Articles Posted in Drug Possesion

People v. Rahman

Court Discusses the Prejudicial Effects of a Sandoval Hearing

The defendant was arrested and charged for two counts each of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree. The defendant however, stated that he had an alibi that he was visiting a friend and his aunt when the sales took place on both dates. The defendant further alleged that there was a seller imitating him. The defendant requested a Sandoval hearing to exclude his prior convictions which included drug related offenses where he chose to testify. It was concluded that the People could cross-examine him about his two prior convictions for possession of dangerous drugs. The defendant was convicted of sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. The defendant appealed the conviction on the basis that he was prejudiced during the cross-examination by the prosecution.

Continue reading

This is an action to recover damages or the alleged libel, slander, negligent hiring and training and negligent supervision of the defendant police officer by the defendant county. It has been alleged by the complainant man that on November 6, 2005, he was present at the Athletic League Sports Complex at a football game and following the game, directed a combative, disgruntled park patron out of the park and advised the defendant police officer. The complainant alleges that thereafter, he was sitting in his truck when the police officer, in the presence and hearing of others, spoke to him stating that he smell marijuana in the complainant’s track. The complainant contends he was not engaging in the use or marijuana possession and that the police officer refused to arrest him when he challenged him to do so.

On November 9, 2005, the police officer allegedly submitted a written report of the criminal incident to the County Police Department to a Lieutenant. The complainant claims the report was false and was disseminated to the Police Athletic League in a board meeting with the intent to damage his employment, good name, reputation, and credit. The complainant claims he was thereafter terminated from his contract with the Police Athletic League (PAL) in December 2005.

The County and the police officer seek an order granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint asserted against them. The adduced testimony establishes that the police officer was on duty at his job as a police officer and was present on November 6, 2005 at the PAL football field to observe a football game between twelve year olds from Huntington and the South Shore League to help defray any problems as there were previous complaints about the conduct of the players/coaches/referees on the playing field with regard to yelling and not controlling their conduct. The police officer was observing the game with a PAL Board member, and when the game was over, spotted the complainant’s green van. The police officer wanted to let the complainant know there was nothing further he could do about the woman who complained to him, to advise the complainant that he was leaving, and also, because the police officer’s his first van was green when he began his job, he thought the complainant ‘s van might have been the same one. The complainant testified to purchasing the van from PAL. When the police officer approached the van, the complainant was seated inside. Standing by the driver’s side windows, both police officers testified they could smell criminal marijuana coming from the van when the van window was opened, there was smoke in the vehicle, and one of them stated the complainant’s eyes appeared bloodshot. The complainant denied that he had been smoking marijuana when the police officer questioned him and challenged the police officer to arrest him. The police officer did not arrest him and he walked away. At his next work day, the complainant prepared the written memo directed to his supervising officer concerning his observations of the complainant at the PAL complex. Upon receiving the report, the complainant’s boss who was employed by PAL and was responsible for hiring the complainant, advised him that his supervising officer made a request for the complainant to take a drug test which he did approximately two weeks later. Thereafter, a meeting was called by the supervising officer with the PAL Board, for which the supervising officer and the police officer were board members, to discuss the situation and make a determination as to whether or not the complainant’s employment should be continued. A copy of police officer’s report was disseminated to the board. After a vote by the PAL Board, it was decided that the complainant’s contract, which was due to expire was not to be renewed. The complainant had been working for PAL for seventeen years.

Continue reading

People v. Valentin

Court Discusses the Offense of Criminal Facilitation as a Lesser Offense to Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance

The defendant was arrested after a sting operation in which it was alleged that he sold heroin to that drug enforcement agent. The defendant was charged with one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree pursuant to section 220.41 of the Penal Law. It was alleged by the undercover detective and other person who witnessed the transaction that the defendant sold the detective 15 bags of heroin for 140 at a social bar. The defendant was arrested after the transaction while he was at the social bar although no narcotics were found on his person or the proceeds of the transaction. However, purchase money was found in a garage bin along with other money. The defendant denied the allegations but acknowledged that he was asked about narcotics from one of the witnessed but refused.

Continue reading

People v. Reyes

Court Discusses the Credibility of Detective testimony versus the Defendant

The defendant was charged with sale, possession with intent to sell and possession of heroin on two separate occasions. The charges stemmed from the allegation that the defendant sold heroin in a glassine envelope on two separate occasions to an undercover detective. The detective also used the assistance of a patrolman to indicate that the sale had been completed. The defendant, however, stated that he was leaving work to pick up his son at the time the sale was alleged to have transpired on the first occasion but provided no further evidence to support his alibi. The defendant’s nephew also testified that he was him an hour prior to the defendant’s arrest on the second occasion it was alleged that he sold heroin to the undercover defective. The defendant’s nephew further stated that at no time the defendant possessed any illegal substance. The defendant was convicted by a non-jury trial of one count of criminal selling a dangerous drug in the third degree and sentenced to an intermediate term of imprisonment not exceeding four year. The trial court however, dismissed the remaining charges because the prosecution failed to prove their case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant appealed the conviction on the ground that he should not have been convicted since the other charges were dismissed.

Continue reading

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that, defendant, a graduate student and teacher at Penn State University, was convicted by the court, without a jury, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, a class A felony, and was sentenced to a minimum period of imprisonment of 15 years to life. It is not disputed that on January 4, 1975 the defendant, while under police surveillance, sold a substantial quantity of cocaine to a police informant.

A New York Cocaine Possession Lawyer said that, the informant who made the purchase of cocaine upon which defendant’s conviction is based testified that he had known defendant for about two years before the transaction of January 4, 1975; that he had visited defendant’s Pennsylvania apartment on several occasions; and that he had made prior drug purchases from defendant. He also testified that on December 4, 1974, the day before he was arrested in Steuben County for possession of amphetamines, he purchased 1,000 pills which he believed to be amphetamines, a gram of cocaine and one or two grams of PCP from defendant in Pennsylvania. While it later developed that these pills were not a controlled substance, he asserted that defendant told him that they were ‘black beauties’ and he paid defendant between $220 and $240 for the pills.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, the informant admitted that over a period of time he had used amphetamines, sedatives, hallucinogens, marijuana and heroin, and that he had sold drugs to others. He had a prior Chemung County conviction for felony possession of marijuana which was pending on appeal. On December 5, 1974 he was arrested for felony possession of amphetamines and shortly thereafter he expressed a desire to work with the state police as an informant. On December 20, 1974 he discussed with his attorney his possible informant’s role and its effect not only upon the charge with which he was then confronted but also upon the prior Chemung County conviction.

Continue reading

By order to show cause, the defendants move for renewal and re-argument of so much of the Court’s prior decision and order, entered December 2, 1993 as denied, after an inspection of the Grand Jury minutes, that branch of their respective omnibus motions to dismiss or reduce the first count of the indictment, predicated upon the argument that it was not supported by legally sufficient evidence. Relying upon the Court of Appeals’ recent decision, the defendants request the Court to re-inspect the Grand Jury minutes and to reduce the first count of the indictment, charging the defendants with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree upon the ground the People failed to adduce legally sufficient evidence establishing that each had knowledge of the weight of the cocaine. The People oppose the application.

The motion, properly designated as one to reargue based upon a subsequent authoritative decision clarifying the mensrea element for drug possession offenses which require a minimum quantity of the drug, is granted and, upon re-argument, the motion to dismiss or reduce the first count of the indictment is denied.

Criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, as defined in Penal Law requires proof that the defendant knowingly and unlawfully possessed substances of an aggregate weight of four ounces or more containing a narcotic drug such as cocaine. As was acknowledged, there is a distinction between inferences that may reasonably be drawn regarding a person’s knowledge of the pure weight of a controlled substance, when it is mixed with other materials in amounts not ascertainable except by the person who created the mixture or by chemical analysis, and inferences that may reasonably be drawn by direct sensory perception. The charged offense in this case is one of aggregate weight and the amount of cocaine discovered in the trunk of the vehicle, which was occupied solely by the defendants, was almost 18 times the requisite statutory weight.

Continue reading

Respondent, a Housing Authority was created by the Legislature to, inter alia, build and operate low-income apartments in New York City. Respondent is required by federal and state law to provide safe, decent, and sanitary housing to public housing tenants. Pursuant to 42 USC § 1437d(l)(6), leases must include the following provision: Any criminal activity that threatens the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other tenants or any drug-related criminal activity on or off such premises, engaged in by a public housing tenant, any member of the tenant’s household, or any guest or other person under the tenant’s control, shall be cause for termination of tenancy.

A New York Criminal lawyer said that, by lease, petitioner agreed that in exchange for residing in apartment located at Bronx, New York, neither she nor any member or guest would engage in “any criminal activity that threatens the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the development by other residents or by the landlord’s employees” or “any violent or drug-related criminal activity on or off the leased premises or the development,” and that respondent may terminate the lease for “violation of its material terms.”

Thereafter, New York City Police Department Detective searched petitioner’s apartment pursuant to a warrant issued upon proof of secured drug buys from petitioner and her brother, a member of her household. The search yielded two ounces of marijuana split among 37 small plastic bags and two larger bags, $419.00 in cash, all of which were found in a safe in petitioner’s bedroom, and codeine pills, which were found on petitioner’s night stand. He arrested petitioner, who pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct and was sentenced to two days of community service.

Continue reading

People v. Allison

Court Discusses the Interpretation of the term “Duly Licensed” Under Sections 220.25(1) and 265.15(3) of the Penal Law

The defendant was arrested and charge for criminal possession of controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. The defendant who was taxi and limousine driver was searched where a loaded 38 caliber revolver and more than four ounces of heroin was recovered on the floor of the car driven by the defendant. The defendant had no permit to carry a gun and at the time of his arrest his chauffeur license was temporary suspended because of traffic ticket. The defendant requested that the indictment be dismissed the against him on the basis that at the time of his arrest he was a “duly licensed” operator of an automobile for hire and was exempt from statutory presumptions under sections 220.25(1) and 265.15(3) of the Penal Law governing possession of controlled substances and weapons found in automobile.

Continue reading

In this Criminal case, Defendant has been convicted, upon his guilty plea, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree. On this appeal he challenges on several grounds the validity of a search warrant authorizing the search of his house and the seizure of various items of physical evidence, including approximately two pounds of cocaine found during the course of the search.

While investigating a drug ring involving the importation and distribution of cocaine in the Finger Lakes region, the State Police obtained authorization to place a wiretap on the phone of a known cocaine distributor operating at the middle level of the local drug distribution chain. By means of the wiretap, they intercepted coded conversations between the distributor and defendant suggestive of drug activity. Consequently, in June 1984 the Ontario County District Attorney sought an eavesdropping warrant for defendant’s telephone.

The application in support of the eavesdropping warrant included an affidavit from State Police Investigator who was the director of the area-wide drug investigation and an officer with substantial experience in drug enforcement. In his affidavit he summarized the results of the investigation and he attached to it several exhibits, including the results of a pen register surveillance which showed that over 2,000 telephone calls of short duration had been placed to and from defendant’s residence over a one-month period of time.

Continue reading

The defendant stands accused of the crime of Criminal Sale of Marijuana in the Fourth Degree. He moves to dismiss the charge pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 30.30 on the ground that the People failed to file a laboratory report confirming the presence of marijuana within 90 days of the commencement of the action thereby denying defendant a speedy trial. C.P.L. § 30.30(1)(b). The People, although conceding the report was not filed within 90 days, contend that a laboratory report is not required in marijuana cases.

A New York Criminal lawyer said that Defendant was arrested in July 1987. He was initially charged with four crimes, including possession of cocaine, hypodermic instruments and marijuana possession as well as the charge of criminal sale of marijuana in issue here. A laboratory report pertaining to the other drug possession charges was filed and served in July 1987. However, as a result of the granting of a motion after a suppression hearing, those other charges were dismissed. It was not until that date, 194 days after the commencement of the action–that the People filed the laboratory report for the one remaining count.

Defendant then filed his speedy trial motion now before the court.

Continue reading