DWI / DUI

Published on: August 8, 2012

Defendant Challenges Indictment

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case where the court affirmed that custody of the appellant to a representative of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, pursuant to a warrant issued by the Governor of New Jersey under section 5278, is valid and binding.

Appellant committed a robbery in Massachusetts on or about August 18, 1916, and having, by his own admission, been personally present there and in communication with the alleged co-conspirator at or about that time, and being afterwards found in the state of New Jersey. A New York DWI Lawyer said a hearing for habeas corpus was made to demand for appellant’s apprehension and extradition to Massachusetts.

A copy of the indictment states:

Published on: August 8, 2012

Defendant Claims Double Jeopardy

by Stephen Bilkis

This involves an application for stay pending appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denying applicant’s request for a temporary restraining order. The Court of Appeals likewise denied the petition.

A New York DWI Lawyer said on July 2, 1979, the applicant, allegedly led local police on a high-speed automobile chase through Norfolk and Suffolk Counties. He was finally arrested in Suffolk County and charged with various offenses by the District Attorneys in both counties.

In Norfolk County (Quincy District Court), he was charged with driving so as to endanger, failure to stop for a police officer, failure to slow down for an intersection, and driving at an unreasonable speed. In Suffolk County (West Roxbury District Court), he was also charged with driving so as to endanger and failure to stop for a police officer, and in addition was charged with assault and battery with a motor vehicle.

Published on: August 3, 2012

Defendant Contends Search of Vehicle and Arrest Unlawful

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

The seizure of evidence from the defendant was an offshoot of a joint investigation undertaken by the DEA and New York State law enforcement authorities. A New York DWI Lawyer said the purpose of the investigation was to identify the members of a drug dealing organization, its suppliers and customers, and to locate stash and distribution locations. The investigation began at least as early as 27 September 1990, when several eavesdropping warrants were issued permitting the authorities to gather information concerning narcotics trafficking being done by a large number of people including man-one and his brother, man-two.

Through the wiretaps, surveillance and a confidential informant, the agent in charge of the operation had established, by 17 January 1991, that the organization used an apartment at the Bronx to store and package heroin for sale; that another place at Walton Avenue was being used to store narcotics and narcotics packaging paraphernalia; and that another place in Wyatt Avenue was being used to discuss their narcotics business. Moreover, the agent was aware that the DEA’s wiretaps showed a pattern of conversations that are coded, cryptic and carefully worded. A New York DWI Lawyer said according to the agent, the intercepted conversations contain repeated references to iron and board and for clothes, which he believed to be references to narcotics packaging paraphernalia. Narcotics, as the agent averred, were discussed in terms of food, bottles, cases of beer, and clothes.

Published on: August 2, 2012

Court Finds Warrant Inappropriate

by Stephen Bilkis

In 2003, the Village of Westbury in New York created a question of law that is bound to have effects across the state. A New York DWI Lawyer said the situation was born of a problem with an illegal boarding house. The laws of the villages in the state of New York vary according to the different locations, but most of them have zoning restrictions that prevent multiple families from living in homes that are designated by code as being single family dwellings. Homes are given certificates of occupancy when they are built. These certificates of occupancy label the home as either multiple family or single family dwellings. More than one family is not permitted to live in a home that is designated as a single family dwelling.

In this case, a code enforcement officer obtained a search warrant for a house that was located in the Village of Westbury. He based his probable cause for obtaining the warrant on the fact that numerous cars belonging to numerous different families were parked at the location. There were separate entrances to what appeared to be a basement apartment. Three confidential informants came forward and informed him that the owners of the house were charging undocumented workers large sums of money to live in the home. The garbage collector testified that the garbage that was generated from the house was three or four times the average amount of trash that he collects at other houses in the area. The water and electric bills also indicated that more people than the norm were living in the house. With this huge amount of probable cause behind him, the code enforcement officer applied for a warrant. His warrant detailed that he was seeking evidence that more than one family was living in the home in violation of the housing code of the village. The warrant limited the evidence to be removed in that only pictures and videos of the residence would be permitted to be removed from the residence.

The warrant was executed in the early morning hours at about six in the morning. The warrant had specifically stated that because it was a code enforcement administrative warrant and not one of criminal origin, it would not be appropriate to execute the warrant before six in the morning or after nine o’clock at night. The warrant was executed right at the stroke of six. A New York DWI Lawyer that increased the possibility that the officers executing the warrant would encounter a violent incident. When dealing with a situation of forced entry into a person’s home, violence is always a possibility. That possibility of violent reception increases when a person is groggy from sleep and unable to process the situation as quickly as they would if they were not roused from sleep. In this situation, the officers did not encounter violence, but they did run the names and personal identification of the occupants in an attempt to locate individuals who had warrants out against them. They also photographed the occupants of the house, some of these people were only partially clothed because they had been taken from their beds.

Published on: August 1, 2012

Court Discusses Presence of Probable Cause

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

A New York DWI Lawyer said a customer service agent for an airline at Los Angeles International Airport became suspicious of two cartons delivered to the terminal. The cartons had been left for shipment to New York’s Kennedy Airport, consigned to a certain individual, care of defendant. Acting under tariff regulations, the agent slit the larger of the two cartons and observed what, from his previous experience, he believed to be marijuana. The Los Angeles police were notified who, without a search warrant, inspected the contents and confirmed the agent’s discovery. One of the cartons was emptied of its contents, refilled with sand, and both cartons were sent on their way. At 11:30 P.M. that evening, one of the officers involved telephoned a detective of the New York City police who has been a member of its Narcotics Bureau for 12 years. According to the detective, the officer told him that the marijuana was on its way to Kennedy Airport, that they have already got some out and that the airline employee found it.

The following morning, the detective went to the Kennedy Airport with knowledge of the defendant’s name, the air flight number, arrival time, and air bill number. At 7:00 A.M., the two described cartons arrived. They were marked with the names of the recipient, care of defendant. The detective went close to the shelved cartons and detected a strong odor of marijuana. He did not open the cartons but kept them under surveillance.

Published on: July 31, 2012

Court Discusses 8th Amendment

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

Defendant is charged with two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, in violation of § 220.39(1) of the Penal Law, committed on 18 October 1973, and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, in violation of § 220.16(1) of the Penal Law, committed on 23 October 1973. A New York DWI Lawyer said the narcotic drug involved in each instance was heroin; heroin sale and heroin possession.

Under the revised drug laws which became effective on 1 September 1973, each of the crimes 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.

Published on: July 29, 2012

Court Grants Order to Show Cause

by Stephen Bilkis

The case involves the petitioner, U.S. Bancorp Equipment Finance, Inc. The respondents in the matter are Abraham A. Rubashkin, Joseph Rubashkin, Rivka Rubashkin, Rosie Sandman, Gutol Leiter, Hilgar Limited, 452-53rd Street Reality Company, A.A. Rubashkin & Sons Inc. 410 East 17th Street, LLC, 404 Realty Associates, LLC, and John Doe’s numbered one through ten.

The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Kings County. Judge Arthur M. Schack is hearing the case.

Case Background

Published on: July 28, 2012

Court Discusses Forfeiture of Property Used to Commit a Crime

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

A special proceeding has been instituted to declare a forfeiture of respondent’s 1987 Volkswagen which was seized during the course of his arrest on a drug possession charge.

The arresting officer claims that he observed respondent arriving in his vehicle at a known drug location, then he saw him exit the vehicle and enter an abandoned building where he purchased a white glassine envelope alleged to contain heroin. A New York DWI Lawyer said after returning to the vehicle and driving away, respondent was apprehended and placed under arrest and his vehicle seized.

Published on: July 27, 2012

Defendant Questions Charges of Alcotest

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs in the case. The defendant is Leonard DiBari. The case is being heard in Westchester County, Justice City of the Town of North Castle. Judge Elyse Lazansky is overseeing the case.

The defendant, Leonard DiBari, is charged with driving while ability impaired by alcohol. During the course of the non-jury trial and pretrial hearings the defense has objected the prosecution’s use of simulator solution certificates and certified calibration records.

Case Background

Published on: July 27, 2012

Court Discusses Search and Seizure in Traffic Stop

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff in the case is the People of the State of New York. The defendant in the case is Craig W. Dixon. The case is being heard in the District Court of Suffolk County, First District. Judge Howard M. Bergson is hearing the case.

The defendant, Craig W. Dixon has been charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI), refusing to submit to a field sobriety test, and failing to maintain a line. A Dunaway, Huntley, and refusal hearing has been held in the matter to determine the evidence found against the defendant that will be admissible in trial.

Case Facts