DWI / DUI

Published on: July 26, 2012

Court Decides if Evidence was Improperly Obtained

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

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. A New York DWI Lawyer said 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. A New York DWI Lawyer said 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 26, 2012

Defendant Charged with DWI in Boating Incident

by Stephen Bilkis

Suffolk DWI 5

The plaintiffs in this case are the People of the State of New York. The defendant of the case is George P. Briggs. The case is being heard in the Nassau County District Court, First District, and Criminal Court.

The defendant was tried without a jury for an accusation of boating while intoxicated (DWI), which is in violation of Navigation Law section 49. There were numerous questions that were brought up during this case, which makes a written response necessary.

Published on: July 26, 2012

Police Officer Receives Criminal Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case of appeal being heard in the Second Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the state of New York. The appellant in the matter is Charles O. Sharkey. The respondents in the matter are the Police Department of the town of South Hampton, et al.

The petitioner is appealing a decision that was made by the Supreme Court of Suffolk County on the 18th of December, 1989. The Suffolk County Supreme Court dismissed the case, which was a review of a determination that was made by the Police Department in the town of South Hampton. The Police Department had terminated the petitioner’s employment after he pleads guilty to the misdemeanor charge of driving while intoxicated.

Case Background and Discussion

Published on: July 25, 2012

Defendant Charged with Second DWI

by Stephen Bilkis

This case deals with the Plaintiff/Claiming Authority, Christine Malafi, who is the County Attorney for Suffolk County. The defendants in the matter are Edward J. Radwinsky and the Ford Motor Credit Company. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York that is located in Suffolk County.

Case Background

On the 19th of December, 2004, the defendant was arrested for operating the subject Ford while he was intoxicated (DWI). He was driving in the eastbound lane of the service road on the Long Island Expressway in the city of Hauppauge, New York. The defendant was given a breathalyzer test after being taken into custody. The breathalyzer showed that his blood alcohol level was 0.19%, which is above the legal limit. This resulted in the defendant being arrested for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

Published on: July 24, 2012

Defendant Contends Miranda Rights Were Violated

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the First District Court of Suffolk County. The plaintiff in the case is the People of the State of New York. The defendant of the case is Jose R. Rivas. Judge M. Filiberto is overseeing the proceeding.

There has been a combined Probable Cause, Huntley, and Refusal Hearing in this matter. The Court has found the following facts in the case.

Case Facts

Published on: July 23, 2012

Defendant Ordered to Turn Over Assets

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 19, 2012

Court Discusses 4th Amendment Issues

by Stephen Bilkis

In 2003, a senior building inspector for the Village of Westbury in Nassau County, New York, was working on a code violation case involving the operation of an illegal boarding house. The house in question was zoned as a single family dwelling house located at 335 Princeton Street. The home was occupied by several persons who were clearly not related. The code enforcement officer spent many hours surveying the home. He documented that there were more than twelve individual people that he observed going in and out of the home at different times. He documented the presence of eight vehicles that were each registered to different people with different last names.

A New York DWI Lawyer said he contacted the city garbage service and interviewed the garbage man about the amount of garbage that was picked up from that location. The garbage man gave him a sworn written statement that he had noticed that the house produced more than five times the amount of garbage that any of the other homes in that area produced. The senior code enforcement officer had recently been transferred to the Village earlier that year from a Village that was more proactive about handling the enforcement of code violations involving illegal boarding houses. The code enforcement officer was well versed in obtaining search warrants for properties that he needed to inspect. Without a search warrant, the occupants of the dwelling do not have to allow an officer to enter upon the dwelling. This right against illegal search and seizure is spelled out in the United States Constitution in the Fourth Amendment.

The rights that are ensured by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution are taken very seriously. In this case, the officers involved did not limit the scope of their search as was required by the details in the warrant. The warrant allowed that the dwelling be searched for evidence of an illegal boarding facility. The code enforcement officer brought along several Nassau County police officers to assist him with the search of the home. These officers were not as well versed in the case as the code enforcement officer. That meant that they chose to handle the warrant the same way that they would have handled a criminal warrant.

Published on: July 18, 2012

Defendant Contends He Had No Knowledge his Actions Were Illegal

by Stephen Bilkis

Bilingual detectives are an advantage to any police department. The problems that they solve cross boundaries that have existed for many years. However, problems can also arise that are exclusive to a bilingual undercover investigation. A New York DWI Lawyer said one such case occurred in 1983, when a bilingual detective named Ramos worked for the New York City Police Department. He had been a detective for more than fifteen years at the time of this particular trial. He was assigned to work on the Drug Enforcement Administration Task Force. The objective of this task force was to apprehend persons who were primarily dealers of drugs at a level that is above the street level dealer who does hand to hand sales for five or ten dollars each. The goal was to apprehend the dealers who supply the street level dealer.

On July 16, 1981, Ramos contacted a dealer and told him that he wanted to purchase a large amount of drugs. Ramos had been assigned to a particular area and had worked for months to infiltrate the drug scene in that area. The street level dealer told Ramos that he had a contact that could supply the cocaine that Ramos had indicated that he was interested in purchasing. A A New York DWI Lawyer said the street level dealer contacted Ramos and with him present, called the upper level dealer. Ramos testified at trial that he told Ramos that the street level dealer had informed him that Ramos was a reliable person and that he had the product that Ramos wanted to purchase.

Several attempts to meet past by because one or the other was not able to make the meeting. When a meeting was finally arranged, the upper level dealer explained to Ramos in Spanish that he would be meeting him and gave him a description of his clothing and the type of vehicle that he would be in. Ramos advised him that he would be driving a red truck. When the meeting occurred, an Hispanic man approached Ramos and Ramos invited him to sit in the truck to talk. Ramos had a back up officer with him for the meeting. The two discussed an on-going criminal relationship of purchasing large amounts of cocaine. The upper level dealer advised him that he would be able to purchase one pound of cocaine for $29,000. However, he stated that he would first have to purchase a smaller amount so that he could see that Ramos was not an undercover police officer. The smaller purchase was made and the two made arrangements to meet the following day to conduct the larger purchase.

Published on: July 17, 2012

Defendant Tries Complex Legal Argument

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, the legislature decided that stronger steps had to be taken to ensure that repeat offenders of sex crimes were taken out of the community. A New York DWI Lawyer said that in order to ensure that repeat sex offenders did not recidivate in the community for as long as possible and to ensure that they were given whatever treatment that might be available to ensure that they do not repeat their crimes. This law is the Sex Offender Registration Act. SORA is what it is called for short.

SORA is designed to target sex offenders on their second or third offenses and provides harsher punishments and stricter supervision of these offenders. SORA sets guidelines that must be followed for all sex offenders. If a sex offender is found to have committed a sex offense before, he will most likely be categorized as a level two sex offender. If he has committed a third or subsequent sex offense, or the offenses were of a high and aggravated nature, he can expect to be categorized as a level one offender. Level one offenders are given stiffer sentences and tighter supervision. It is therefore, in a felon’s best interest to attempt to minimize his sentence within the scope of possibility. A New York DWI Lawyer said this would provide him with a greater amount of freedom when he is paroled as well as a shorter prison sentence.

A New York DWI Lawyer said most of these offenders appeal their categorization in an effort to reduce their sentence or their SORA level. One such offender, impressed the court with the scholarly letters that he wrote in an effort to reduce his categorization. He contends that in order for the court to apply a sentence to a non-sentence statute such as SORA, they must use Penal Law §70.3(1) and that to do otherwise would be inaccurate. However, he noted that the first sentencing guidelines statute was created in 1909 as the 1909 Penal Law. He contends that the 1909 Penal Law uses a different system of analysis. The court pointed out that one of the legal points that impressed them about these well written letters was the information regarding the 1909 Penal Law. The court admitted that until reading this man’s letters, they were not even aware that the 1909 Penal Law existed. They also contend that while it brings about an interesting question of law, it would not be correct to use this prior law when assessing a sentence on a person in the modern age.

Published on: July 16, 2012

Defendant Claims No Probable Cause for Arrest

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff in this case is Julius Bailey. The defendants in the matter are the Suffolk County Police Department and the Suffolk County Legal Department. The case is being heard in the District Court of Suffolk County in the state of New York. Judge C. Stephen Hackeling is overhearing the case.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the plaintiff is seeking to recover $1,492 for damages sustained to his vehicle while it was in the custody of the defendant, the County. The County has placed an application through the court to have the complaint against them dismissed. This application has been deferred and will be decided along with the small claims action of the case.

Case Facts