Marijuana

Published on: July 28, 2012

Defendant Moves to Suppress Physical Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

A detective led a police team that was investigating the deaths of a two man. The bodies of the two victims were discovered in the bathroom of the other man’s apartment. Both men had been bound with duct tape and shot through the head. When the detective and his colleague went to the apartment, they smelled a strong odor of marijuana and observed marijuana residue (marijuana possession). The police later discovered that the other man had been a low-level drug dealer.

A witness, who claimed to have been a close friend of the other victim undergone interview with the detective, during their discussions, the witness stated that he knew the victim and they had been friends for fifteen years. The witness also stated that the victim had been a marijuana dealer with regular clientele. He also revealed that he had been present in the victim’s apartment when the victim sold between a half-pound and a pound of marijuana to another man. The witness also asserts that the victim had also been well acquainted with his client, whom he sold the pound of marijuana. The witness further states that the victim told him about a shipment of 30 to 50 pounds of marijuana and had some out-of-town buyers for it. The victim was nervous about so large a shipment and his client was present when the victim mentioned the prospective sale to the witness.

The police utilized the information from the witness to obtain a photograph of the victim’s client. They put the photograph into a computer-generated photo array which they showed the witness. The witness identified the person pictured in the photograph as the client who purchased the marijuana from the victim. The police also obtained a number of addresses of locations that were linked to the client. Another detective informed the head detective that the victim’s client had a reputation for robbing drug dealers. At about 7:00 pm that same day, the detectives visited one of the apartments in the hope of finding the victim’s client.

Published on: July 28, 2012

Police Uncover Drugs on Traffic Stop

by Stephen Bilkis

A police officer testified that he is a six-year member of the New York City Police Department and had worked as an anti-crime officer for approximately the past 3 ½ years. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he testified that he was on anti-drug crime duty on June 8, 2007 at 6:10 P.M. in the vicinity of West 145th Street. The police officer was seated in the rear passenger seat of an unmarked car traveling eastbound on West 145th Street driven by his partner. A police sergeant was traveling in the front passenger seat of the vehicle.

From approximately two or three car lengths ahead, the police officer stated that he observed a Mercedes-Benz, also traveling eastbound on West 145th Street, drive erratically by weaving in and out of lanes and attempt to make a U-turn. The officers responded by accelerating to catch up to the vehicle and putting on signals, lights, and sirens to indicate to the car’s driver that he should pull over. While the Mercedes-Benz was slowing down, but before it came to a complete stop, the police officer testified that he observed a tennis ball thrown from the right side of the car. The police officer stated that on prior occasions in the scope of his law enforcement duties he has seen tennis balls used as containers for narcotics. At an unspecified later point in time, the tennis ball was recovered and shown to the police officer who observed that the ball contained a slit that would allow narcotics to be placed inside of it. While the police officer stated that he was told by the other police officer that the tennis ball contained contraband, the parties entered into a stipulation that no contraband was ever recovered from inside the tennis ball.

After stopping the vehicle, the other police officer approached the driver and asked him for his license, registration and proof of insurance. The police officer stated that he observed his fellow officer ask the driver to get out of the vehicle and pat him down. The driver was then taken to the rear of the Mercedes-Benz where the police officer was standing with the police sergeant. The other police officer took the individual seated in the rear driver side out of the vehicle, patted him down and handcuffed him.

Published on: July 28, 2012

Court Discusses Probable Cause in Drug Crime

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman is charged with three counts of Criminal Possession of a Weapon. She has moved to suppress the firearms that were seized from her and her boyfriend’s house following the issuance of a search warrant that was targeted not at her, but at her boyfriend. She contends that the search warrant violated her constitutional rights because there was an absence of probable cause to search the premises. Furthermore, there was a lack of sufficient evidence to believe that the woman’s boyfriend lived at the house and the inclusion in the warrant of a no-knock provision was unjustified.

On June 12, 2008, a police officer obtained a no-knock search warrant to search the premises of a house in New York, where the woman resides with her boyfriend. Specifically, the warrant was sought to permit a search for marijuana possession, firearms, and ammunition.

According to his warrant application, the police officer believed that the woman’s boyfriend, whom he had been trying to put on surveillance, was a marijuana dealer. The police officer obtained information from the gas and electric company that an individual identified as the woman’s boyfriend used the gas & electric utility services.

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