Nassau

Published on: May 1, 2012

Court Terminates Parental Rights

by Stephen Bilkis

A married couple who are both hearing impaired had two children born on May 1995 and May 1992. The younger child has spina bifida. The two children were removed from the home and placed in foster care on June 20, 1996 by the Family Court after it found proof of medical neglect and domestic violence.

A New York DWI Lawyer said the husband assaulted the wife with a knife and this landed him in jail. When questioned by the family court if he assaulted his wife with a knife, he denied it. He claims that he and his wife argued and while they were arguing, he was holding a knife. He denied that he hurt her. While he was in jail, he did not see, call or visit his child. After he was released from jail, he still failed to visit, call or write his child. He failed to financially support his child.

The mother underwent therapy and counseling for depression and also for substance abuse. She admitted to her case worker that she had been using marijuana. When the case worker told her to get herself tested for substance abuse and also to submit herself for psychological evaluation, she refused.

Published on: April 30, 2012

Court Decides if DWI Offender Should be Denied Gun License

by Stephen Bilkis

The right to bear arms in this country is a vital part of our country’s history. In recent years, the right to bear arms, has been more limited than at any other time in the history of this nation. In order to bear arms in New York, a person must apply for a license. The laws that control the eligibility requirements for obtaining a pistol license are unusually broad. The pistol-licensing officer has tremendous discretion when it comes to approving permits. Penal Law § 400.009(1) states that the pistol licensing officer has the right to deny any application for any good cause.

A New York DWI Lawyer said there have been several appeals based on decisions of pistol licensing officers to deny the right to bear arms in the state of New York. No one wants to have people with mental problems, or serious criminals running around with firearms. So where is the line drawn? Florida’s stand your ground law is being criticized in the news because of the recent shooting involving a neighborhood watch representative who was armed when he encountered a teen in a hoody this year. The teen did not survive the encounter. There were no witnesses to the shooting. The neighborhood watch representative stated that the teen attacked him and he was in fear that he was going to sustain serious bodily harm. Following the police investigation and community outcry, the neighborhood watch representative was arrested. If the neighborhood watch representative had not been armed, the situation would have been different. Whether that means that the neighborhood watch representative would have been injured by the teen is unknown. There have been many situations where people who have exercised their right to bear arms, have had to justify their choices. Ultimately, if a person has to defend their lives in the face of a threat, they are glad to have a gun with them.

In one case from New York in 2011, a man appealed the judgment of the pistol licensing officer who denied his request for a pistol license. He stated that there was no reason for the license to be denied. A New York DWI Lawyer said the pistol licensing officer determined that the man had been arrested three times for DWI and had one conviction for DUI. One of the arrests for DUI occurred while his pistol license was in review. In this case, it is fairly obvious that this man did not exercise good common sense when it came to his actions. Does this mean that he should not be allowed to carry a pistol? It would probably be a bad idea.

Published on: April 28, 2012

Court Discusses Reliability of Field Sobriety Tests

by Stephen Bilkis

When a person gets behind the wheel of a car, they are getting behind the wheel of a machine that is heavy enough to kill another person. It is a weapon when used offensively against another. When a person has already proven that they are incapable of using good enough judgment to continue to possess a driver’s license, is found to be driving a vehicle while under the influence, the crime is especially heinous.

However, justice has many steps for a reason. A New York DWI Lawyer said our justice system is an adversarial justice system. The adversarial nature is in place to prevent the mistakes that human beings make. The appeal process is not in place to provide a sounding board for every criminal. A New York DWI Lawyer said there must be a constitutional ground that makes the case worth reviewing once it is past the Superior court level. In one case that involved a habitual violator with a revoked license, a police officer pulled up behind a car that was parked on the side of the road. When the officer approached the vehicle, he noticed that the subject had a strong odor of alcohol about his person and that his eyes were bloodshot and glassy. His speech was slurred and the subject was unsteady on his feet.

Field Sobriety Tests are notoriously questionable. A Nassau County DWI Lawyer said that they are designed for failure, so it is rarely a surprise when a person who has been asked to participate in these tests, does not pass them. In this case, the subject failed two of the three tests, but it is not clear which ones or what the criteria was for the officer to consider the test to be a failure. The defendant maintained that his arrest was illegal because the officer did not see him driving and could not make a determination that his driving was impaired.

Published on: April 28, 2012

Court Says Evidence Must Establish Prima Facie Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant is charged with assault in the third degree and resisting arrest, in violation of Penal Laws.

Defendant moves for an order dismissing the two information, or, in the alternative, granting a hearing, pursuant to People v. Huntley (a Huntley hearing), regarding statements disclosed by the People in a notice that has been served.

The People oppose the motions.

Published on: April 27, 2012

Defendant Contends Eyewitness Testimony is Incorrect

by Stephen Bilkis

Cases that involve drug crimes often include violence. In some cases, this violence is more severe than others are. Few people will not admit that the violence of a criminal exploit is directly relative to the amount of money that the criminal stands to gain. A New York DWI Lawyer said in drug crimes, a criminal often stands to profit huge amounts of money. It doesn’t take much imagination to see the correlation between the modern prohibition against drugs and the historical prohibition against alcohol. Both have caused huge spikes in crime rates and violence. Whenever there is a market for a substance, someone will supply it. If that substance is illegal, the price to obtain it is higher because the supplier is shouldering substantial risk. This is nothing new. John Hancock was a convicted tea smuggler. During the civil war, many privateers smuggled products into the south through the blockades of the ports. Smugglers are nothing new. They are simply privateers who are attempting to increase their income at the expense of people who are willing to pay an inflated price for an illegal substance.

With drugs that are highly addictive, the smuggler or supplier’s income is virtually secure. A New York DWI Lawyer said it is in their best monetary interest to peddle an addictive substance to ensure that the customer will continue to come back and purchase more. In the 1980s, the ability to smuggle drugs into this country was incredible. There were famous drug lords in Bolivia and other areas of South America and Mexico. These men were ruthless and their drug cartels became their family businesses. Few were better known than the Escobar’s.

On January 26, 1985, a woman was standing outside of the ladies’ room in the Extasis bar in Queens County, New York. The music was loud, and she thought she heard firecrackers going off inside of the mens’ room. As she stood in the cramped hallway, she saw a man open the mens’ room door with one hand while holding a handgun in his other. While she watched, she saw him fire two more shots into the mens’ room. The man ran out of the bar. The woman looked into the bathroom and saw the body of another man on the floor bleeding from gunshot wounds. It was later determined that he had been involved with drug trafficking with the Escobar family.

Published on: April 25, 2012

Court Discusses Jurisdiction of the IDV Court

by Stephen Bilkis

On 18 January 2011, defendant was arraigned in Buffalo City Court on one count of harassment in the second degree pursuant to Penal Law alleging an act of domestic violence by the defendant against the complainant.

A New York DWI Lawyer said on 26 January 2011, the People declared their readiness for trial and defendant served motions on the Erie County District Attorney on 1 February 2011. While this Buffalo City Court action was pending, three petitions were simultaneously pending in Erie County Family Court between the defendant, complainant and a third family member concerning the custody of the defendant and complainant’s child. The pendency of these simultaneous criminal and Family Court matters with the underlying issue of domestic violence prompted a screening by the herein Court, the Supreme Court Integrated Domestic Violence (hereinafter IDV) Part, located in Erie County.

Accordingly, the Court determined that a transfer of the family’s cases to the IDV Part was appropriate by finding that said “transfer of the case to the Supreme Court would promote the administration of justice” pursuant to the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts for Integrated Domestic Violence Parts.

Published on: April 24, 2012

Court Discusses Sick Leave Policy in Light of Domestic Violence Allegations

by Stephen Bilkis

On 1 June 2000, petitioner was hired by the New York City Department of Correction, subject to a two-year probation period. She is the mother of two pre-teenage children and a victim of abuse by their father, a crack and alcohol abuser with a criminal history.

A New York DWI Lawyer said on November 2000, petitioner moved out with her children and went to live with a relative in the Bronx. Things did not work out and she was ejected from that apartment on 22 March 2002. She requested vacation time to find a home and was granted leave through 4 April 2002.

On 5 April 2002, petitioner, who was still homeless, asked the Department’s Health Management Division (HMD) for further time off to continue her search for a place to live. HMD put her on immediate sick leave due to stress, confiscated her identification, and directed her to obtain a new one which reflected she was psychologically unfit to carry a firearm. At that same meeting, HMD demanded that petitioner provide them with an address. When petitioner told them she was homeless and lacked an address, she was told she could not work at the Department without one. A New York DWI Lawyer said faced with that threat even after she had explained her homelessness, she gave her husband’s address.

Published on: April 23, 2012

City Sues Street Gang

by Stephen Bilkis

The Queens Plaza area is located at the foot of the Queensboro Bridge. A New York DWI Lawyer said it is one of the major entranceways to Queens and indeed to the rest of Long Island. In addition to being a conduit for the vehicular traffic to and from Manhattan over the bridge, the area is a major hub for public transportation, where all three subway lines serving the City meet and have stations. Several urban gangs had commandeered a residential neighborhood for their drug crime, taking over the streets, lawns and homes, making murder, attempted murder, drive-by shootings, assault and battery, vandalism, arson, and theft.

The City sues 21 named offenders, each of whom is described as a member or affiliate of a criminal street gang. It is alleged that the offenders, individually and collectively, have created and maintained an ongoing street prostitution operation which has overwhelmed the Queens Plaza area. It is alleged that the female offenders are prostitutes, and that the male offenders are the pimps who set up, control, and profit from their prostitution activities. It is further alleged that between the hours of 11:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. the activities are so intense, widespread, and pervasive within the Queens Plaza neighborhood as to have essentially taken it over, in that they slow vehicular traffic, block sidewalks, impede pedestrian traffic and entrance to the Queens Plaza subway station, and interfere with the operation of local businesses. It is alleged that the offenders’ activities lead to the routine solicitation of passersby for prostitution, to violent criminal acts related to the interaction of gang members with competing criminal elements, to the littering of the public streets with used condoms, to public urination, and to noise. It is alleged that the abovementioned activities constitutes a public nuisance which requires the court’s intervention. A New York DWI Lawyer said it is further alleged that all the activities is created by the offenders on behalf of, and for the financial benefit and support of, the gang. It is also alleged that none of the offenders reside or work in the Queens Plaza area other than as part of the prostitution operation.

The complaint is against the named individuals only. No claim is made against the gang as a group, or against any individual as offenders. No explanation is offered as to why those particular individuals were chosen for the action, and none was offered at the hearing or in the post-hearing memoranda.

Published on: April 22, 2012

Woman Claims DWI Stop Was Not Lawful

by Stephen Bilkis

Many issues of law are important to cases of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. In some cases, these lines can be blurred. However, when it comes to what rights an officer has to stop a vehicle, the law has stated that an officer only needs to have articulable reasonable suspicion that a crime is afoot. However, to make an arrest, an officer must have probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person under suspicion was involved in the commission of that crime in one way or another. A New York DWI Lawyer said that sometimes, a person may attempt to have their case reviewed by the court in order to suppress some or all of the evidence against them. When this happens, it is clear that often it involves the legality of the traffic stop itself.

If the legality is not in place, the traffic stop is not legal. If the traffic stop is not legal then everything after that stop is not admissible. This is an example of the exclusionary rule. Any evidence that is obtained as the result of an illegal search or seizure is considered fruit of the poisonous tree. It is not admissible in a court of law. Therefore, if a defendant can prove that the traffic stop was illegal, then everything after that stop cannot be used against them in a court of law.

A New York DWI Lawyer said that in one case, which occurred in the Bronx, a woman was stopped after a police officer observed her executing a left turn without using her turn signal. The officer pulled in behind her and observed that she was talking on her cell phone as she executed a U-turn to return in her previous direction. The officer turned on his emergency equipment and executed a stop of her car. When he approached her car, he noticed a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage from about her person. He asked her if she would submit to field sobriety tests and she agreed. After the officer noted that she had not passed the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, the walk and turn, and the one leg stand, he asked her if she would take a portable Alco sensor test. She agreed, and tested positive for alcohol. A Queens County DWI Lawyer said she was arrested and transported the precinct for a breath test.

Published on: April 21, 2012

DWI Defendant Claims Breathlyzer Machine was Inaccurate

by Stephen Bilkis

Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs has been a hot political topic for the past decade. The results of the political impact is that more laws and tougher laws have been enacted that are aimed at reducing DUI incidents. The problem is that whenever more laws are created, more people fall into the category. Twenty years ago, DUI cases were straightforward. The tests that the officers used in the field tested long term memory and coordination that were clearly indicative of impairment. Since, lower acceptable levels of blood alcohol have been established; the old tests were unable to detect this lower level. The reason is that the lower level is a point below what used to be considered impaired. Because of this, new field sobriety tests had to be created. The current tests are designed for failure, not for actually testing impairment.

The political atmosphere has created other problems as well. Government grants for DUI police units mean that police departments get money for catching more DUI drivers. A New York DWI Lawyer said it is no longer in the officer’s best interest to determine if the person is impaired or not. It is in the officer’s best interest to make an arrest, no matter how low the person’s blood alcohol content is.

Some states, like Florida, have made the penalty for first time DUI so harsh that refusing the test is a better option. In order for a person to fail a breath test, there are several things that can happen: The person can be actually over the legal limit of .08 for people over the age of 21 years; the machine can be faulty, as 80% of the Florida machines were determined to be in 2007; the officer can determine that the person is intentionally attempting to defeat the machine by not blowing fully into it; the person can put something, like gum, into their mouths after being instructed not to; or the person can pretend to blow into the machine while not expelling any air. It is also possible that the person speaks a language other than English and does not understand the instructions that are given to him.