Posted On: December 29, 2009

NEW YORK DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED: OFFICER DOES NOT HAVE TO READ MOTORIST MIRANDA WARNINGS PRIOR TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF ALPHABET RECITATION TEST OR THE FINGER COUNTING TEST

Previously I discussed New York Court of Appeal’s cases which held that the police do not have to read a DWI suspect his or her rights before requesting that they perform Field Sobriety Tests because such tests are not testimonial or communicative. People v. Hager, 69 N.Y.2d 141, 512 N.Y.S.2d 794 (1987); People v. Berg, 92 N.Y.2d 701, 685 N.Y.S.2d 906 (1999).
But where the officer requests the suspect to recite the alphabet or perform a finger count test, those responses are verbal and therefore, at the very least communicative. However, the Third Department has held that an officer need not read a suspect his or her Miranda Warnings prior to requesting that the suspect recite the alphabet or perform the finger count test because such tests are not communicative or testimonial in that they don’t reveal the person's subjective knowledge or thought processes. People v. Hasenflue, 252 A.D.2d 829, 675 N.Y.S.2d 464 (3rd Dept. 1998). The Court of Appeals has reached the same conclusion regarding the alphabet and finger count tests. People v. Berg, 92 N.Y.2d 701, 685 N.Y.S.2d 906 (1999)(these tests are not testimonial or communicative in that they do not require a person to reveal knowledge of facts relating to the offense).
For information regarding Driving While Intoxicated in New York or to schedule a free consultation, please call Tilem & Campbell toll free at 1-888-DWI-COUNSEL or visit us on the web at www.888DWICOUNSEL.COM.

Posted On: December 26, 2009

NEW YORK DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED: OFFICER DOES NOT HAVE TO READ MOTORIST HIS OR HER MIRANDA RIGHTS PRIOR TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS

Many times those charged with a New York Driving While Intoxicated charge will complain that they never were read their rights. When one must be read their “rights” is beyond the scope of this blog. However, for purposes of Field Sobriety Tests, the issue addressed in this blog is whether one must be read their “rights”, or what are commonly known as “Miranda Warnings”, prior to being asked to perform Field Sobriety Tests.
The answer is no. In People v. Hager, the New York Court of Appeals held that the police do not have to give a DWI suspect his or her Miranda Warnings prior to the administration of Field Sobriety Tests. 69 N.Y.2d 141, 512 N.Y.S.2d 794 (1987). In rendering its decision, the Court noted that the privilege against self incrimination prevents the state from compelling a person to provide testimonial or communicative evidence. In 1999, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed this holding in People v. Berg 92 N.Y.2d 701, 685 N.Y.S.2d 906 (1999) again holding that Miranda warnings are not required to allow Field Sobriety Tests into evidence.
So therefore, the police do not have to inform a motorist of his or her right to refuse to perform Field Sobriety Tests (People v. Sheridan, 192 A.D.2d 1057, 596 N.Y.S.2d 245 (4th Dept. 1993)) nor do they have to read them their Miranda Warnings prior to requesting they perform the tests.
If you have any questions regarding Driving While Intoxicated or if you have been charged with DWI in New York, please call Tilem & Campbell toll free at 1-888-DWI-COUNSEL or visit us on the web at www.888DWICOUNSEL.com.

Posted On: December 23, 2009

TILEM & CAMPBELL WISHES ALL OUR CLIENTS< BLOG READERS AND FRIENDS A HAPPY AND HEALTHY HOLIDAY SEASON

New York criminal law firm Tilem & Campbell would like to take a moment to thank our clients, blog readers and friends for a great year and wish everyone a very healthy and happy holiday season.

During this season a couple of things bear repeating.

Drinking and Driving is a serious and dangerous crime. Don't drink and drive.

Be careful driving. The police are out in force during the holidays, don't speed, obey all traffic signs and stay alert. Texting while driving is now illegal in New York. Don't talk on your cell phone without a hands free device or text while driving. Remember New York traffic tickets can be more costly than you realize.

Be safe and happy holidays.

John Campbell & Peter Tilem

Posted On: December 22, 2009

NEW YORK DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED: MOTORIST MAY REFUSE TO PERFORM FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS

Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs) are designed to test one’s physical abilities and well as their ability to divide their attention between multiple tasks or instructions. They are utilized by officers in making a decision to arrest a motorist for Driving While Intoxicated. In order to arrest a motorist for DWI, New York law requires that the police officer have probable cause to believe that the motorist had been driving in an intoxicated condition. FSTs are designed to aid the police officer in deciding whether he has probable cause to believe that the person is intoxicated. Most of us have seen the “walk and turn” test, the “one-leg-stand” test or the horizontal gaze nystagmus test (the “follow my finger” test) on videos, in the movies or if you have been suspected of driving while intoxicated and have been asked to perform them by the officer.
The question many ask is, “must I perform these tests?” It’s a very legitimate question. Should one attempt the Walk-and-Turn and One-Leg-Stand tests on the side of highway with cars passing at 55 mph in the middle of the night? Keep in mind; these tests are difficult for sober people to successfully perform. (That’s why judges will almost never allow a defense request that the officer show the court exactly how that officer demonstrated the test for the motorist – as the officer is required to do).
A motorist does have the right to refuse to perform Field Sobriety Tests however; the police have no obligation to inform the motorist of his or her right to refuse to perform the tests. People v. Sheridan, 192 A.D.2d 1057, 596 N.Y.S.2d 245 (4th Dept. 1993); see also People v. Capraella, 165 Misc.2d 639, 629 N.Y.S.2d 965 (N.Y.City Crim.Ct.,1995)(holding that the police have no obligation to inform motorist that they can refuse to perform field sobriety tests). However, one’s refusal to perform field sobriety tests is admissible at trial. People v. Berg
92 N.Y.2d 701, 685 N.Y.S.2d 906 (1999).
If you have been charged with Driving While Intoxicated in New York City, Westchester, Dutchess, Putnam or Rockland counties contact Tilem & Campbell toll free at 1-888-DWI-COUNSEL or visit us on the web at www.tilemandcampbell.com.

Posted On: December 17, 2009

TILEM & CAMPBELL TO LAUNCH DOCTOR SUMMONS HOLIDAY AD CAMPAIGN

New York criminal defense law firm Tilem & Campbell will launch a holiday season ad campaign directed toward those caught Driving While Intoxicated or violating other New York traffic laws. The campaign will advertise the Doctor Summons trade name which will ask potential clients to contact Tilem & Campbell through its 877-DR-SUMMONS toll free number and through its DRSUMMONS.COM website. The ad campaign coincides with the holiday season, during which the firm sees an increase in DWI, Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a Vehicle, Speeding and other moving violations.

The ad campaign is designed to let motorists know that they can fight these types of charges and that in many cases they can fight traffic violations without the necessity of going to Court.

The Dr Summons name has been used by law firm Tilem & Campbell, for several years to give motorists an easy to remember toll free number and website in case they find themselves charged with a traffic violation or DWI. Tilem & Campbell has successfully handled thousands of traffic violation in New York State.

Posted On: December 15, 2009

Criminal Defense Attorney Peter Tilem on Bronx Legal Tonight!

Criminal Defense lawyer Peter Tilem will appear on Bronx Legal tonight at 6:30 pm. The topic of discussion tonight will include New York gun laws, the Plaxico Burress gun arrest and other New York weapons offenses. The video of tonight's show for those who do not live in the Bronx will be posted on the Tilem & Campbell youtube channel and on tilemandcampbell.com as soon as the video is available.

Tilem & Campbell maintains a media page that contains all of the video's of television appearances by partner's Peter Tilem and John Campbell. Senior partner Peter Tilem worked as a prosecutor in the Firearms Trafficking Unit of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and has both prosecuted and defended hundreds of cases involving illegal possession of weapons in New York.

Posted On: December 11, 2009

NEW YORK POST PRINTS FULL PAGE ARTICLE ON BUS MATRON CASE DISMISSAL

The New York Post printed a full page article yesterday on the dismissal of the bus matron case that was defended by New York criminal defense firm Tilem & Campbell. As explained in our last blog the case involved a school bus matron charged in Brooklyn Criminal Court with failing to assist and taunting an autistic boy as he banged his head against a school bus window in Brooklyn.

Kings County Criminal Court Judge Gilbert Hong dismissed all charges against the bus matron earlier this week after criminal defense lawyers Peter Tilem and John Campbell argued that the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office had violated the bus matron's speedy trial rights during the three and a half years that the case was pending.

Tilem & Campbell had this case effectively dismissed back in 2006 after another Brooklyn Criminal Court Judge suppressed the tape recordings as illegal wiretap evidence but the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court reversed and the case was eventually scheduled for trial. The Brooklyn DA's office then failed to be ready for trial on four different occasions in Court leading to the dismissal, this week. Contact Tilem & Campbell for more information or for a free consultation on any criminal case.

Posted On: December 9, 2009

NEW YORK CRIMINAL DEFENSE FIRM SCORES MAJOR VICTORY IN BROOKLYN

New York Criminal Defense firm, Tilem & Campbell scored a complete dismissal on all charges in a hard fought Endangering the Welfare of a Child case in Brooklyn, earlier today. The case involved a former school bus matron who was charged with standing by and taunting a young autistic boy as he banged his head on a school bus window. The case received national attention and spurned two changes in New York State law. The case was dismissed because the Kings County District Attorney's Office violated the bus matron's New York State speedy trial rights.

The case against the bus matron was brought in Brooklyn Criminal Court in April 2006 and was based upon an incident on a school bus that was alleged to have occurred in September 2005. The case was struck a fatal blow in July of 2006 when Kings County Criminal Court Judge Ruth Smith ruled that an audiotape that was secretly placed in the boys backpack and which recorded the events on the bus amounted to an illegal wiretap under New York law and suppressed the use of the recording. After the Kings County District Attorney's Office said they could not prove the case without the recording the District Attorney's Office appealed Judge Smith's ruling.

A panel of the Appellate Term of Supreme Court overturned Judge Smith's ruling in January 2008 and Tilem & Campbell appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, New York State's highest court. After the Court of Appeals refused to hear the case, the case was returned to Brooklyn Criminal Court and after some additional motion practice was set down for trial.

The District Attorney's Office filed a Statement of Readiness for trial in May of 2008 but then inexplicably served the defendant's copy of the Statement of Readiness on a former address that Tilem & Campbell had moved from more than a year before. According to a statement filed by the District Attorney's Office, once the Statement of Readiness for trial came back undeliverable, the District Attorney's took no further action to serve it on Tilem & Campbell. Notably, the District Attorney's Office admitted in its court filings that it had been notified of the change of address and had sent at least one letter to the new address.

In addition, the Court scheduled trial dates in November 2008, February 2009, April 2009 and May 2008. On each date, the Kings County District Attorney's Office told the Court they were not ready for trial and requested another date.

Kings County Criminal Court Judge Gilbert Hong ruled earlier today that the Statement of Readiness for Trial was ineffective since it was never served on the defense attorneys, Peter Tilem and John Campbell. The net effect of that ruling, combined with the fact that the District Attorney was not ready for trial on four dates spanning a seven month period was that the District Attorney's office was ready for trial for the first time in July 2009, approximately 3 and 1/2 years after the bus matron's initial appearance and arraignment of these charges.

New York Law, as well as the New York State and United States Constitution require that individuals accused of a crime be given a speedy trial and a public trial. The New York State Law requires that when a person is accused of the class "A" misdemeanor of Endangering the Welfare of a Child the District Attorney's Office must be ready for trial within 90 days. New York State Law excludes many periods of time from those 90 days including motion practice and appeals.

Judge Hong ruled that the District Attorney's Office used more than 200 days before they were ready for trial in this case and dismissed all charges against the bus matron.

Posted On: December 8, 2009

NEW YORK CRIMINAL ATTORNEY BLOG WINS TOP CRIMINAL LAW BLOG

New York Criminal Defense Firm Tilem & Campbell is very happy to announce that its New York Criminal Attorney Blog has been awarded the honor of "Top Criminal Law Blog" by Attorney.org. The award, which is prominently displayed on the blog, is a recognition of the hard work partners Peter Tilem and John Campbell devote to writing on topics of interest to the public.

Since starting the blog in February 2008, Peter Tilem and John Campbell have worked tirelessly to educate the public about relevant and interesting New York criminal law topics. The blog has more than 170 entries to date and is updated, on average, at least twice per week. The popularity of the blog speaks for itself drawing more than 3000 visitors every month.

Posted On: December 7, 2009

New York Defense Lawyer Peter Tilem Quoted by the Associated Press on Brooke Astor Story

Tilem & Campbell senior partner, Peter Tilem was quoted by the Associated Press over the weekend in an article about Brooke Astor's son, Anthony Marshall. Marshall was convicted on October 8, 2009 of several counts including Grand Larceny in the First Degree for looting his mother's estate. Grand Larceny in the First Degree carries a mandatory minimum of one to three years in state prison and last Friday, Marshall's attorneys filed a Clayton motion seeking to dismiss the Grand Larceny in the First Degree charge so that Mr. Marshall could avoid a prison sentence.

Mr. Tilem, who is familiar with the Clayton Motion also called a Motion to Dismiss in the Interest of Justice was interviewed for the article and was quoted. As discussed in our previous blog, on the subject, a Judge must consider 10 factors which are listed in the New York Criminal Procedure Law when considering a Motion to Dismiss in the Interest of Justice. Mr. Tilem raised a concern about one the factors in the Astor case. The statute asks a judge to examine the impact that dismissal would have on the confidence of the public in the criminal justice system. Mr. Tilem raised the concern that because of the wealth and notoriety of Mr. Marshall a dismissal, especially at this post trial stage of the case, would make it appear that Mr. Marshall was treated differently than others with less money or fame.

For more information about a New York Motion to Dismiss in the Interest of Justice contact Tilem & Campbell.

Posted On: December 2, 2009

GOOGLE LAUNCHES NEW LEGAL RESEARCH WEBSITE

New York criminal defense firm Tilem & Campbell announces that Google has recently launched a new site entitled Google Scholar which can be used for legal research by legal professionals and non-lawyers. The Site allows searches for articles and full text legal opinions for free. Opinions from both State and Federal Courts can be searched. Although the site is a wonderful resource it does have its limitations and is not expected to replace Lexis or Westlaw which are the two main paid legal research sites.

One of the chief limitations, is the lack of any type of citator. The question any lawyer asks when they find a case that they wish to use as a legal precedent is whether the case is still "good law". In other words has this case been overruled by a subsequent Court decision, a higher Court decision or a subsequent statute. Paid research sites allow a lawyer to check the status of the case with just a few clicks. Google Scholar lacks such a citator.

The service, however, does give both the general public and lawyers alike a free, first glance at the law. Google Scholar appears to be a breakthrough in making our laws accessible to the general public in a free, accessible and searchable way. Members of the general public should be aware, however, that a little legal knowledge can be dangerous and are well advised to check other resources such as this blog and to consult with a lawyer for any legal issue.

As described in this blog, the law can be in its own language and if any members of the general public need help in understanding any of the New York Criminal issues that they research on Google Scholar they can check the "Legal Terms Defined" section of this blog or contact anyone of our experienced New York Criminal Lawyers.