New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: March 31, 2013

Court Decides Legality of DUI Checkpoint

by Stephen Bilkis

Police officers were given instructions by their sergeant to set up a DWI checkpoint on June 10, 1993 at the corner of 20th Street and Avenue C in Manhattan. At that checkpoint, all passing cars were stopped by the police officer manning the checkpoint. Depending on his observations of the driver of the car stopped at the checkpoint, the police officer would ask the driver to pull over to the side of the road so that the driver can be further questioned by the police.

When the defendant driver came up to the checkpoint, a police officer asked him to stop and to roll down his window. The police officer smelled alcohol on the breath of the driver as soon as he rolled down his window. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the police officer asked the driver to pull over to the side of the road. He then asked the man to exit his vehicle. The accused driver then admitted to the police officer that he had been drinking. The police officer then administered the alcohol breathalyzer test on the accused driver and his blood alcohol level registered at .14. When the results of the breathalyzer test came out, the police officer then arrested the man.

At his arraignment, the driver asked for a hearing to determine whether the police officers had probable cause to stop his vehicle; whether or not the checkpoint was not arbitrary; and whether or not the oral admission made by the accused and the breath test result should be suppressed.

Published on: March 30, 2013

Assault Charges Arise from Terrible Taxi Accident

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant is charged with one count of Criminally Negligent Homicide, three counts of Assault in the Second Degree and two counts of Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the First Degree. The charges arise from an accident in a taxicab driven by the Defendant on West Street in the vicinity of West Houston Street in Manhattan in 2006. In the accident, one of the passengers in Defendant’s taxi, either exited or was ejected from the cab and was then struck and killed by a second taxi. Three other passengers in the taxi suffered significant injuries while still in the cab when the vehicle struck a building.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, the People allege that the accident was caused by a seizure the Defendant suffered. It is also alleged that the Defendant had a history of seizures and fraudulently failed to disclose this information in applications for a taxi license he filed. Based on this seizure history, his alleged deception in obtaining his taxi license, the fact that he had stopped taking seizure medications at the time of the accident and the fact that a seizure allegedly caused the accident, the People allege that the Defendant caused the passenger’s death with criminal negligence. Criminally Negligent Homicide is a Class E non-violent felony punishable by a maximum indeterminate sentence for a first felony offender, like Defendant here, of 1 1/3 to 4 years in state prison. A Bronx Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant is also charged with three counts of Assault in the Second Degree, a Class D violent felony, for each of the three injured victims who were present in the taxi. Defendant contends that he did not, in fact, suffer a seizure at the time of the accident. He will also apparently contend at trial that he did not, in any respect, act with criminal negligence during the accident and thus cannot be held criminally responsible for the death or injuries which occurred.

A Bronx Defense Lawyer said that, defendant moves to dismiss the three counts of Assault in the Second Degree which are charged in the indictment. The Defendant acknowledges that he would not likely be entitled to dismiss before trial charges which alleged that the Defendant had committed the crime of Assault in the Third Degree with respect to the three injured victims pursuant to Penal Law § 120.00 (3), a Class A misdemeanor, on the facts alleged here. That statute provides that a defendant is guilty of this crime when “with criminal negligence, he causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument”.

Published on: March 29, 2013

Defendant Argues Constructive Possession Charge

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant is appealing a verdict of guilty to possession of cocaine and possession of marijuana in the amount of less than 20 grams. The defendant was sentenced to 22 months in prison on the cocaine charge and for a year in the county jail on the marijuana charge. She argues on appeal that the state failed to prove that she constructively possessed the marijuana.

Case Background

The defendant was originally charged with possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver and possession of marijuana in an amount less than 20 grams. During the trial an officer testified that she made a traffic stop of the car that the defendant was driving. The car contained the defendant and two others. When the car was stopped the male got out of the car and ran and was not apprehended. The officer called for backup.

Published on: March 28, 2013

Defendants Contend they Were Never in Possession of Drugs

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a joint appeal case by two defendants for their respective adjudications and sentences that were imposed when a jury found them guilty of unlawful possession of marijuana. The defendants concede that the evidence shows that they attempted possession, but they argue on appeal that they never had actual or constructive possession of the marijuana and because of this their convictions should be reduced from a third degree felony charge to a first degree misdemeanor charge.

Case Background

This was a reverse sting operation where the defendants along with eight other codefendants came up as potential buyers for marijuana that was offered for sale by an undercover police officer that posed as drug sellers.

Published on: March 27, 2013

Technically, Defendant was Arrested Before Illegal Sale of Marijuana

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a direct criminal appeal from the defendant who is seeking a review of his convictions for purchase of marijuana or possession of marijuana with the intent to purchase it and for attempted possession of more than 20 grams of marijuana. There are four issues in the case being raised by the appellant.

The first issue that the appellant raises is whether or not it was an error to deny his motion for dismissal and subsequent motion for judgment of acquittal base on an entrapment defense. The second issue is whether it was an error to deny his motion to dismiss based on allegations that the state had failed to produce exculpatory evidence. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the third issue is whether it was an error to deny his motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of purchase of marijuana or possession of marijuana with the intent to purchase it based on legal insufficiency. The final contention that the appellant offers is whether it was an error to deny the motion for arrest of judgment on the charge of purchase of marijuana or possession of marijuana with intent to purchase on the ground of inconsistent verdicts.

Case Background

Published on: March 26, 2013

Court Rules Closed Containers Cannot Be Searched Without a Warrant

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves an appeal from convictions of possession of marijuana. The defendant challenges that the trial court’s failure to suppress the marijuana. The other defendant challenges the sufficiency of evidence in the case.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the local police officer was monitoring a parking lot during a rock concert. He saw three men leave the building about half way through the concert and get into a car. He saw the two men in the front seat start to fumble around on the floorboard for about a minute and then saw what looked like a cigarette being lit and passed around the vehicle. He suspected that the cigarette was likely marijuana so he called for backup.

Published on: March 25, 2013

Defendants Marijuana Charges Reversed

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant in the case is appealing a judgment and sentenced that found him guilty by jury verdict of a violation of the narcotics law.

Case Background

The information provided in the case charged the appellant along with five other defendants of possession of marijuana.

Published on: March 24, 2013

Defendants Contend Search of their Vehicle was Unlawful

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellants in this case were convicted in a nonjury trial for possession of 230 pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute. The marijuana was found in a locked trunk of a car that had been rented and driven by one of the defendants (marijuana possession). Another defendant was a passenger in the car at the time an immigration search was conducted.

Case Facts

The checkpoint where the search took place was on highway 35. The government often employs checkpoints at this location or one nearby.

Published on: March 23, 2013

Court Decides Constructive Possession Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant in this case was charged by information with possession of over five grams of marijuana (marijuana possession). He filed a sworn motion to have the reciting dismissed. The motion in part stated that he lived in the home with his wife and children and that while the search of the home revealed marijuana, he was not in actual possession of any type of controlled substance at the time the search took place. The state filed for a leave to amend, which was granted.

The state then prepared to move that the defendant was in constructive possession of a controlled substance. The state plans to prove this by the fact that the defendants name and address were on the box that contained the marijuana and that the marijuana was found in his bedroom closet.

Case Discussion

Published on: March 22, 2013

Defendant Charged with Marijuana and Cocaine Possession

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant along with a co-defendant were charged with felony possession of marijuana, cocaine possession, possession of a drug implement, and possession of methaqualone. The appellant was denied the motion to suppress certain physical evidence. The appellant was tried alone. The trial resulted in a hung jury mistrial. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the trial court then ordered that the case of the appellant be tried with the co-defendant. The joint trial resulted in the appellant being found guilty as charged.

The appellant was sentenced to five years’ probation after serving six months in jail. The appellant motioned for a new trial, which was denied and this appeal followed.

Relevant Facts