New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: July 20, 2012

Court Reviews Indictment for Escape from Mental Heath Facility

by Stephen Bilkis

When a mentally ill offender commits a heinous crime in New York, the judicial court has the ability to determine whether the person should be considered not responsible for his actions by reason of mental disease or defect. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that in some cases, the offenders illness can make the determination of how to handle his conviction and sentencing much more difficult. The ethics that are involved in punishing mentally ill persons are complicated. Clearly, a person who is a threat to society if they are not controlled should not be allowed to terrorize innocent people. However, a person who does not understand that what they did was wrong, is also an innocent in the eyes of many people.

The courts must determine a balance that is ethically acceptable between the right of the innocent victim and the rights of the offender. When an offender is determined to be mentally ill, the court must determine if he is capable understanding the trial process and participate in his own defense. If he is not capable of assisting in his own defense, then other steps are necessary to ensure that the product of justice is attainable. Most states have now incorporated a policy that allows them to determine that a person is guilty while still being mentally ill. That is because many people have skirted the justice system in the past because they are mentally ill or suffering from some other disease or defect. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said citizens of these states have determined that allowing a person to not be punished for an offense simply because they are not responsible for their actions is not fair to the innocent victim of their acts. There is also a need for the judicial courts to protect the citizens of their states from future illegal actions that this person may likely perform.

In 1978, an offender was convicted of rape in the first degree. He was a violently mentally ill offender who was found to suffer from a mental disease or defect. The courts of New York, where his offense was committed determined that he was not able to be placed in the usual offender population because of his mental illness. However, they were also convinced that if he was released, he would recidivate. In order to prevent him from harming anyone else, they decided to commit him to the custody of the Commissioner of Mental Hygiene in a secure facility for treatment. He was indicted on his crimes on March of 1978. On review of his mental state, he was re-committed to the secure institution on September 3, 1981 and again on October 27, 1982.

Published on: July 20, 2012

Court Discusses Search Warrants

by Stephen Bilkis

The issue of search warrants and the rights of Americans to be free from illegal and unreasonable search and seizure in their own homes is balanced by the responsibility of the legislature and law enforcement to ensure that those laws are fair and enforced lawfully. What that means is that a judge has to be very conscious of the impact that signing a search warrant has on the community as a whole. A New York Sex Crime Lawyer said that every time that a search warrant is signed in the United States, a judge is permitting law enforcement to encroach on the sanctity of the home that the warrant is for. In criminal cases, the lines are often drawn clearly. However, in civil cases involving code violations, the laws are not so clear.

One case that involved a search warrant for a code violation occurred on September 25, 2003 when a judge in the Village of Westbury in Nassau, New York, signed a search warrant on a code violation. The code violation was for running an illegal boarding house in the Village. The investigation that resulted in the issuance of the warrant was a lengthy one. The details of the warrant that established that an illegal boarding house was being operated in the Village involved months of stakeouts and a recording of numerous license plates that demonstrated that more than one family was living in the one family dwelling house. In fact, the warrant was issued for evidence of more than one family including locked doors to individual rooms, illegal plumbing, and multiple vehicles located at the residence. A New York Sex Crime Lawyer said the warrant was signed by a Village judge based on the facts that were presented by a code enforcement officer to the judge. The details of the evidence were well documented and the warrant was issued. The judge placed on the warrant that it could be executed by any police officer of the County of Nassau.

However, a code enforcement officer is not usually considered a police officer. A code enforcement officer is more commonly considered a peace officer of the state of New York. So in essence, the officer who obtained and possessed the warrant was not named as an official for the purposes of executing the warrant. However, the code enforcement officer took with him several police officers of the County of Nassau to execute the warrant, so that issue became moot. The problem with the warrant was that during the execution of the warrant, several of the law enforcement officers photographed occupants and asked questions of the occupants.

Published on: July 19, 2012

Court Discusses 4th Amendment Issues

by Stephen Bilkis

In 2003, a senior building inspector for the Village of Westbury in Nassau County, New York, was working on a code violation case involving the operation of an illegal boarding house. The house in question was zoned as a single family dwelling house located at 335 Princeton Street. The home was occupied by several persons who were clearly not related. The code enforcement officer spent many hours surveying the home. He documented that there were more than twelve individual people that he observed going in and out of the home at different times. He documented the presence of eight vehicles that were each registered to different people with different last names.

A New York DWI Lawyer said he contacted the city garbage service and interviewed the garbage man about the amount of garbage that was picked up from that location. The garbage man gave him a sworn written statement that he had noticed that the house produced more than five times the amount of garbage that any of the other homes in that area produced. The senior code enforcement officer had recently been transferred to the Village earlier that year from a Village that was more proactive about handling the enforcement of code violations involving illegal boarding houses. The code enforcement officer was well versed in obtaining search warrants for properties that he needed to inspect. Without a search warrant, the occupants of the dwelling do not have to allow an officer to enter upon the dwelling. This right against illegal search and seizure is spelled out in the United States Constitution in the Fourth Amendment.

The rights that are ensured by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution are taken very seriously. In this case, the officers involved did not limit the scope of their search as was required by the details in the warrant. The warrant allowed that the dwelling be searched for evidence of an illegal boarding facility. The code enforcement officer brought along several Nassau County police officers to assist him with the search of the home. These officers were not as well versed in the case as the code enforcement officer. That meant that they chose to handle the warrant the same way that they would have handled a criminal warrant.

Published on: July 19, 2012

Court Discusses Mental Hygiene Law

by Stephen Bilkis

On 6 January 1992, respondent pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree robbery and single counts of first-degree burglary, first-degree rape, and first-degree sodomy. The plea satisfied charges arising from two separate criminal incidents, the robbery of a gas station attendant and a home invasion, for which respondent was arrested and indicted separately in 1988. He was sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 8 to 16 years, running from his arrest. In July 1999, respondent was released to parole supervision after serving 11 years and eight months of his sentence.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on 19 May 2000, he was again arrested and indicted separately for three robberies. On 12 December 2001, he pleaded guilty to two counts of third-degree robbery, for each of which he was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 2 to 4 years, and one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, for which he was sentenced to prison for one year. The indictment satisfied by respondent’s plea to the weapon-possession count also accused him of sexual abuse. These sentences ran concurrently to each other but consecutively to the undischarged portion of the indeterminate sentence imposed on respondent in 1992. On 6 January 2006, he was released to parole supervision.

In July 2006, respondent was returned to prison for violating the conditions of his parole. In April 2007, he was again released to parole supervision but went back to prison after violating the conditions of his parole in August of that year.

Published on: July 19, 2012

Defendant Contends Identification Procedures by Police Incorrect

by Stephen Bilkis

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court rendered on January 6, 1981, upon a verdict convicting a man of the criminal act of rape in the first degree.

On the evening of July 4, 1979, at approximately 9:45 p. m., the female victim, aged 19, was walking up Baker Avenue in Cohoes, New York, en route to Cohoes Memorial Hospital. A man walked past her, turned and came up behind her, put his hands over her eyes and mouth and told her not to scream. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he then dragged her off the shoulder of the road into some bushes, punched her for a number of times, removed her clothing, and raped her.

When the man left, she donned her clothing and ran to the emergency room at the hospital where she received medical attention for her injuries and notified police. She thereafter gave a detailed description of her assailant to the police stating that he was a white male, age 20 to 25 years, about five feet nine inches tall, weighing 150 to 160 pounds, with shoulder length dirty blonde hair parted in the middle, wearing blue denim pants with a belt, a light pullover shirt, and sneakers. On September 25, 1979, she examined a series of six photographs at the Police Department and quickly identified a photograph of the accused as the man who had raped her. The man was indicted and his trial commenced. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he was positively identified in court by the victim as the man who raped her on July 4, 1979. His defense was mistaken identity and he contended, among other things, that at or around the time of the incident his hair was not even collar length. In addition, both the man and his wife testified that he was at home the entire night the criminal act was committed. Rebuttal witnesses for the Sate contradicted the testimony.

Published on: July 18, 2012

Defendant Accused of Disseminating Information to Commit a Crime

by Stephen Bilkis

In 2005, a woman took a job working for the New York City Human Resources Administration as an Associate Staff Analyst Hearing Officer in the Employee Disciplinary Unit. As an officer of this department, she had access to confidential information relative to other employees in the department as well as in other departments in New York City Government. She was prohibited by contract and by law from accessing anyone else’s confidential information without express authorization from a supervisor.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the woman was having problems within her department. She felt that she was being discriminated against by supervisors and co-workers based on her race and gender. She began inquiring outside of the department about what she should do to file a lawsuit for discrimination. She obtained advise from a friend that she should gather as much evidence as she could about the department and some of the situations that existed within that department. One of the issues that was bothering her was a romantic relationship that she felt existed between two co-workers that was inappropriate in the workplace.

She went into the Human Resources computer base and accessed their personal information so that she could provide the information to her attorney for use in her lawsuit. She admitted that she had done this in a deposition pursuant to the case. When the department discovered that she had obtained this information illegally, they fired her without notice. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said she appealed her termination on the grounds that she did not violate the law since she did not disseminate the information that she had obtained and she did not use the information to commit a crime.

Published on: July 18, 2012

Defendant Contends He Had No Knowledge his Actions Were Illegal

by Stephen Bilkis

Bilingual detectives are an advantage to any police department. The problems that they solve cross boundaries that have existed for many years. However, problems can also arise that are exclusive to a bilingual undercover investigation. A New York DWI Lawyer said one such case occurred in 1983, when a bilingual detective named Ramos worked for the New York City Police Department. He had been a detective for more than fifteen years at the time of this particular trial. He was assigned to work on the Drug Enforcement Administration Task Force. The objective of this task force was to apprehend persons who were primarily dealers of drugs at a level that is above the street level dealer who does hand to hand sales for five or ten dollars each. The goal was to apprehend the dealers who supply the street level dealer.

On July 16, 1981, Ramos contacted a dealer and told him that he wanted to purchase a large amount of drugs. Ramos had been assigned to a particular area and had worked for months to infiltrate the drug scene in that area. The street level dealer told Ramos that he had a contact that could supply the cocaine that Ramos had indicated that he was interested in purchasing. A A New York DWI Lawyer said the street level dealer contacted Ramos and with him present, called the upper level dealer. Ramos testified at trial that he told Ramos that the street level dealer had informed him that Ramos was a reliable person and that he had the product that Ramos wanted to purchase.

Several attempts to meet past by because one or the other was not able to make the meeting. When a meeting was finally arranged, the upper level dealer explained to Ramos in Spanish that he would be meeting him and gave him a description of his clothing and the type of vehicle that he would be in. Ramos advised him that he would be driving a red truck. When the meeting occurred, an Hispanic man approached Ramos and Ramos invited him to sit in the truck to talk. Ramos had a back up officer with him for the meeting. The two discussed an on-going criminal relationship of purchasing large amounts of cocaine. The upper level dealer advised him that he would be able to purchase one pound of cocaine for $29,000. However, he stated that he would first have to purchase a smaller amount so that he could see that Ramos was not an undercover police officer. The smaller purchase was made and the two made arrangements to meet the following day to conduct the larger purchase.

Published on: July 18, 2012

Defendant Contends Abuse of Discretion by Trial Court

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

A member of the New York City Police Department was detailed to work with the Drug Enforcement Administration Task Force (Task Force). His usual assignment with the Task Force was as an undercover officer (office-one), and that was the assignment he was performing, when, on 16 July 1981, he met with an informant who later introduced him with the co-defendant.

Thereafter, meetings were set and arrangements were made for officer-one to buy quantities of cocaine (cocaine possession). The co-defendant said that he could deliver a pound from someone that he knew, the herein defendant. Accompanied by another officer (officer-two), upon their meet, defendant only promised to deliver two ounces of cocaine for the reason that they didn’t know each other. Subsequently, the parties agreed to buy the two ounces of cocaine. Shortly after officer-two produced a brown bag with money, and, while defendant was looking into the money bag, officer-two placed defendant under arrest.

Published on: July 18, 2012

Court Considers Reversing Indictment

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

A member of the New York City Police Department was detailed to work with the Drug Enforcement Administration Task Force (Task Force). His usual assignment with the Task Force was as an undercover officer (office-one), and that was the assignment he was performing, when, on 16 July 1981, he met with an informant who later introduced him with the co-defendant

Thereafter, a New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said meetings were set and arrangements were made for officer-one to buy quantities of cocaine. The co-defendant said that he could deliver a pound from someone that he knew, the herein defendant. Accompanied by another officer (officer-two), upon their meet, defendant only promised to deliver two ounces of cocaine for the reason that they didn’t know each other. Subsequently, the parties agreed to buy the two ounces of cocaine. Shortly after officer-two produced a brown bag with money, and, while defendant was looking into the money bag, officer-two placed defendant under arrest.

Published on: July 18, 2012

Defendant Claims Court Abused its Discretion

by Stephen Bilkis

Appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court were made. The proceedings found the accused man to be a dangerous sex offender and confined him to a secure treatment facility.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accused man has an extensive psychiatric and criminal history that includes convictions for two rapes and forcible touching involving three different female victims. At age 23, he was charged with rape in the third degree, sodomy in the third degree and endangering the welfare of a child for having sexual relations with a girl under the age of 17 who was living with him.

According to the victim, they initially had a consensual (but illegal) sexual relationship, but the accused man thereafter repeatedly forced her to have sexual contact with him against her will. The accused man claimed that it was consensual and that he believed she was 17 years old, although he admitted having been advised that she was younger. He entered a guilty plea in satisfaction of all charges, and was sentenced to five months in jail and 10 years of probation. While on probation, the accused was charged with forcible touching for forcibly grabbing the private body parts of an 18-year-old employee of his drywall business. He later entered an Alford plea to that charge and was sentenced to a two-month jail term. After a hearing, New York Criminal Lawyer said the accused man was classified as a risk level III sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act. That same month while still on probation, the accused was charged with first-degree rape for an incident in which he went with a friend to a female acquaintance’s apartment and forcibly held her down and raped her in her bedroom where he had lured her by deceiving her into believing that they needed to speak privately. He again was permitted to enter an Alford plea to the proceedings. Although he was released on parole supervision, the accused man’s parole was revoked months later when he was charged with numerous instances of violating the conditions of his release, including having prohibited contact with women and viewing erotic images of women, and admitted to one parole violation charge of exchanging electronic messages with a woman.