New York

Published on: May 11, 2012

Defendant Contends Lack of Jurisdiction for Warrant

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. 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. A New York Criminal Lawyer said 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. 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 10, 2012

Robbery Defendant Claims Circumstantial Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

The accused man and his accomplice as well as the two female complainants boarded a subway train at 125th Street. Once on the train, the accused man and his accomplice sat down near, although not immediately beside, each other and engaged in a conversation.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that thereafter, the accomplice began to verbally harass the complainants. The accused man did not join in and in fact eventually moved by himself to a different subway car. When the train arrived at Zerega Avenue, the complainants got off followed by the accused man’s accomplice. It was shortly after leaving the train that the complainants were accosted on the subway platform by the accomplice and robbed of various possessions at knifepoint. One of the complainants testified that while the accomplice relieved her and her companion of their possessions, the accused, who had apparently also exited the train at Zarega Avenue, stood some 65 to 75 feet away; he was situated at the top of the stairwell providing access to and from the platform. While the first complainant at first claimed to have observed the accused glancing alternately down the stairs and in the direction of the ongoing robbery, she later stated that the accused was simply standing at the top of the stairs–that she could not see his face and that she did not witness any communication between the accused and the accomplice while the robbery was in progress.

Once the robbery was complete, the accomplice joined the accused and the two fled the station together. A short time later, when they were apprehended in the vicinity of the station, the accomplice was still in possession of the items taken from the complainants; the accused, on the other hand, had no stolen property and disclaimed any relationship with the accomplice, stating that he don’t know the guy and he was just asking him for directions.

Published on: May 10, 2012

Court Decides Larceny Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 7 December 2001, defendant and two acquaintances approached a man as he was walking with his friends in Queens, New York. Defendant held out his hand and that man, believing that the stranger was attempting to greet him, returned the gesture by slapping him “five.” A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant told the man, however, that he did not want a greeting; he made clear that he wanted the man’s compact disc player. Defendant snatched the player out of the man’s hand, walked away and allegedly began listening to the “Busta Rhymes” CD in the disc player.

The man followed defendant, repeatedly asking for his disc player back, at which time one of defendant’s acquaintances, codefendant, approached the man and told him to “run his pockets”, meaning, to give co-defendant his money. The man told co-defendant he did not have any money and then turned to continue following defendant, whereupon co-defendant repeatedly punched the man from behind, causing a laceration on the ear.

Published on: May 10, 2012

Policeman Charged with Recieving a Bribe

by Stephen Bilkis

Police operated sting operations can be set up for many different reasons. Most of the time, they are set up like drag net to catch everyone that they can in a determined crime and location. However, sometimes, a sting operation can be set up in order to trap one person whose actions are so abhorrent to the public definition that to allow their conduct to continue would be a breach of justice. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that is usually the case when a public servant who has been entrusted with the well-being of the society goes astray and violates that sacred public trust.

When a police officer violates that public trust, the case is even more important to the other police officers whose names have been sullied by the dishonor that another person has placed on their positions. In August of 1994, the police in Queens County received information from an informant that a police officer was engaging in illegal activities. The police department decided to set up a sting in order to catch this criminal police officer in the act. They arranged for an officer that the criminal officer did not know to pose as a drug dealer. This undercover officer was assigned to approach the suspected officer with a deal to protect a felony shipment of drug money for the undercover officer who was posing as a drug dealer. The two officers met and surveillance officers were taping the encounter. A deal was struck for the criminal police officer to work for the drug dealer to ensure that the drug money was transported safely. The police officer was arrested and charged with a bribery for public service in the third degree, receiving reward for official misconduct in the second degree, official misconduct, and computer trespass.

The defendant appealed his conviction on the grounds that he would not have considered the offense if it had not been created and sold to him so effectively. While this allegation may sound like entrapment, it falls just short of entrapment in that the officers conducting the sting were acting on a tip from an informant. They did not simply single this officer out in an arbitrary manner to tempt him into committing a crime. The officer contends that it is exactly what they did. He claims that he was innocent of any crime until the sting operation seduced him into committing the crime.

Published on: May 10, 2012

In Gambing Case, Court Determines Each Bet as a Individual Offense

by Stephen Bilkis

There is a good deal of specific legality, which is involved in cases of gambling or racketeering. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the fact that a person is engaged in a criminal enterprise must be proven. In order for a case to be considered a criminal enterprise, the person must have committed three or more acts that constitute separate and distinct crimes that relate to the same enterprise. The crimes must be separate and able to be tried an convicted on their own without being a drawn out version of just one crime. A crime is not a criminal enterprise if it just takes a long time to commit the one crime. In gambling or numbers operations, it can sometimes be difficult to show that the gambling operation is actually a criminal enterprise.

In one case from 1997, the court arrested several subjects and charged them with conspiracy and operating a criminal enterprise in Queens County. The police alleged that the gambling operation was started around August 15, 1996 and continued until the arrests of the subjects on November 7, 1997. The indictment charged that the defendants in the case were all members of a notorious gambling organized crime ring that was run by the Conigliaro family. The police brought forth evidence that demonstrated that the enterprise was organized in Queens, Kings, and Richmond Counties in the state of New York. It showed that there was a bookmaker, who was in control of ensuring that the operation ran smoothly. There was a controller, who handled the daily business of the enterprise and all of the accounting details. There were several clerks who took the betting information by phone and had runners meet with the bettors each week to settle the accounts.

The defense maintained that the organization could not be convicted for operating a criminal enterprise because their crimes were gambling only. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the pattern of illegal gambling activity was documented from November 1988 to July of 1991. The legislators maintained that illegal enterprises were specifically considered in the written statute to include “syndicated gambling.” The question of law was whether these actions constituted on criminal purpose and objective or not. If it is one purpose and objective, then the case cannot be a criminal enterprise because there has to be three distinct acts.

Published on: May 10, 2012

Court Discusses Probable Cause in Drug Possession Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The police officers of the 32nd precinct in New York City were assigned to conduct surveillance over the corner of 128th Street and 8th Avenue because this was known as a high-drug crime area. A New York Criminal Lawyer said many arrests for cocaine possession and heroin possession have been made at this corner.

One police officer saw perched atop a condemned building, holding binoculars and observing the goings on at the street corner. His partner was near the street corner, waiting for a signal from his partner on the rooftop.

At 1:30 pm of February 26, 1977, the police officer on the rooftop saw one man at the corner. Most passersby hurry on by but that man stayed put. He kept having brief conversations with those who come by him but those people moved on. The man stayed. The officer observed the man for forty-five minutes.

Published on: May 9, 2012

Judge Acquits Man Found Guilty by Jury

by Stephen Bilkis

On August 11, 1980, a man was walking outside his apartment. Two men who also frequented the apartment building where he lived came up to him and talked to him. Thinking that they were just being friendly, he stopped to chat.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said one of the men blocked his way and the other asked him for his money. When he said he didn’t have any money on him, the man grabbed his hand and forcibly took the ring he was wearing on his finger.

The two men immediately turned and left the man. He reported the robbery to the police. He gave their names to the police and their description and they were arrested. They were charged with robbery in the second degree. The indictment alleged that the two men acted in cooperation with one another and being physically present at the same time and forcibly stole the ring from the man.

Published on: May 9, 2012

Defendants Claim Trial Court Abused its Discretion

by Stephen Bilkis

On December 7, 1984, at approximately 5:00 P.M., a 20-year-old taxi driver met his friend who spent the evening with him riding in the front seat of his cab. At about 8:30 P.M. he proceeded to Union Place pursuant to a radio dispatch and picked up two young men, the accused and the co-accused. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that although the taxi driver did not know the pair, his companion recognized them from the neighborhood. The taxi driver was directed by the men to take them to Yonkers. During the trip, which took approximately four minutes, no one spoke.

When they arrived at the destination, the accused told the taxi driver that he was going inside the building to find some friends and asked to wait for him. The co-accused remained in the back seat of the taxi while the accused went inside. Shortly thereafter, the accused returned, accompanied by another male, and asked the taxi driver to drive them back to Union Place.

As the taxi was travelling down the hill that approached Union Place, the accused placed a gun to the taxi driver’s neck and told him to give his money. He saw the gun and felt it pressed to his neck. In response to the demand, he gave the robbers approximately $20 he had in his shirt pocket and an additional sum of approximately $100 from his wallet. The three men then exited the taxi and ran off into the darkness. During the robbery, the co-accused pushed the driver’s companion forward in the front seat to keep her head down.

Published on: May 9, 2012

Defendant Claims Illegal Search

by Stephen Bilkis

Police officers who work drug related crimes require specialized training to ensure that they conduct themselves appropriately while they are performing their duties. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the nature of drug crimes is that it changes frequently. The fluidity of the laws surrounding the actions of the police and prosecutors means that occasionally, the fall behind the law in matters that relate to the arrests and prosecutions of offenders. That means that a person who has obtained a good attorney is more capable in most cases of interpreting recent case law as well as statutory law. One case that helped to define the criteria of modern drug law occurred in January of 1981.

On January 31, 1981, two detectives were in an unmarked undercover vehicle in an area where drug problems had been reported. They were using binoculars to survey the area. They observed a car at 8:15 at night pull up and park on the curb about 100 feet away from them. They watched with their binoculars for several minutes while suspected customers came up to the car and transactions took place. Specifically, what the officers observed was that another car would pull up, and a person would approach the driver of the parked vehicle. A conversation would ensue. Money would be handed to the driver, or the passenger, who was later identified as the defendant’s wife. A small tinfoil ball would be handed to the person out of the car window. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the officers observed the purchaser hold the tinfoil ball to his nose and smell it before leaving. After watching two of these transactions, the officers approached the vehicle and notified the marked patrol backup unit to respond to the location.

The officers handcuffed the driver and his male companion and searched them. They located an envelope of marijuana on the driver’s person. The detectives identified themselves and placed the two male subjects in the back of the detective car handcuffed while they interviewed the additional suspects. When the marked unit arrived and the detective started to transfer the prisoners, they located a clear plastic baggie of angel dust in the driver’s coat pocket. A Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer said one the prisoners were properly searched and placed into the marked unit, the officers checked their back seat and discovered that there were four tinfoil balls of angel dust on the seat of the vehicle. At the precinct, the officers recovered $237 cash from the driver and his wife.

Published on: May 8, 2012

Robbery Defendant Claims Misidentification in Line Up

by Stephen Bilkis

On 10 November 1988, early in the evening, A New York City Police Officer and his partner, both assigned to the 34th Precinct, were on routine motor patrol, when they received a radio message directing them to the corner of 213th Street and Broadway, New York County.

As the officers were approaching the location, one of the officers saw one man holding another man, with a woman standing nearby.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said one of the men, informed the officer that, after he had heard a woman screaming, he saw the man, who he was now holding and who was later identified as the defendant, running from Inwood Park, carrying a brown pocketbook, and he responded by seizing and holding the defendant, while a bystander summoned the police. At that point, the man gave the officer a rubberized hammer handle, as well as the pocketbook, and he told the officer that he had taken both of those items from the defendant. Further, the man explained to the officer that the defendant had attempted to strike him with the hammer handle.