New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: June 17, 2012

Court Decides Alleged Violation of 4th Amendment Rights

by Stephen Bilkis

In these unrelated appeals, each accused challenges the denial of suppression of vials, crack cocaine possession and other physical evidence on the ground that his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures was violated by the warrantless police search of his car. In both cases, accused parties were travelling in a car pulled over by a police officer for a traffic violation. In each case, upon the officer’s approach to the accused parties’ car, the officer observed through the car windows an open bag containing vials and caps. A New York DWI Lawyer said trained and experienced in drug detection, the police officers recognized the vials as the type used to package crack cocaine for street transactions. For the reasons that follow, in both cases the lower courts properly found probable cause for the officers to believe the accused were using drug paraphernalia, thereby justifying the searches of the automobiles and the accused parties’ consequent arrests. Another man was subsequently indicted for criminal possession of a controlled substance and criminally using drug paraphernalia.

The screeching tires of a cream colored Audi turning onto Broadway at a high rate of speed, forcing three pedestrians to jump out of the crosswalk, caught the attention of two uniformed police officers sitting in their marked police car. The officers followed the Audi south on Broadway, turning on their siren and flashing lights as the distance between the Audi and the police car narrowed. After the Audi turned right onto West 125th Street and passed a stop sign, the officers pulled the car over. A New York DWI Lawyer said when the officers parked their patrol car behind the Audi, and approached the car from opposite sides. The accused man was seated in the front passenger seat. The officer who was standing outside the car near the accused man observed an open shopping bag filled with vials and yellow caps standing upright on the floor behind the accused man. The officer signaled his partner, who was standing on the driver’s side, and gestured to the bag, alerting his partner to the contents he observed. One of the officers then asked the three men in the car if the vials belonged to them and each denied ownership. Nor could any of the individuals tell the officers what the vials were used for. The officers subsequently arrested the three individuals for criminally using drug paraphernalia, and issued summonses to the driver for failing to yield to pedestrians at a crosswalk and to yield at a stop sign.

A backup team of two officers arrived as the arresting officers were securing the car’s passengers while checking for weapons. The shopping bag was then removed from the car and upon examination yielded eight sealed, clear plastic bags, containing a total of 200 empty vials separately packaged from 200 matching yellow caps, a bread crumb container and a carton of instant cocoa powder. The bread crumb container proved to have a false bottom, which revealed a bag of crack cocaine. The accused man volunteered that he came to buy the cocaine for someone else and his two companions had nothing to do with the cocaine possession.

Published on: June 17, 2012

Defendant Claims Confession Illegally Obtained

by Stephen Bilkis

This case was brought in court to determine whether the rule applies even if the interrogator is unaware that an imprisoned man is represented by an attorney. Based on records, the right to counsel rule signifies that an accused in custody in connection with a criminal matter for which he is represented by counsel may not be interrogated in the absence of his attorney with respect to that matter or an unrelated matter unless he waives the right to counsel in the presence of his attorney.

The incident happened early 2002, when a man was murdered in his bodega. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the case remained unsolved for some time until an individual came forward and informed the police that a man had shot the victim. The informant explained that, shortly after the shooting, he was talking to a group of young men in the neighborhood about the incident. The informant asserted that during the conversation, the man had laughed and stated that he had shot the store owner. The informant further identified man whom he had known for years from a photo array.

After receiving the information, the investigating officer interviewed one of the young men who had been present during the conversation reported by the informant. The individual recalled that, on the day of the killing, either the man or the other individual had suggested to rob a store. Later that day, the man admitted to his friends that he had shot the store owner.

Published on: June 17, 2012

Court Decides if Indictment Should Stand Due to Lack of Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

A drug dealer in New York contacted a Lebanese courier who would be bringing ten kilograms of heroin into the United States. The drug dealer’s business constituted street-dealing heroin in Brooklyn.

He agreed to meet the Lebanese courier in Boston, Massachusetts. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that in exchange for the ten kilograms of heroin, the Brooklyn drug dealer agreed to pay a courier fee of $120,000.00. He withdrew money from his bank in New York to complete the sum he needed to pay for the courier fee. He then purchased round trip tickets to Boston and back to New York for his three people: his girlfriend, his right-hand man and a pharmacologist they nicknamed “the professor.” He also made hotel reservations for his people at the Ramada Inn in Boston.

The drug dealer instructed his girlfriend to bring the money; his right-hand man will speak with the Lebanese courier and bring a sample of the drugs to “the professor’ who would be in a separate room at the hotel to test the drugs. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the plan was for them to plane into Boston, complete the deal in Boston, test the drugs in Boston and fly directly back to New York with the drugs where the drugs would be repacked and sold on the streets.

Published on: June 17, 2012

Defendant Takes Issue of Reclassification of Drug Offense to a Felony

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was charged in an indictment of two counts of criminal heroin possession and sale. The first count was due to drug possession and sale committed on October 19, 1973 and the second count was due to heroin possession and sale committed on October 23, 1973.

On September 1, 1973, the legislature of New York passed a law which classified criminal heroin possession and sale as a A-III felony. Being classified as A-III felony, a conviction would be punishable with an indeterminate prison sentence of a minimum of one to eight years (for first time offenders) and a maximum of life imprisonment.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accused here seeks a dismissal of the information and the indictment against him on the grounds that the indictment for criminal heroin sale and possession violates his rights to due process, equal protection, and the right against cruel and unusual punishment.

Published on: June 17, 2012

Defendant Claims Evidence was Illegally Obtained

by Stephen Bilkis

A police officer, a nine-year veteran of the NYPD who has made 500 narcotics-related arrests, investigates drug sales in lower Manhattan. On February 28, 2010, the police officer, together with his detective partner entered the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) building in Manhattan to conduct a “vertical” –a floor-by-floor patrol of the premises in order to search for loiterers, drug users, people consuming alcohol and trespassers.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the Officer testified that, in housing projects, officers may question anyone they encounter to determine whether they are on premises lawfully. Sometimes, at his discretion, he requires residents to provide identification or a key and must prove that they are not trespassers. Likewise, persons claiming to be legitimate visitors must also supply corroboration.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the police officer testified that he entered the premises at around 6:30 p.m. and observed defendant standing alone in the lobby. Thereafter, he approached the defendant and asked whether he resided in the building. Defendant replied that he was visiting a friend. When defendant did not supply a name and apartment number, the police officer arrested him for trespassing on NYCA premises. The detective searched the defendant and recovered 29 ziplock bags of cocaine from his waistband. The police officer performed a search and found $284 on defendant’s person. Thereafter, defendant was charged with criminal cocaine possession and trespassing.

Published on: June 16, 2012

Sex Crime Includes Sex With a Minor

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was convicted of criminal cocaine sale; and criminal marijuana sale when he sold cocaine and marijuana to an undercover police officer at nine different times and at nine different places.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said because of the sales of controlled substances to undercover police officers, the police had enough bases for a search warrant. When they searched the man’s apartment they found cocaine there. The man pleaded guilty to criminal sale and was sentenced to a prison term of 7 ½ to 15 years. After his conviction and pending his sentencing, the man was still out on bail. He undertook before the Court to appear whenever his presence was required and he also undertook not to be arrested on new charges.

During the time of his conditional release, the man had sex with a thirteen year old girl who was his neighbor’s daughter. He had sex with her in his apartment five different times. The thirteen year old girl got pregnant and the man moved to a different apartment in another building.

Published on: June 16, 2012

Rape Defendant Takes Issue With Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

In January 20, 2002, a woman was living in with her fiancé who was then thirty-nine years old. The woman’s mother and 13 year old sister came over to visit them and they stayed in the same house that the woman shared with her fiancé.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that while the 13-year old sister was visiting, the fiancé assaulted the 13 year old. He committed sodomy by inserting his male organ into the young child’s anus. The man was charged with sodomy, sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of a child, and other Sex Crimes. He was found guilty by a jury and the trial court sentenced him to a prison term of two to six years.

After he was convicted and sentenced, the man moved to set aside the jury verdict. He claims that his right to a fair trial was violated when the panty of the 13 year old was admitted into evidence even if the panty was recovered by the police thirty-seven days after the date of the commission of the offense. He claims that the panty should not have been admitted into evidence as it was not shown clearly by the prosecution that it had not been contaminated when it stayed in the clothes hamper in the apartment of the child’s sister for thirty-seven days where it could have been wet or degraded. He also claims that the lawyer who defended him was ineffective. A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said that the claims that his lawyer failed to cross-examine the forensic scientists and experts presented by the prosecution. He claims that his counsel failed to present experts to rebut the claims of the experts presented by the prosecution. He further claims that his conviction should be vacated because the prosecution hid evidence that would have exculpated him.

Published on: June 15, 2012

Defendant Contends Improper Use of Predatory Rape Statute

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 2 May 2011, defendant forcibly compelled complaining witness-one to perform oral sex upon him and then forcibly subjected her to anal intercourse.

On 14 May 2011, defendant forcibly touched the breasts of complaining witness-two with his hands and mouth, forcibly compelled her to perform oral sex upon him and then forcibly subjected her to vaginal intercourse.

Published on: June 2, 2012

Sex Crime Defendant Appeals for Technical Legal Issues

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 2 May 2011, defendant forcibly compelled complaining witness-one to perform oral sex upon him and then forcibly subjected her to anal intercourse.

On 14 May 2011, defendant forcibly touched the breasts of complaining witness-two with his hands and mouth, forcibly compelled her to perform oral sex upon him and then forcibly subjected her to vaginal intercourse.

Published on: June 1, 2012

Plaintiff Sues Employer for Sexual Offenses

by Stephen Bilkis

The complainants filed an action that alleges forty-six allegations of fact in support of three causes of action. Their first two causes of action claims include sexual assault by the creation of a hostile work environment and the constructive discharge. The third cause of action is for intentional infliction of emotional distress. A New York Criminal Lawyer said all of the complainants seek for a decision without trial on liability on the entire complaint.

The complaint alleges that the complainants were working at the clinic when they discovered that the doctor had installed and used a hidden camera in the only working restroom.

Consequently, a New York Criminal Lawyer said one of the complainant’s asserts thirty-eight allegations of fact in support of five causes of action. The first two causes of action claim consist of sexual assault by the creation of a hostile work environment, for intentional discrimination and constructive discharge. The third cause of action is for violation of the right to privacy. The fourth cause of action is for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The fifth is for tort. The said complainant seeks to have decision without trial on liability on the first, second and fourth reasons of action. She asserts that she was a medical office clerk at the clinic and at some point the doctor placed an air purifier containing a hidden surveillance camera in the employee’s bathroom positioned five feet away from and at the same height of the toilet seat. She further states that she used the bathroom at least twice a day. When she discovered the unlawful surveillance equipment and the placement of the monitor in the doctor’s office, she resigned.