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.

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.

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.

Another basic defense to any type of possession crime involves the constitutionality of the police conduct. Why the the police stop you, search you and seize the knife? If the police acted illegally then the knife can be suppressed by the Court and the case dismissed.

In addition to issues pertaining to the function of the knife and the police conduct in recovering the knife, there are statutory exemptions which may provide a defense and permit certain people to certain knives under certain circumstances. For example New York law permits people with hunting or fishing licenses to possess switchblades under certain circumstances.

The Supreme Court has recently made clear in both its Heller and McDonald decisions that the right to keep and bear arms is a right of all citizens and in both cases the US. Supreme Court alluded to the possession of knives. It appears that the Second Amendment applies to knives and therefore you may have a constitutional defense to certain knive possession cases.

The bottom line is that defenses do exist to many knife cases. Despite the seriousness of these charges they can often be successfully challenged in Court. It is important to get an experienced criminal defense lawyer involved as early as possible in the process.

Peter Tilem is a former prosecutor who is experienced in not only defending DWI cases but with prosecuting them as well. Having been a former prosecutor who prosecuted thousands of cases, including DWI, Mr. Tilem brings a unique perspective to DWI defense. Together, Mr. Campbell and Mr. Tilem provide you with a competent, aggressive, experienced and knowledgeable defense team.

Generally, people charged with crimes fall into two categories: (1) true criminals; or (2) decent people who happen to commit an offense. The large majority of individuals charged with Driving While Intoxicated (VTL 1192(2) and/or VTL 1192(3)) fall into the second category. In other words, generally, those charged with DWI are otherwise law-abiding, gainfully employed decent members of society who happen to commit the crime of Driving While Intoxicated. Unlike most crimes, Driving While Intoxicated affects all socio-economic classes, all neighborhoods, all races, all ethnicities, all religions, all professions and all cross-sections of society.

By consuming just a few alcoholic beverages, otherwise completely law-abiding individuals (doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers, salesmen, stock brokers, construction workers and yes, even police officers) can find themselves charged criminally with Driving While Intoxicated. A common mistake one unfamiliar with the criminal justice system can make when charged with DWI is retaining an attorney unqualified to defend DWI charges.
Because the vast majority of people charged with DWI are otherwise law-abiding individuals, they typically don’t know a criminal defense attorney. So what do they do when they’re arrested for Driving While Intoxicated? Many times they call their “family” attorney; the attorney who represented them when they bought their home or prepared their wills. This can prove disastrous if their “family” attorney is not competent to defend DWI cases.

Driving While Intoxicated is a serious crime that requires a competent attorney experienced with defending DWI cases. The stakes are too high to simply turn to your family attorney. A criminal conviction can; put your professional licenses at risk; result in jail or state prison; insurance increases; high fines and fees; loss driver’s license; vehicle forfeiture; probation and court ordered alcohol counseling is possible.

To properly defend a DWI case, your attorney must be competent and knowledgeable with the laws and health department regulations pertaining to Driving While Intoxicated. Your DWI lawyer must also be well versed in certain aspects of forensic toxicology, the science and general principles associated with breath testing machines, blood testing and urine testing. Your DWI attorney should also be thoroughly educated in the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, their administration and scoring.

For more information and a free telephone consultation, feel free to contact Tilem and Campbell toll free at 1-888-DWI-COUNSEL or visit us on the web at www.888DwiCounsel.com.

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.

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.

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 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. .

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.

The issue raised at trial by Mr. Tilem is under what circumstances a police officer may issue a ticket for passing a red light when the police officer does not view the same traffic light as the motorist but rather views that the light is green in the perpendicular direction. May the police officer infer that the light facing the motorist is red? It turns out that the answer is no, the Officer may not reach that inference and rather would be required to examine the light to make sure it was working properly.

In the Ardsley case tried last month, the police officer never inspected the light but rather testified in very conclusory terms that the light was "working properly." In addition, the police officer attempted to bolster his case by claiming that he saw the shadow of the red light from his angle, but that testimony was called into question when he admitted, during cross-examination by Mr. Tilem, that the weather was clear, that it was mid-day and that the cylinders over the lights were designed to prevent motorists from seeing the light from the side and becoming confused.

Justice Schwartz's decision in the case was consistent with a whole line of decisions on this topic from Courts dating back to as early as 1960.

Red light tickets carry a fine of up to $450 plus an $85 surcharge and 3 points on your license. They should be taken seriously since many insurance companies take them seriously. If you, or anyone you know has been issued a summons for any moving violation, take it seriously. Contact one of the lawyers at Tilem & Campbell or visit us on the web at drsummons.com.

In People v. May, 81 A.D.2d 805 the police encountered a parked vehicle in New York City with the driver slumped over the steering wheel. The keys were in the ignition but the car was not running. One of the officers knocked on the window and awakened the defendant. The defendant’s reactions were slow and his speech was slurred. The officer asked defendant to exit the vehicle and while defendant was doing so, a gun fell to the ground. The trial court held that the police were allowed to approach the vehicle and check on the occupant/defendant but that the police were not justified in asking defendant to exit the vehicle because they had no basis to suspect he was involved in criminal activity or was violating the Vehicle and Traffic Law.

The Appellate Division reversed finding that the officers’ conduct was not the product of mere whim, caprice or idle curiosity, but was instead based on specific and articulable facts such as the fact that defendant was slumped at the wheel with the key in the ignition and, when he was aroused, his speech was slurred and his movements were slow. Considering the original approach of the vehicle was legal, in these circumstances, the police could properly ask defendant to step out of the car and display his license and registration.

For more information about this and other New York criminal law issues, or if you are currently charged with any offense such as Drug Charge or New York Gun Offense, call us toll free at 1-877-377-8666 or visit us on the web at www.tilemandcampbell.com.

The answer is no. Many times race does play a role in the determination of reasonable suspicion, since witnesses and victims will often describe suspects by their skin color. (see, generally, Johnson, Race and the Decision to Detain a Suspect, 93 Yale LJ 214). A suspect’s race is “a characteristic which may properly be used as one element of identification”. Franklin v State, 374 So 2d 1151, 1154 (Fla). Indeed, race is “an identifying factor which . . .assists the police in narrowing the scope of their identification procedure.” United States v Collins, 532 F2d 79.

A person’s race, however, cannot serve as the sole basis for reasonable suspicion. The New York Court of Appeals has held that ethnic identity alone is an insufficient basis upon which to premise reasonable suspicion. People v George T., 39 N.Y.2d 1028 (1976). Therefore, it is improper for the police to stop someone simply because they are the same race as the suspect even where an individual of one race is seen is a neighborhood inhabited primarily by members of another race. People v. George T. supra.

If you have been charged with any offense in New York and feel the reason the police stopped you was because of your race, evidence seized as a result of that stop may be suppressed. In other words, it may not be allowed to be used against you at trial. For more information, feel free to contact Tilem & Campbell toll free at 1-877-377-8666 or visit us on the web at www.tilemandcampbell.com.

The authority for a hospital to hold a child for twenty-four hours is much broader than the authority granted CPS to remove a child from his or her parents/guardian since “imminent danger” need not exist. This “twenty-four-hour hold” period gives hospitals time to contact CPS and hold the child until a CPS investigator can arrive. It prevents a parent/guardian from simply leaving with the child where it is apparent to that parent that hospital medical staff has concerns about abuse and/or maltreatment (neglect). A hospital might hold a child when the child is brought in with suspicious injuries indicative of abuse or excessive corporal punishment.

And while this authority granted to hospitals and other similar institutions is referred to a as a “twenty-four hour hold”, in reality, the child can be held until the next regular weekday session of the appropriate Family Court. Therefore, if a hospital decides to hold a child on a Friday night, the hospital is authorized to hold that child through Monday morning.

If you are the subject of a Child Protective Services or Administration for Children’s Services investigation involving allegations of child abuse and/or maltreatment (neglect), contact Tilem & Campbell toll free at 1-877-377-8666 or visit us on the web at www.tilemandcampbell.com