Drug Possesion

Published on: April 21, 2012

Court Decides Gun Crime Charge

by Stephen Bilkis

The police searched the garage belonging to a man against whom a search warrant had already issued. The police found an automatic pistol which was loaded with eight cartridges. The automatic pistol was wrapped in a paper bag which was hidden in the folds of a sheet of tarpaulin which was owned by the man and which was placed in the garage by the same man.

In the same garage the police found a carbine among the tools and utensils owned by the man. It was not hidden as the loaded automatic pistol was. While searching the attic of the man’s house, the police also found a box containing cartridges similar to those loaded into the automatic pistol. Along with this box of cartridges, they also found an empty box of the same brand and make of cartridges.

All the relatives of the man, when questioned denied ownership of the gun and denied knowledge that it was hidden in the garage. Even the man himself denied the gun crime and knowledge of the gun hidden in his garage among his personal items belonging to him.

Published on: April 20, 2012

Court Discusses if Illegal Seizure Took Place

by Stephen Bilkis

On the night of April 26, 1974, two Nassau County police officers were working undercover in plainclothes on a burglary sting in a well-lit shopping and entertainment area in Wantach, Long Island. There had been several burglaries in the area and they were attempting to apprehend the suspects. While they were watching, they observed a Buick driving slowly down the street. The vehicle slowed down perceptibly in front of a bar and all three of the occupants turned to look at the windows of the establishment. The vehicle proceeded farther down the street to a stop sign. The vehicle stopped at the sign and again, all of the occupants turned to examine the windows of another bar on the side of the road. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the officers considered this behavior to be consistent with the behavior of a person “casing” a building before attempting to burglarize it. They initiated a traffic stop of the vehicle.

Upon stopping the vehicle, the officers requested that the driver provide his driver’s license. He advised that he did not have a driver’s license. The officers requested the registration on the vehicle and the subjects stated that they did not have it. The vehicle was owned by the mother of one of the passengers. The men were later discovered to have her permission to drive the car. The occupants of the car were asked to exit the vehicle. When they were outside of the vehicle, the officers executed a terry stop and frisk of them. One of the officers felt a suspicious bulge in the pocket of one of the passengers. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said when he retrieved the items, they proved to be bullets. A subsequent search of the area within the subjects immediate control, led the officers to find a gun concealed under the front seat of the car.

The question of law in this case is whether the stop of the car was justified or was it an illegal seizure. The rules of law that dictate when an officer can stop a car are clearly documented in statutory law. It states that an officer may stop a vehicle that he observes committing a crime. In absence of an immediate crime, if the officer has articulable reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime is afoot, he may stop the vehicle to investigate. In this case, the officers stated that they had merely seen the occupants glance at two bars as they drove down the street. The fact that they stopped twice is not relevant since one of those stops was at a stop sign.

Published on: April 20, 2012

Court Disusses Authority of Housing Court vs. Family Court

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, there are several different remedies which may be applied in the case of a family dispute. The couple, especially if they are in government housing, may proceed with an illegal lock out complaint to be reinstated to the apartment through the housing authority. However, if a complaint to address these issues has already been filed in Family Court, the Housing Court will generally refer the case back there. Family court has more liberty to pursue different remedies than does Housing Court. In order for a person to get reinstated to an apartment, they must be on the housing authority paperwork as a tenant or co-tenant. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the couple may also pursue a domestic violence case in either Family Court, or Criminal Court, or both. In a case where there are other issues pending in additional courts, Housing Court will generally refer the housing issue to be handled by the other court.

In one case, a man and his wife who lived in a housing authority apartment had a verbal argument one night that was so heated that the police were requested to come to the residence. The wife informed the police that during the argument, her husband had told their children that he was a member of the “Bloods” gang and that women were not to be respected. He told the children that women were supposed to be under the foot of the man. A New York Criminal Lawyer said his wife had a previous order of protection that had been in effect in 1998 and it had barred the husband from the apartment. The police told the man to go out for a walk and cool down. He left the apartment. The police took a police report and left.

The man claims that when he returned, his belongings were out front and the locks to the apartment had been changed so that he could not get back in. The wife claims that she did not put his belongings out, nor did she change the locks. She stated that she obtained an order of protection for herself and the children. That order of protection declares that the husband is barred from the apartment until the hearing of the case in August of 2004. Since there is an order in effect in Family Court that prohibits the husband from going back in to the apartment until after the hearing in August, it is a moot point to have a hearing in Housing Court. Clearly, there is no way that the housing court could overrule the order of Family Court to allow the man to move back in to the apartment before the hearing in August. It is because of this that the petition to allow the man to move back in to the apartment was dismissed.

Published on: April 19, 2012

Defendant Contends Proceedural Violations during his Arrest

by Stephen Bilkis

Parole Officer One has been employed by the New York State Division of Parole since August 1993. She was assigned to supervise the parole of the defendant in July 2006. The defendant had been paroled on a burglary conviction. Upon his release, he had signed the conditions of parole which included his consent to a search of his residence, person and property and required him to fully and truthfully answer any inquiry by his parole officer or other representative of the Division of Parole. When Officer One first met with the defendant, the consent to search provision was reiterated to him and he reaffirmed his consent. A private individual gave his residence as 87 East 31st Street in Kings County. No previous searches had been conducted by Officer One at the defendant’s residence.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the defendant, as a condition of his parole, was referred to a drug program in November 2006. In December 2006, and January and February 2007, the defendant tested “positive” for cocaine. On 15 March 2007, Officer One, in consultation with parole supervisors and Parole Officer Two, decided to do a home visit with the intention of doing a search. At that time, Officer Three was assigned to the “Targeted Offender Program” which was then doing visits in cases where the parolees, as the defendant, had been convicted of burglary.

On 16 March 2007, prior to conducting any home visits, Parole Officer Two met with other officers of the 67th Precinct Anti-Crime Unit who had been assigned to assist him in the execution of the home visits. Parole Officer Two had selected the parolees’ homes which would be visited and identified them to the police officers. He also told the police officers the number of people to expect at each home and the crime for which the parolee was on parole. Parole Officer One did not participate in the visit or search.

Published on: April 19, 2012

Court Decides if Medical Records are Hearsay in Domestic Violence Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The police received a 911 call from a woman who claimed to being beaten up by her husband. The police arrived at the scene within one minute of the 911 call and found that a husband was yelling and berating his wife. The man was standing over his wife who was cowered and hiding in between the furniture, hiding her face which appeared freshly bruised. She was crying.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said when the responding police officer asked her what happened, she said that her husband had punched her repeatedly in the head, the face and the back. She appeared to be bleeding from her left ear. She was in pain.

The police officer who responded executed a sworn statement stating the circumstances of his response to the 911 call. He stated that he found the couple in their home with the man standing over his wife who appeared to be in stress. She was crying and seemed to be in fear. When he asked what happened to her, she replied that her husband hit her and beat her up.

Published on: April 19, 2012

Court Discusses the Legal Concept of Asportation

by Stephen Bilkis

On October 23, 1974, a resident of 272 Pennsylvania Avenue , in the County of Kings, stated that he returned home from work at about 12:05 AM. He stated that he parked his car in his parking spot and started to walk towards the side entrance of his building. He stated that as he approached the door, the defendant came out from behind another car and started to follow him. He stated that the defendant threatened him and he began to run. The defendant chased him and put a knife to his throat. He forced the man into the lobby of the building. Once in the lobby, the defendant removed the victim’s ring, watch and money from his wallet. They were in the lobby for about five minutes before the victim’s wife came in. The defendant told the victim that he was going to have to get him out of the situation.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant then forced the victim and his wife back out to their car by holding the knife to the victim’s chest. He forced them in to the car and drove away with the victim’s wife driving. The defendant told them that he had six or seven children that he could not take care of and that was why he was robbing them. The wife began to cry and he told her to pull over. He started to drive. He did not know how to drive and nearly hit a bus before stopping and taking the keys. He put them outside of the car near a pole and fled on foot. The couple was inside of the car with the assailant for about ten minutes.

The question of law is whether the ten total of 15 minutes being held by the defendant was enough to constitute the crime of kidnapping. There was also some discussion about whether the crime was actually a drug possession crime. New York maintains that if the holding of the person against their will is an integral part of the execution of a greater crime, then the crime of kidnapping is absorbed into the other crime and not charged separately. The question rests on a legal term called asportation. Asportation is the removing a person to another locality.

Published on: April 19, 2012

Court Determines if Probable Cause was Present for a Stop and Search

by Stephen Bilkis

At around 9pm on September 26, 1985, a police officer was on radio motor patrol. As he was driving around the area of the corner of 204th Street and 113th Avenue, the police officer observed two men standing at that corner and one of them handed to the other a plastic bag containing smaller plastic packets. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the plastic packets contained a white powder-like substance. This was not the first time the police officer had seen plastic packets with a powder-like substance in them. He knew from experience that this is the common packaging for angel dust or heroin.

The police officer parked his patrol car and exited it. As he approached the two men, he saw the one who received the plastic bag stuff the bag in his shirt pocket. He also smelled something burning. The police officer had prior experience and instantly recognized the smell of burning heroin.

As the officer approached, the two men walked away. The police officer called out to the man who received the plastic packets. The man turned around and walked back to the officer. At this time, the officer observed that the man walked stiffly as though his legs couldn’t be bent at the knees. He was uncoordinated and walked like a tin man. A New York Criminal Lawyer said his previous experience with heroin addicts signaled to him that the man was exhibiting behavior common to people under the influence of heroin.

Published on: April 18, 2012

Defendant Claims Officer Testimony Inaddmissible

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal Lawyer said sometime in 1980, two police officers were sitting in an unmarked police car conducting surveillance of a street corner where there had been reports of crack possession and sale.

The police officers observed a man sell a tinfoil packet to another man. The police officers exited their vehicle and approached the two men. They tried to run but the officers apprehended them. When they were frisked, the officers found 23 other tinfoil packets thought to be crack in the man’s possession. The packets contained the controlled substances of phenycyclidine and methaqualone pills.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the man was arrested and charged for criminal possession of ecstacy, a controlled substance in the fifth and seventh degrees. The man pleaded not guilty to the charge and took the witness stand as a witness in his own behalf. He interposed the defense of mistaken identity and that of frame-up.

Published on: April 18, 2012

Court Decides of Removal of Children From Home is Appropriate

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal Lawyer says that New York Statutes relating to the removal of children from their natural parents is clear. The state will do everything possible to keep families together. Often the attempt to reunite natural families does more harm than good. Being a parent is more than bringing a child into the world. It is a big responsibility. It takes maturity and strength of character. People who are addicted to drugs or alcohol do not have the ability to care for children. Their addiction can lead to a hazardous home environment for children. Unfortunately, addicted individuals often lack control over their emotions and actions. This lack of control may lead to domestic violence. A home where the parents are violent toward one another is a home filled with fear. Children are generally unsupervised and often neglected entirely.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that New York authorities will remove the child or children until they feel that it is safe for them to be returned to their parents. The parents are required to attend parenting classes and often drug and alcohol treatment before the children are returned. However, sometimes the children are returned during the classes. In some cases, the parents are unable to resist the pull of their addictions and chose their addictions above the lives of their children. In these cases, the New York Family court Act §1089 details the steps that are required to free the children so that they can be adopted by parents who are capable of caring for them.

In some cases, the children are removed, and reunited numerous times over several years before the state petitions to free the children for adoption. One case of this nature began with the parents of seven young children. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the entire family lived in a one room shelter apartment together. The children, ages nine, eight, four, one ½, and five months, were born to parents who were addicted to drugs and alcohol. The father was a convicted batterer of the mother. For the following ten years, these children were removed and replaced five times. Each time, the parents would claim that they were going to take the classes. They never did. The father was enrolled in counseling for batterers, but he never attended the classes. The parents were drug tested repeatedly. Each time that they were tested, they either failed the tests or the urine samples showed that they were tampered with. Most likely when they switched urine from a child for their own in an attempt to pass the test.

Published on: April 16, 2012

Court Determines if Drug Charges will Effect Immigration Status for Defendant

by Stephen Bilkis

On 22 November 2006, defendant stood accused, by felony complaint filed, of criminal possession of marijuana in the first degree, a class C felony (drug crime); on account of an incident that occurred on 21 November 2006. At his 22 November 2006 arraignment, the court conditionally released defendant, to the supervision of the Department of Probation, and adjourned the case to Part 9, which thereafter transferred the case to County Court. On 25 January 2007, the case was returned to Part 9 of the herein court, and adjourned to 20 March 2007. On 20 March 2007, the court revoked defendant’s conditional release status, evidently because of his failure to participate in therapy as directed by the Department of Probation, and because of his arrest on 18 February 2007 for assault in the third degree. The court fixed bail at $25,000 bond, $15,000 cash and adjourned the case for three days, to 23 March 2007, for disposition. Defendant did not post bail.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said according to the transcript of a joint plea proceeding conducted on 23 March 2007, another individual was arrested with defendant, also for felony possession of marijuana on account of the incident on 21 November 2006, and both defendant and the other individual were represented from the outset by a lawyer. During the course of the single plea proceeding conducted on 23 March 2007, the court converted the felony complaint pending against defendant, and the felony complaint pending against the other individual, to accuse each of misdemeanor possession of marijuana. No supporting deposition demonstrating that scientific tests were performed on the substance forming the basis of the prosecution is annexed to the converted document, designated as a misdemeanor complaint, has been filed against defendant. Moreover, by the factual part of the document, the complainant attests only that defendant “possessed” more than 10 pounds of a “greenish brown leafy substance believed to be marijuana,” and that “the arresting detective who recovered the evidence believes the substance to be marijuana based on his years of training as a police officer and detective, its appearance, color, odor and texture and its packaging which is commonly used by drug dealers. But while the other individual pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of disorderly conduct, defendant pleaded guilty to violating the Penal Law of possessing more than two ounces of marijuana, the crime of which he then stood accused. The court sentenced each to a conditional discharge and the maximum fine permissible for the offense to which each pleaded guilty.

Neither defendant nor the other individual waived the right to be prosecuted by information when arraigned on the converted accusatory instruments immediately before entering their pleas of guilty. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said during the course of the joint plea allocution, the court asked defendant and the other individual if they consented to one attorney representing both of them. Each answered “yes.” The court then asked if there is no conflict of interest in any way. Each responded “no.” When both were asked if they had discussed the case with their attorney before pleading guilty, each answered “yes”. Following questioning about educational background and mental status, defendant stated he has a fifth grade education; the other completed high school. The court asked defendant if he understood that he was pleading guilty to a crime, that he would have a criminal record, and that the crime is punishable by up to a year in jail, a fine, or a combination of both, and the defendant responded “yes.” Defendant also answered “yes” when the court asked if he understood that, by pleading guilty, he was also waiving his right to a trial and his right to appeal. Oddly, when the court asked “do you wish to plead guilty to a crime,” defendant and the other individual each answered “yes.” Ultimately, defendant admitted that on 21 November 2006, he possessed marijuana, the weight of which was not specified. A Nassau County Drug Possession Lawyer said the other individual admitted that he behaved in a disorderly manner on that date. As noted, the court sentenced each to a conditional discharge and a fine. Other than noting his appearance, joining in the People’s application to reduce the charge, waiving a reading of the new charge, and, at the conclusion of the proceeding, addressing defendant’s bail status, defendant’s counsel (for the plea) stated nothing on the record. Included in the court file is a certificate of relief from civil disabilities, based on an application defendant made on 6 November 2008, by which he specifically sought a certificate that will relieve him from any bars that would prevent him from traveling.