Sex Crimes

Published on: March 7, 2012

DWI Defendant Contends Mistaken Identity

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was stopped at the street for failing to wear a seat belt and operating a vehicle with a cracked front windshield. Upon approaching the vehicle, the police officer noticed that the driver have a glassy eyes. The driver responded to the questions of the police officer with a slurred speech and an odor of alcohol emanated from him. After the man failed the standard field sobriety tests, the police arrested the driver for DWI.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said charges against the driver took place and the bail was set and posted. Subsequently, the man came forward and claimed that he did not drive the vehicle which was stopped by the police officer. The man also claimed that his brother used his license and identity. The man submits an affidavit which indicates that he learned of his brother’s arrest when tickets turned up in the man’s mailbox a couple of days after the arrest. The brother of the man called him a couple of days later according to the affidavit submitted. The brother of the man also advised him that he used the license and was arrested for DWI. While no evidence of identity is offered in support of the motion to dismiss the man, the jury concedes that the man did not operate the vehicle and that his brother did. The acknowledgment by the prosecution of the identity of the driver followed initial findings of the present motion. The initial findings ordered a trial to determine that the man did not operate the vehicle in question and was not arrested due to ambiguities in the submitted papers. The prosecution accepted the point rather than proceed to trial. The decision on the merits of the legal action is rendered.

The overlap of the naming of the man as the accused while charging the person of the man’s brother with violating Vehicle and Traffic Law makes the man an wronged person whose privileges to legally operate a motor vehicle have been suspended. The man therefore has the right to challenge the prosecution with his name, his driver’s license and his identity. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that without the right to come forward and reveal the false use of an identity, the man is plagued with the misdemeanor and with potential effects of a conviction. Prosecuting the brother of the man essentially leaves the brother to invest only his time while the man receives the penalties accruing by fines, suspension and revocation of his license.

Published on: March 6, 2012

Court Rules Where DWI Offender Refuses Chemical Test

by Stephen Bilkis

A traffic officer responded to a radio run of an automobile accident at Roosevelt Avenue and Queens Boulevard. When he arrived at the scene, the accused was standing beside an automobile which had been involved in the car accident. The traffic officer testified that the accused had bloodshot eyes, was unsteady on his feet and had the odor of alcohol on his breath. A witness to the accident told the traffic officer that he had seen the accused driving the car. There was no testimony that any other person was observed to be in or around the automobile.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accused spoke Spanish and apparently understood little or no English. The traffic officer obtained a driver’s license and other documents bearing the accused man’s name but he was unable to recall whether the documents were given to him by the accused or if they were discovered in the automobile. The accused was placed under arrest and was taken to into the precinct.

A police officer testified that he was called to the precinct to conduct an Intoxicated Driver’s Exam on the accused. In the presence of the traffic officer and the police officer, the accused was shown a Spanish language videotape intended to apprise him of the charges against him and to inform him of the repercussions of refusing to submit to a chemical test analysis or breathalyzer test. The Spanish language tape was translated for the Court by the court interpreter. Such is the only interpretation before the Court as neither the jury nor the accused called an expert witness to translate the videotape.

Published on: March 6, 2012

Court Decides Use of Breathalyzer Under Business Records Exception

by Stephen Bilkis

Initially, the court held that records reflecting the calibration of breath test machine and analysis of breath test simulator solution used in DWI cases were non-testimonial hearsay and admissible over confrontation clause objection under business records exception. The certifications to be submitted for the calibration or maintenance of the breath test instrument and the analysis of the Breath Alcohol simulator solution used in the breath test instrument are either testimonial or non-testimonial in nature. When proven to be testimonial then the complainant must bring in the analyst. If it is non-testimonial, the complainant may lay the basis for introduction of the records.

Testimonial statements are material such as affidavits, custodial examinations, extrajudicial statements, depositions, prior confession, prior testimony that the accused was unable to cross-examine, similar pretrial statements, formalized testimonial materials and statements that were made under circumstances that the complainant would reasonably expect to be used in the later trial.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the Supreme Court deliberately left for another day any effort to spell out a comprehensive definition of testimonial. The Court does say that when a non-testimonial hearsay is at issue, it is wholly consistent with the design to afford the states flexibility in their development of hearsay law. The Supreme Court’s analysis of testimony excludes some hearsay exceptions, such as business and official records. To hold otherwise would require numerous additional witnesses without any apparent gains in the truth-seeking process. After all, cross-examination is a tool to flesh out the truth, not an empty procedure.

Published on: March 6, 2012

Defedant Contends Illegal Stop in DWI Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A police officer and his partner were on routine patrol at one of the intersections in Queens County. The officers noticed the woman driving a grey Cadillac passed through a steady red light. The other officer pulled the vehicle over and as he approached, the woman rolled down her window. As the officer requested the woman’s license and registration, he noticed that she had bloodshot, watery eyes, and also detected the strong smell of alcohol on the woman’s breath. The officer further observed that the woman seemed disoriented and unaware of her surroundings. The officer requested the woman to step out of the vehicle, at which he also noticed that the woman was unsteady on her feet. The officer placed the woman under arrest. As the officer was escorting the woman to the squad car, she became very loud and argumentative towards the officer.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, the woman was brought to the Precinct Intoxicated Drivers Testing Unit (I.D.T.U.) for the purposes of performing chemical testing. The woman was immediately brought to the basement of the precinct where the breathalyzer testing is performed. Present at the testing site were the arresting officer, his partner and two other officers of the precinct. At no time were Miranda warnings given to the woman by the arresting officer.

The officer of the precinct confirmed that he was the officer responsible for administering the breathalyzer test to the woman. The officer also alleged that he has six years of experience with the I.D.T.U., and has conducted six hundred of such tests at a rate of approximately thirty per month.

Published on: March 5, 2012

Defendant Contests Accuracy of Breathalyzer in DWI Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A man filed an appeal from the decision of the first district court of Nassau County concerning its judgment of DWI and over speeding law suit.

The incident happened when a Nassau County police officer observed that the man’s traveling is at about 90 miles per hour on the Long Island Expressway. The officer confirmed that his estimate is done by a laser device and by his speedometer. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the officer stopped the man and found out that the man showed several signs of intoxication. The man admitted to having a drink and the officer administered a series of field sobriety tests, all of which the man failed. The officer arrested the man and transported him to the police department, where the man again failed a series of sobriety tests and permitted to a chemical test of the alcohol content of his blood. The test, conducted through a breath test instrument revealed a result of.11 per centum by weight.

The man wanted to bring in an expert testimony as to the range to get the concentration of alcohol in a person’s blood from the quantity of alcohol vapor detected in a breath sample. The man did not challenge the instrument’s reliability, but sought to lay the foundation for a jury argument that man’s individual ratio might differ so significantly from the mean as to diminish the verification weight to be accorded the test results. The court disallowed the evidence on ground of relevance.

Published on: March 5, 2012

DWI Defendant Contests Driver’s License Suspension

by Stephen Bilkis

The first accused is charged with misdemeanor information with Vehicle and Traffic Law and the second accused is charged in separate misdemeanor information with Vehicle and Traffic Law. The issues raised by the defense counsel are identical in each case.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that in each case, the accused is alleged to have had operated a motor vehicle while having a blood alcohol level in excess of .10 of 1%. In each case, the accused man’s driver’s license was suspended at arraignment because of the blood alcohol content. The defense counsel contends that the suspension procedure constitutes a penalty the accused moves for orders to dismiss each docket on double jeopardy grounds.

In a recent Law Journal article, it is evident that Vehicle and Traffic Law has been attacked on constitutional and due process grounds throughout the state with the majority of decisions holding the statute constitutionally infirm.

Published on: March 5, 2012

Defendant Refuses to Take Chemical Test

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was arrested and was charged of Patronizing a Prostitute and Operating a Motor Vehicle While under the Influence of Alcohol or DUI which is also a misdemeanor. The accused man refused to submit to a chemical test and upon arraignment and his license was duly suspended. The accused moved for an order overturning any statements he made and any evidence of his refusal. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the hearing was ordered and was conducted before the Court. At the outset of the hearing, the specific nature of the accused man’s application was clarified. The accused moved on two grounds to overturn the evidence of the statements he made on videotape at the time he was given refusal warnings. The accused man asserted that he was arrested without credible cause and that his videotaped statements should be overturned as the fruit of his illegal arrest and its outcome. He also asserted that the same videotaped statements should also be overturned as evidence of a refusal to consent to a chemical test that was made only after inadequate refusal warnings were given.

At the hearing, the complainant presented the testimonies of the arresting officer and a police officer together with a videotape of the accused while the accused presented no evidence. The arresting officer’s testimony showed that shortly after midnight of the arrest date, the accused drove his car onto the set of an undercover police prostitution operation. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accused approached a female undercover officer who was posing as a prostitute and offered to pay her twenty dollars in return for a sex act. The undercover officer communicated to other police officers by pre-arranged signal that an offer had been made and the other officers moved in and stopped the accused within a few seconds after his offer. A police officer approached the accused who was still seated in the driver’s seat of his car with the car engine still running. The police officer conferred briefly by a walkie-talkie with the undercover officer who confirmed that the accused had offered her money for sex. The accused smelled strongly of alcohol and appeared to be very intoxicated in that his eyes were bloodshot and he was swaying and babbling. The police officer asked the accused to step out of his car and when the car door opened the accused fell face first into the street and had to be pulled to his feet by the police. A preliminary field test was administered and the accused man’s blood alcohol content measured a great apparent evidence of intoxication. The accused was arrested for the crimes of Patronizing a Prostitute and DWI and was taken to a police station. The police did not read the accused of his Miranda rights at any subsequent time.

The police attempted to give the accused his refusal warnings and the procedure was videotaped. The accused speaks Spanish and accordingly, the police officers properly decided to give the accused his refusal warnings in Spanish. The police had a pre-recorded videotape of a woman delivering refusal warnings in Spanish on hand. The accused was videotaped as he stood side by side with the police officer and another arresting officer and watched the Spanish language videotape version of the refusal warnings being played on a television set. The room was arranged in such a way that when a viewer watches the videotape of the accused, it is not apparent that the accused is looking at a television set or where the off-screen woman’s voice delivering the refusal warnings in Spanish is coming from.

Published on: February 29, 2012

Probable Cause Questioned in DWI Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant was charged with violation of traffic laws because he was driving while under the influence of alcohol. The court conducted a hearing to determine if the defendant’s three separate statements have any legal implication.

In this DWI case, there are three different statements being deliberated. In the first statement of the defendant, she had said that she had a fight with a male friend since she was too intoxicated to driver her vehicle. The statement also indicated that she had 2 drinks. The second statement was allegedly given by the defendant after she was arrested by the police. In that second statement, she claimed that she only took one drink at her friend’s house and was heading to another destination. The third statement said that the defendant had three drinks and was about to go to her friend’s house.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the three statements are obviously in conflict with one another. The only witness to this case was the police officer who arrested the defendant. According to the officer’s statement, he and his partner were patrolling their usual route. The officers received a radio call and proceeded to respond to a dispute between drivers on the road. They went to the location of the dispute. When the police officers had arrived at the scene, the lead officer noticed the three people who seemed to be arguing. The woman, who was also the driver of the vehicle, was identified as the defendant.

Published on: February 29, 2012

Court Rules on Evidence Submitted in DWI Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant faces charges of DWI or driving while intoxicated. The defendant is also charged with violating traffic laws. According to the arresting officer, the defendant failed to maintain driving within the correct lane. A hearing was held in court to determine if the evidence against the defendant had been illegally obtained. The court was tasked to decide on the validity of the evidence in court. The alleged evidence includes the statements made by the defendant and his refusal to take a chemical test.

The witness on this case was the police officer who had arrested the defendant. The police officer had 20 years’ worth of experience working in law enforcement. Through the years, the officer had made several arrests involving drinking while intoxicated charges.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that according to the statement of the police officer, he was patrolling the highway during the night when he came across the defendant’s car. The officer observed that the driver of the car was driving at a high speed. The police officer followed the car in order to get closer. As the driver of the car made the turn, the police officer noted that he ran past two stop signs and went over the yellow lines.

Published on: February 28, 2012

Court Decides DWI Case Where Weapons Were Involved

by Stephen Bilkis

The respondent in this case had a license to carry firearms. The same license was suspended by order of the court. All guns owned by the respondent were to be turned over to the sheriff’s department pending the hearing of the case. The permit to carry firearms was reinstated after the proceeding of a DWI charge.

The court was tasked to determine the circumstances leading to the arrest of the respondent. According to the witness who was also the arresting officer, he arrived at the house of the respondent as back up. The officer had responded to a call made on the emergency hotline involving a dispute between a husband and wife. When the officer spoke to the husband and also the respondent in this case, the respondent said that it was his wife’s fault. The respondent claimed that his wife assaulted him. He did not do anything to his wife. The officer noted the behaviour of the respondent as uncooperative. The respondent kept on telling the officer to get out of the house.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the officer also noted that respondent showed signs of intoxication. The officer arrested the respondent for his disorderly behaviour. During the investigation of the police regarding the dispute, the respondent kept on harassing his wife and the officers present. Upon arrest, the respondent was brought to the court to be arraigned. The respondent continued to be in an unruly mood while inside the premises of the court. The charge at this point was changed to obstruction. At the request of the respondent’s wife, the court granted an order of protection. The officer imposed the order by seizing the guns of the respondent.