New York Criminal Attorney Blog

Generally, our medical records and our children’s medical records are private and our medical providers may not them. (See NY CPLR 4504(a)). This “privacy” or privilege from disclosure is based upon what is referred to as the “doctor-patient” privilege. However, in New York, when a mandated reporter makes a report of suspected child abuse or maltreatment/neglect that actually results in an investigation by a Child Protective Services agency, that mandatory reporter must comply with CPS’s request for records “relating to such report” including the medical records of any patient or client of that mandatory reporter that are “essential for a full investigation” of the suspected child abuse, maltreatment or neglect. (See Soc. Ser. Law 415)).
This applies to doctors or other quasi-medical personal who report suspected child abuse, neglect or maltreatment. In other words, if you take your child to the doctor and the doctor finds a bruise that leads him or her to suspect abuse (even though the bruise was from a football game in the backyard) and file a report, your doctor must comply with a subsequent CPS request for any records of any of his or her patients or clients which relate to the report the doctor filed.
Therefore, not only might the doctor have to provide that child’s records, he might also have to provide the medical records of your other children if they would be essential to a full investigation by CPS. Furthermore, should your child be older and thus going to your doctor, your medical records might be turned over to CPS if they are deemed essential to a full investigation by CPS of the suspected abuse, maltreatment or neglect of your child.
Being the subject of a CPS investigation can be terrifying. You will realize immediately that the rights you thought this Country cherished simply don’t exist. Many New York Child Protective Service agencies and their investigators push the outer limits of the law with many actually operating outside the law.
If you even suspect you might be the subject of a CPS investigation in New York, call Tilem & Campbell toll free at 1-877-377-8666 for a free consultation or contact us through our website.

New York criminal defense law firm Tilem & Campbell has noticed an increase in the number of client's charged in New York City with Reckless Driving under Vehicle & Traffic Law 1212. Reckless Driving is a serious offense in that unlike most traffic offenses, it is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 30 days in jail. In addition, the New York Department of Motor Vehicles will assess 5 points on your driver's license and conviction can leave you with a permanent criminal record in New York.

It seems that these tickets are being given out for almost any conduct and judges seem reluctant to dismiss them. We are often seeing these tickets given in connection with a motorist that "squeals" their tires.

Tickets in New York City for Reckless Driving are returnable in the Criminal Court and not the DMV Courts that adjudicate traffic violations in the City of New York. While these tickets are extremely serious and not to be taken lightly, the lawyers at this firm have had overwhelming success getting these tickets reduced to non-point violations with small fines.

Any motorist who receives a Reckless Driving (VTL 1212) ticket should contact an attorney to discuss their options. Like any criminal offense, these tickets should be treated very seriously and can have very serious consequences.

New York criminal defense law firm Tilem & Campbell scored a major victory in another New York gun case, this one involving a loaded pistol at LaGuardia Airport. The client, was arrested in LaGuardia airport after he attempted to check a loaded pistol in at the airline ticket counter. The ticket agent called police who arrested him and charged him with Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree under New York's relatively new gun law that requires a mandatory minimum of 3 1/2 years in prison for possession of a loaded firearm. The passenger who was in New York on business had a license for the pistol; from another state which was not valid in New York State.
The case was resolved last week when the client pled guilty to Disorderly Conduct which is not a crime in New York State and paid $370 in fines and Court costs. The felony charge was dismissed and the client will have no criminal record as a result of the reduction.
Cases such as this are common in Queens which has two busy airports within its borders. Gun laws are very different in New York than they are in most other places in the United States so unsuspecting, law-abiding citizens often get caught in New York transportation hubs such as the local airports.
Tilem & Campbell, senior partner Peter H. Tilem, a former member of the New York County District Attorney's Office, Firearms Trafficking Unit has a lot of experience with all types of weapons cases and has scored a string of successes in New York gun cases in recent years. Including the outright dismissal of two gun cases. In one such case, Mr. Tilem used the Federal Traveler's Defense to win the dismissal of a loaded gun charge in the Bronx.
Tilem & Campbell is based in White Plains, New York and handles criminal cases throughout the New York metropolitan area.

In addition to the mandatory reporters I previously discussed, the Social Services Law specifically authorizes “any person” to make a report of suspected abuse or maltreatment when they have reasonable cause to believe a child is the victim of abuse or maltreatment. (Soc. Ser. Law § 414). While seemingly supported by good intentions, the ability of anyone to make a purely anonymous report of abuse or maltreatment poses a tremendous problem because New York treats any complaint, whether from a known source or a purely anonymous caller, the same. Each triggers what can probably be described as the most intrusive, humiliating, frightening and, far too often, constitutionally improper investigations into the inner most private workings of a family. And to repeat, this can all be triggered by a purely anonymous “tip”.
It is because New York treats anonymous reports the same as reports from known mandatory reporters; the nosey neighbor, the angry neighbor, the spurned ex-lover, the “do-gooder” we all can’t stand, the disgruntled parent, grandparent, uncle, aunt or any variety of wackos can throw one’s life into turmoil with a simple anonymous report to an abuse hotline. There have been cases where families have gone through entire investigations and hearings because a passing motorist saw a child “unattended” in the driveway of a home. Imagine you are watching your child from the porch, just 10 feet away, and because some passing motorist sees only your child, you become the subject of an abuse or neglect investigation.
If the allegations contained in the report, whether anonymous or from a know source, “could reasonably constitute a report of child abuse or maltreatment”, or “if true would constitute child abuse or maltreatment”, the report must be transmitted to the appropriate local child protective agency for investigation (Social Services Law § 422[2][a], [b] ). Therefore, as long as the false report made by an anonymous ex-boyfriend, disgruntled ex-spouse, nosey neighbor or whomever, makes out a plausible claim of abuse or maltreatment, you will be investigated. I have personally handled cases where a single parent has been the subject of repeated false anonymous reports all of which resulted in an investigation.
If you have been notified that you are the subject of a child abuse, neglect or maltreatment investigation by a child protective services agency or by the police, you have rights and you must know them. Contact Tilem & Campbell toll free at 1-877-377-8666 for a free consultation or visit www.tilemandcampbell.com.

In an effort to identify those children who might be the victim of abuse or neglect, certain individuals who are in a position to observe signs of abuse and/or neglect are required by law to make a report when they have reasonable cause to suspect that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is abused or maltreated. These individuals are referred to as “mandatory reporters”. (See Soc Ser. Law § 413).
Almost all reports of abuse or maltreatment are made by “mandatory reporters”. The list of mandatory reporters is quite long and includes physicians, dentists, nurses, social workers, school officials, substance abuse counselors, police officers, and assistant district attorneys. When one of these mandatory reporters has reasonable cause to believe your child has been abused or maltreated, they are required by law to report such suspected abuse or maltreatment in accordance with Soc. Ser. Law § 413(1)(b) & (c).
Employers of mandatory reporters must provide new hires with written information explaining their mandatory reporting requirements. (See Soc Ser. Law § 413(2)). Any state or local agency that licenses or issues certificates to day care facilities shall provide the licensee with written information regarding mandatory reporting requirements. (See Soc Ser. Law § 413(3)). Finally, any agency, employer or other organization that employs mandatory reporters who travel, in the normal course of their duties, to where children reside must provide those mandatory reporters with information or how to recognize an unlawful methamphetamine laboratory. (See Soc Ser. Law § 413(4)). As a result of mandatory reporting laws, most reports of child abuse, neglect and/or maltreatment are made by school employees or doctors who observe signs of abuse, neglect and/or maltreatment.
If you are the subject of a Child Protective Services, Administration for Children’s Services or a police investigation, contact Tilem & Campbell toll free at 1-877-377-8666 or visit www.tilemandcampbell.com for more information. You do have rights and you should know them.

In New York, the police may not stop your vehicle solely to ask you questions regarding the whereabouts of an individual wanted in connection with a past crime. In People v. Spencer, 84 N.Y.2d 749 (1995), the defendant was convicted of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Third Degree and Criminal Possession of Marijuana in the Fourth Degree. The weapon and marijuana were found in defendant’s car after the police stopped him looking for information regarding the whereabouts of defendant’s friend who was wanted in connection with an assault that took place approximately forty hours earlier. The defendant appealed the denial of his suppression motion arguing that the police could not stop his vehicle for the sole purpose of requesting such information.
Noting that the right to request information does not include the right to unlawfully seize, the Court of Appeals agreed with the defendant holding that the stop was unreasonable. The Court noted that the Fourth Amendment does not permit the stopping of potential witnesses. However, noting that the police were investigating past criminal conduct, the Court insinuated the stop might have been legal if the police were investigating recent or ongoing crimes. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, granted defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence and dismissed the indictment.
For more information about this or any other New York criminal law issue, please contact Tilem & Campbell toll free at 1-877-377-8666 or visit us on the web at www.tilemandcampbell.com.

One of the first lines of defense in any New York criminal case involving evidence found during a car stop is whether the search of the car was constitutional. In New York, where a vehicle is stopped for a traffic infraction, it is improper for the police to ask for consent to search the vehicle. This rule has been strictly construed by New York courts with one Appellate Court going so far as to suppress a body found in the back of a vehicle stopped for a traffic infraction because the police had no basis to ask for consent to search.
In People v. Turriago, 219 A.D.2d 383 (1st Dept. 1996), the defendant’s vehicle was stopped for speeding by State Troopers on Rt. 17 in Orange County. The Troopers, concerned about illegal hunting, asked defendant for consent to search the vehicle which defendant gave. The police subsequently found the body of a murder victim in the rear of the vehicle. In seeking to suppress the body and other evidence (statements and evidence found during a search of defendant’s apartment), the defendant argued that whether he gave consent was irrelevant because the Troopers had no right to seek his consent to search in the first instance.
The First Department agreed holding that while the Troopers had a valid reason to stop the vehicle, nothing transpired during the stop to justify a suspicion that criminal activity was afoot which was necessary to trigger the Trooper’s common law right to inquire thus justifying a request for consent to search. The First Department therefore, reversed the lower court and held that the body, statements and evidence found as a result of subsequent searches of apartments where defendant stayed must be suppressed.
The People appealed the case to the New York Court of Appeals which did not disturb the First Department’s holding that the Troopers had no right to ask for consent to search but did find that the body would have been inevitably discovered as part of an inventory search of the vehicle. So ultimately the evidence was allowed but under the inevitable discovery doctrine because the vehicle would have been impounded since the defendant’s license was suspended. The request to search however was improper. This distinction, I’m sure, was of no consequence to the defendant in this case.
For more information about this and any other New York criminal law issue, feel free to contact Tilem & Campbell toll free at 1-877-377-8666 or visit us on the web at www.tilemandcampbell.com.

One of the first lines of defense in any New York criminal case involving evidence found during a car stop is whether the search of the car was constitutional. In New York, where a vehicle is stopped for a traffic infraction, it is improper for the police to ask for consent to search the vehicle. This rule has been strictly construed by New York courts with one Appellate Court going so far as to suppress a body found in the back of a vehicle stopped for a traffic infraction because the police had no basis to ask for consent to search.
In People v. Turriago, 219 A.D.2d 383 (1st Dept. 1996), the defendant’s vehicle was stopped for speeding by State Troopers on Rt. 17 in Orange County. The Troopers, concerned about illegal hunting, asked defendant for consent to search the vehicle which defendant gave. The police subsequently found the body of a murder victim in the rear of the vehicle. In seeking to suppress the body and other evidence (statements and evidence found during a search of defendant’s apartment), the defendant argued that whether he gave consent was irrelevant because the Troopers had no right to seek his consent to search in the first instance.
The First Department agreed holding that while the Troopers had a valid reason to stop the vehicle, nothing transpired during the stop to justify a suspicion that criminal activity was afoot which was necessary to trigger the Trooper’s common law right to inquire thus justifying a request for consent to search. The First Department therefore, reversed the lower court and held that the body, statements and evidence found as a result of subsequent searches of apartments where defendant stayed must be suppressed.
The People appealed the case to the New York Court of Appeals which did not disturb the First Department’s holding that the Troopers had no right to ask for consent to search but did find that the body would have been inevitably discovered as part of an inventory search of the vehicle. So ultimately the evidence was allowed but under the inevitable discovery doctrine because the vehicle would have been impounded since the defendant’s license was suspended. The request to search however was improper. This distinction, I’m sure, was of no consequence to the defendant in this case.
For more information about this and any other New York criminal law issue, feel free to contact Tilem & Campbell toll free at 1-877-377-8666 or visit us on the web at www.tilemandcampbell.com.