Articles Posted in DWI / DUI

A 19-year old woman received a phone call from a male friend who told her that he was very upset and wanted to talk to her in person. The 19-year old borrowed her mother’s car and went to the parking lot where she agreed to meet her friend.

As she was waiting in her car which was parked, a man approached her car. Thinking that the man was her friend Paul, she unlocked the doors of her car. The man came into the car and held her at gunpoint. The woman recognized the man as a man who lived in their neighborhood whom she saw everyday and whom she knew by name.

A New York DWI Lawyer said he then told her to drive to a beach. When they got there, he sodomized her two times and attempted to rape her. This sexual assault lasted for three quarters of an hour. The man then told her to drive back to the parking lot.

Continue reading

There is no secret to the fact that the federal government has many different organizations that are created with the intent of preserving the nation’s laws and integrity. One of the groups that were tasked with taking action against subversive groups was created in 1912 under the name of the Radical Bureau. A New York DWI Lawyer said the group changed names numerous times over the following years; in 1915, it was called the Neutrality Squad; in 1923, it was the Radical Squad; In 1931, it was the Bureau of Criminal Alien Investigation. By the time that 1945 rolled around, it was the Public Relations Squad. However, in 1946 the name was changed again, and it became the Bureau of Special Services and Investigations. By 1955, the name was the Bureau of Special Services, often referred to as the BOSS agency. During the 1950’s, the focus of BOSS was to investigated communists, by the 1960’s the agency had given up most of the Communist detection had shifted to the FBI leaving BOSS with little to do.

The 1960’s saw an increase in domestic terrorism groups that served as a shot of life for the BOSS agency. However, in 1969, BOSS would be busy with many different organizations especially the domestic terrorists within the American black community. One case that BOSS was integral in putting together involved a case that was called the Panther 21 and was the longest running case in American history. In that case, one of the defendants claimed that the evidence against him was obtained by illegal actions and as such, must be excluded from the courts. A New York DWI Lawyer said the evidence contained tangible property that he contends was the proceeds of an unlawful search and seizure. He states that the search warrant which was the validity for the forcible entry into his home on July 5, 1973 and the seizure of the property that was used as evidence against him should be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree under the Exclusionary Rule.

The case involved the infiltration of a subversive group by several undercover police operatives and the case was in trial from May 1971 to July 1973. In April of 1969, this case was called the Panther 21. The defendant was indicted for having an overall plan to harass and destroy the elements of society that the group thought of as the power structure. This defendant was jailed for over two years until his trial where he was acquitted. Even if he had been freed, he would have not gotten credit for this time in jail pending trial. The trial of this case lasted more than two years and ended in all suspects being acquitted. The jury in this case only deliberated for two hours before reaching their decision.

Continue reading

A man was arrested and charged with illegal heroin possession and illegal possession of hypodermic needle and syringe. Even before the man was brought for arraignment, he already filed a motion to dismiss the information on the ground that the laws punished the misdemeanor offense of illegal possession of hypodermic needle and syringe is unconstitutional. He also moved to dismiss the information charging him with illegal heroin possession on the ground that this crime is a misdemeanor and the law defining it as a crime is unconstitutional.

A New York DWI Lawyer said the man claimed that the statute violates his right to due process of law because he is deprived of the right to be presumed innocent. He claims that the statute makes it a criminal act to possess a hypodermic needle and syringe. He claims that the statute is arbitrary and unreasonable and the passage of the law is an abuse of the police power of the State.

The man based his motion for dismissal of the illegal heroin possession charge on two cases decided by the Supreme Court of New York. The man alleged that the facts of those two decided cases and his case are similar. He points particularly to the case of People v. Hicks and People v. Baker where the Court dismissed the indictment because only a trace of heroin was found on a cotton wad that was found on the person of the accused in those two cases. The man claims that these two charges against him should also be dismissed because along with the hypodermic needle and hypodermic syringe, a wad of cotton was also found and seized on his person and the wad of cotton only had a trace of heroin on it. Therefore, these charges should be dismissed.

Continue reading

The Facts:

On 10 November 1952, appellant pleaded guilty of attempted violation of section 1751 of the Penal Law as a felony; a violation of the Public Health Law with respect to narcotic drugs; a drug crime. A New York DWI Lawyer was presented therein that the appellant had been found guilty of three previous felony convictions; that he had violated sections 173 and 174 of title 21 of the United States Code which also deals with narcotic drugs. Appellant admitted his identity and the three previous convictions which occurred in 1938, 1947 and 1948, all in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Thereafter, appellant was sentenced as a third felony offender to a term of not less than 15 years to life.

Continue reading

In these unrelated appeals, each accused challenges the denial of suppression of vials, crack cocaine possession and other physical evidence on the ground that his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures was violated by the warrantless police search of his car. In both cases, accused parties were travelling in a car pulled over by a police officer for a traffic violation. In each case, upon the officer’s approach to the accused parties’ car, the officer observed through the car windows an open bag containing vials and caps. A New York DWI Lawyer said trained and experienced in drug detection, the police officers recognized the vials as the type used to package crack cocaine for street transactions. For the reasons that follow, in both cases the lower courts properly found probable cause for the officers to believe the accused were using drug paraphernalia, thereby justifying the searches of the automobiles and the accused parties’ consequent arrests. Another man was subsequently indicted for criminal possession of a controlled substance and criminally using drug paraphernalia.

The screeching tires of a cream colored Audi turning onto Broadway at a high rate of speed, forcing three pedestrians to jump out of the crosswalk, caught the attention of two uniformed police officers sitting in their marked police car. The officers followed the Audi south on Broadway, turning on their siren and flashing lights as the distance between the Audi and the police car narrowed. After the Audi turned right onto West 125th Street and passed a stop sign, the officers pulled the car over. A New York DWI Lawyer said when the officers parked their patrol car behind the Audi, and approached the car from opposite sides. The accused man was seated in the front passenger seat. The officer who was standing outside the car near the accused man observed an open shopping bag filled with vials and yellow caps standing upright on the floor behind the accused man. The officer signaled his partner, who was standing on the driver’s side, and gestured to the bag, alerting his partner to the contents he observed. One of the officers then asked the three men in the car if the vials belonged to them and each denied ownership. Nor could any of the individuals tell the officers what the vials were used for. The officers subsequently arrested the three individuals for criminally using drug paraphernalia, and issued summonses to the driver for failing to yield to pedestrians at a crosswalk and to yield at a stop sign.

A backup team of two officers arrived as the arresting officers were securing the car’s passengers while checking for weapons. The shopping bag was then removed from the car and upon examination yielded eight sealed, clear plastic bags, containing a total of 200 empty vials separately packaged from 200 matching yellow caps, a bread crumb container and a carton of instant cocoa powder. The bread crumb container proved to have a false bottom, which revealed a bag of crack cocaine. The accused man volunteered that he came to buy the cocaine for someone else and his two companions had nothing to do with the cocaine possession.

Continue reading

The Facts:

On 5 March 1993, defendant was arrested, and charged with Rape in the First Degree, Sex Abuse in the First Degree, and Endangering the Welfare of a Child based upon the complaint of child-one, a ten-year old who stated that defendant had removed her clothing, spread her legs, and placed his penis inside her vagina. He later gave her five dollars to keep secret what had happened. The Sex Abuse charge was dismissed upon a technical error in the Grand Jury presentation.

Defendant was also charged in the same indictment with endangering the welfare of child-two, a 15-year old, photographed by defendant, both with her consent and surreptitiously, in her underwear following her refusal of defendant’s requests for sexual contact. A New York DWI Lawyer said there was no admission to the accusation although the minutes of the child’s Grand Jury testimony and one of the photographs submitted by the District Attorney do provide the necessary clear and convincing evidence that such incident took place.

Continue reading

A man is charged with menacing in the third degree, sexual misconduct, sexual abuse in the third degree and harassment in the second degree. The opponent moves for an order to permit the taking of DNA samples from the man’s cheek cells for the purpose of testing and analysis.

The opponent alleges that the charges stem from an incident which the man and the complainant went to the man’s home. When both of them were inside the house, the opponent asserts that the man turned the complainant around and penetrated the complainant from the back with the man’s penis. A New York DWI Lawyer said that the opponent also asserts that the complainant’s attempts to stop the man resulted in a struggle where she sustained a laceration on her chin.

A New York DWI Lawyer said that the opponent claims that upon contacting the police, the complainant was treated and at the hospital a rape kit was prepared and taken to the office of the chief medical examiner for DNA results. The opponent asserts that the DNA results revealed that dried secretions were found on the left breast.

Continue reading

The Facts:

A police officer allegedly observed the defendant remain in or wander about a public place for twenty minutes, during which defendant repeatedly beckoned to passers-by and stopped two passers-by, engaging in conversation with said passers-by; stop only male passers-by and defendant did not beckon to or converse with female passers-by who passed by during the same period; standing in the middle of the road while beckoning to motorists. A New York DWI Lawyer said the defendant is a 16-year old with no criminal history.

Thereafter, defendant is charged with the offense of loitering for the purpose of prostitution. The charge is a non-criminal violation punishable by no more than fifteen days in jail. When she appeared before the court in the arraignment part she was also the subject of a warrant that had issued out of Family Court.

Continue reading

Drug crimes are a problem in every city in the United States, but courts do not usually expect to find them on their own back doorsteps. A New York DWI Lawyer said in the case of the Supreme Court of Bronx County in 1972, they did not expect to find the drug problem on the very steps of the courthouse. However, that is exactly what transpired in September of 1972. An undercover narcotics team was working a case involving a drug ring that was operating out of Franz Segal Park just around the corner from the Bronx County Supreme Court building. The narcotics undercover team made three different purchases of narcotics from the dealer on September 8, 11, and 12.

The undercover officer would meet with the dealer in Franz Park, make the purchase, and then return to the team with the cocaine. The narcotic would be tested to ensure that it was cocaine. The undercover officer was wearing a wire so that the transaction was tape recorded. However, there was no video at the time that was effective in the field. Following the third purchase, the defendant was arrested for trafficking in narcotics. In his trial, he testified that he was not a drug dealer and that he had never sold anyone any drugs. The undercover team had to testify that they had not witnessed the transactions and had only seen the undercover officer leave with the money and come back with the cocaine.

Interestingly, at trial the prosecutor questioned the officer extensively about the purchases that he made from the defendant in Franz Park. He went in to great detail to show that the time and place of the transaction for which the defendant was charged was identical to the time and place in which he had previously been arrested for dealing drugs. A New York DWI Lawyer said the problem with this line of questioning was that according to the law, prior offenses can only be brought up in trial to show the credibility of the witness. A prosecutor may not use questioning on previous acts to show a propensity to commit the crime that the defendant is on trial. That policy is set forth in People v. Schwartzman, Supra, 24 N.Y.2d p. 247, 299 N.Y.S. 2d p. 822, 247 N.E.2d p. 645. The crimes for which the prosecutor was referring were the two prior drug deals that were under indictment, yet not adjudicated by the time of the trial in question.

Continue reading

This is a case involving an application for Gena M. Daniels to change her name to Gena M. Zaks. The petitioner is being represented by Yetta G. Kurland from New York City. The case is being heard by Judge Paul G. Feinman.

Petition

The petitioner, Gena M. Daniels, is seeking to changer her name pursuant to the Civil Rights Law, article 6. She wishes to change her last name to that of her same – sex life partner.

Continue reading