New York Criminal Attorney Blog

As we already reported in an earlier blog, earlier this week Westchester Journal News Reporter Dwight R. Worley thought it was news worthy to publish the names and addresses of all licensed gun owners in Westchester and Rockland Counties. Under the First Amendment that is his right. However Dwight R. Worley also has a home address and he apparently has a licensed Smith & Wesson .357 magnum revolver at that address. We thought that the old expression "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" was perfect for just this situation, so here it is:

Dwight R Worley
23006 139 Ave
Springfield Gardens, NY 11413

(718) 527-0832

As a New York criminal defense lawyer that handles an inordinate number of gun related cases, I hear a large number of stories about the interaction between the police and law abiding gun owners. After more than 20 years, however, very few cases shock me. What happened after a Westchester County gun owner called a suicide hotline bears repeating as a cautionary tale to law abiding citizens everywhere.

A Westchester County gun owner owner got the surprise of his life when he called a suicide hot line to talk about tools to manage depression. After the gun owner's wife from whom he had been separated introduced him to her new boyfriend, and after having suffered a medical condition the loss of his home and the break up of his marriage the gun owner decided to call a suicide help line for help and instead ended up with more trouble.

The gun owner clearly remembers calling 1800 SUICIDE to ask about tools for managing depression. He also recalls that he started out the conversation by telling the operator that he wasn't going to hurt himself or anyone else but that he simply wanted information. The operator then steered the conversation to whether or not there was a child in the house (there was) and whether or not there were guns in the house (there were). Within a very short time of answering that there were guns in the house, and while still on the telephone, the Westchester County gun owner heard a knock at the door. It was the police.

When he answered the door, he was informed by police that he called the Suicide hotline and he has guns in the house, its mandatory that they take them. He was then led to a patrol car while the police took the .357 magnum he kept for protection. The police seized the gun without a warrant but left other guns in a safe that contained a collection of guns. The police drove the gun owner to the County hospital.

Unfortunately, the nightmare didn't end there. After being held against his will for several days, the gun owner was released to the custody of the police who then drove him home to take the rest of his guns without a warrant. The gun owner was made to open the safe while the police inventoried and seized his guns. To date, two months later the police have refused to release the guns putting the burden on the gun owner to go to Court to get a Court order for the police to release the guns.

For the gun owner, a momentary call to get information about depression resulted in a nightmare that could come right out of a story from the Soviet Union. Here in the United States a gun owner seeking help ends up with his guns seized without a warrant and held without charges.

If you have any legal issue regarding the ownership, possession, sale or licensing of firearms or would like to share your story, please contact the law firm of Tilem & Campbell for a free and friendly consultation over the telephone or visit us on the web at handgunattorney.com.

Recently we reported in our blog that a DWI conviction was vacated on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel where the lawyer simply had his client plead guilty to Driving While Intoxicated without conducting an investigation into the evidence in the case. Now, just last week, the United States Supreme Court reversed a conviction where a defense attorney neglected to tell the defendant about a plea offer and the defendant was later sentenced to a much more lengthy prison sentence than he would have gotten if he accepted the plea deal.

In the case of Missouri v. Frye the United States Supreme Court for the first time recognized that the 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution ensures that a defendant's right to effective representation extends to the plea bargain process and that if the lawyer is ineffective during the plea bargain process, the defendant may be entitled to reversal of his conviction.

In the Frye case, Galin Frye was accused of driving with a revoked license. Since he had been convicted of this same offense three times in the past he was facing a felony charge which carries up to 4 years in prison. During the pendency of the case, the prosecutor told Frye's lawyer that Frye could plead guilty to a misdemeanor and receive a sentence of 90 days. Frye's lawyer never conveyed that offer to him and he subsequently plead guilty and received three years in prison. On appeal Galin Frye argued that that we was denied his right to counsel because of ineffective of assistance of counsel. His conviction was reversed.

In the second decision, issued the same day last week, the United States Supreme Court agreed with two lower Federal Courts that reversed the convictions of a defendant who rejected a plea deal because of his lawyers erroneous advice.

In Lafler v. Cooper, Anthony Cooper shot the victim and was charged with Assault with Intent to Murder under Michigan Law. The prosecutor offered a plea deal that carried a sentence of 51-85 months in prison. Anthony Cooper on the advice of his attorney refused the plea deal and was subsequently convicted after trial and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 185-360 months, more than three times the plea offer. Cooper's lawyer had erroneously advised him to reject the plea deal because in the opinion of the lawyer the prosecutor could not prove intent to murder since all of the gun shots landed below the waist. This advice was wrong.

In the Cooper case, as in the Frye case, the Supreme Court recognized that the right to effective representation includes the right to effective representation during plea bargaining. According to a recent New York Times article 94% of cases in State Court and 97% of cases in Federal Court are resolved by plea bargains. In a system where the overwhelming majority of cases result in plea bargains, it seems that these two cases offer defendants critical constitutional protections that are at least as important as trial rights.

As these cases make clear, a criminal defense lawyer must not only communicate with his or her client, particularly about plea offers but must also offer competent advice about whether or not to accept those offers.

If you are charged with Driving While Intoxicated [VTL 1192(2), (3)] in New York, the criminal defense attorney you choose can be one of the most important decisions of your life. Are you going to retain a “read-em-and-plead-em” hack, the lawyer who handled the closing when you purchased your home, the lawyer who drafted your Will or are you going to retain a lawyer well versed in the law, science and procedures associated with DWI cases?

Are you going to choose an attorney that has experience not just in DWI cases; but also in winning Driving While Intoxicated trials? Make no mistake about it, district attorneys and prosecutors know full well which attorneys are capable of actually taking a DWI case to trial. An attorney’s trial ability often plays a role in the plea bargaining offer. If your attorney has no trial experience, plea bargains all of his or her cases, always backs down at the last minute and accepts whatever offer the prosecution has made and has shown him or herself to be incompetent in the few hearings or trials he or she has done, the prosecutor has no real concern that the case will ever go to trial. If the prosecutor knows that in the end, your attorney will “plea you out” the prosecutor has no incentive to offer anything other than their standard policy offer.

Of course, accepting a plea bargain offer in certain cases is advisable. However, a detailed “risk/benefit” analysis must first be done. If the prosecution wants you to plead guilty to misdemeanor DWI with three years of probation and you’re a first time offender and the case did not involve any accident or injuries; their might not be any risk associated with going to trial because it’s very unlikely you would be sentenced to anything more than probation if you lost at trial.

A lawyer should not advise a client to accept a plea bargain unless that attorney has thoroughly investigated the case. That includes listening to, and investigating, not only a defendant’s claim of innocence, but the facts, circumstances and issues concerning probable cause to stop the vehicle, the legality of the roadblock, the administration of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, the timeline of events, the officers involved, the administration of any breathalyzer testing, blood drawing, urine collecting and other issues that can arise in DWI cases.

In certain Driving While Intoxicated cases it might be advisable that the attorney visit the scene of the stop. The attorney might view the area where the defendant performed the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. The attorney might even travel the route the defendant traveled prior to being pulled over. If the defendant claims he or she only had one or two drinks, credit card statements from the restaurant or other establishment where the defendant was prior to being stopped by the police might be helpful. Interviews with employees of the establishment where the defendant drank might reveal a witness to defendant’s drinking. Are their any witnesses to defendant’s driving?

Only after a searching and diligent review and investigation of the above factors as well as the relevant statutes, regulations and case law can an attorney render an opinion on a plea bargain offer. Most importantly however, the attorney who conducts the case review must be extremely knowledgeable and experienced in DWI defense. An attorney can spend countless hours reviewing and investigating all aspects of a Driving While Intoxicated case with zealous enthusiasm, however, if that attorney simply doesn’t know the laws, rules, regulations, case law, science, toxicology, breath testing, chemical testing, police procedures, etc., that lawyer’s opinion on a plea bargain offer will be no better than flipping a coin.

In a recent decision, the New York State Appellate Division unanimously affirmed a lower court ruling which granted a defendant’s motion to vacate his guilty plea in a Driving While Intoxicated case. The Court concluded that “[d]efense counsel failed to conduct any investigation, make any motions, or even view the video of defendant’s breathalyzer test before negotiating a plea bargain whereby defendant would plead guilty to the top count of the accusatory instrument.” People v Rivera, 2012 NY Slip Op 43, 1 (1st Dept. Jan. 5, 2012).
In support of its decision, the Court observed that there were defenses that should have been investigated including matters affecting the accuracy of the breathalyzer result. Furthermore, the Court explained that, because the defendant had no prior record and no accident occurred, it was extremely unlikely that he would have received a jail sentence had he lost at trial. Therefore, the “defendant received little, if any benefit, by pleading guilty to the top count without ever having received even a minimally accurate assessment of the strength of the People's case.” Id.

The Rivera decision unfortunately does not indicate the sentence defendant received as part of the plea deal or what his Blood Alcohol Concentration was. In fairness to the attorney that represented defendant in Rivera, if his BAC was alleged to be, for example .16 or .17 and the plea offer didn’t require probation, than Rivera did receive some benefit. Specifically, he avoided probation, which can be difficult for some. For example, in Westchester, avoiding probation is a major consideration on DWI cases because DWI probation in Westchester County can be fairly onerous.

Nevertheless, the Rivera decision should put all defense attorneys on notice that it is unacceptable to advise a DWI client to plead guilty to the top charge without first conducting any real investigation into the strength of the prosecution’s case. The Rivera decision should also put everyone who is charged with DWI on notice that they should speak with several attorneys and get several opinions prior to retaining an attorney. And, the attorney they retain should be knowledgeable specifically with DWI cases.

Generally, if you are charged with Driving While Intoxicated and have no prior criminal history; there was no accident; no injuries; no property damage and there are no allegations that you were driving in an overly reckless or unreasonable manner, be very careful if your attorney recommends you plead guilty to the top charge with probation – be even more careful if your attorney makes such a recommendation very early in the case.

Continue reading "GUILTY PLEA IN NEW YORK DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATE CASE VACATED BECAUSE DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY DID NOT PROVIDE MEANINGFUL REPRESENTATION" »

New York's "move over" law was expanded starting at the beginning of this year (January 1, 2012) making it applicable to not only emergency vehicles that are stopped on the side of the road but now to "hazard vehicles". The law, which originally went into effect last January originally only covered "emergency vehicles" those vehicles which are displaying either a red light or a combination of red and white lights such as a police, fire or emergency medical vehicle. Now, as of this year, the law also applies to "hazard vehicles" those vehicles which display one or more amber lights such as tow trucks, road service vehicles and highway crews.

New York Vehicle and Traffic Law Sec 1144-a requires that drivers on a limited-access highway or parkway to exercise "due care" when approaching an emergency or hazard vehicle and defines due care as requiring at a minimum that the driver move from the lane adjacent to the shoulder where the emergency or hazard vehicle is stopped. In other words if the emergency vehicle is stopped on the right shoulder and you are driving in the right lane, you must move over to the center lane as you pass the emergency or hazard vehicle. Since moving over is not always possible on busy New York highways, the law does set the condition that you should move over only if it complies with other New York Vehicle & Traffic Laws such as moving from lane unsafely under V&TL 1128 and disobeying a traffic control device under V&TL 1110. In other words, if it is not safe to do so you or it is otherwise illegal to move over you should not. Rather, in that case you should slow down.

Violating the new "move over" law is a traffic infraction under New York Law punishable by a fine of $150, 2 points on you license and up to 15 days in jail although it should be emphasized that jail in not a likely possibility and that the points have been improperly reported in the media. The points count toward suspension of your driver's license and/or the driver responsibility assessment.

Motorists should be warned that when section 1144-a originally went into effect last year the police were very aggressively enforcing the new law. We fully anticipate that the police will be aggressively enforcing all of the new provisions of section 1144-a. In addition motorists need to exercise extreme caution when they attempt to move over. The purpose of the law is safety and changing lanes create another risk. Vehicle and Traffic Law section 1144-a makes clear that you must observe all other Vehicle and Traffic Laws including but not limited to using your turn signal, changing lanes safely, complying with lane markings, signs and speed restrictions.

Continue reading "NEW YORK'S "MOVE OVER" LAW JUST EXPANDED" »

The Wall Street Journal Reported last week, that criminal charges were being prepared against British Petroleum and/or individuals who worked for British Petroleum and who were supposedly responsible for the oil spill that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico last year after the Deep Water Horizon drilling platform caught fire. This news highlights another troubling trend in the national trend toward over criminalization; "there are no accidents."

Traditionally, criminal liability required two elements; a criminal act and a criminal mind referred to in Latin as "MENS REA". The criminal mind required for criminal liability traditionally and under New York law was either that you acted intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with criminal negligence. Specifically absent from the list was acting negligently or carelessly. Under New York law one who merely acts negligently or carelessly could be held liable for financial damages but could not be found guilty of a crime. As we over criminalize our society the traditional rule is giving way to attempts to hold someone criminally liable for every tragedy.

Recently in New York, three individuals were indicted by a grand jury, tried and acquitted of Manslaughter and related charges after a tragic fire in the Deutsche Bank building in lower Manhattan tragically killed two firefighters. The sadness and the outcry were great as the City attempted to place blame for the tragedy. Ultimately, a site safety officer, a contractor and an an abatement foreman, all of whom worked at the site were indicted for Manslaughter under the theory that they recklessly caused the death of the two firefighters. All were ultimately found not guilty in separate verdicts.

Whatever the tragedy, our society has moved to the point where it is not enough to merely hold someone civilly responsible and force them to pay for the damage they caused. Rather someone must be indicted, tried and if convicted sent to prison. It does not really matter whether the tragedy is a crane collapse, elevator accident, collapse of a company, oil spill or fire. The issue of who is to be held criminally responsible seems to take a back seat to the outrage and the need to find anyone who can be sent to prison. In the Deutsche Bank case, the jurors who were interviewed after specifically rejected such scapegoating.

As we have discussed in our prior blog, the element of having a criminal mind has been substantially relaxed or eliminated in many newer statutes, particularly in statutes that punish "Environmental Crimes." As a result, convictions are easier to obtain in many of these cases brought as a result of tragic accidents.

Continue reading "OVER CRIMINALIZATION - Part III - There Are No Accidents" »

As of 2008, 2 million youths are arrested each year. While the original intent of the juvenile justice systems created throughout the country was to prevent stigmatization and collateral consequences that could naturally flow from an arrest. As experienced criminal defense lawyers know the system is less than perfect in that regard. Examples abound of the collateral consequences that can and sometimes do flow to juveniles who are arrested.

For example, children can be suspended or expelled from school under the federal "Gun Free Schools Act (GFSA) for certain weapons offenses committed on school grounds. The GFSA requires that schools that receive federal funds expel a student for one year for certain weapons offenses. A student can be expelled even if found not guilty of the weapons offense. Many states have expanded this to require expulsion for weapons offenses committed off school grounds (New Jersey) or in the case of Missouri any student charged with a felony can be suspended or expelled even if they were found not guilty of the offense.

A common belief is that individuals arrested as youths have their records destroyed when they reach the age of 18. This is not necessarily the case. In New York, for example, there is absolutely no provision for expungement of criminal records and the statutes that require that records be sealed, never completely seal the records leaving the records accessible for a host of reasons. This can lead to more limited employment options for youths who have been arrested, even if those records were eventually sealed.

In addition, the misapplication of sex offender registration databases can have long lasting effects on youths who are charged as juveniles with sex offenses. In Michigan, for example, 8% of the sex offender registration list is made up of juveniles including children as young as 9 years old. In a well publicized and outrageous case in New Jersey a 14 year old girl was arrested and faced child pornography charges after she posted naked pictures of herself on myspace. The charged carries a possible sentence of up to 17 years and mandatory registration as a sex offender.

Sex offender registration laws, which arguably could have the most severe collateral consequences for youths, are a prime example of just how far off mission the juvenile justice system has drifted. Clearly, the aforementioned 14 year old needs help. But she is clearly not the intended target of either child pornography laws or sex offender registration laws which were originally passed to register sexual predators.

The issue of the over criminalization of our society and the resulting collateral consequences that flow to a large percentage of the population has a tremendous cost to our youth and to our economy at large as a large percentage of people are either unemployable or underemployed as a result of the consequences of an arrest. The issue and costs are clearly too significant to ignore.

Continue reading "OVER CRIMINALIZATION - Part II - COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES OF ARRESTS" »

The issue of the over criminalization of our society has been the focus of an increasing amount of media coverage and even led to recent hearings in congress. As discussed in the past in this blog (September 27, 2011 blog), the number of federal criminal statutes has increased to over 4500 and the watering down of some basic protections has led to convictions of people without criminal intent. Now, a recent study reveals that the number of youths being arrested has steadily increased to a staggering 30% of all youths by the time they turn 23 years old. This number while staggering is not surprising in light of the trend toward over criminalization and the increased reliance on police to address problems.

The number itself bears repeating. Thirty percent of youths are arrested by age 23, nearly one third of all youths. This number reflects all youths, not any particular group and is therefore likely higher among boys than girls and among minorities than non-minorities. The explanation however, is a lot more elusive. Certainly, crime nationally is on a protracted decline but it seems the propensity to arrest, for even minor offenses is clearly on the upswing. There is clearly less of a willingness on the part of the police to allow a school or the parents to handle a minor infraction.

As a criminal defense lawyer, involved with the criminal justice system for more than 20 years, I have noticed, a dramatic increase in the willingness of the police to intervene in what used to be matters often left to the school or the parents. Recent examples that I have noticed include a young high school student who "keyed" another student's car in the high school parking lot is arrested and charged with the felony of Criminal Mischief for damaging property in excess of $250. Another example involves youths who attend parties where underage drinking occurs are arrested rather than being brought to their parents. Often times the parents who hosted the party are arrested themselves, even if they didn't know about the drinking.

The potential for these arrests as youths to have long lasting effects even into adulthood is a legitimate fear as youths with arrests and convictions can lose valuable civil rights, the ability to obtain professional licenses and the ability to get jobs. The study which led to the report concluded that risk factors such as "being poor, struggling in school and having a difficult home" life were all factors that increased the likelihood of a youth being arrested.

As we discuss in a future blog, the consequences of an arrest, even if it doesn't result in a conviction can be devastating to a young person and his or her future plans. The societal issues that have created this problem need to be dealt with. However, more immediately, if you or a loved one has been arrested for an offense you should immediately obtain experienced legal representation who is in a position to explain the process and the potential consequences whether or not a conviction results.

Continue reading "OVER CRIMINALIZATION - Part I, LEADS TO STAGGERING NUMBER OF YOUTH ARRESTS" »

As discussed in our previous blog the Greenburgh Drug Court was so out of control that Court officials eventually had to transfer all of the cases out of the Court to protect the rights of those participating in its Drug Court. As it turns out, Drug Courts in general have become controversial and several studies that have been released this year raise several areas of concern for the people convicted of drug offenses who participate in these programs. Many of the concerns raised are related to the issues that derailed the Greenburgh Drug Court.

Generally, Drug Courts are a type of problem solving Court a new breed of specialized Court that attempts to solve a community problem such as drug abuse, domestic violence or guns. In the case of Drug Courts, participants, individuals arrested for drug related or drug motivated, non-violent crimes are asked to plead guilty in return for entering the Drug Court system where a "carrot and stick" approach will be used to get the participant to deal with their addiction. Participants who are successful are rewarded with such things as applause, certificates, praise and ultimately dismissal of their charges. Participants who are not successful are punished by being required to write essays, do community service, attend extra court sessions and in some cases lengthy jail sentences.

In a series of reports issued this year and discussed in a National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers magazine article, the efficacy of the drug court model, as well as its expense and denigration of basic constitutional principles are called into question. In the Drug Court model used most often, drug court participants are often forced to plead guilty to crimes more severe than they might without Drug Court in the hopes that they will be able to get the charges dismissed after completing the Drug court program. In this model, as a cost of entering Drug Court, broad waivers are required, contracts and releases are signed and guilty pleas are entered giving the Court the "stick" to punish those who fail.

In the Greenburgh case, by way of example, the Court wanted to sentence the participant to 1 year in jail for a shoplifting case, a sentence so disparate compared to what she would have gotten without Drug Court that it is shocking. One of the criticisms of the Drug Court model is that it leaves many people who accept drug treatment through the Drug Court worse off than if they had simply handled their case through the normal Courts.

In addition, the reports cite violations of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, a right that was also violated in Greenburgh and a concern that the Drug Courts maybe a place to hide cases involving questionable 4th Amendment search and seizure police actions.

In sum, these reports raise legitimate concerns for Court Administrators who are looking to get the most out of dwindling resources. However, they also raise legitimate concerns for anyone accused of a drug related or drug motivated, non-violent crime. The reports concede the numerous people that have been helped by Drug Courts. But anyone considering entering a Drug Court program needs experienced criminal defense counsel who can help them to get to have all of the information and go into the program with their eyes wide open about the expectations of the program and the consequences of failure.

The Office of Court Administration, transferred all of the cases out of the Greenburgh Drug Court this week in an apparent response to complaints made by Tilem & Campbell partner, Peter H. Tilem. The problems began when a client of Tilem & Campbell, unhappy with her representation in the Town of Greenburgh Drug Court hired the firm to represent her. When Mr. Tilem, a 20 year veteran of the legal profession, and a member of the bar of New York and Connecticut as well as the United States Supreme Court and numerous federal courts initially appeared in Court he was told that he was not permitted to practice before the Greenburgh Drug court. From that moment the situation got worse.

Mr. Tilem observed that this Court was violating numerous constitutional rights of his client and potentially others and reported the conduct to the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge of New York State. After only a couple of hours after the report was made Judge Friedman one of the two judges in the Greenburgh Drug court agreed to comply with the suggestions of the supervising judge. However, when Mr, Tilem appeared next time before Judge Forster, Judge Forster steadfastly refused to comply with basic due process requirements as suggested by the supervising judge. Judge Forster continued to attempt to keep Mr. Tilem from representing his client and permitted the drug court “team” a group of non-judges to vote on matters that can only be decided by a judge such as the issues of bail or sentencing.

Judge Forster told Mr. Tilem and a reporter for the New York Law Journal who wrote a front page article about the matter that because the Court was funded through a federal grant and not through the Court system that they could have their own rules and that the supervising judges were not their supervisors. Judge Forster obviously learned differently when Judge Alan D. Scheinkman, the Administrative Judge for the Ninth Judicial District transferred all of the cases out of the Greenburgh Drug Court to the White Plains Drug Court and leaving Judges Forster and Friedman with no Drug Court cases.

Prior to the actions of Judge Scheinkman, Tilem & Campbell filed an Article 78 seeking to restrain Judge Forster and members of the Drug Court “Team” from continuing a list of illegal activities and from sentencing the firm’s client. On November 25, 2011, an acting Justice of the Westchester Supreme Court signed an order barring Judge Forster from sentencing the Tilem & Campbell client and from continuing other illegal practices that were going on in the Court.

Judge Forster had threatened to give the client one year in the Westchester County Jail for a shoplifting case, a Petit Larceny of less than $250 from a TJ MAXX in the Town of Greenburgh. It was only after Mr. Tilem pointed out that the Court could not conduct the sentencing because Mr. Tilem had not had the required 24 hours to review the pre-sentence report from the Department of Probation, that the sentencing was adjourned giving Tilem & Campbell enough time to file the Article 78 and get the restraining order.

Yesterday, a Judge in the Westchester County Court reversed Judge Forster on the issue of bail. Judge Forster had previously remanded the client, meaning that she was held without bail. Yesterday, after an extensive bail hearing County Court Judge John P. Colangelo agreed that the client should be released on bail.

“Other Judges ruled against Judge Forster every step of the way,” according to Mr. Tilem. “The Supreme Court obviously decided that there was enough evidence of impropriety to issue a stay, an extraordinary remedy. In addition, she was reversed on bail and had her calendar taken away, “according to Mr. Tilem."

Continue reading "GREENBURGH DRUG COURT VIOLATES CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS Part-1" »

As criminal defense lawyers most of the time we represent the rights of the accused but sometimes we are called upon to represents the right of a victim. In the typical case, the victim report a crime to the police, the police investigate, make an arrest and the case is referred to the District Attorney's Office. The victim needs no lawyer because the prosecutor will prosecute the case and often assist the victim in getting compensation from the perpetrator or the Crime Victim's Assistance Fund.

However, all too often, especially in New York City, criminal cases are not handled in the typical way leaving victim's to fend for themselves. In a recent case handled by this office and as reported in the New York Post yesterday, an individual who was ripped off by a car dealership and whose signature was forged on loan documents for a car was repeatedly denied the right to make a police report by the New York City Police Department. With no police report, no investigation and no arrest its as if the crime did not occur and the victim must deal with the consequences, in this case a monthly car loan bill that he didn't bargain for, by himself.

By getting an experience criminal defense lawyer involved we were able to file complaints, with the Bank that issued the loan, the New York State Attorney General's Office, credit reporting agencies such as TRW, Experian and Equifax and the United States Federal Trade Commission. In addition, we are working on getting the loan rescinded. As a result of our work the Bank has already terminated its relationship with the car dealership which has more than 40 complaints against it to the New York Department of Consumer Affairs.

The practice of not taking police reports is unfortunate but also wide spread as has been reported on several occasions by the New York Post and other Newspapers. It appears to be a result of a combination of laziness, sometimes ignorance and is also a symptom of how the Police Department tracks crime statistics. Simply put, if there is no police report the crime didn't happen so crime must be going down. But the practice endangers the public and causes inconvenience and expense for the victims.

Here is a dealership that has over 40 complaints against it and rather than investigating what is happening, the police allow this dealership to continue to rip people off. Sometimes, the consequences of not taking a report or investigating a crime can be even more severe. Its at those times that an experienced New York Criminal defense lawyer can help.

Continue reading "NEW YORK POST ARTICLE - SOMETIMES VICTIMS NEED LAWYERS ALSO" »

An article in today's Wall Street Journal entitled "As Federal Crime List Grows, Threshold of Guilt Declines" focuses public attention on two trends that has long been followed by Federal Criminal Defense lawyers and has raised concerns among civil rights advocates and attorneys. The first trend, involving the rapid and uncontrolled growth of federal crimes (as distinguished from state crimes like murder, rape, assault, etc) has seen the number of federal crimes rise from just 20 to about 4500. The other trend is the erosion of the proof necessary to prove many federal crimes and send someone to prison.

The uncontrolled growth of federal criminal statutes has resulted in many individuals who are clearly not criminals getting caught up in the criminal justice systems for acts that they were clearly not aware constituted crimes. In legal thought there are generally considered two types of crimes. Crimes that are called in Latin malum in se, meaning wrong in itself are crimes that are generally obvious or inherently wrong or evil such as murder, stealing, assault or rape. The other type of crimes are called malum prohibitum in Latin, meaning wrong as prohibited are those crimes which are wrong only because they are prohibited by a statute such as gun possession, drug possession, copy write infringement, tax evasion or illegal immigration.

Since most crimes that are malum in se crimes, the obvious ones, have already been illegal, the new crimes are the malum prohibitum crimes, the crimes that are not so obvious. To make matters worse, according to the Wall Street Journal article, federal criminal offenses are not limited to one section of federal law but are scattered among 42 of the 51 titles of the United States Code. That means there is no one place where you can look to see if your acts are illegal. So the combination of having non obvious criminal offenses scattered all around the law results in frequent accidental transgressions of sometimes serious laws.

The laws can be quite surprising and most people would not be on notice that they were violating a criminal law. The Wall Street Journal article sites several examples such as a native Alaskan selling an Otter for $50 to a non-native Alaskan without first turning the Otter into some type of handicraft. This violated the Marine Mammal Protection Act and landed the offender on Probation for two years and gave him a permanent criminal record. As everyone knows ignorance of the law is no excuse and ignorance of the law did not help this poor individual from serving probation.

In another outrageous example a fisherman who freed a humpback whale that had been caught in his net was convicted of harassing an endangered species because the law requires him to allow the whale to remain tangled while he notifies authorities and they decide to send the government "expert" to free the whale. The fisherman now goes through life with a misdemeanor criminal record.

The examples of law abiding citizens being convicted of obscure federal statutes goes on and on and has been widely publicized among criminal defense lawyers. In our next blog we will talk about how important and ancient legal protections are being eroded in new federal crimes and how law abiding citizens are being caught up by theses laws.

Aggravated Harassment in the Second Degree defined under New York Penal Law 240.30, makes it a class "A" misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail to basically cause a communication to occur with another person by mail or telephone or other electronic means in a manner likely to cause to alarm or annoyance if that communication is made with the intent to annoy, harass, alarm or threaten a person. When the New York State Legislature talks about communication what they are really talking about is speech. New York State is attempting to regulate what you say and that is problematic in light of our Constitution's First Amendment protection of speech; even unpopular or disagreeable speech.

In a decision issued earlier this week and has huge implications for New York criminal defense lawyers, Judge Valerie Alexander ruled that Penal Law sections 240.30 (1) and (2) were unconstitutional in that they were vague and over broad. She ruled that this Aggravated Harassment statute is analogous to one found unconstitutional by New York's highest Court in 1989 and that Federal decisions have agreed that the statute is unconstitutional.

Penal Law section 240.30 clearly attempts to punish particular speech. The issue of what speech may be regulated by law in light of the Constitutional protections associated with speech has been the subject of numerous United States Supreme Court decisions. While not an absolute right (for example in might be permissible top punish someone for yelling fire in a crowded theater), freedom of speech is a fundamental right worthy of substantial protection. The New York State legislature made no attempt to distinguish in the statute between protected speech and unprotected speech or define a line that may not be crossed. Rather New York attempted to punish all speech that was annoying or alarming. Clearly, that is unconstitutional. The judge indicated that a criminal prohibition against communicating in an alarming or annoying way is by its nature facially unconstitutional.

The facts of the case that was dismissed by Judge Alexander involved allegedly harassing messages left on the voice mail of an Assistant District Attorney in Nassau County. The allegations were that Nicolas Pierre-Louis left a series of messages in a loud voice in which he made statements such as "I'm coming at you with fury"; "piece of shit faggot fucking cock sucking cock"; and "I will rain hell on your office and make sure heads roll". The calls included other loud, profane and threatening statements that the Judge agreed were not among the type of statements found illegal in prior cases.

The bottom line is that the Aggravated Harassment statute that was thrown out here constitutes a very popular and over used charge by prosecutors. This sensible ruling has the potential to impact thousands of cases that are pending and an uncountable number of future cases. Anyone who has an Aggravated Harassment charge currently pending or gets arrested for this charge should immediately notify their attorney about this case or contact this office to discuss your constitutionally protected rights.

If you or a loved one has been arrested for Aggravated Harassment in the Second Degree, contact one of the experienced criminal defense lawyers at this office to discuss the facts of the case and your options. Do not plead guilty merely because it is the easiest path to take. The fact is that you may not be guilty of any offense.

New York Traffic Ticket lawyers are monitoring New York's recently enacted Texting While Driving Law which was made tougher this week after a new law signed by governor Cuomo went into effect. The new law makes Texting While Driving a primary enforcement statute. This means that a police officer may stop a vehicle because the driver is observed violating this statute. In the past, a police officer could only stop a vehicle for a reason other than texting while driving and then issue the summons for Texting While Driving if there was probable cause to believe that the operator also committed an offense under New York Vehicle & Traffic Law (VTL) 1225-d. .

While New York VTL 1225-d is usually referred to as New York's Texting While Driving Statute it punishes a broad range of conduct that does not involve texting or even using your cell phone. For example the statute is entitled "Use of Portable Electronic Devices" and defines portable electronic devices as any: hand-held mobile telephone (cell phones), PDA (personal digital assistant), handheld device with mobile data access (such as a IPAD, IPOD, or Tablet or GPS), laptop computer, broadband personal communication device, pager, two-way messaging device, electronic game, or portable computing device. This list seems like it would encompass pretty much any electronic device you can conceive of including devices that are commonly used in cars such as I-Pods and navigation devices.

In addition, if you simply are holding the device while viewing it that is considered viewing and there is a presumption built into the statute if you hold the device while driving in a "conspicuous manner" you are presumed to be "using" the device. This all means that simply holding any electronic device in your hand while driving can cause you to receive a three point ticket punishable by a fine of up to $150 plus a surcharge of a minimum of $80 for a total of $230. Plus there of course exists the possibility of insurance surcharges or increases and if you accumulate 6 points, additional fees under the Driver Responsibility Assessment.

The only two exemptions in the statute are for communicating with emergency service personnel in an emergency and of course for police, fire and ambulance personnel in the performance of their duties.

The bottom line of this new law is that the statute is broad and written to punish a wide range of conduct of which the public has not been informed. I predict that law enforcement will issue large numbers of tickets under this section and the state as a result will make a large amount of money. While I see signs all over New York warning us not to Text While Driving, I have heard or seen nothing about the broad range of conduct encompassed in this law.

If you, a friend or family member receives a ticket under VTL 1225-d please contact this office for a free telephone consultation.

The reported collapse of the Dominique Strauss Kahn rape case highlights an important principle in criminal procedure that few prosecutors take seriously but that has experienced criminal defense lawyers tearing their hair out. Prosecutors MUST turn over evidence that the defendant is not the perpetrator of the crime to the defense. This disclosure must be done early and is a continuing obligation on the part of the prosecutor's office. The material that must be turned over is commonly referred to as Brady Material and is generally counter-intuitive in our adversarial system of justice.

Prosecutors often do not take this obligation seriously even though cases have been dismissed based upon the failure to turn over such material and prosecutors may be personally sanctioned for their failure to turn over Brady Material. For example, in Matter of Stuart, 22 A.D.3d 131 (2nd Dept. 2003) a prosecutor was suspended for deceiving the Court about the existence of Brady material and the attorney Disciplinary Rules quite specifically require prosecutors to make such disclosures. See DR 7-103.

The term Brady Material is quite broad and requires disclosure of a wide array of information. This information can include:
a. evidence which bears upon the guilt or innocence of the defendant but also the severity of any sentence that may be imposed;
b. records of previous arrest of the victim or witness or any history of immoral, vicious or unethical conduct by a witness;
c. any false statements made by a witness to law enforcement or to the grand jury;
d. any evidence, testimony, transcript, statement or information indicating that any prospective prosecution witness on any occasion gave false, misleading or contradictory information regarding the charge;
e. any mis-identification of the defendant of any information demonstrating an ability of a witness to identify the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime;
f. any history of mental disease or defect, emotional disturbance, or substance abuse of any potential witness; and
g. any malfunction of any testing equipment or any differing results in any scientific testing.

While this list is not exhaustive it gives a general idea of the types of exculpatory information which is required to be turned over to the defense. This requirement in New York not only is codified in the New York Criminal Procedure Law but also has its derivation from the United States Constitution. It is a basic principle of our system of justice that Brady material be turned over promptly by the District Attorney's Offices. While the Manhattan District Attorney's Office should be applauded for the prompt disclosure in the Dominique Strauss Kahn case more prosecutors have to receive training in complying with this basic principle and criminal defense attorneys need to hold prosecutors' feet to the fire in this regard.

If you or a loved one is involved in a criminal case where the prosecutor has withheld exculpatory material you should immediately bring this information to your attorney's attention. If you have any questions about this important right please contact this office.

Tilem & Campbell senior partner Peter H. Tilem was on Channel 2 News tonight talking about the "Bus Matron" case. The case, which had gotten media attention in the past, has been getting additional attention due to the unusual age and procedural history of the case. This misdemeanor case which is more than 5 years old has been twice dismissed by the trial Court and twice restored by the Appellate Court who reversed the dismissals.

Back in 2006 the case was dismissed after the trial Court suppressed audio tapes that were the result of what the Court considered to be illegal eavesdropping. Then in 2009 a second judge in the Criminal Court in Brooklyn dismissed the case based upon what the trial judge found to be a violation of New York's speedy trial statute.

The Endangering the Welfare of a Child case discussed in today's New York Post article, demonstrates how experienced criminal defense lawyers need to handle complex criminal cases. The case brought against a school bus matron back in 2006 alleges that the bus matron failed to step in and protect a then 8 year old autistic child that was banging his head against the school bus window and that the bus matron taunted the child. The law firm of Tilem & Campbell, representing the bus matron was able to get the case dismissed soon after the charges were filed in 2006 because the lawyers were able to show to a criminal court judge that the evidence in the case was obtained by illegal eavesdropping. The Appellate Term of the New York Supreme Court eventually overturned the criminal court judge and had the charges were reinstated.

After the case was sent back to the criminal court, Tilem & Campbell, undeterred, again began to vigorously fight the charges. This time in 2009 a new motion was made to dismiss based upon violation of the bus matron's statutory speedy trial rights. After litigation on that issue a different criminal court judge than had dismissed it the first time, dismissed the case a second time. The Kings County District Attorney's Office made a motion to reargue the dismissal in the criminal court and after that motion was denied the District Attorney filed its second appeal in the case. Last week, the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court again reversed the dismissal and reinstated the charges.

The case, now more than five years old, will continue to wind its way through the Kings County Criminal Court and no doubt additional motions will be made. The case may even be dismissed a third time. In addition, the lawyers at Tilem & Campbell are planning an appeal to New York's highest court, the New York Court of Appeals in an attempt to get dismissal reinstated by a higher court.

The case demonstrates that a good defense lawyer must be diligent, thorough and tireless in their defense of criminal cases. In order to be successful, a good criminal defense attorney must look at all of the facts, all of the legal issues and fight the case on multiple fronts. If the attorney cannot win on one issue perhaps he/she can win on another issue. It takes time to fight cases this way. In the case of this bus matron the case has gone on for over 5 years and is not over yet. Its frustrating. Senior Partner Peter Tilem was quoted in several papers today as saying that "We can't believe it." Due to the shear frustration of fighting a case for so long as it slowly winds through the criminal justice system.

Attorneys need to remember that the client's are entitled to the type of defense where every issue or defense is examined. Clients need to understand that this type of defense takes time and can be expensive.

There is no way of knowing how this case will ultimately be resolved but at the end of the day its important to feel like you fought the good fight.

The Westchester law firm, Tilem & Campbell has announced a summer special for Westchester Traffic Ticket Defense and Rockland Traffic Ticket Defense. This sale is thought to be the lowest cost traffic summons defense in the entire region. Anyone who contacts Tilem & Campbell before August 31, 2011 who mentions coupon code “SUMMER SPECIAL” will automatically receive a rate of $195 to fight any traffic ticket in Westchester County or Rockland County*. This special rate includes all speeding tickets, red light tickets, unsafe lane change, cell phones, tailgating turn signal violations and any other traffic infraction.

This is a sale price that is certain to revolutionize the industry and is believed to be the lowest price traffic ticket defense in the area. Why take off work to try to fight your ticket yourself when you can have a professional represent for you?

This offer applies to all of the following courts: Ardsley Village Court, Bedford Town, Court, Bronxville Village Court, Buchanan Village Court, Town of Cortlandt Justice Court, Croton-on-Hudson Justice Court, Dobbs Ferry Village Court, Eastchester Town Court, Elmsford Village Court, Greenburgh Town Court, Harrison Town Court, Harrison Village Court, Hastings-on-Hudson Village Court, Irvington Village Court, Larchmont Village Court, Lewisboro Town Court, Mamaroneck Village Court, Mamaroneck Town Court, Mt. Kisco Village Court, Mount Pleasant Town Court, Mount Vernon City Court, New Castle Justice Court, New Rochelle City Court, North Castle Justice Court, North Salem Town Court, Ossining Town Court, Ossining Village Court, Peekskill City Court, Pelham Town Court, Pelham Village Court, Pleasantville Justice Court, Pleasantville Village Court, Port Chester Village Court, Pound Ridge Town Court, Rye City Court, Rye Town Court, Scarsdale Village Court, Sleepy Hollow Village Court, Somers Town Court, Somers Justice Court, Tarrytown Village Court, Tuckahoe Village Court, White Plains City Court, Yonkers City Court, Yorktown Town Court, Orangetown Justice Court, Clarkstown Justice Court, Ramapo Town Court and Sloatsburg Justice Court.

If you do not see your Court or violation on the list contact our office, for an immediate price quote. Lower prices are in effect all summer for all courts and all violations, including Reckless Driving and Aggravated Unlicensed Operation tickets.

Contact Tilem & Campbell today to take advantage of this tremendous offer. Or visit us on the web at www.drsummons.com.

*Price of $195 applies only to the first ticket for each incident. $25 extra will be charged for each traffic ticket issued at the same time as the first ticket. Offer applies throughout Westchester and Rockland Courts only. Must mention coupon code “SUMMER SPECIAL” at the time of the first contact with the firm by either E-Mail or phone to take advantage of this offer. Offer expires at midnight August 31, 2011 and only valid if the fee is received by the law firm on or before that date.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, or DSK as he is often known in the international press, head of the International Monetary Fund was arrested earlier this week for a sexual assault on a hotel maid in Manhattan. DSK is currently remanded, pending the outcome of a new york grand jury investigation and is being housed at the Riker's Island jail complex here in New York.

Rape and other Sexual Assault charges are very serious and difficult to defend. They require a skilled criminal defense attorney to know the science, law, psychology and factual intricacies of the case, but they are beatable cases.

While little has come out about the evidence at this early stage of the case one can surmise that the prosecution has more evidence than the mere statements of the victim. The New York City police Department and the New York County District Attorney's Office acted remarkably swiftly to arrest such a powerful and high profile figure.

At this point DSK is presumed innocent, under our system of justice and we will have to wait and see what evidence exists. In the meantime DSK sits in jail awaiting the outcome of the grand jury investigation.

The lawyers at the New York criminal defense firm Tilem & Campbell are taking notice of a law signed by Governor Jan Brewer on April 29, 2011 eliminates the right to a jury trial for first offenders charged with DWI's and is viewed as a first step toward eliminating the fundamental right to a jury trial in all misdemeanors in the state. The move is expected to save the Court system money but so would the elimination of many of our fundamental rights.

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution found in our Bill of Rights says "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State. . ." What appears to be a very clear constitutional right is not followed in all states.

In New York City for example a person can be tried without a jury, by a judge sitting alone, and sentenced to up to 6 months in jail if the crime they are accused of is a misdemeanor punishable by no more than 6 months in jail. Many prosecutors in New York will reduce a charge in order to take away ones right to a jury trial.

In New York, you are entitled to a jury trial on any DWI since you can be sentenced to up to one year in the jail upon conviction. However, since few people are sentenced to jail on DWI, especially a first arrest the New York State legislature can easily reduce the maximum sentence to six months so that a person accused of DWI in New York City loses his right to a jury trial. There is no right anywhere in New York State to a jury trial for those convicted of DWAI since DWAI is a traffic infraction, not a crime and punishable by only 90 days in jail.

The right to a jury trial is a valuable right and should not be taken for granted. We should all be vigilant that this apparent assault on our fundamental rights doesn't spread further. Already there is a movement in Arizona to repeal this new law.

If you have any questions about DWI's or your right to a jury trial please contact our office.

Bronx ADA Jennifer Troiano who was arrested in August for DWI apparently had two prior driving incidents, one of them involving DWI according to an article published in the Daily News this week. The first incident in 2005 led to the suspension of NYPD Detective Jose Arroyo who was allegedly asleep in the passenger seat when Troiano was involved in some kind of accident and left a bumper and license plate at the scene. In 2009, Troiano was allegedly arrested for DWI but the arrested was voided because she was a prosecutor according to the Daily News Article.

Jose Arroyo was later convicted of Rape and is currently serving a 15 year prison sentence according to the Daily News Article.

The arrest of Troiano and the uncovering of the voided arrest from 2009 has uncovered a large ticket fixing scandal involving Bronx Police Officers. More than 40 police officers are expected to be indicted by a Bronx County Grand Jury according to the Daily News. This could affect hundreds of cases in which indicted police officers made arrests.

Tilem & Campbell senior partner Peter H. Tilem was quoted in today's New York Times in the article about the Federal Investigation into the tragic bus crash that killed 15 people over the weekend. There has been much speculation about whether or not the driver will be charged with a crime in connection to the deadly accident and the Times sought advice from two former prosecutors who have been involved in these types of cases.

The issue will boil down to whether the bus driver's conduct leading up to the fatal crash rose to the level of criminal negligence or recklessness according to Mr. Tilem who reportedly told the Times that just falling asleep at the wheel without more usually wouldn't rise to the level of either criminal negligence or recklessness. Mr. Tilem also told the times that it is usually a combination of factors such as weaving, speeding and driving after a long period without rest that could combine to make it possible for prosecutors to charge the driver.

To rise to the level of Recklessness, a person must be aware of and consciously disregard an unjustifiable and substantial risk. To rise to the level of Criminal Negligence a person must fail to perceive an unjustifiable and substantial risk. In both cases the risk must be so grave that the failure to perceive it or the conscious disregard of the risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would observe in a given circumstance.

The difference between the two, while subtle, can result in a huge difference in criminal charges. For example recklessly causing death can result in a conviction for Manslaughter in the Second Degree which is punishable by up to 15 years in prison and causing death by criminal negligence can result in a conviction for Criminally Negligent Homicide which is punishable by up to 4 years in prison.

Peter H. Tilem is currently a partner in the law firm of Tilem & Campbell and is a former homicide prosecutor in the New York County District Attorney's Office. You may contact him through the firm's website.

A federal judge ruled that Nassau County violated a gun owners due process rights when the Nassau county police seized his handgun, rifles and shotguns after a complaint from Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney's office that the man had harassed them. The next day police showed up at his home and seized 15 registered handguns and nine "long-guns" even though he was never charged with any offense. Nassau County does not require a license for rifles and shotguns and therefore was entitled to a hearing after the seizure. This marks the second recent victory for Nassau County gun owners as reported in a previous blog.

Judge Spatt, a federal judge in the Eastern District of New York pointed out the absurdity of the seizure when he indicated that since no license was required, the gun owner could purchase replacement guns without a license. The judge gave an important right to New York citizens by requiring a prompt post-deprivation hearing upon the seizure of rifles and shotguns.

Additionally, since the Nassau County Police apparently failed to obtain a search warrant before seizing the guns, Judge Spratt gave the gun owner leave to amend his complaint against Nassau County to include violations of his fourth amendment rights. The 4th amendment to the constitution guarantees the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizure.

Anyone whose guns have been seized by the authorities without a warrant or who has been denied a prompt hearing following such a seizure should immediately contact this office for more information or visit us on the web at handgunattorney.com.

The New York State Appellate Court sitting in Brooklyn ordered a new trial for Anthony DiPippo who was convicted of rape and murder back in 1997. It was since discovered that Mr. DiPippo's attorney in 1997 had a conflict of interest which denied Mr. DiPippo effective assistance of counsel. Attorneys for Mr. DiPippo brought a motion to vacate his conviction before County Court Judge Robert Neary who denied the motion but the Appellate Division, Second Department overturned Judge Neary's decision after learning about the conflict. This marks the second time Judge Neary has been reversed by the Appellate Division in decisions published in the New York Law Journal in the last six months. Please see our previous blog for details on the prior reversal.

Mr. DiPippo was represented at trial by an attorney named Robert Leader who had previously represented Howard Gombert in an unrelated rape. During Mr. DePippo's trial it became clear that Mr. Gombert was also a suspect in this murder and rape but Mr. Leader failed to disclose his obvious conflict of interest. Despite his assertions that he attempted to introduce photographs of Mr. Gombert's car at the trial of Mr. DiPippo, the Appellate Division noted that the trial transcript didn't contain any reference to the admission of the photos.

The right to counsel, that is the right to an attorney which guaranteed in the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution not only requires that a defendant in a criminal trial have an attorney but it further requires that the defendant has an EFFECTIVE attorney. If you or a loved one believes that you have been denied effective legal representation, please contact our office.

Westchester, New York law firm Tilem & Campbell won another DWI trial last week for a man accused of drunk driving back in January 2007. The not guilty verdict came following a two day trial in which police testified that the driver was found asleep in his vehicle, with the engine running while intoxicated. Tilem & Campbell managing partner John Campbell tried the case and focused the defense on the failure to prove operation of the vehicle which is a requirement of any conviction for DWI under VTL 1192 (2) or 1192 (3).

The victory marks Mr. Campbell's seventh not-guilty verdict in a DWI case against just one loss in the last eighteen months. Mr. Campbell has trained extensively in field sobriety testing and DUI detection and has used his training and experience to win DWI cases.

The trial was conducted in the Justice Court of Greenburgh in Greenburgh, New York. The defendant in the case had been facing serious consequences if convicted including revocation of his driving privileges, up to a year in jail, surcharges, fines and insurance consequences, as well as the expensive, New York Driver Responsibility Assessment.

For more information contact Tilem & Campbell.

Peter H. Tilem, senior partner in the law firm of Tilem & Campbell was named on the list of top ten criminal attorneys in a magazine article that circulated earlier this morning. The list, which was published in arrive magazine and was compiled by the lawyer rating website AVVO.COM listed the top 10 New York lawyers in five different categories, Mr. Tilem was listed in the Criminal Defense category. A short biography follows the list.

Mr. Tilem, who was a prosecutor in the Manhattan District attorney's Office has won great notoriety for his success in getting the best possible outcomes for his client. Both as a prosecutor and as a criminal defense lawyer Mr. Tilem has a reputation for integrity, knowledge and tenacity in fighting cases whether it be a white collar crime, homicide, gun case or speeding ticket.

For more information you can contact Tilem & Campbell.

In what appears to be a stunning assault on first amendment rights, a proponent of a concept called "jury nullification" has been indicted in New York for charges relating to jury tampering. Jury nullification, a term familiar to most experienced criminal lawyers refers to a controversial legal principle in which juries acquit defendants, accused of crimes based upon their own conscience and without regard to the judge's explanation of the law. Since an acquittal by a jury is final and not subject to appeal, courts may not examine the reason for an acquittal. Therefore, all juries have an inherent right to nullify a charge. The controversy surrounds telling juries about this right.

Courts and prosecutors are inherently antagonistic to jury nullification so jurors are generally never told that they have the right to nullification and in fact are generally told that they must follow the law as instructed by the judge and must convict the defendant if the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Julian P. Heicklen, a retired Penn State University professor apparently raised the ire of prosecutors in the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York because he handed out fliers to potential jurors outside the Pearl Street, Federal Courthouse and other area courthouses notifying jurors of their inherent right to nullify verdicts. Although he handed out fliers to jurors, he never targeted any specific jury or attempted to influence the outcome of any specific case. In fact, according to a New York Times article Mr. Heicklen identifies himself as a law an order man.

Since, Mr. Heicklen never targeted any specific juries or tried to influence any specific case it would appear that Mr, Heicklen's conduct is the most basic form of political speech which is afforded the highest first amendment protection.

Tilem & Campbell will continue to monitor the outcome of this apparent assault on our constitutional freedoms.

A new rule that went into effect this past Wednesday, elevated the penalties for Talking on a cell phone while driving VTL 1225 c(2). The new law raises the maximum fine to $150 but also imposes 2 points on a motorist's driving record. The points can result in higher insurance premiums, financial penalties from the Department of Motor Vehicles or suspension or revocation of your driver's license. New York traffic ticket attorneys are prepared to fight these new tickets.

New York's ban on talking on mobile phones while driving prohibits talking on phones without an attached hands free device. New York was the first state to impose such a ban which has been controversial since studies have shown that these laws fail to reduce accidents. The law as initially enacted carried a maximum $100 fine and no points.

This new law will encourage motorists to fight New York cell phone tickets since traffic court attorneys are often able to get 2 point violations reduced to no points or get them dismissed altogether. Under the old law, it rarely paid to fight a cell phone ticket.

Anyone who is issued a cell phone ticket is encouraged to contact this office for more information.

Tilem & Campbell senior partner, Peter H. Tilem won a huge Court victory after his client was found not-guilty of all charges in connection with an Attempted Rape in the First Degree case stemming from a 2008 incident in Queens. The client had been facing up to 15 years in prison if convicted of Attempted Rape and up to one year in jail if convicted of Endangering the Welfare of a Child. The victim was less than 10 years old at the time of the alleged incident. The incident was not reported to the police until January of 2009.

An investigation by Tilem & Campbell during the pendency of the case revealed numerous inconsistencies in the statements made by the alleged victim to police officers, prosecutors and doctors. A Queens County Assistant District Attorney became an important defense witness in the case.

Mr. Tilem represented the client at trial, but Managing Partner John Campbell handled all pre-trial litigation, and Associate Jean Melino successfully handled motion practice which directly resulted in the preclusion of key prosecution evidence.

Although the client was originally charged with Rape in the First degree, the prosecutor only sought an indictment for two counts of Attempted Rape in the First Degree and Endangering the Welfare of a Child. "The prosecution seemed to change their theory", according to Tilem. The defense strategy relied heavily on the many inconsistencies in the alleged victim's story.

Tilem & Campbell is a New York criminal defense firm located in White Plains, New York. You can contact the firm by calling 888-ANY-CRIME.

New York Criminal defense lawyers Peter Tilem & John Campbell continue their radio show entitled "Law Talk" tonight at 8 pm on the Centanni Broadcasting Network. Tonight's topic is "Everything You Wanted To Know About the Prostitution Business (but were afraid to ask)" The show should be very interesting and informative and follow the general format of past shows except that Law Talk is scheduled to have its first guest ever joining lawyers Peter Tilem and John Campbell on the air tonight.

Please tune in tonight live at 8pm or listen on demand by clicking here Listen Live.

As always, if there is a topic you want to here discussed on the air or you want a question answered live, e-mail the question to info@tilemandcampbell.com.

New York law firm Tilem & Campbell has endorsed District Attorney Dan Donovan to be New York's next Attorney General. Senior partner Peter H. Tilem is a former colleague of Dan Donovan from their days at the New York County District Attorney's Office and believes Dan Donovan has what it takes to take on the corruption in Albany. Dan Donovan has a proven track record of independence and will not be caught up in politics or partisanship.

We believe that you should vote for Dan Donovan on Election Day, November 2nd to help win Albany back for the People of this great state.

The second episode of "Law Talk with Peter Tilem and John Campbell" aired last night and was a great success. The topics last night included prosecutorial and judicial misconduct, the role of the prosecutor and a little bit more about DWAI (Driving While Ability Impaired by Alcohol) in New York. For those who missed the show it is available on demand at the Centanni Broadcasting Network website. Just click on the date to hear the October 20, 2010 show.

Law Talk with Peter Tilem and John Campbell airs every Wednesday night at 8pm. You can listen live or on demand and if you have a specific topic that you would like us to discuss please E-Mail us the question at info@tilemandcampbell.com.

We’ve all heard it a thousand times on T.V. and in the movies, “You have the right to remain silent ….” But unfortunately, many people who are arrested make statements to the police and/or prosecutors in an effort to exonerate themselves. Most times, those statements actually hurt the defendant. Other times, even after being read their rights, defendants outright confess. Normally, questioning of a defendant is done by detectives or assistant district attorneys who are clearly adversarial to the defendant.
However, in 2007, the Queens District Attorney’s Office implemented a program whereby assistant district attorneys conduct pre-arraignment interviews of defendants as they proceed through the booking process before they have been arraigned (brought before a judge) and before they have had the opportunity to obtain an attorney.
While law enforcement is free to ask a defendant if they will answer questions after they have been read their Miranda rights, the problem with the pre-arraignment questioning program in Queens is that before the defendant is informed of their right to remain silent they are asked the following three questions:

1. If you would like us to investigate an alibi, please give us as much information as you can, including the names of any people you were with.

2. If your version of the events of that day differs from what we have heard, this is an opportunity if you so choose, to tell us your story.

3. If there is something you would like us to investigate concerning this incident, if you tell us about it, we will look into it.

Those three questions make it appear as if the assistant district attorneys are perhaps neutral or maybe even there to assist the defendant. It falsely conveys the position that they are disinterested. Ethics professor Ellen Yaroshefsky of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law believes “[t]he context of the interview misleads and deliberately induces the defendant to believe that there is an urgency to speak now when there is no advantage to him doing so prior to appointment of counsel. . .”
Currently, the Queens District Attorney, Richard A. Brown is attempting to block Acting Supreme Court Justice Joel L. Blumenfeld from ruling on the ethics of this pre-arraignment questioning process.
Anyone arrested must understand that there is virtually nothing you can tell the police or the district attorney that will get you released on the spot. Furthermore, once you’re arrested, the goal is to avoid a conviction. In that regard, nothing you say to law enforcement can help you. If you have information that can prove your innocence or that you think is important for your case, tell your defense attorney. Nothing good can come from a suspect or a defendant speaking with the police without first speaking with their own qualified defense attorney.
If you, a loved one or a friend have been arrested, feel free to call Tilem & Campbell toll free at 1-877-377-8666 or visit us on the web at www.888AnyCrime.com.

New York Criminal Defense lawyers Peter H. Tilem and John Campbell completed their first radio show broadcast live over internet radio earlier this evening on the Centanni Broadcasting Network. The topic of the show was the severe penalties for DWI and Gun cases in New York. The shows are archived and are available on demand by visiting the Centanni Broadcasting Network website and clicking on the Law Talk with Peter Tilem, Esq. and John Campbell, Esq. button. Or click on the October 13, 2010 show to be brought right there.

Law Talk received rave reviews and is the first in what is expected to be a weekly show, airing every Wednesday Night at 8pm.

Please join us live or E-Mail us any questions that you would like answered on the air to info@tilemandcampbell.com.

New York criminal defense lawyers Peter Tilem and John Campbell will begin hosting their own radio show next Wednesday October 13, 2010. The show called "Law Talk with Peter Tilem & John Campbell" will be airing on internet radio and will be available worldwide both live and on demand on the Centanni Broadcasting Network. The show will cover a variety of current law and political topics including criminal law, litigation and cases in the news.

If you would like to appear as a guest on the show, submit a question or a topic that you would like to have discussed on the air or need more information, please contact us via E-mail at info@tilemandcampbell.com.

New York criminal defense lawyers Peter Tilem and John Campbell will begin hosting their own radio show next Wednesday October 13, 2010. The show called "Law Talk with Peter Tilem & John Campbell" will be airing on internet radio and will be available worldwide both live and on demand on the Centanni Broadcasting Network. The show will cover a variety of current law and political topics including criminal law, litigation and cases in the news.

If you would like to appear as a guest on the show, submit a question or a topic that you would like to have discussed on the air or need more information, please contact us via E-mail at info@tilemandcampbell.com.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, Second Department unanimously overturned a Murder conviction from Nassau County because the trial Court committed a series of errors which combined to deny the defendant a fair trial. In People v. Terraine Slide the Court ruled that permitting the prosecutor to ask the defendant about his prior arrests for Marijuana and Shoplifting without giving a "limiting instruction" combined with additional errors deprived the defendant of a fair trial. Generally, a prosecutor may only use prior bad acts to cross-examine a defendant for the limited purpose of impeaching the defendant's credibility. The jury is generally instructed that they may consider the evidence only for that limited purpose and not to show a propensity by the defendant toward committing crimes.
In addition, Judges are required to hold a Sandoval hearing prior to trial to determine what if any prior bad acts may be used to cross-examine the defendant. The concern is that jurors will hear about a defendant's criminal record and convict him based upon his record and not the evidence of guilt.
In the Slide case, the prosecutor asked the defendant about his mother's incarceration which was clearly irrelevant and which tended to insinuate that he had a genetic predisposition to commit crimes. Although a motion for a mistrial was made, it was denied by the trial Court.
The New York criminal law firm of Tilem & Campbell represents individuals charged with all types of serious criminal offenses including murder and other types of homicide. Serious charges of these types require a high level of skill and experience to properly defend. Senior partner, Peter H. Tilem has been practicing criminal law for almost 20 years and has the advantage of having been a homicide prosecutor for the District Attorney's office.

New York criminal defense firm Tilem & Campbell won a dismissal earlier today in another Bronx gun case. The case, started with the arrest of the client in December 2009 after a dispute with her roommate. The roommate notified the landlord, an off duty NYPD detective that her roommate had a pistol in her dresser drawer. The landlord entered the apartment without a search warrant and recovered a loaded firearm. The landlord then called the police and had the client arrested. The client was charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree and Possession of ammunition under the administrative code of the City of New York.

Tilem & Campbell, senior associate Jean Melino filed a motion to suppress the gun and ammunition because of the warrant-less entry and search into the client's bedroom by the off duty police officer/landlord. The Bronx County District Attorney's Office initially attempted to oppose our motion on the grounds that the off-duty police officer/landlord was not acting in his capacity as a police officer but rather as a landlord and that therefore he did not need to obtain a warrant. The Bronx District Attorney's Office cited both Federal cases and a case from the State of Nebraska to establish their position even though plenty of New York cases establish that an off-duty police officer is always acting in his official capacity. The Court granted a hearing on the issue.

After the Bronx District Attorney's Office was not ready to proceed on several dates that the Court had set for the hearing, The District Attorney's Office finally moved to dismiss the case rather than proceed with the hearing that they were sure to lose. The Court records in the matter were sealed.

The case was jointly handled by Jean Melino and Senior Partner Peter H. Tilem. This case represents the latest in a long line of successes on New York gun cases handled by Tilem & Campbell.

If you or a loved one has been charged in New York with any firearms or weapons related charges, contact the law firm of Tilem & Campbell for a free consultation or visit us on the web at handgunattorney.com.

In a unanimous ruling, issued yesterday and reported on the front page of today's New York Law Journal, the Appellate Division unanimously revered the conviction of a carjacker who had been sentenced to 5 1/2 years in prison because of repeated, improper comments made to a criminal defense lawyer in front of the jury. Judge Neary, who spent 28 years as a Westchester County Assistant District Attorney before becoming a judge was recently transferred from Westchester to the Bronx Court. The case in question stemmed from a trial in the Bronx.

Judge Neary, according to the Appellate Court decision referred to the defense attorney's line of questioning at one point in the trial as "silly" and "irrelevant". During summation, Judge Neary at one point told the defense attorney "you are turning this into a comedy and its not."

"Most egregiously, however, when defense counsel objected during the People's summation, the court did not merely overrule the objection, but stated: 'Would you please behave like a professional, please and not like a clown.' "People v. Leggett, 2869 3401/07, NYLJ 1202472024104 at 4 (App. Div. 1st, Decided September 14, 2010).

It is obviously very hard to win a trial before a jury when the supposedly neutral judge is telling the jury that your questions are irrelevant and that you are acting like a clown. The Appellate Court recognized that this conduct by the judge deprived the defendant of a fair trial.

The Appellate Division ordered that the defendant be given a new trial before a different Judge.

Rod Blagojevich was the lasted in a line of high profile people to be convicted of lying to law enforcement even though juries fail to convict them of the underlying crime. In the latest case former Illinois governor Blagojevich was convicted of lying to the FBI even though a federal jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict on the underlying federal corruption charges. This situation is reminiscent of the Martha Stewart case in which Martha Stewart was tried and convicted of Obstruction of Justice and lying to investigators even though she was not charged or convicted of insider trading. Martha Stewart was eventually sentenced to a prison sentence in that case.

Although Obstruction of Justice, perjury or lying to the police charges are very rare in New York state Courts they are much more common in federal courts where making a false statement to federal law enforcement can lead to a federal felony charge. 18 USC 1001 which makes it a federal felony to make any materially false or misleading statement to federal agents is punishable by up to 5 years in prison. In addition, evidence of making false statements to law enforcement or otherwise mislead federal agents or obstructing justice can be used to enhance a sentence by adding two points to a persons Federal Sentence Guideline calculation under 3C1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines.

Individuals who are questioned by police or federal law enforcement such as the FBI, DEA, BATFE have constitutional rights under both the United States Constitution and the New York State Constitution to remain silent and/or speak to an attorney before answering questions. This is an important constitutional right. People who are questioned by the police can often become nervous especially if they may have committed a crime or if they have not interacted with law enforcement in the past.

The bottom line is that anyone who is contacted by the police, FBI or other law enforcement should learn their rights. Contact an experienced criminal defense attorney who can advise you of your rights and be with you through the process. Lying to law enforcement is simply not going to help and quite frankly may make the situation worse.

As we have previously reported in our May 7, 2009, January 18, 2010 and July 26, 2010 blogs, the installation of ignition interlock devices will be come mandatory on all Driving While Intoxicated convictions effective tomorrow, August 15, 2010.

These devices are expensive to install, require monthly monitoring and can be embarrassing to explain. DWI's, DUI's and DWAI's are serious offenses that require serious criminal attorneys who know the science and the law behind DWI cases. Besides the mandatory ignition interlock device and the mandatory revocation of your license, offenders face probation or jail and severe fines and surcharges.

As we approach Labor Day, this is a good time to remind people not to drink and drive. If you or a loved one are arrested, charged or questioned about a DWI or other alcohol related incident including Vehicular Assault or Vehicular Manslaughter contact the law firm of Tilem & Campbell.

Peter Tilem's appearance on the Johnny Mandolin radio show went well yesterday. All types of criminal cases were discussed including DWI, speeding, New York's crack down on possession of knives, gun cases and the criminal justice system as a whole. The show is available on demand at www.centannibroadcasting.com.

Senior partner Peter H. Tilem will be on the radio this evening speaking about New York knife laws and some of the recent cases involving knife charges. Mr. Tilem will be appearing from 7-8pm on the Johnny Mandolin show and you can listen live or listen to a recording of the show at www.centannibroadcasting.com.

A new law which takes effect on August 15, 2010, makes the installation of an ignition interlock system mandatory on all convictions in New York for DWI charges. The devices which are required to be installed at the defendant's expense will not permit the car to start if the operator registers a .025 or above of alcohol in their blood. The new law will effect the approximately 25,000 people per yera who are convicted of drinking and driving.

The law first became effective December 18, 2009 as reported in our prior blog and starting in little more than 2 weeks, the aspect of the law requiring ignition interlocks will become mandatory.

The cost of installation of an interlock device is expected to be about $100 and the required monthly monitoring will cost between $70 and $100 dollars per month. The devise will require the motorist to blow into the device to get the vehicle started and require that the driver blow into the device at regular intervals.

The cost and collateral consequences of DWI convictions in New York have increased dramatically over the last several years. Anyone arrested or charged for a DWI, DWAI or Driving While Ability Impaired by Drugs should contact an experienced DWI lawyer to discuss their options, possible defenses and the range of potential consequences.

New York criminal defense firm Tilem & Campbell, scored another big victory in a Queens gun possession case when the Queens District Attorney's Office agreed to reduce the class "C" violent felony gun charge to Disorderly Conduct a non-criminal violation. The client who was arrested with the handgun inside LaGuardia Airport as he was about to board a flight was originally facing a mandatory minimum sentence of 3 and 1/2 years in a New York State Prison. The client will pay a $250 fine and have his record sealed.

The client was originally arrested after he attempted to check the pistol in his checked baggage at the airport and was apparently not aware of New York's very strict gun laws. In New York, possession of a loaded firearm outside a person's home or place of business carries a mandatory minimum of three and a half years in prison even for a first arrest. In addition, the pistol does not actually have to be loaded to be legally "loaded" simply possessing the ammunition and the gun capable of firing that ammunition at the same time is enough to constitute a "loaded firearm" under New York law.

This is the second such victory this year for Tilem & Campbell. Earlier this year, in March, Tilem & Campbell scored a disorderly conduct violation on another gun case from LaGuardia airport. Senior Partner Peter H. Tilem a former prosecutor, worked in the Firearms Trafficking Unit of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and has a tremendous amount of experience in handling New York gun cases and other types of New York weapons cases.

Travelers from other states to New York should be careful and take note of New York gun laws before bringing guns or other weapons into New York. Gun charges in New York are very serious and should be carefully examined before coming to New York. Anyone who is charged with a New York gun crime should contact an experienced handgun attorney.

If you cause serious physical injury to another person in New York while Driving While Intoxicated (VTL 1192(2), (3)) or Driving While Ability Impaired by Drugs (VTL 1192(4)), in addition to DWI charges, you may also face the more serious charge of Vehicular Assault in the Second Degree (Penal Law 120.03(1)). Vehicular Assault in the Second Degree is a Class E Felony for which you could be sentenced for up to four years in state prison.

For a driver to be guilty on Vehicular Assault in the Second Degree, the prosecution must prove not only that the driver was intoxicated by alcohol or impaired by the use of a drug or the combination of alcohol and any drug or drugs, but also that the intoxication and/or impairment was the cause of the serious physical injury to another. Of course, the prosecution must also prove a serious physical injury as well. (Penal Law 120.03(1)).

However, if a driver causes a serious physical injury to another while operating a vehicle while intoxicated or impaired by the use of drugs or the combination of drugs and alcohol, the law creates a rebuttable presumption that that the driver operated the vehicle in a manner that caused the serious physical injury to another. In other words, if you are Driving While Intoxicated or impaired by drugs and someone suffers a serious physical injury it is presumed that the serious physical injury was caused by how you drove the vehicle.

This presumption can be defeated however. For example, if you were sitting at red light intoxicated and your vehicle was rear-ended by another car resulting in serious physical injury to the other driver, it could hardly be argued that your operation of the vehicle while intoxicated (sitting at a red-light) caused the serious physical injury to the driver that drove into the rear of your stopped car.

A Driving While Intoxicated cases are serious. They are complex cases that require attorneys experienced in the law, science and procedures associated with DWI cases. It is in the complexity that skilled DWI attorneys can win. Driving While Intoxicated cases are even more serious where others are seriously injured. You could very well be facing serious felony charges such as Vehicular Assault in the Second Degree. If you are facing serious charges resulting from a DWI in New York you need to invest in a serious criminal defense law firm. For more information contact Tilem & Campbell toll free at 1-888-DWI-COUNSEL or visit us on the web at www.888DwiCounsel.com.

There are two local New York City laws that have been aggressively enforced in the five boroughs of New York City recently and our firm has seen numerous people charged with these offenses. They involve possession of a knife over 4 inches (4") and possession of a knife in public. Both laws can be found in the New York City Administrative Code §10-133.

Section 10-133(b) makes it an offense, punishable by up to 15 days in jail to possess any knife with a blade of 4" or more in length in a public place. This very broadly worded statute can include use of a steak knife at the outdoor seating area of a restaurant and a whole bunch of other innocent situations.

Section 10-133(c) makes it an offense to possess any knife in public view or wear a knife which is outside the clothing of any size in any public place. Again, this statute makes it an offense to possess knives in New York City in a wide variety of innocent situations including at block parties, picnics or barbeques.

The bottomline is that anyone carrying a knife in New York City is subject to being arrested either pursuant to the administrative code or pursuant to the New York State Penal Law sections that we discussed in Part 1 and Part 2 of this blog series. If you or anyone you know has been stopped, arrested or charged in the Bronx, Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens or any other place in New York should contact Tilem & Campbell, 24 hours a day at 877-377-8666.

The United States Supreme Court has issued a ruling applying the US Constitution, Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" to State and local gun regulation. Ruling in the case of McDonald v. Chicago a 5 to 4 majority of justices decided for the first time that both State and local gun laws must not violate the Second amendment. While this is a landmark decision, it answers very few questions. It did not give any guidelines as to what regulations were permissible and what regulations were not and it even left to the lower Court the issue of whether the Chicago Law in question violated the Second Amendment.

This decision is likely to spur more litigation than it resolved by opening up litigation to strike down local gun regulation all over the Country. New York gun laws which are among the toughest in the Country will almost certainly be challenged under this ruling.

Tilem & Campbell, PC is criminal defense firm that handles a vast array of gun and weapons related cases in both State and Federal Courts and maintains the website www.handgunattorney.com. Senior Partner, Peter H. Tilem is a former prosecutor assigned to the Firearms Trafficking Unit of the New York County District Attorney's Office, is a member of the NRA and has vast experience in handling gun and weapons related litigation.

As experienced criminal defense lawyers we have been seeing an increase in the number of people contacting us after being arrested with a knife. In our continuing effort to educate the public about criminal law, this series will summarize New York State and New York City Knife laws. In Part 1 we discussed what are referred to as "per se" weapons. Weapons or in this case knives that mere possession of constitutes a crime. In part 2 we will discuss knives that are only illegal if you have intent to use that knife illegally against another person but as you will see there is a twist to that requirement. In Part 3 we will discuss knife laws that are particular to New York City only and do not apply other places in New York State.

New York State Penal Law §265.01 (2) makes it illegal to possess any dirk, razor, dangerous knife, dagger or stiletto only if there is intent to use it unlawfully against someone else. The problem develops in Penal Law §265.15 where the law actually creates a presumption that a person who possesses a dagger, stiletto, dirk or dangerous knife has the intent to use it unlawfully against someone else if it is made, adapted or designed primarily for use as a weapon. And its hard to know exactly what that means. What does it mean that a knife is made primarily for use as a weapon?

The answer is unclear. In Queens a Criminal Court judge ruled that possession of a dagger without more was sufficient to make out a charge of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree. People v. Nwogu. In Manhattan, another Criminal Court Judge ruled that possession of a knife combined with a statement that the knife was for self defense was enough to make out a charge of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree. The judge reasoned that by stating that it was for self defense it shows that the defendant considered the knife a weapon and therefore the presumption applied but that judge ruled that if the defendant had remained silent that the evidence would be insufficient. People v. Richards.

So as you can see, one who carries a knife of any kind in New York faces a substantial risk of arrest and prosecution. If you have any questions about knife charges in New York or any other criminal charges, please contact Tilem & Campbell for a fast free and friendly consultation.

As criminal defense attorneys who handle a large number of gun and weapon charges we have seen an substantial increase in clients who come to us with charges relating to possession of knives. Now, in the wake of the New York Post article which reported that the Manhattan District Attorney's Office has entered into a deal with retailers such as Home Depot, Eastern Mountain Sports and Paragon Sports to stop the sale of many folding knives it seems appropriate to review the legality of knives in New York.

As we wrote in our April 2, 2009 blog, New York State Penal Law sec. 265.01 makes it a crime to possess any of the following knives: a gravity knife; switchblade knife; pilum ballistic knife; metal knuckle knife; and cane sword. The problem starts with the definition of "Gravity Knife" from the New York State Penal Law. Sec. 265.00 (5) states that a Gravity Knife is any knife that can be opened by gravity or the application of centrifugal force. What the latter part means is that if the knife can be "flicked" opened (centrifugal force), it is illegal to possess. It gets more complicated if you think that a large, experience police officer can probably "flick" open any knife given a couple of attempts and enough force and so virtually any lock-blade pocket knife can probably be considered a switchblade. It is this "gravity knife" issue that caught up major retailers like Home Depot.

Additional issues arise from the "exemptions", which are defenses listed in the Penal Law. These are codified in Penal Law §265.20(6) an make it legal to possess a gravity knife or switchblade for use while hunting, fishing or trapping by a person carrying a valid license (for hunting, trapping or fishing).

In the next part of this series we will explore the legality of daggers, dirks, stilettos, dangerous knives and razors. In the meantime, these complicated and ambiguous knife laws are getting innocent people caught up in the criminal justice system. Be careful and if you or any loved ones are charged with a weapons related offense contact Tilem & Campbell for a free consultation. .

Tilem & Campbell managing partner John Campbell scored his fourth straight DWI trial victory this week when the Cortlandt Justice Court in Westchester County New York, acquitted his client of all charges which included DWI (VTL 1192(3), Aggravated Unlicensed Operation (VTL 511) and Speeding (VTL 1180). The defendant was facing a year in jail.

While the arresting officer testified to signs of the defendant’s intoxication, Mr. Campbell focused the defense on signs of the defendant’s sobriety and the defendant’s flawless operation of his vehicle. For example, on cross-examination, the arresting officer admitted that he followed the defendant for several miles and that there was nothing about how the defendant drove the vehicle that indicated he was intoxicated; that the defendant maintained his lane at all times; that he did not hit anything or drive erratically; that he safely pulled his vehicle to the shoulder and came to a safe stop. The officer also admitted that the defendant complied with all orders, produced his license, registration and insurance card without any problems and that he exited his vehicle with no problems. The only traffic violation the officer claimed to have observed was speeding.

The Court found that there was reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was actually intoxicated. Further, the Court found that the defendant had no knowledge that his license was suspended. Finally, the Court found the defendant not guilty of the speeding charge because the arresting officer could not recall if there was a posted speed limit sign at the time he stopped the defendant.

If you have been charged with Driving While Intoxicated in New York, please contact Tilem & Campbell toll free at 1-888-DWI-COUNSEL or visit them on the web at www.888DWICOUNSEL.COM.

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.

Back in August 19, 2009, New York law firm Tilem & Campbell, PC filed a lawsuit against two Bronx Supreme Court Clerks who routinely violated the law by rejecting papers that were submitted for filing without legal reason. As reported in the today's New York Law Journal, the case was settled earlier this week after New York's Chief Administrative Judge, the Honorable Ann T. Pfau, promulgated a new Court rule which set forth only four circumstances in which clerks may reject papers for filing. The new rule and the settlement were laid out in a blog on this site earlier this week.

Law partners Peter Tilem and John Campbell were both quoted in today's New York Law Journal article. The law suit was previously reported in the Law Journal when it was originally filed. The first article appeared in the August 25, 2009 edition of the Journal.

For more information about the case or the new rule contact Tilem & Campbell.

New York Law firm Tilem & Campbell settled its lawsuit against the Bronx Civil clerks office, today, after New York's Chief Administrative Judge amended the Court rules to comply with CPLR 2102(c). Civil Practice Law and Rules sect 2102(c) requires Court Clerks to accept legal papers submitted for filing unless a statute specifically prohibits the clerks from accepting the papers. The law became effective January 1, 2008 in response to the epidemic of Court Clerks rejecting papers for filing for the most mindless reasons. The practice was so widespread that Court Clerks prepared check-the-box forms to explain why your papers were rejected.

In response to the lawsuit brought under Article 78 of the CPLR entitled Tilem & Campbell, PC v. Tracy Pardo, Chief Clerk, Civil Division, et al. The Court rules, were amended to add Sect 202.5 (d)(1). Sect 202.5 (d) (1) now spells out only four circumstances in which clerks may reject papers submitted for filing. The four permissible reasons are:
i. The paper does not have an index number;
ii. The summons, complaint, petition or judgment sought to be filed with the County Clerk contains an "et al" or otherwise does not contain a full caption;
iii. The paper sought to be filed with the County Clerk is filed in the wrong Court; or
iv. The paper is not signed in accordance with section 130-1.1-a of the Rules of the Chief Administrator.

In addition, the County Clerk or chief clerk must now signify a refusal to accept a paper by use of a date stamp indicating the reason for the refusal.

New York lawyers, paralegals, process servers or others who routinely file papers in court should carry a copy of the new rule with them. If it is not yet available, this firm will provide a copy upon request.

Tilem & Campbell, PC v. Pardo arose out of the the Bronx Civil Clerk's refusal to accept an Order to Show Cause that this firm attempted to file because of some handwritten changes. This firm had made repeated attempts to remedy the matter and prior incidents with the Bronx Clerk without success.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Those drivers who receive the new E-Tickets that police officers and New York State Troopers conveniently print from their police cars should take note that one judge is Oneonta has ruled that the tickets are not legal and recently dismissed an Aggravated DWI case as a result. Ruling in the case of People v. Nathaniel White, City Court Judge Lucy Bernier ruled that the actions of the police officers in entering the data into the computer are indistinguishable from mere word processing and therefore the tickets are not affirmed or sworn under penalty of perjury as required by law.

The White ruling conflicts with a 2005 ruling by a City Court judge in Rochester that described the process of filling out the electronic ticket troubling but found that the tickets were ultimately legal. In the Rochester case, the City Court Judge found that the supporting deposition which was signed rescued the defective traffic ticket. The White ruling however, is both lengthy and well reasoned and will likely be appealed. In the interim, New York Traffic Court lawyers and New York DUI attorneys will continue to fight this issue.

If you or any family member has been charged in New York with any DWI, Speeding ticket or other traffic infraction or traffic misdemeanor investigate your rights. Contact one our experienced attorneys for a free over-the-phone consultation.

Starting November 1, 2009, New York drivers will have another good reason not to text while driving, it will become illegal, a traffic infraction under New York Law. New York's new texting while driving law is going into effect Sunday and there is little doubt that police and other law enforcement officers will be looking for those who are texting while driving. The new law is subject to secondary enforcement which simply means that a motorist must commit and be stopped for another offense such as speeding, passing a red light, turn signal violation or a similar moving violation before they can be ticketed for texting while driving.

The New York texting while driving law carries no points but a fine of up to $150 can be imposed on first time violators. A recent study found that a driver who was texting while driving was 23 times more likely to be involved in accident than a driver who is not texting. While the law seems like a good idea, as I discussed on my recent television appearance on "Bronx Legal", the law seems like it is hard to enforce and hard to prove. Police cannot seize your phone and search it for recent texts without a search warrant. In addition, existing laws permit one to dial a telephone as long as a hands free device is attached. It seems that unless the motorist admits that he is texting, it would be very difficult to prove that a motorist is texting as opposed to dialing.

Anyone who receives a ticket under New York's new texting while driving law or for any other New York traffic violation should seek the advice of an experienced traffic court attorney.

New York defense lawyer Peter H. Tilem will appear on a television show called Bronx Legal tonight at 6:30 pm. The topic of the show tonight is New York's new Texting While Driving law and other common New York traffic violations. Although the television show will only air in the Bronx, it will be available in several days on the internet both at Bronxnet.org and at the Tilem & Campbell media page.

Peter Tilem is the senior partner at the White Plains based law firm, Tilem & Campbell. The firm handles a wide variety of criminal defense matters throughout the New York metropolitan area and handles traffic violations throughout New York State. Tilem & Campbell operate the website site DRSUMMONS.COM.

Many articles have been written about the numerous costs of paying traffic tickets. While New York traffic fines are high and surcharges that are imposed by the Courts have recently been increased, there are many hidden costs that New York Driver's need to be aware when deciding whether or not to fight their New York Traffic Ticket.

One such surprise is the New York Driver Responsibility Assessment covered in a past blog. In a nutshell, the New York Driver Responsibility Assessment imposes a fee, billed by the New York State DMV of $300 when you get 6 points on your license and $75 per point over 6. The fee is payable over three years.

Another hidden cost comes from your insurance company. According to an article published on the National Motorist Association website, one traffic violation can raise your insurance 20% per year for a period of three years. According to the article even if your insurance costs a modest $800 that works out to $480 over three years. The article further explains that a second offense in 3 years can result in a 40% increase which can cost you $1200 more just in insurance.

The article on the National Motorist Association website advises that you ". . . should fight every ticket - every time." [emphasis supplied]. The article also advises that "[e]ven paying for a lawyer is often well worth the expense. . ." and advises that for "most ordinary traffic cases - speeding, running a red light, etc. - a lawyer will want around $700 or so."

In these economic times, the advice of the National Motorist Association is worth heeding. Keep more money in your pocket. Know the hidden cost of paying a traffic ticket. Hire an experienced traffic court lawyer who knows how to fight tickets. For more information contact one of the attorneys at drsummons.com for a free consultation.

Our July 15, 2009 blog on the Auxiliary Police Officer arrested for possession of Mace has sparked tremendous interest with many calling our firm or writing in about the issue and many wanting to find out how to obtain a New York City permit for mace. Some have contacted us about there failed efforts to obtain information about the permit from the New York City Police Department. The regulations are summarized in our May 24, 2009 blog. So I leave it to you; if any one knows how to obtain a New York City permit for mace, please comment to this blog, or contact Tilem & Campbell with the information. I will publish the results in a future blog.

New York DWI defense firm Tilem & Campbell has recently launched an ad campaign targeting individuals accused of Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) and/or related charges. The campaign, which involves, print, radio and internet media uses the toll free number 888-DWI-COUNSEL which corresponds to the numbers (888) 394-2686. The campaign also utilizes the domain address www.888dwicounsel.com. The toll free vanity number and domain should help the public locate Tilem & Campbell. DWI-COUNSEL is spelled with the SEL at the end and not COUNCIL with the CIL at the end to indicate that the firm counsels those accused of DWI.

The lawyers at Tilem & Campbell have a wealth of experience and knowledge in DWI and related cases and can assist those accused. Two lawyers at Tilem & Campbell are former prosecutors, in addition a third has recently completed courses in Driving Under the Influence Detection and Narcotics Field Testing.

Anyone who has been accused in New York of Driving While Intoxicated, Driving While Ability Impaired by Alcohol, Driving While Ability Impaired by Drugs or any related charges is encouraged to call 888-DWI-COUNSEL for a free consultation either in person or over the telephone.

According to today's newspapers the NYPD Cop accused of killing a woman while driving in an intoxicated condition, had a blood alcohol content of 0.0 indicating that no alcohol was present in the officers blood seven hours after the incident. The blood was not drawn for seven hours after the accident. As discussed in my previous blog, New York drivers arrested for DWI have the right to refuse to take a chemical test. The result of the blood test substantially weakens the case against the officer who is accused of killing the woman while driving drunk.

Early Sunday morning, New York City Police Officer Andrew Kelly, while allegedly driving in an intoxicated condition, struck and killed 32 year old Vionique Valnord in Old Mill Basin, Brooklyn. The accident happened at approximately 12:41 a.m., however, Kelly’s blood was not drawn for more than seven hours. How can this happen? Simple, Officer Kelly exercised his statutory right to refuse to submit to a chemical test.

Let’s start with a brief overview of New York’s “deemed consent” law. To summarize the law; every New York driver is deemed to have given consent to the testing of their breath, blood, urine or saliva to determine the alcoholic and/or drug content of their blood provided the officer has reasonable grounds to believe the driver is impaired or intoxicated and the test is administered within two hours of arrest. See NY VTL § 1194(2)(a)(1), (2) see also 10 NYCRR 59.2 (All samples shall be collected within two hours of the time of arrest).

However, a driver has a qualified statutory right to refuse to submit to a chemical test. The right to refuse is qualified in several ways. Yes, one may refuse to take the test and, absent a court order, no test will be given. However, although one may refuse the test, if properly warned of the consequences, and if they persistently refuse, they may incur a “civil” penalty which includes a fine and the revocation of their driver’s license if the refusal is proven at a DMV refusal hearing. See NY VTL § 1194(2)(b). Further, if the driver, after being sufficiently warned about the consequences associated with refusing, nevertheless, persistently refuses, the refusal can be used by the prosecution at trial. See NY VTL § 1194(2)(f).

Finally, if a driver refuses to submit to a chemical test, that driver can be subjected to a compulsory, court ordered, chemical test. See NY VTL§ 1194(3). Such court ordered compulsory tests are almost always of the blood.

Notably, refusing to submit to a chemical test is not a criminal offense nor is it even a non-criminal traffic infraction. This is distinguished from refusing a breat screening test which is a traffic infraction. Refusals are purely “civil” offenses handled by the Department of Motor Vehicles. See People v. Thomas, 45 N.Y. 2d 100 (1978).

In this case, Officer Kelly exercised his qualified right to refuse to submit to a chemical test. As a result, his refusal can be used against him at trial. But more importantly, in this case, his qualified right to refuse was overcome by the issuance of a court order compelling Officer Kelly to submit to a chemical test to determine the alcohol or drug content of his blood. See VTL § 1194(3)(b).

For more information about Driving While Intoxicated, chemical testing, blood testing or any other question you might have, please contact Tilem & Campbell, PC toll free at 1-888-DWI-COUNSEL or visit us on the web at www.888DwiCounsel.com.

Mortgage Fraud has taken center stage in Westchester County Courts and around New York State. This national problem has taken on extra prominence in New York where property values are high. As a criminal defense law firm that has handled many mortgage fraud cases including headline making cases we are seeing an increased number of cases and increased enforcement by law enforcement authorities.

Indeed, in connection with a high profile mortgage fraud case that this firm is involved with, the Westchester County District Attorney's Office announced the formation of a Mortgage Fraud Unit to investigate and prosecute mortgage fraud in Westchester County. The Westchester County case resulted in the arrest of 8 people, 6 of whom were mortgage professionals and two attorneys.

Mortgage Fraud can take on many different flavors. The Westchester case is alleged to involve "Equity Stripping" which is a way of stealing the equity from a person facing foreclosure. Other cases can involve appraisal fraud, falsely preparing mortgage applications, using straw buyers with good credit to purchase properties, "flipping" properties from one buyer to another, identity theft or a combination of these practices.

The bottom line is that what was tolerated as normal practice several years ago by the banks is now considered fraud once the bank loses money because of a foreclosure or bankruptcy. While banks in the past encouraged "fraud" by loans that promised "no documentation", "light documentation" or "stated income", today they complain that the information they received from borrowers was not accurate.

In addition, victims of mortgage fraud and/or identity theft can have a difficult time navigating through the maze of legal issues related to resolving credit issues and resolving title issues.

These cases can become very complex. Whether you are the victim of mortgage fraud or are suspected of or accused of mortgage fraud, contact us, to speak to an experienced criminal attorney that has specific experience handling New York mortgage fraud cases or Federal mortgage fraud cases.

Senior partner, Peter H. Tilem, appeared on the five o'clock news earlier this evening commenting on the Taconic Parkway fatal collision that left the driver and seven others dead. The piece appeared on channel 7's Eyewitness news shortly after 5 pm. Mr. Tilem, who is a former senior prosecutor in the New York County District Attorney's Office, was asked about the possibility of charges being brought against the husband of the woman who was allegedly intoxicated and indicated that it would not be sufficient if the husband was merely are of a history of substance abuse.

The full video is available and can be viewed at Tilem & Campbell's media page along with other videos of partners Peter Tilem and John Campbell in the news.

As a former Manhattan Prosecutor I have presented hundreds of cases to grand juries in New York. As a partner at a prominent criminal defense firm I have sat with clients inside the grand jury as they were questioned by prosecutors. With recent news reports about the a New York County Grand Jury considering charges against New York Giants stars Plaxico Burress and Antonio Pierce, it is important to understand exactly what a grand jury is and how it operates.

No person may be tried on a felony charge in New York unless a grand jury has considered evidence and voted an indictment or unless the person has waived indictment. The grand jury itself is made up of between 16 and 23 people. They are charged with the duty of hearing and examining evidence involving offenses or misconduct whether or not the misconduct is criminal. In order for a grand jury to vote an indictment 12 of the grand jurors must vote to indict.

The burden to vote for an indictment is low. A grand juror need only find that there is reasonable cause to believe that a person committed an offense. In laymans terms that means that a grand jury need only find sufficient evidence to accuse a person of having committed a felony. This is a very different standard than the proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" needed to convict someone of a crime.

The burden to obtain an indictment is so low that the former Chief Judge of New York State, Sol Wachtler, humorously noted that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich." It is not only the low burden that makes it so easy to indict, it is an area of the Court that is almost exclusively controlled by the prosecutor. Although, in theory the grand jury is supervised by the Court, no Judge sits in the grand jury room while they are hearing evidence or deciding cases. It is the prosecutor that presents all of the evidence and instructs the grand jury on the law. It is the prosecutor who decides what evidence the grand jury will see and which witnesses they will hear.

Although the prosecutor truly controls the goings on in a grand jury, a target of a grand jury investigation or presentation has certain rights which will be discussed in a future blog. In the meantime, if you are charged with a felony or believe that a grand jury may be considering charges against you, contact one of the lawyers at the New York criminal defense firm, Tilem & Campbell.

As outlined in our May 24, 2009 blog New York City bans certain items that are legal other places in New York State and most other places in our Country. New York City Auxiliary Police Officer Alexander Gonzalez found that out the hard way when he was arrested, while on duty, in Manhattan for possession of mace. Mace is one of those items which is illegal in New York City but was made legal in New York State in 1996.

New York City Auxiliary Police Officers are neither police officers or peace officers under New York Law and therefore are not entitled to possess any weapons that civilians are not also entitled to possess. Senior partner, Peter H. Tilem was interviewed for an article written about the case today.

Tilem & Campbell handles a large number of gun and weapons charges in New York and has seen an increase in overly aggressive enforcement of minor weapons violations in New York City for items such as Mace and knives.

The United States Supreme Court ruled yesterday, that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to cross-examine the scientists who prepare reports which are introduced at trial. The list of scientists would include chemists who test for the presence of controlled substances, fingerprint analysts and ballistics experts as well as many others. Although the ruling is an important one for the rights of those accused of crimes the ruling is likely to have little impact in New York where State laws already gives defense lawyers the right to cross-examine scientific witnesses.

The ruling is an extension of the 2004 Supreme Court decision Crawford v. Washington which limited the permissible uses of hearsay in criminal trials under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause. The Supreme Court seems to be expressing continued concerned over the use of hearsay (out of Court statements) in criminal trials.

If you or a loved one stand accused of a crime or have been convicted of a crime based upon hearsay, contact one of the experienced criminal defense lawyers at Tilem & Campbell.

A Westchester County substitute school teacher was arrested last week and charged with Assault in the Third Degree (misdemeanor assault), Endangering the Welfare of a Child and Harassment for an incident involving a third grader in his gym class. According to police the teacher allegedly taunted and then assaulted the student after the student came at the teacher in a New Rochelle, New York public school. The case has received a great deal of media attention and the teacher, Daniel Sanabria, has now hired the White Plains criminal defense law firm, Tilem & Campbell, to defend him against the criminal charges.

The Westchester Journal News extensively quotes Tilem & Campbell, partner Peter Tilem about Mr.Sanabria's action in the case. According to the Journal News article, both Mr. Sanabria and criminal defense lawyer Peter Tilem are disputing the allegations. An article has also been featured in the New York Post and stories have been run on cable news Channel 12.

Mr. Sanabria is due in New Rochelle City Court next week where he is expected to defend the charges.

With four confirmed cases of swine flu on Riker's Island and 4 probable cases, fear has gripped both inmates and corrections officers alike who are confined on Riker's Island. The scare has already disrupted visits and Court appearances in New York City criminal courts and will likely get worse before it gets better. The situation is so bad that the union representing the corrections officers has filed a letter of complaint with the Department of Labor. For families of inmates in the massive New York City Jail system the outbreak means that visits will likely be canceled in many jails. In addition movement within the jails may be curtailed. If you or a loved one are currently confined on Rikers Island or any New York City Jail contact one of the experienced criminal defense lawyers at Tilem & Campbell.

Westchester County District Attorney Janet DiFiore announced the results of a three month sting operation which used underage criminal justice students to purchase alcohol at bars, restaurants and liquor store. The sting resulted in the arrest of 28 people but also demonstrated that establishments enforced the drinking age 81% of the time. The 28 people arrested were charged with selling alcohol to minors.

During this season when Proms, graduation parties and Memorial Day Weekend parties are in high gear it is important to remember the potential consequences of underage drinking and especially of underage drinking and driving. New York has a "zero tolerance" for people under 21 years of age driving with any alcohol in their system. In addition, New York imposes enhanced, severe penalties for minors who drink and drive.

If you or a loved one has been charged with an alcohol related offense in New York, contact one of the attorneys at Tilem & Campbell.

Local, County and New York State Police begin their annual "click it or ticket" campaign today which means an increase in seat belt tickets across the State and the Region. The increased enforcement will take the forms of patrols and checkpoints and will likely lead to an increase in traffic tickets of all kinds. In addition to the New York State Police, County and local police in Westchester, Rockland, Orange Counties and beyond are expected to participate. The program is scheduled to last two weeks.

While Seat belt violations in New York carry no points and a fine of $50, it is important to remember that no seat belt or child restraint for a child less than 16 years of age carries 3 points per violation in New York. In addition, Police will be looking for other violations such as speeding, unsafe lane change, failure to signal and equipment violations as they patrol so drive carefully.
If you receive a traffic summons contact us DrSUMMONS.com or 877-DRSUMMONS

New York State may be the 11th State in the United States to make ignition interlock devices mandatory vehicles owned by people convicted of drinking and driving (DWI) even if it is their first conviction. The device can detect alcohol in a driver’s breath and prevents the car from starting if alcohol is detected. The proposal made by two Long Island legislators, Senator Charles J. Fuschillo, Jr. and Assemblyman Harvey Weisenberg is already gaining steam in Albany where it has already passed the Senate Transportation Committee. The ignition interlock legislation has passed the Senate before but has not gotten through the New York State Assembly.

While the legislation is popular, its effectiveness is questionable since it only works on the offender’s car and he could obviously drive any car including a rental, a friend’s car or a family member’s car. In addition, anybody could blow into the device thus permitting the intoxicated driver to operate the car.

As experience New York DWI attorneys know, this legislation will add another collateral consequence to a long list of consequences of New York DWI convictions. This list already includes: offenders having a criminal conviction, fines, surcharges, insurance consequences, Driver Responsibility Assessment and license revocation in addition to possibility of jail, probation, conditional discharge, mandatory attendance at a victim impact panel and revocation of offender’s registration.

New York DWI’s are costly and are getting costlier. Everyone needs to be careful. If you or a loved one has been charged with in New York with DWI or DWAI contact the law firm of Tilem & Campbell.

New York Law firm Tilem & Campbell is in the news again after filing a federal civil rights law suit brought against the Village of Spring Valley, New York, the Village Police Department, the Building Department and several detectives. The article originally published in the Rockland County Journal News has been picked up on several national websites.

The suit alleges that the detectives intervened on behalf of a tenant who was claiming that a landlord owed him money. The detectives used a ruse to lure the individual to a building and then used threats, intimidation and the threat of an illegal building inspection to compel the individual to pay money to the tenant.

The suit names individuals Det. Roxanne Lopez, Det. Ted Hughes and Det. John Beltempo as well as Assistant Building Inspector Manny Carmona and Building Inspector Joseph Jacaruso. Tilem & Campbell asks that any one with information of misconduct by any of these individuals contact the law firm.

The lawsuit was filed in Federal Court in White Plains and is assigned to the Honorable Stephen Robinson, District Court Judge.

Nassau County Police have announced an initiative targeting "aggressive drivers" on Nassau County roads, beginning tomorrow. While details of the initiative have not been released the program is likely to result in the issuance of additional tickets for such New York traffic violations as speeding, tailgating, passing a red light, unsafe lane change, failure to signal, unsafe passing, the failure to obey traffic control devices and failure to yield right of way in Nassau County.

These types of violations all carry points and can lead to higher insurance costs as well as fines and imposition of the driver responsibility assessment. Nassau County traffic violations are handled in the Traffic and Parking Violations Agency (TPVA) which is located at 16 Cooper Street in Hempstead

If you have any questions about fighting traffic violations in Nassau County or anywhere else in New York contact us or visit us at drsummons.com or 877-DR-SUMMONS (377-8666).

New York criminal law firmTilem & Campbell is pleased to announce that Senior Partner Peter H. Tilem is on Twitter and can be found at www.twitter.com/attorneyny. Please log on and follow Peter. He will provide updates on interesting issues involving New York criminal law and other legal issues (or as much as can be said in 120 characters).

Tilem & Campbell is pleased to announce the release of its newest website westchesterPIattorneys.com. The website, which focuses on New York personal injury law was launched as a resource for people injured in accidents in the Westchester County, Putnam, Rockland and New York City areas, according to Managing partner John Campbell. The website provides information about New York construction accidents, New York Car accidents and other types of personal injury cases. For more information please visit westchesterPIattorneys.com.

Tilem & Campbell just obtained a summary of the new Legislation repealing the Rockefeller Drug laws. If you or a loved one is currently serving a term in prison for a New York Narcotics case or is currently charged with any New York Drug case. Contact one of the experienced criminal attorneys at www.888anycrime.com

New York criminal defense lawyers, especially those that handle New York State drug cases, are monitoring an agreement just announced between the New York Senate, Assembly and Governor to repeal the Rockefeller Drug Laws. Details are not fully available but the legislation is expected to substantially reduce and in some cases eliminate mandatory minimums for New York Drug cases, give judges options of treatment instead of sentences of incarceration and give judges the ability to dismiss all charges and seal the arrest records of offenders who complete drug treatment.

While the bill, once passed is likely to have far reaching effects on New York drug cases, the legislation will not have any effect on the draconian, federal mandatory minimums that Tilem & Campbell is currently challenging in Federal Court. The bill will likely provide some relief to the many people serving lengthy state sentences under the old law.

The laws have not been passed yet but with agreement by all the major players, the bills should be passed quickly and will likely take effect soon. Tilem & Campbell will continue to monitor this important legislation and pass on updates as the become available. If you have any questions contact us at 888-ANY-CRIME or visit us on the web at 888anycrime.com

New York Prostitution lawyers are watching a development reported in today's New York Post which reflects a steep decrease in enforcement of prostitution and other vice offenses by the NYPD. The Post is reporting that the NYPD shut down its enforcement of Prostitution on craigslist as long as 3 years ago. The Post is also reporting that other vice operations have been shut down or slowed down because of increased oversight.

Craigslist has a large number of ads catering to adult entertainment. Many of the craigslist ads are for escorts. Escorts are women (or men) who agree to spend time with a person for a fee. While this practice is legal if sex is exchanged it can violate state or federal prostitution laws.

Criminal lawyers John Campbell and Peter Tilem operate a website escortattorney.com which caters to the escort industry and represents, customers, escorts and escort agencies. Tilem & Campbell will continue to monitor these developments as they have a substantial impact on many Tilem & Campbell client's

New York criminal defense firm Tilem & Campbell is pleased to report that after years of fierce opposition to New York's draconian "Rockefeller" drug laws, and after some amendments, passed in 2004, did away with some of the harshest sentences, it now appears that much of the remnants of the Rockefeller Drug laws are going to be repealed. Last week by a more that 2-1 margin, the New York State Assembly passed a bill which would repeal additional provisions of the Rockefeller Drug Laws and which would give Judge's greater discretion in sentencing drug-offenders to non-jail, treatment programs. These provisions can have a substantial effect on New York Drug cases.

Governor Patterson has already signaled his approval of amending the Rockefeller Drug Laws and with democrats in control of the New York State Senate, it seems that some significant change in New York State Drug laws is all but certain.

As an experienced criminal defense lawyer I have handled numerous drug cases. In addition, as a former prosecutor I have handled hundreds if not thousands of drug cases. In my vast experience, rarely do I see major traffickers getting arrested and often see low level dealers or users get sentenced to many years in prison. What I find surprising is that often then prosecutor, and judge agree that the sentence is to severe but under the law, often the judges and prosecutors are powerless to reduce the sentence.

The proposed law gives more discretion to New York State judges who are often in the best position to determine whether a person should get treatment or go to prison.

At a time when the law is changing, it is most important for people accused of drug crimes and their families to stay in touch with the latest changes in New York Drug laws. Not all lawyers stay abreast of the latest changes in the law, so stay informed. If you have any questions about any Westchester County drug cases, New York City drug cases, federal drug cases in the New York area please contact Tilem & Campbell at 888-ANY-CRIME (888-269-2746)

In our continuing effort to educate the public about important criminal issues and to keep our clients, friends and the public better informed about the cases Tilem & Campbell is involved with, we are pleased to announce the launch of our new "Media Page". The page can be accessed by either one of two methods from our Home Page; either by clicking on any of the video icons along the left hand side of the home page or by pulling down the the "About Us" drop down menu along the top of the Home Page and clicking "Media".

This page will be updated frequently and will contain all television appearances by any of the lawyers at Tilem & Campbell and perhaps in the future print media as well.

If you have any questions or comments, or would like to schedule a free consultation on any criminal law issue, please contact us by E-Mail or telephone at 877-377-8666.

New York criminal lawyer Peter H. Tilem has been admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, effective January 12, 2009. Having been recommended for admission by two current members of the bar of the US Supreme Court the motion for Mr. Tilem's admission was granted and his admission has taken effect.

The admission of Mr. Tilem to this prestigious bar will enhance the appellate practice of Tilem & Campbell and will give it the ability to challenge cases already in the United States Court of Appeals at the United States Supreme Court level, without seeking outside counsel. Tilem & Campbell has several criminal appeals pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and is currently challenging the mandatory minimums applicable to crack cocaine cases in federal courts.

A January 1, 2009 article on MSN.com confirms what many New Yorkers have already found out the hard way; that enforcement of traffic laws is on the increase in large part to raise money for state and local government.

The article confirmed some disturbing trends already observed by the New York traffic court attorneys here at Tilem & Campbell. That much of traffic enforcement is motivated by the desire of government to raise revenue but is also urged by insurance companies eager to raise revenues by increasing premiums on drivers who are convicted of routine traffic offenses.

New York is mentioned in the article because of the recent announcement that New York City will hire 200 additional traffic enforcement agents but the article suggest the national nature of this trend by citing examples from Massachusetts, Colorado, Detroit and Arizona, to name a few places.

At Tilem & Campbell, not only have we noticed an increase in traffic enforcement activity but we have observed an increase in the number of tickets issued during each car stop. Many clients who contact Tilem & Campbell through our 877-DR-SUMMONS telephone number have been issued tickets totaling more than 10 points in a single traffic stop. After 11 points, a driver loses his or New York driving privileges.

In a related Video on MSN, the experts suggest that you do not simply pay your tickets because of the high collateral costs. The experts suggest fighting your tickets in Court.

If you need any advice about New York Traffic Tickets, contact the New York Traffic Attorneys at Tilem & Campbell.

On the front page of today's New York Times, the Times is reporting a sharp increase in shoplifting and shoplifting arrests across the Country. Citing several factors including the weak economy the Times is reporting that shoplifting arrests are up ten to twenty percent over last year.

At the New York criminal defense firm, Tilem & Campbell we have also seen the increase in New York shoplifting cases through telephone inquiries to the firm, cases on which the firm has been retained, and cases we see in Court. Here in White Plains, New York, home to several shopping malls, the increase is clearly visible in the cases that the White Plains Court is handling.

It is important to remember that shoplifting in New York can result in several criminal charges including Petite Larceny and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree both class "A" misdemeanors punishable by up to one year in jail. If the property stolen retails for more than $1000 the charges can be Grand Larceny and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property In the Fourth Degree, both felonies punishable by up to four years in prison.

In addition, here at Tilem & Campbell, we have heard reports of abusive store security guards lying to people detained for shoplifting and holding them for long periods of time before the Police are called. The store security guards are generally not police officers and therefore are not bound by the same rules a police officers.

New York shoplifting cases are extremely serious and can lead to severe consequences including a permanent criminal record. Here are a few tips based upon my extensive experience in handling shoplifting cases. While shopping:
1. Do not put any items inside any pocket, bag or clothing, if you cannot carry everything get a basket or cart.
2. Do not leave the store with items even if it to use the cell phone or get better reception and you intend to pay for the items.
3. When going from one store to another with purchased items, make sure you save the receipt.
4. If stopped by store security, do not make any admissions, do not apologize. Be cooperative but insist that you be able to speak toa a parent, guardian or lawyer.

If you are arrested for a New York shoplifting case, a New York Petit Larceny case or a New York Grand larceny case treat the matter with the seriousness that it requires. Contact us or any experienced criminal defense lawyer who handles these types of cases.

New York Criminal Defense Lawyers John Campbell and Peter Tilem appeared on the Star and Buc Wild Morning Show yesterday morning and sat in on the show from 8 am until 10 am. The Star and Buc Wild Show, which is featured on the Pulse 87.7 FM, has hosted the pair in the past and had them back yesterday to talk about criminal law and particularly drug crimes, gun crimes, traffic violations, traffic misdemeanors, and DWIs.

Many callers called in to ask their legal questions and many more who could not get through on the radio station phones called Tilem & Campbell at 888-ANY-CRIME to speak to the lawyers. "We even got a call from an NYPD Narcotics Detective who called in to talk about cooperating with the police," according to Peter Tilem.

Although the Star and Buc Wild Show is no longer on the Pulse, Peter Tilem and John Campbell have been asked back to appear on the Pulse in the near future.

New York Traffic Ticket Lawyers, Tilem & Campbell are please to announce the posting of their newest web paging entitled "New York City Traffic Tickets". The page is designed to be a primer of the practices of the New York Traffic Violation Bureau Courts (TVB) that operate in New York City, Rochester, Buffalo and parts of Suffolk County. If you receive a traffic summons in Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens, Manhattan or Staten Island in New York City it will be returnable to the Department of Motor Vehicles and be adjudicated in a TVB. The New York City Traffic Ticket page will educate you about the practices and procedures of these administrative courts.

The page is broken up by heading with topics such as "The Hearing", "Entering Your Plea" and "The Rules of Evidence at the Hearing" and more and therefore should be a simple reference for any questions realting to New York City Traffic Tickets.

If you receive a traffic summons in the City of New York or any other area that is covered by the TVB please refer to the "New York City Traffic Tickets" page or contact us at 877-DR SUMMONS. Keep in mind that the TVB only handles traffic infractions and not traffic misdemeanors or other types of violations.

New York criminal defense firm Tilem & Campbell has filed Court papers seeking to prevent the use of mandatory minimum sentences in federal crack cases. Citing the reasoning in the recent Supreme Court decision, Kimbrough v United States that permitted Federal District Courts to consider the "100-1" ratio when considering whether or not to sentence below the federal sentencing guidelines in crack (or cocaine base) cases, Tilem & Campbell asked the Courts to take the ruling one step further and declare the mandatory minimums unconstitutional. The "100-1" ratio refers to the fact that under the current federal sentencing scheme, an offender sentenced for cocaine base is likely to get roughly the same sentence as a person sentences for 100 times as much cocaine.

The Supreme Court in Kimbrough found that this "100 -1" ratio was unwarranted based upon the fact that cocaine base (crack) and cocaine are two forms of the same drug with the same active ingredient and the same physiological and psychotropic effects. In addition, citing statistics from the United States Sentencing Commission, the Supreme Court indicated that there was a racial disparity with minorities and in particular African-Americans receiving longer sentences for crack offenses than their white counterparts who were committing cocaine offenses.

Tilem & Campbell filed the challenges in both the US District Court for the Southern District of New York and the US District Court for the Eastern District Court and decisions are awaited from both Courts.

For more information about the latest developments in Federal crack sentences please subscribe to this blog or contact one of our experienced Federal criminal defense lawyers at

New York Criminal Defense Law Firm, Tilem & Campbell, scored another major victory in a New York gun case when it won a complete dismissal of all charges in a Bronx County case yesterday. The original charges included Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree and Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree. The Defendant faced a minimum sentence of 3 and 1/2 years in prison on the Second Degree charge which is a class "C" violent felony.

The case was won using a little known Federal Defense that provides a defense to gun charges in all 50 states for those transporting firearms from one place where they may legally possess that gun to another such place if done so in accordance with federal law.

The victory comes on the heels of a string of major victories in the past three months for Tilem & Campbell which included another dismissal of felony gun charges in a Brooklyn Gun case in June and the sentencing earlier this month to house arrest for a person charged in Federal Court with trafficking in a large number of firearms from Texas to New York. Unfortunately, the firm suffered one loss back in June when a Tilem & Campbell client was convicted by a jury of gun possession.

Yesterday's case received significant media attention with articles being published around the web about the use of the Federal Defense to defeat one of New York State's stringent gun laws. Articles appeared on Forbes.com , Reuters and the Earth Times to name just a few of many articles.

To speak to an attorney about the Federal Travelers Defense or any Weapon or gun related issue contact an attorney at Tilem & Campbell or visit handgunattorney.com

The Queens District Attorney’s Office announced the indictment of a Dutch man for his role in spraying graffiti on a subway car in Queens and then taking police on a foot pursuit on the subway tracks. The cases focuses attention on the serious charges associated with graffiti in New York including Criminal Mischief, Making Graffiti and Possession of Graffiti Instruments. It also focuses attention on “Graffiti Tourism” a growing phenomenon in this area.

Criminal Mischief in New York is a crime involving damaging property (either intentionally or recklessly) and is generally a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail. Damaging property in an amount exceeding $250 can be charged as a class “E” Felony punishable by a prison term of up to 4 years and damaging property in an amount exceeding $1500 is a class “D” felony punishable by up to seven years in prison.

The problem is that the threshold amounts have not been changed since 1971 and when the New York State Legislature amended the Grand larceny Statutes in 1986 they forgot to amend the Criminal Mischief statutes. In practice, that means that if you steal property worth $300 you are only guilty of a misdemeanor but if you damage property worth $300 you are guilty of a felony.

In 1992 the New York State Legislature added Making Graffiti and Possession of Graffiti Instruments to the New York State Penal Law. Making Graffiti is a class “A” misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and Possession of Graffiti Instruments is a class “B” misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days in jail.

Making Graffiti involves painting, etching, covering or drawing upon either private or public property with the intent to damage property. Possession of Graffiti Instruments involves possessing tools commonly used to make graffiti such as paint or magic markers under circumstances that show an intent to use those tools to damage property.

New York City and other cities such as White Plains, Yonkers and New Rochelle have worked hard recently to rid their streets of graffiti. Those charged with making Graffiti or other Graffiti related charges often face very aggressive prosecution. It is important to remember that all offenses relating to graffiti are crimes and one charged with any of these offenses should contact an experience New York Criminal Defense Lawyer as soon as possible.

New York Criminal Defense Attorney's John Campbell and Peter Tilem spent the morning,yesterday, on The Pulse 87.7 FM talking about criminal law and answering listeners' questions. Peter Tilem and John Campbell were on the Star and Buc Wild morning show during the 8:00 am hour and ended up staying until 10:00 am talking with Star, DX 21 and White Trash Helene while listeners phoned and E-Mailed in their legal questions and even an NYPD Sergeant E-Mailed in his question concerning arresting people for Possession of Rifles in New York City.

Tilem & Campbell sponsored breakfast for the show and a great time was had by all; both Peter Tilem and John Campbell were invited back to come on the show in the near future. Yesterday's appearance was videotaped and will be posted on this blog as soon as the video becomes available.

New York State law enforcement officials announced this week a new campaign to crack down on Driving While Intoxicated or Impaired on New York State roads. The campaign coincides with the national "Drunk Driving. Over the Limit. Under Arrest,"campaign which is scheduled to last until September 2, 2008. The program calls for police agencies throughout New York State to increase the use of saturation patrols and checkpoints in an effort to catch intoxicated and impaired drivers.

Readers of this Blog and clients of Tilem & Campbell are reminded of my blog dated March 3, 2008 warning drivers about being arrested even if their Blood Alcohol Limit (BAC) is below the legal limit. Obviously it goes without saying that a driver should never operate a vehicle while intoxicated or impaired by any substance. However, if you are stopped in a DWI check point and you have alcohol on your breath you may be arrested regardless of whether you are legally intoxicated or impaired.

Keep in mind that if you refuse to take the breath test your license to operate a vehicle in New York will be revoked for a period of one year regardless of whether you are convicted of DWI or DWAI. Remember that a good lawyer can challenge both the police testimony and the breath test results.

If you are arrested, summoned or charged with DWI, DWAI or any other driving related criminal offense contact an experienced New York DWI Lawyer as soon as possible who can help fight for your license and your rights.

In a landmark decision that was closely watched by New York criminal lawyers and attorneys throughout the Country, The United States Supreme Court struck down Washington DC's ban on handguns. As discussed in our earlier March 19, 2008 blog, the decision is monumental because it marks the first time the Court has recognized that the right to "keep and bear arms" applies to individual citizens and not only State Militias. The fact that the Supreme Court now recognizes an individual right raises many questions about the legality of the gun laws throughout New York and the North East.

To me, as an attorney who was a member of the firearms trafficking unit of the District Attorney's office in Manhattan and has handled numerous gun cases throughout my career, this decision raises more questions than answers. For example, while the Court has prohibited a total ban on guns, to what extent will Courts allow "Reasonable Restrictions" on the ownership of handguns? Will the Courts permit onerous licensing and registration laws to continue? To what extent does this effect individuals facing the mandatory minimum three and one half year sentence for those charged with possession of a loaded firearm in New York?

At Tilem & Campbell we are continuing to analyze the decision with an eye toward helping our clients navigate the maze of New York gun laws. A further blog on this topic in the coming weeks will further discuss the ramifications of the decision.

New York City Administrative Code 10-133(b) (Unlawful Possession of Knives or Instruments), makes it illegal to possess a knife with a blade of four inches or more in any public place in New York City. Criminal Lawyers and Judges have struggled with this section for years because the reach of the statute is so broad and because of how easy it is to violate this statute.

Firstly, there is no specific “mens rea” or mental culpability required for this offense. Most criminal statutes require a person to act intentionally, knowingly or recklessly. This statute does not even require that the person knowingly possess the knife. Most weapons offenses require that the possession be knowing possession. In addition, as all of us know, knives have many legitimate uses and even the average kitchen knife has a blade length over four inches. To demonstrate the reach of this statute, over twenty years ago a Queens Criminal Court Judge ruled that the statute could be applied to a Sikh priest who had the knife as part of a genuine religious observance.

Last month another Queens Criminal Court Judge ruled that possessing a knife over four inches in a car is not a violation of this New York City Administrative Code section since a person’s car, even though on a public street, is not a “public place.” In the recent Queens case, the knife was seen in the center console of a vehicle that was stopped by the police for a routine traffic infraction. The Court ruled that the center console of a person’s vehicle is not a public place and dismissed the New York City Administrative Code violation.

Unlawful Possession of a Knife is a violation, not a crime under the New York City Administrative Code. Although only a violation, a person accused of violating this section faces up to 15 days in jail and a fine of up to $300.
If you, a family member or friend receive a summons or are arrested for violating the New York City Administrative Code, take the matter seriously and contact an experienced New York Criminal Attorney.

The verdict in the Queens, New York shooting of Sean Bell by New York City Police leaves many questions unanswered. The verdict, however, is not surprising to experienced New York Criminal Defense Lawyers in light of New York’s defense of justification and a history of high profile cases in which the defense has been used successfully.

The defense of justification or “self defense” as it is more commonly known has played a role in the acquittals of Bernard Goetz in Manhattan, the police officers acquitted of shooting Amadou Diallou in the Bronx and the acquittal of Police Officer Frank Livoti implicated in the death of Anthony Baez. In both the Baez and Sean Bell cases it was a Judge deciding the case without a jury that acquitted the defendants in those cases. In the Goetz and Diallou trial it was a jury that acquitted the defendants.

The defense of justification or the right to self-defense is one of the oldest defenses originally recognized at common-law. It has been codified in New York Law since at least the year 1881. Today, self defense is codified in Penal Law §35.15. Under the right of a self-defense a person may use force against another person to protect himself or a third person. The force used may even rise to the level of deadly physical force under certain circumstances. All of the elements of the defense are beyond the scope of this article but force may also be used for example to prevent a crime or apprehend someone who has committed a crime.

The defense of justification is a common defense raised by experienced New York Criminal Defense Lawyers in many homicide and assault cases. It is a powerful defense for many reasons but in no small part because once raised, the prosecution has the burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. What that means is that the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant was not acting in self-defense. This is often very hard to prove. It is even more difficult to prove given that an element of self-defense is the defendant’s belief at the time of the self defense. The defendant’s belief is very difficult to know it is even harder to prove in many cases.

Given the complexity of the issues involved, it is not surprising that successful New York defense attorneys such as the lawyers at Tilem & Campbell have used the defense with great success. It is also no surprise that that the police officers involved in the Sean Bell case were found not guilty.

New York State Chief Judge Judith Kaye filed suit against the New York Governor and Legislators seeking pay raises for New York State Judges. It is absolutely preposterous that it has come to this considering that Judges have not received any pay raise, not even to adjust for cost of living, in more than nine years. New York Judges' salaries are ranked 49th in the Country among State Judges. In addition, the New York State Judges make about $30,000 less that Federal Judges who are also underpaid.

The potential for harm to the judiciary was noted recently by United States Supreme Court Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas in a hearing last month before Congress. Justice Thomas pointed out that Federal judges make about what first year associates make at the largest law firms. Judge Kay in her lawsuit points out that many professors working for the State and City system make more than a New York Supreme Court Justice as do the District Attorneys in New York City.

As a New York trial attorney I am in Court virtually every day. I see the most serious of cases being litigated before Judges throughout the area. The litigants in those cases deserve that there cases be heard by the best and the brightest judges who can give their fullest attention to each case.

If New York doesn't fix the imbalance caused by going 10 years without judicial raises, the good judges on the New York bench will leave and be replaced by the few lawyers who cannot get a better paying job or the few lawyers who are independently wealthy and just don't care. Neither type of Judge is the kind that New Yorker's deserve.

Peter H. Tilem, Senior Partner at Westchester Criminal Defense Firm Tilem & Campbell is quoted briefly in today's Journal News. Mr. Tilem was in Federal Court in White Plains, yesterday, with his client Ramon Vargas who, according to the article, entered a plea of guilty in a case involving Federal credit card fraud and forgery charges.

According to the article Mr. Vargas, who faced up to fifteen years in prison on the charge, faces less than half that time or 87 months as a maximum under the sentencing guidelines. Sentencing in the case will most likely be scheduled for July.

Peter H. Tilem, a former Manhattan Prosecutor, with his law partner John Campbell, maintains an active New York Criminal Defense law firm in based in White Plains New York. The firm handles State and Federal Criminal Matters throughout lower New York State.

White Plains based law firm Tilem & Campbell has launched its own investigation into some of the practices of the Cayuga Heights Village Court and Judge Glenn G. Galbreath. Tilem & Campbell, the Westchester County based firm that represents drivers throughout New York State and is the owner of domain name TRAFFICTICKETEXPRESS.COM, launched the investigation after a letter from the Cayuga Heights Court seemed to indicate that Judge Galbreath may be implementing an illegal plea policy with regard to speeding tickets. During a preliminary investigation, the firm received complaints from several lawyers about the Court and Judge Galbreath prompting the wider probe.
Peter H. Tilem, Senior Partner at the firm, has requested transcripts of numerous Court proceedings and has requested access to all traffic ticket cases adjudicated in the Court over the last year. As a former New York County Prosecutor, Mr. Tilem has extensive experience in conducting investigations. A similar investigation launched by the firm last year into practices at the North Hills Village Court led to the firm filing an action against Judge Sigmund Semon in the Supreme Court of Nassau County.

Westchester based Criminal Defense Law Firm, Tilem & Campbell, is following with great interest the case of District of Columbia v. Heller which was argued in the United States Supreme Court yesterday morning. Peter H. Tilem, Senior Partner at the firm is a former member of the Firearms Trafficking Unit of the New York County District Attorney’s Office and has handled numerous firearms and weapons related cases both as a prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney. The firm, Tilem & Campbell owns the domain name handgunattorney.com and has handled numerous firearms and weapons related cases in both Federal and State Court.

The Heller case involves a Federal challenge to the District of Columbia ban on private possession of handguns. This marks the first Second Amendment case considered by the United States Supreme Court since 1939. The question being considered by the Supreme Court in this case is whether the District of Columbia ban violates the rights of citizens who, though not part of any militia, wish to keep handguns in their home. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has already ruled that the ban is unconstitutional and has struck down the DC law. The decision from the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to have far reaching ramifications.

If the Supreme Court agrees with the Circuit Court, it will mark the first time in this nation’s history that the Supreme Court has applied the Second Amendment to citizens not a part of a State Militia and therefore can have an impact on the gun laws of States throughout the Country. New York City and other localities throughout New York State that have particularly restrictive gun laws may be profoundly affected by the Decision particularly if the Supreme Court Decision upholds the Circuit Court ruling.

While it is often difficult to predict how the Court will rule from the questioning of the Justices, some of the questioning today seemed to indicate that at least some of the Justices will vote to uphold the Circuit Court decision which struck down the DC Law. Chief Justice Roberts asked the lawyer arguing on behalf of the District of Columbia what was reasonable about a total ban and likened the ban to a ban on newspapers in violation of the First Amendment.

While the Supreme Court is not expected to rule for several months, this Firm will continue to monitor the case and report on any decision as soon as becomes available. This Firm will be preparing constitutional challenges to New York gun laws on behalf of our clients in appropriate situations, should the Supreme Court uphold the Circuit’s decision.

As promised, here is a the video of New York Criminal Defense Attorney John Campbell commenting on the Governor Spitzer prostitution scandal.

As discussed in my previous post John Campbell, the managing partner here at the White Plains, New York law firm of Tilem & Campbell which owns the domain name escortattorney.com was asked to comment on the scandal and specifically whether Governor Spitzer was likely to be charged. Please see below.

RNN, the Regional News Network just came by the office to get comments from Criminal Defense Lawyer John Campbell the managing partner here at the firm about the prostitution and Mann Act issues in which New York Governor Elliot Spitzer finds himself embroiled. The firm has handled numerous prostitution related cases and while John and I are often the “go to” lawyers here in Westchester County for the media to get their legal comments, it is nice to be able to comment on an issue with which we are so familiar.

Tilem & Campbell, PC owns the web domain name escortattorney.com and has had the opportunity to represent clients in a wide variety of prostitution related cases that go far beyond simple prostitution. As such, John was a natural choice to comment on the Governor Spitzer situation.

John explained to RNN that while the Governor’s conduct may have technically violated the Mann Act, it is unlikely that he will be prosecute because customers also referred to as “Johns” (no pun is intended) are usually not prosecuted under the Mann Act. John explained that often, federal investigations often focus more on the organizers and managers and the prostitutes or customers.

John also speculated that a deal would be worked out in which the Governor would be allowed to resign in exchange for an agreement that he would not be prosecuted. Elliot Spitzer has hired a large Manhattan based law firm to represent him which seems to indicate that he at least believes that he will have upcoming legal issues.

When the video from RNN becomes available we will post the link on this Blog.