New York

Published on: May 25, 2012

Court Dicusses an Initial Robbery Conviction

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Second Department, Appellate Division, of the Supreme Court. The appellant of the case is Donald Booker. He is being represented by Patrick R. Garcia from Brooklyn. The respondent of the case is the People of the State of New York, et al. The respondents are represented by the office of the Brooklyn District Attorney, Charles J. Hynes with Camille O’hara Gillespie, Peter R. Chatzinoff, and Barbara D. Underwood for counsel. The case is being heard before Kooper J.P., Rosenblatt, Harwood, and Miller, JJ.

Appeal

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant is appealing a previous judgment made by the Supreme Court of Kings County. The previous judgment found the defendant guilty of burglary in the second degree through a verdict by a jury and an imposing sentence.

Published on: May 24, 2012

Magazine Publisher Sues City Police Under Freedom of Information Law

by Stephen Bilkis

The complainants, a magazine publisher, two men and a woman seek a judgment declaring certain records of the accused, city police department subject to disclosure, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) and Public Officers Law (POL) to allow the complainants to inspect and obtain copies of records, declaring that certain practices of the city police department, in responding to FOIL requests, are unlawful, ordering the city police department to comply with FOIL, and awarding the complainants their attorney’s fees. The two men and the woman are the magazine’s reporters who made FOIL requests to the city police department on behalf of the magazine publisher.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that since the petition was filed, a number of the requests have been resolved, or partly resolved, through negotiations between the magazine publisher and the city police department. The requests that have not been resolved are for the records of a searchable electronic copy of the home address of each New York City resident who has been granted a license for a handgun; a searchable electronic copy of the residential address at which a hate criminal act occurred, from January 1, 2005 to the present; and a searchable electronic copy of the crime incident database, dating from January 1, 2004 to the present. The crime incident database contains information about each incident reported to the city police department, such as the date, location and nature of the incident, such as possession of a weapon, for example.

Penal Law provides that the name and address of any person to whom an application for any firearm license has been granted shall be a public record. According to penal law, the petitioner, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, was entitled to inspect approved pistol license applications on file with the city police department. POL (Public Officers Law) provides, in relevant part, that when an agency has the ability to retrieve or extract a record or data maintained in a computer storage system with reasonable effort, it shall be required to do so.

Published on: May 23, 2012

Defendant Contends No Probable Cause for Search of Glove Box

by Stephen Bilkis

A man is charged with criminal possession of a weapon; criminal possession of stolen property and one count of bribery. He moves to suppress physical evidence seized at the time of his arrest and any custodial statements attributed to him.

On the morning of January 23, 1982, a police officer received a phone call at the precinct from an unidentified male who reported that automatic weapons could be found in the trunk of a maroon Oldsmobile parked near a bar.

Two officers responded and staked out the vehicle. At approximately 2:35 a.m. they observed the accused enter the car and followed him to the parking lot of a bar in a nearby town. When the accused exited the vehicle, the officers approached him, identified themselves and requested his driver’s license and registration.

Published on: May 21, 2012

Court Discusses Reasonable Suspicion of Police

by Stephen Bilkis

Two police officers in a patrol car received a report over the radio that a fight had just been witnessed and called in at 1411 Grand Concourse. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the anonymous report stated that one of those who engaged in the fight had a knife. The only descriptions the witness gave about the two persons who were involved in the fight wore a red jacket and a dark jacket with a white stripe.

The two police officers drove to the address given in the report but they saw no one wearing the red jacket and dark jacket with a white stripe. When they got there a call for assistance was broadcast over the car radio. The two police officers responded. As they were heading toward the location of the other police officers who called for back-up, they saw three men. The officers got off their police car and headed for the three men. One of the men saw the two uniformed police officers and started running. The police officers gave chase and as they were chasing down the man, they saw him throw something. They finally caught up with the man and they also found what he threw away: it was a handgun. The police officers arrested him and charged him with criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

Even before the arraignment, the accused (the man who ran and threw away a handgun) moved to suppress the gun as evidence. He claims that the gun is not admissible as evidence as it was obtained by the police without probable cause. The police officers’ actions were not justified in chasing the man and in arresting him.

Published on: May 21, 2012

Class Action Filed Against Handgun Manufacturers

by Stephen Bilkis

On June 24, 2003, several families of victims of gun crimes (possession of a weapon) filed a class action suit against seven firearms manufacturers to recover damages as a result of their family members deaths. The concept behind this lawsuit was that the manufacturers of these handgun had created a situation in which it was too easy for a subject to obtain a handgun and use it to assault another person. The court is forced to evaluate who is responsible for illegally possessed handguns. The complaint states that these illegally obtained handguns are a public nuisance because they endanger the health and safety of most of the population. The contention that was made in this complaint was that the manufacturers of these handguns are knowledgeable of the fact that their product is used to commit crimes and that they have chosen to contribute to these crimes by continuing to manufacture, distribute and market handguns to people who they know are likely to use them in an unlawful manner. The complaint maintains that the manufacturers of these handguns are aware that certain types of guns and certain areas where guns are sold, are disproportionately responsible for a large number of crimes in which handguns are used. The complainants seek an order directing the manufacturers of firearms to stop making them in New York state and to stop selling them in New York state which will stop the nuisance that they have created.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the court evaluated the complaint in the light that it would be improper to penalize one person for the actions of another. Handguns are not the only legally manufactured and sold item that can be used illegally in the hands of a person who intends to commit an illegal act. With that contention, the manufacturers of kitchen knives, hunting knives, hatchets, or machetes could also be forced to stop manufacturing their products because some people use them to perform illegal and violent crimes. The court finds it improper to hold a person who is conducting themselves in accordance with the laws of the State of New York responsible for the actions that a third party. If a person is going to break the law, they will find a tool to use.

A good example of this type of logic is found in a particular well-known motorcycle gang. A Long Island Criminal Lawyer said their weapon of choice for most of their crimes is a claw hammer. Should companies that make claw hammers stop producing them? Is the government in a position to limit the types of people who are allowed to purchase a claw hammer?

Published on: May 16, 2012

Are the Actions of Private Security Subject to Constitutional Restraints?

by Stephen Bilkis

Facts:

A security officer, a retired member of the New York City Police Department which the court takes judicial notice of, at the Long Island Jewish Hospital, was instructed by his security supervisor, via radio transmission, to proceed to a Children’s Hospital parking lot. He was told to locate a certain auto reportedly containing a handgun. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he was also informed that the New York City Police Department had been notified and would arrive shortly. When he located the auto, he observed the handgun in a holster on the front seat. He immediately radioed his supervisor who replied that the police will be on the scene. The security officer checked the auto door and found it locked. The defendant himself, a security officer at the Children’s Hospital, arrived on the scene and saw the responding uniformed security officer standing by his auto. Defendant, without prodding, told the security officer that the auto was his. He then opened the auto door and gave the gun to the security officer.

Defendant then left the scene. The New York City police arrived within minutes, and the responding security officer reported his findings and handed the gun to the police. Defendant then returned to the scene. A New York City Police Officer asked the defendant if the auto was his; defendant replied affirmatively. The officer then asked defendant if he had a permit for the gun. Defendant replied he did not. The police officer then placed the defendant under arrest. While in a police car on the way to the police station defendant was read his Miranda warnings. He then told the officer that he had gotten the gun down south.

Published on: May 16, 2012

Court Decides Possession of a Weapon Charge

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant allegedly fired a handgun at two individuals, who just prior to his firing, had fired a handgun at him causing him serious physical injury; handgun crimes.

Defendant was charged with two counts of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree and one count of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Third Degree for.

Subsequently, a New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant requested that the defense of justification be charged and that the presumption not charged. Both requests were denied.

Published on: May 14, 2012

Cab Driver Charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon

by Stephen Bilkis

A cab driver was caught with a loaded .22 caliber revolver while in his taxicab on February 24, 1978. The District Attorney convened a Grand Jury to deliberate on whether or not to issue an indictment against the cab driver.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the District Attorney accused the cab driver of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (a Class D felony) when he possessed a loaded firearm and his possession does not take place in his home or place of business.

When the District Attorney gave the Grand Jury instructions, he did not inform the Grand Jury that there is an exception to the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree: that if the man possessed the loaded weapon in his place of business, he can be charged with a lesser offense of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree which is a misdemeanor.

Published on: May 12, 2012

Court Contends Defendant is Mentally Ill

by Stephen Bilkis

On 29 November 2005, defendant entered a plea of not responsible by reason of a mental disease or defect to the crime of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree, and to other related offenses, in violation of criminal laws.

On 23 January 2004, it was alleged that defendant displayed a firearm while threatening to use it against the complainant, the defendant’s sister-in-law, and that said actions caused her fear of physical injury.

A commitment order was issued and the defendant was remanded to the care and custody of the State Commissioner of Mental Health. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant was confined in a secure facility.

Published on: May 10, 2012

Court Discusses Felony Murder Rule

by Stephen Bilkis

On October 4, 1975 a man and a woman went inside a boutique. The woman tried on dresses but did not buy any. While the woman was trying on dresses, her boyfriend asked the boutique owner if he could use her bathroom. The man observed that there was a big window in the bathroom that faced a back alley.

Three days later, the lovers parked their car in the back alley with the trunk of their car facing the back window of the bathroom. The woman stayed near their car while her boyfriend entered the store and took clothing items and gave them to his girlfriend who stashed the clothes in the trunk.

A police officer on routine patrol passed through on his cruiser down the back alley and saw the woman; he saw clothes being pushed out of the widow, and the woman stashing the clothes in the trunk. He called for back-up and he saw the woman hide behind the car. The police officer approached and talked to the woman and asked her what she was doing. The police officer did not immediately place her under arrest.