the behavior of the car and its occupants as it drove by, he felt that a crime was about to be committed. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on cross-examination the officer stated that he could tell all three looked towards the bar as they drove past it, by observing the backs of their heads. When the gun was found, all three were arrested.

Published on: April 28, 2012

Defendant Moves for Supression of Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

On March 30, 1985 at approximately 10:00 P.M., the accused and his accomplice entered a supermarket in Island Park and accosted the manager who was in the process of closing the store. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accused pointed a loaded pistol at the manager, cocked it and told him not to move, give the keys to the safe otherwise his head would be blown out. The two men forced the manager into the office where the safe was located. The accused heard footsteps so he gave the gun to his accomplice and left the accomplice to guard the manager while he investigated the footsteps he heard. On leaving the office, he observed the manager’s wife who had been in the store with her husband. The accused grabbed her and was pushing her toward the office when a loud shot was heard. The accomplice came running out of the office and told the accused that he had shot the manager accidentally, when the gun went off as the manager tried to free himself from a headlock. The accomplice took the keys from the manager’s body and they forced the wife to the rear of the store where they attempted to unlock the doors. Unable to find keys to all the locks they attempted to break them with a bolt cutter and some other tools they found in the store. At this point the night porter, who, unbeknownst to the accused and his accomplice, had been sleeping upstairs, came down and observed them trying to escape. He recognized the accomplice as a former employee of the store and he assumed that they had been accidentally locked in. He advised them that they would have to call a manager to unlock the doors. As the night porter, the accused and the accomplice began walking toward the front of the store, the night porter saw blood and part of the manager’s body through the office door and he realized what had occurred. The accomplice drew a gun and told the night porter that if he said anything they would be back to kill him. The accused threw a shopping cart through the plate glass windows in the front of the supermarket. As the accused and his accomplice ran through the parking lot, they were observed by a cashier who worked in the store. Although she did not recognize the accused, she was able to identify the accomplice.

By talking with the night porter and the cashier, the police learned that the accomplice was one of the perpetrators. They also learned from another store employee that just before closing time, the accomplice was seen in the store talking to his cousin who worked at the supermarket. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the police interviewed the employee who initially stated that he had not seen his cousin since the early afternoon just before he left for work. Eventually he admitted that he had seen the accomplice and the accused after the incident when at their request he had driven them to a motel in Queens. Armed with this information and the assistance of the accused man’s brother-in-law, who was a New York City police officer, the police were able to arrest the accused and his accomplice less than 24 hours after the gun crime.

After their arrest, both the accused and his accomplice agreed to give statements to the police. The accused admitted that it was his idea to rob the supermarket and he described how he enlisted his accomplice’s aid. He also alleged that the supermarket employee had agreed to assist them in the plan by advising them when the store was about to close. He stated that the supermarket employee also consented to meet them after the robbery and hide the gun and any proceeds of the criminal act. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said he went on to describe how he and the accomplice attempted to commit the robbery and the resulting death of the manager. The accomplice gave a confession, fully implicating himself in the crime, which was remarkably similar to the accused man’s confession. The police then interviewed again the supermarket employee and he gave a second written statement in which he claimed that he knew that the accused and the accomplice were going to rob the store. He admitted that prior to the robbery he told them that the store would be closing in a few minutes and he conceded that he received and hid the gun after the criminal act.

Published on: April 28, 2012

Court Discusses Temporary Order for Protection

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant and complainant are husband and wife. Immediately prior to his arrest, defendant and his wife were staying in separate cooperative apartments, each jointly owned by them, in the same apartment building in Manhattan. The larger of the two apartments was the couple’s marital home, while the smaller served as the wife’s office.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that as a consequence of severe marital conflict between them, the wife was temporarily sleeping in her office, but had access to the larger apartment during the day. The defendant husband continued to occupy and sleep in the larger apartment.

On 24 June 1988, defendant was arrested and charged with Assault in the Third Degree and with Harassment, on the complaint of his wife; defendant, with intent to cause physical injury and to harass and annoy his wife, had punched her in the face and knocked out one of her teeth. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the alleged assault and harassment occurred after the wife had returned to sleep in the larger apartment and refused to let the husband in.

Published on: April 28, 2012

Defendants Allege Lack of Jurisdiction in Rape Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Two women were working at a taco restaurant. Two men came in and held up the restaurant. At gunpoint, the two men took the two women employees to their car in the parking lot. They made the women ride in their car. They drove them to a dead end road in the next county and there they raped and sexually abused the two women.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that even while in the car, while they were still on the road going to the next county, one of the men pointed the gun in his possession at the women and fondled their breasts.

They were charged and convicted of robbery in the first degree, two counts of rape in the first degree, two counts of kidnapping in the second degree and two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree.

Published on: April 27, 2012

Defendant Claims Police Did Not Have Probable Cause in Drug Stop

by Stephen Bilkis

Around 1985, a detective in plain-clothes and an unmarked car was working a known drug area in Queens when he and his partner saw a transaction that they believed was drug related. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said they saw one man approach another and hand him money. The other man produced a three by five inch brown envelope and the first man took it in exchange for the money. The officers believed that it was a drug transaction based on the fact that the bags were the size, shape, and description of units called, “three dollar bags” that are often used for drug crimes.

The two officers got out of their car and approached the two men. They identified themselves as police and the two men took flight. A short foot chase ensued in which the defendant threw his hat off and then threw something black into some bushes. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said one officer retrieved the two items, at which time he discovered that the black item was a handgun. The defendant stopped running and was taken into custody and placed under arrest. Upon checking the operability of the weapon, it was discovered that it was a fully loaded nine-millimeter pistol that was also functional.

The defendant was convicted of drug crime and criminal possession of a weapon. He promptly filed an appeal. His claim is that the officer’s initial stop was investigatory. As such, the officers would have to show reasonable suspicion that a crime is, had, or was about to be committed and that the defendant was one of them. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said that he contends that the mere passing of an envelope from one person to another on a public street was no implication of a criminal enterprise. He also stated that when he ran, they had no right to chase him because he was only exercising his constitutional right to leave without answering questions.

Published on: April 27, 2012

Court Discusses Judicial Diversion Program

by Stephen Bilkis

The Drug Reform act of 2009 was created as an effort to divert drug addicts and alcoholics who’s crimes are committed due to their addiction, from the criminal courts and into a treatment facility where they can shed their addiction. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that unfortunately, the temptation of judicial diversion means that many people attempt to take advantage of the system to reduce the time that they will be incarcerated. On such case, a subject had managed to maintain a 20-year career of felony drug crimes. In July of 2009, the subject made a motion to the court to divert his two outstanding drug sales cases to provide him the opportunity to enroll in a long-term residential drug treatment program.

The defendant alleges that even though he has been arrested several times for dealing drugs and for drug crimes in school zones, that he would benefit from a drug treatment program. One evaluator agreed with him, but it was later discovered that he had not mentioned to her that he has never tested positive for alcohol or drugs at the time of any arrest. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he stated that the reason he never had drugs in his system at the time of his arrests was because he was only a “sporadic” user of cocaine.

The state contends that each time the subject was arrested, he was arrested for sale of drugs and not for mere possession or intoxication. The details of his arrests and incarceration reveal the picture of a man who deals drugs for a living. The Drug Rehabilitation Act is aimed at being an intervention program to divert addicts and those who deal only to support their own habit. In this case, even though the defendant claims that he has a drug addiction, the evidence does not support this claim.

Published on: April 25, 2012

Court Discusses Exclusionary Rule

by Stephen Bilkis

Whenever evidence of a crime is discovered by police during an inventory search of a person’s vehicle, it is subject to scrutiny. Inventory searches are administrative searches. That means that the police department or agency maintains documents in their standard operating procedures manual that indicates that an inventory of an arrested person’s vehicle will be performed incident to that arrest. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the reason for inventory searches is that people often make allegations that items are missing from their vehicles. The inventory of the person’s vehicle incident to their arrest is to determine what exactly is in the vehicle. Anything that appears to be valuable needs to be removed and placed into evidence or property so that the person can re-claim their valuables upon getting out of jail. The police department is protected from allegations of theft, and all valuables are protected for the individual.

However, in many cases, illegal items, narcotics, open alcoholic beverage container, stolen credit cards, and other items are located during the inventory of a vehicle. It is at that point that the officer must be able to prove that the search was an administrative search and not a search for contraband. That is why it is important for police officers to have their procedures documented.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that in a case that was decided before the Supreme Court of New York County on November 18, 2009, a defendant who was charged with one count of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the second degree and with driving under the influence of alcohol. The man was arrested following a traffic stop. The officer stated that he observed a Lexus pulled up to a fire hydrant. There was a white male behind the wheel of the car. When the officer pulled up, the man got out of the car and approached the officer. The officer stated that the man’s eyes were glassy and bloodshot, he exuded a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage from about his person, and he was unsteady on his feet.

Published on: April 25, 2012

Appeal Looks at Defendant’s Special Condition of Parole

by Stephen Bilkis

The Supreme Court modified a special condition of a man’s parole. The said condition forbade him from having any contact with his wife without the permission of his parole officer. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the modified order permitted the man to see his wife during non-curfew hours so long as the wife wished to see him.

On recent years, the man was released on parole subject to seventeen special conditions where he agreed to abide by a curfew established by his parole officer and agreed that he will not associate in any way or communicate by any means with his wife without the permission of the parole officer. While denying the man’s application to vacate the curfew and to allow him to live with his wife, the Supreme Court held that although the condition was not itself a violation of the man’s constitutional rights, it was subjective to deny the man’s visitation during non-curfew hours as long as the wife consented to it. In the ruling, the court noted the wife’s desire to see her husband. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man’s rape conviction occurred before and none of his domestic violence related arrests resulted in convictions. The court finds that the Supreme Court improperly substituted its judgment for that of state division of parole.

Based on records, the imposition of a special condition is discretionary in nature and ordinarily beyond legal review as long as it is made in accordance with law and no positive legal requirement is violated. If the condition is rationally related to the inmate’s past conduct and future chances of recidivism, the Supreme Court has no authority to substitute its own preference for that of the individuals in charge of designing the terms of a man’s parole release. Further, because there is no federal or state constitutional right to be released to parole supervision before serving a full sentence, the state has responsibility to place restrictions on parole release.

Published on: April 25, 2012

Court Decides Divorce in Light of Domestic Violence Allegations

by Stephen Bilkis

A Jewish couple married in August 1973. At that time, the husband was 22 and the wife was 18. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the husband was in dental school and wife chose to keep house until after the husband finished his dental studies. When the husband became a dentist and had established a dental practice, it was the wife who took care of all the details of the practice including the hiring and firing of his employees.

The wife was able to finish four college degrees during the pendency of her marriage and had taken a licensure examination as a social worker. The wife also set up a foundation that aimed to help Jewish women who were victims of domestic violence get a Jewish divorce.

The couple had four children. At the time of the divorce proceeding in 2004, the two older children were already adults and married with children of their own. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the third child was 20 years old but still in college and was dependent upon the support of his parents. The youngest child was 13 years old.