Drug Possesion

Published on: February 12, 2012

Court Rule on Drug Possession Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A 37-year old man has been indicted for the drug possession, sale of a controlled substance and other drug related charges. Under the revised criminal laws relating to drug crimes, each of the crime charged is classified as an A–III felony, punishable by an indeterminate term of imprisonment, the minimum period of which, for a first offender, is from one to eight and one-third years, and the maximum of which is life imprisonment.

The accused demanded for the dismissal of his indictment based on constitutional grounds. The accused specifically assailed the validity of certain criminal laws on the ground that these provisions do violence to his due process and equal protection rights and that they are inconsistent with the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment under the Federal and New York Constitutions.

According to the court, the gist of the accused’s cruel and unusual punishment claim is that the penalty which has been legislatively imposed and must be judicially imposed, if there is a conviction, is too harsh for the alleged drug crimes. The accused argued that the quantities of heroin involved here are minute and that the entire amount of his gain from each of the transactions with which he is charged was $60.

Published on: February 11, 2012

Court Rules on Drug Crime Case

by Stephen Bilkis

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, in July of 1974, a man who pleaded guilty for sale prohibited drugs was charged of life imprisonment with no possibility of probation and lifetime parole. According to reports, this rule was first given the highest force of law in United States in 1910 which during that time was considered to be fair and just, but does it follow that what was fair and just 70 or more years ago applies now.

Based on reports, of all the class A felonies such as arson, kidnapping, murder, only the narcotics possession and sale offenses are prohibited from being reduced by plea bargaining. Thus, a person who kills intentionally, who causes serious physical injury in the course of a robbery, who rapes a child, who blows up an occupied building, faces a maximum term of 25 years, or a maximum of 30 years for a series of such acts before being imprisoned on any one of them. Although imprisonment is mandatory, no minimum term may be imposed unless the court gives reasons for concluding that the best interest of the public requires it because of the nature and circumstances of the crime and of the history and character of the defendant.

A New York Criminal Lawyer revealed that a man charged of cocaine possession will not remain on parole for the rest of his life, nor will he be denied the opportunity to engage in plea bargaining. Crack possession is considered to be worse than a person who kills intentionally, who causes serious physical injury in the course of a robbery, who rapes a child, who blows up an occupied building,whether he sells a bag of heroin for profit or to support his own addiction or whether he gives away a ‘fix’ to a desperately sick friend suffering from withdrawal pains (where the consequences to the ‘victim’ and to society are minimal, by any scale of values), the mandatory maximum penalty of life remains the same.

Published on: February 11, 2012

Court Rules of Constitutionality of the Drug Law of 1972

by Stephen Bilkis

On October 16, 1974, the Albany County Court in People v. Hollingsworth had an occasion to rule on the constitutionality of the penalty imposed by the Drug Law of 1973. The said law imposes a mandatory penalty of life imprisonment on certain drug crimes, making the penalty equivalent to that of heinous crimes, such as kidnapping or murder.

In the said case, the defendant was charged with the criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. Prior to trial, the defendant sought the dismissal of the case because, according to him, the law infringes on his constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, among others. He anchored his claim on the decision of the Monroe County Court in People v. Mosley, where it was held that certain provisions of the Drug Law is unconstitutional for being a cruel and unusual punishment.

In drug possession cases, it must be noted that the standard by which the court must determine whether a particular punishment is cruel and unusual, and hence violative of the Constitutions, is the modern concept of cruelty and unusualness prevailing in society at the time the question is raised.

Published on: February 10, 2012

Court Rules on Drug Charges Case

by Stephen Bilkis

On September 8, 11 and 12, 1972, an undercover police officer bought cocaine from a man at the Franz Segal Park. The police officer’ back-up team in the area did not actually see the exchange of money for the cocaine. The police officer just showed his back-up team the evidence of the cocaine he bought from the man in the park which was confirmed to be cocaine.

On September 13 and 18, 1972, the defendant again sold cocaine to another undercover police officer at the same area of Franz Segal Park. When the police arrested the defendant in his apartment they discovered marijuana in a bookcase and cocaine hidden inside the inner door of a refrigerator.

The man was charged with selling cocaine on September 8, 11 and 12, 1972. He was charged also for cocaine possession and selling on September 13 and 18, 1972. And he was charged for marijuana possession and cocaine possession for the drugs found in his apartment during his arrest.

Published on: February 10, 2012

Court Rules on Drug Crimes Case

by Stephen Bilkis

In an undercover operation, federal agents busted a man trying to sell them eight ounces of cocaine in Rochester, New York. According to the primary witness of the drug crime, he knew the defendant for seven years and they were introduced by a mutual friend. The witness called the defendant and informed him that some interested buyers were willing to make a drug deal. The defendant, who was residing in Florida, flew to New York to meet the buyers.

In exchange for the cocaine, the primary witness received $9000 in $100 bills then went home. The defendant then came over to the house of the witness to count the bills and check for any markings left by the authorities. According to the witness, the defendant left his home with $8000 in cash as part of his profit from the sale then boarded a flight back to Florida.

The testimony of the witness was corroborated by his fiancée who also had knowledge of the drug deal. Evidence against the defendant consisted of nine surveillance tapes and recordings of phone conversations. Prior to the cocaine sale, police already obtained a court order to monitor the conversations between the witness and the defendant.

Published on: February 8, 2012

Akhilesh Arrested at Airport

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal Lawyer has learned that Akhilesh was arrested at Amausi international airport on Thursday. The local police chief commented that the arrest was a preventative measure as Wednesday was the last day of the Samajwadi Party’s (SP) protest against the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) government.

When Akhilesh arrived at the airport, he was greeted by a multitude of police that immediately surrounded him and led him away, reports a New York Criminal Lawyer. He was being held at the Lucknow district jail after initially being taken to an undisclosed location.

Although he was whisked away rather abruptly before being allowed to speak with the media, as he was being escorted away he commented that, “This is dictatorship. We are not even being allowed a democratic protest.”

Published on: February 7, 2012

Police Officers Shot at in Drug Case, states New York Criminal Lawyer

by Stephen Bilkis

Two police officers spotted a 26 year old suspect smoking marijuana at 6:15 PM at a street corner, a New York Criminal Lawyer said. The officers approached the suspect and attempted to place him under arrest when the suspect became unruly and decided to resist arrest. The officers were attempting to handcuff him at the time he opposed them. The suspect then somehow managed to gain access to the gun of one of the officers and tried to fire a bullet. A struggle then ensued with both suspect and officer attempting to gain possession of the weapon. The officer did manage to keep one hand on the barrel of the gun before the gun was fired.

The suspect discharged the gun once and although firing at point blank range, the bullet did not strike anyone or cause any damage. The suspect was attempting to fire a second time but was unable to do so because the shell casing was jammed inside the gun.

The officer was then able to regain full possession of his weapon after a major struggle and the suspect was handcuffed and placed under arrest without further incident. Charges against the suspect and further information is still pending at this time.

Published on: February 4, 2012

A growing local church in Palm Beach Gardens faces economic woes

by Stephen Bilkis

A non-denominational community church was recently threatened with foreclosure following verification that it owed $11.3 million in principal, as well as substantial interest and moderate late charges, as reported by a New York Criminal Lawyer.

The non-profit community church in Palm Beach Gardens was cited for a possible foreclosure along with its fellow tenants, including a construction company and a real estate counseling firm. The principal amount owed by the church stemmed from a past loan from a local bank in 2006, and the case was heard in the Palm Beach County 15th Judicial Circuit. The non-profit community church originated in a former cinema complex in Palm Beach Gardens, and in 2008 upgraded to its current location, a retail/office/entertainment complex. A New York Criminal Lawyer notes the postulation of Palm Beach Gardens’ vice mayor that the church’s financial situation may be due, in part, to a struggling economy and the resulting decline in giving among members and guests. His insight is relevant due to his further involvement in commercial lending; the vice mayor serves as vice- president of commercial lending for another bank.

The community church houses a 50,000-square-foot cultural center oriented toward the local community, as well as a banquet hall that houses a commercial kitchen and features a capacity of 500 individuals. According to the aforementioned vice mayor of the city, it is likely that an agreement will be reached between the church and the bank- perhaps a payment plan- rather than pursuing a mortgage foreclosure. The vice mayor is quoted as saying, “Foreclosing on a church is not good public relations for a bank”.

Published on: February 3, 2012

Connecticut Legislature Considering New Medical Malpractice Bill

by Stephen Bilkis

Testifying before a Connecticut State Legislature committee, a widower was finally allowed to tell his story about how his wife’s psychiatrist had contributed to her suicide more than seven years before, a New York Criminal Lawyer learned. This 46-year old man claims that after taking antidepressants the psychiatrist prescribed, his wife had suicidal thoughts. He went on to say that, her psychiatrist literally ignored his calls as he tried to get her help. His 46-year old wife eventually backed her car into the couple’s garage and left the engine running. Her death was a suicide by carbon monoxide poisoning.

While his wife’s former psychiatrist and his license remain in good standing in the state of Connecticut, and his attorney flatly denies the allegations, the husband of the dead woman has been on a quest ever since his wife passed away. He has had legal representation part of the time, most of his lawsuit attempts at the doctor have been pro se, which means he has been representing himself.

He has spent many hours at courthouses and legal libraries in order to prepare himself as to what he needed to do on his mission, as well as what would be expected of him. As part of his journey through the legal maze that he faced alone, he has filed numerous motions and legal briefs, and has most of them dismissed even without the judge allowing any arguments. Undaunted, he had his day to speak about his loss and his quest to a group of lawmakers who are looking to change the way the system treats those who represent themselves in malpractice lawsuits. During his testimony he was allowed to exceed his three-minute time to speak allocation because of his compelling story that lawmakers and attorneys alike had either already heard of, or were intrigued by.

Published on: February 2, 2012

Detective arrested for driving under the influence

by Stephen Bilkis

An Alexandria Police Department detective faces driving under the influence charges after he was involved in a single car accident. He crashed his city-issued vehicle into a concrete pole. The car was provided to the department with taxpayer money. The accident happened at the corner of Gibbon and South Patrick Streets in Alexandria, a New York Criminal Lawyer was told.

The detective, who was off-duty at the time of the accident, refused to take a breathalyzer test when the police arrived about 6:30 p.m. Saturday at the accident location. He is also facing charges of unreasonable refusal for rejecting the breathalyzer test.

The mayor of the city said the incident could not be tolerated. “It doesn’t represent the characteristics of the hundreds of outstanding men and women of our police department. Hopefully, this is just an isolated incident,” said the mayor.