New York

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 16, 2012

Defendant Contends Use of GPS Tracking Device by Police was Unlawful

by Stephen Bilkis

On 9 August 2003, an officer, formerly a detective with the Town of Glenville Police Department in Schenectady County, received a report that a local McDonald’s restaurant had been robbed by a man brandishing what appeared to be a handgun and an axe; a handgun crime. That information was distributed to other law enforcement agencies, including the State Police. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer upon learning of the robbery, a police officer (the officer), who was on patrol with his partner, contacted another officer, a senior investigator with the State Police, who then instructed the officer to set up surveillance on defendant’s residence and, if defendant appeared, to execute a “felony stop” utilizing extreme caution to ensure officer safety.

The police officer and his partner took up position nearby and, as defendant rolled through a stop sign en route to his residence, he identified defendant, whom he described as a “very distinctive looking individual,” as the operator of the pickup truck in question to which the GPS tracking device previously (and validly) had been affixed. The police officer and his partner pulled in behind defendant in his driveway and, as defendant was exiting his truck, drew their weapons, ordered defendant from the vehicle and down to the ground, handcuffed defendant and placed him in the back of their marked police vehicle. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said numerous police officers responded to the scene, including the senior investigator, who instructed another investigator to access the GPS tracking information. While waiting for this information, the police officer observed an axe and a bag of clothing, in plain view, in the bed of defendant’s pickup truck.

The GPS tracking information revealed that defendant’s pickup truck had been in the vicinity of the McDonald’s restaurant at the time of the robbery in Schenectady County; the truck then returned to the Town of Clifton Park, Saratoga County and made a brief stop on Maxwell Road, where defendant apparently was employed, before proceeding to defendant’s residence.

Published on: May 16, 2012

Court Rules Verdict Can Be Set Aside

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

Defendant, his brother, and another man entered the house of a woman and robbed her at gunpoint. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the woman identified defendant as the one who wielded the gun during the robbery. A police officer was on patrol when he saw three men run out of the woman’s house, followed by her screaming for help. The officer gave chase and managed to arrest the brother, who was found to have a loaded revolver in his front pocket. The brother provided defendant’s name and stated that the defendant had placed the gun in his pocket while they fled the woman’s residence.

Thereafter, defendant was arrested at his home. Upon arrest, defendant stated that the arresting officers got nothing on him and that they got the gun of his brother.

Published on: May 16, 2012

Case Deals with Drug Reform Act of 2009

by Stephen Bilkis

Three men committed class B felonies involving narcotics and were sentenced to undetermined prison terms under the Rockefeller drug laws which governed sentencing of drug offenders. A New York Criminal Lawyer said two of them received sentences of 2 to 6 years and the other man was sentenced with 5 to 10 years. All were paroled but violated it and all of them were sent back to prison. After the enactment of the drug law reform act of 2009, the three men applied for resentencing.

Based on records, the drug law reform act of 2009 allows certain prisoners sentenced under the so-called Rockefeller drug laws to be resentenced. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the court hold that prisoners who have been paroled and then re-incarcerated for violating their parole are not for that reason to banned from seeking relief under the law.

Further, the drug law reform act of 2009 is codified. It permits people imprisoned for class B drug felonies committed while the Rockefeller Drug Laws were in force to apply to be resentenced under the current, less severe, sentencing regime. It was stated that any person in the custody of the department of correctional services convicted of a class B felony offense defined in the law which was committed prior to January thirteenth, who is serving an indeterminate sentence with a maximum term of more than three years, may except as provided in the law, upon notice to the appropriate district attorney, apply to be resentenced to a determinate sentence in accordance with sections of the penal law in the court which imposed the sentence.

Published on: May 15, 2012

Court Discusses Criminal Solicitation

by Stephen Bilkis

The accused parties filed motions to dismiss the charges against them of criminal solicitation on the ground that there exists some jurisdictional or legal impediment to their conviction and on the ground that the accusatory instruments are defective. The Court grants the motions to dismiss the charges of criminal solicitation.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said all of the accused were arrested on various streets in the City of Rochester allegedly attempting to buy small amounts of marijuana. The place has become known as open-air drug markets where marijuana, cocaine and heroin can be purchased on the streets. In some areas cocaine possession and heroin possession with intent to sell are rampant. Those who live and work in those areas have become frustrated at the misuse of their neighborhoods for drug activity, that activity bringing with it increased public safety concerns for themselves and their families. The potential for violence in connection with the open-air drug trafficking was illustrated and underscored with the murder of a resident of the surrounding suburb of Penfield, New York. He was shot to death while reportedly attempting to purchase marijuana in one of the open-air drug markets.

In response to the public safety concerns of the neighborhoods, and in direct response to the murder, the City of Rochester Police Department began to station undercover police officers on the various streets with reputations for being open-air drug markets (drug possession). The officers then arrested individuals who approached them attempting to buy marijuana and other drugs. In the cases before the Court, all of the accused were charged with criminal solicitation in the fifth degree, a violation punishable by a maximum of 15 days in jail. The information alleges either that the accused were soliciting the officers to sell them marijuana, or were attempting to buy a marijuana-type substance or fake marijuana.

Published on: May 15, 2012

Defendant Charged with Possession of Stolen Property

by Stephen Bilkis

A nine-year veteran police officer was on patrol one evening when he responded to a radio communication of a man with a gun wearing a brown jacket on the corner of 121st Street and Seventh Avenue. When he arrived at the location, he exited his vehicle and spoke, first with a woman, and then with a man sitting in front of 2027 Seventh Avenue.

About 15 minutes after his arrival while he was still looking for the man described in the radio report, the officer observed defendant exit the door on the left side of the vestibule at 2027 Seventh Avenue, which was the entrance to a social club. A New York Criminal Lawyer said at the time, the officer was approximately five feet in front of defendant at whom he was looking directly. Defendant was then holding a packet of three by six inch white envelopes in one hand and a black plastic bag in the other. When he looked up and saw the officer, defendant was startled, jumped back, and immediately placed the stack of white envelopes in a plastic bag.

Thereafter, the officer approached defendant and asked him what he had put in the bag. Defendant replied, “I put nothing in the bag.” Nonetheless, it was apparent to the officer, with hundreds of narcotics arrests experiences where approximately a dozen of which were made in the immediate vicinity of the social club known for its drug activities, something was in the bag since the bottom was pressed downward. The officer told defendant that he had seen him put a stack of envelopes in the bag, but defendant insisted, “I didn’t put anything in the bag.”

Published on: May 15, 2012

Court Discusses Presence of Reasonable Suspicion

by Stephen Bilkis

Two police officers were patrolling in a police car which they parked near Washington Heights. They were assigned here because the area of Washington Heights was known as a high traffic area for selling drugs especially to people from outside of New York, particularly, from people in New Jersey.

As the two cops were walking, they saw a Cherokee Jeep with New Jersey license plates. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said they saw a Caucasian male park the Jeep and get down from it. They saw him approach a Hispanic looking man who was yelling for the Caucasian passenger of the Jeep to come over to where he was.

As the Caucasian male was walking toward the Hispanic man, he saw the police officer walking toward them. The Caucasian man backtracked and ran to his vehicle, and drove away.

Published on: May 15, 2012

Defendant Claims Village Court Did Not Have Proper Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

Issues surrounding search warrants can become complicated, especially if the court that issues the search warrant is not sure if they are even able to issue a search warrant. On September 25, 2003, an associate village justice signed a search warrant for a building inspector. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the building inspector was seeking to inspect a single family home in the Village of Westbury that he believed was being used as a multiple family dwelling. He had conducted several days of observation of the dwelling and noticed that there were two entrances, one entrance into the home in the front of the house and one entrance in the back.

There were eight bicycles parked in back, and six cars parked in front. The garbage was deposited on the curb in front of the house, and more was located at the back door. The estimated garbage load was four to five times the amount that the garbage collector stated that he collected from other houses. The building inspector had received several complaints from the neighbors based on the number of people who were living in the dwelling. The estimate was around 17. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the building inspector, who had previously worked in a different village, was familiar with obtaining search warrants in his previous village. He had attempted to inspect the property on numerous occasions and he had been denied entry. He counted the number of people going in and out of the residence. The cars were registered to that address, but they had owners with several different last names.

The justice authorized the warrant for a police officer of Nassau County. The warrant specifically detailed that the evidence to be collected was to be limited to photographs of evidence that the house had been converted into a multiple family dwelling. When the warrant was served, it was served on the house at six in the morning. Several of the people who were living in the house were only partially clothed. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the officers took photographs documenting the locks on each room that denoted private living quarters inside the single family dwelling. They documented exposed wiring, plumbing, and other dangerous additions that had been made so that multiple people could reside in the single family home. In these pictures were some of the residents of the house, some of them were only partially clothed.

Published on: May 14, 2012

Court Modifies Defendant’s Sentence

by Stephen Bilkis

The man was charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance, in particular of possession of a narcotic drug with the intent to sell and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, in particular of knowing and unlawful cocaine possession with 500 milligrams or more. The man moved to cover up the physical evidence recovered upon his arrest. After the suppression hearing, the trial court denied the man’s motion. A Sandoval hearing was also held at which the man sought to cover up his nine prior drug crime convictions.

Consequently, the man proceeded to trial but did not testify. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the evidence adduced at the trial established that the arresting officer saw the man twice, reaching into a brown paper bag and drop vials into an unidentified woman’s outstretched hand. The officer, who observed the man from a distance, also testified that it appeared to him as if the man were counting out the number of vials he was depositing into the woman’s hand. As the officer approached the man, the woman fled and the man was arrested. The brown paper bag, which contained thirty-one vials, was recovered from the man. Upon analysis of the contents of the vials by police chemists it was concluded that the vials contained 1,591 milligrams of cocaine. The jury acquitted the man of the possession with intent to sell count but convicted him of the fifth degree possession count.

The legislature had decided that persons who illegally possess larger quantities of controlled substances should be punished more severely. The conduct is more repugnant and presents a greater threat to society because drug possession is not a strict liability crime, however, an individual is not deserving of enhanced punishment unless he or she is aware that the amount possessed is greater. A purpose of the knowledge requirement is to avoid over penalizing someone who unwittingly possesses a larger amount of the controlled substance than anticipated.

Published on: May 14, 2012

Court Decides Murder Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A former employee of a bodega came in just as the manager was closing shop. The former employee had a loaded pistol and pointed it at the manager. He cocked it and ordered him to open the safe or he’ll blow his brains out. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the former employee was accompanied by another man and they both forced the manager back into the office.

The former employee heard footsteps in the store so he gave the gun to the other man and told him to guard the manager. The former employee espied the manager’s wife. He grabbed her and pushed her inside the office when they heard a gun go off. When the former employee heard the shot, he dragged the manager’s wife into the office. The manager wrestled with the other man and the gun went off.

Both men tried to flee through the back entrance; they dragged the manager’s wife and forced her to open the door. They were unable to unlock all the doors so the men used a bolt cutter to shatter the locks.