Covid-19 Update: At Tilem & Associates our lawyers are committed to protecting your rights, serving our clients and keeping you safe.
Top 100 Trial Lawyers
BBB
Top 40 Under 40
AV Preeminent
The National Trial Lawyers
Top Once Percent
USCCA
LawyerCentral.com
AVVO
AVVO
USCCA
Badge
Best DWI Attorney 2017
10 Best Law Firm

As New York DWI lawyers, we are following a recent state appellate court  opinion on a New York DWI case discussing the procedures law enforcement must use to legally conduct a DWI checkpoint. Ultimately, the court concluded that the checkpoint used by law enforcement leading to the defendant’s arrest was legal, and affirmed the defendant’s conviction.

Drunk driving checkpoints are used throughout New York to catch intoxicated drivers. However, historically, these checkpoints have been used to target specific groups of motorists. Thus, courts have held that all DWI checkpoints must comply with certain guidelines; otherwise, they are unconstitutional.  It is important for attorneys that handle New York DWI’s to know the specific requirements for operating a constitutional checkpoint when conducting suppression hearings.

The Facts of the Case

The relevant facts in the case are straightforward: the defendant was stopped at a sobriety checkpoint and eventually arrested for driving while intoxicated. Evidently, there were signs immediately before the checkpoint entrance, indicating the presence of law enforcement. All law enforcement were in marked cars with the vehicle’s emergency lights on, and all officers were wearing their uniforms. Additionally, the officers operating the checkpoint would stop every car that passed by. However, officers would not ask motorists for their license and proof of insurance, as not to impede the flow of traffic any more than necessary.

Continue reading

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a New York drug case, affirming the defendant’s conviction. The court’s opinion, although brief, discusses what has come to be known as an eavesdropping warrant.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects all individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. Over the years, courts have generally held that, to be “reasonable,” a search must be supported by probable cause. Most often, this requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant to conduct a search. Of course, there are certain situations when a warrant is not needed, such as if the officer observes illegal conduct, or the search is conducted incident to a lawful arrest.

Absent an exception to the warrant requirement, law enforcement must obtain a warrant to search a person, their home, their car, or any other private area. Often, law enforcement officers want to search a physical place; however, if they want to search a suspect’s electronic communications, different rules apply.

Last month, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a New York DWI case discussing the denial of the defendant’s pretrial motion to suppress. The case required the court to determine if the lower court properly denied the defendant’s motion based on the arresting officers’ credibility. Finding that there was no reason to conclude the officer’s testimony at trial was not credible, the court upheld the denial of the defendant’s motion.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s brief opinion, a police officer pulled the defendant over based on his observations that she had her high-beams on and failed to use her turn signal. During the traffic stop, the officer thought the defendant was intoxicated. Ultimately, he arrested the defendant for Driving While Intoxicated.

In a pre-trial motion to suppress, the defendant argued that any evidence of her intoxication should be suppressed based on the fact that the officer’s decision to stop her was unsupported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause. At the motion, the police officer cited two reasons for stopping the defendant’s car. First, she improperly used her high-beams, and second, she failed to use her turn signal.

Continue reading

A state appellate court issued an opinion in a New York gun possession case, last month,  requiring the court to determine if the police officers were justified in stopping the defendant’s vehicle for a traffic violation. Ultimately, the court concluded that the officer lacked any basis to believe that a crime had occurred and there was no probable cause to stop the vehicle. Thus, the court held the defendant’s motion to suppress should have been granted and suppressed the firearm.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, a state trooper ran the tags on the defendant’s vehicle. The response was: “CONFIRM RECORD WITH ORIGINATOR ** THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REPORTED AS AN IMPOUNDED VEHICLE —IT SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS A STOLEN VEHICLE HIT — NO FURTHER ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN BASED SOLELY UPON THIS IMPOUNDED RESPONSE **”

The trooper pulled the defendant over and, as he approached the vehicle, noticed a smell of marijuana and a burnt marijuana joint in the car. The defendant told the trooper that the car had previously been reported stolen, which may explain the message. The trooper searched both the defendant and the car, recovering marijuana and a loaded firearm under the driver’s seat.

Continue reading

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an extraordinary impact on the lives of all Americans. It seems as though almost every aspect of life has changed, seemingly overnight. As New York Criminal Defense Lawyers we are very concerned about the impact on the New York criminal justice system. In the wake of the pandemic, New York courts all but shut down, hearing only emergency matters. This took a serious toll on the effectiveness of the state’s criminal justice system. Indeed, jury trials have been delayed for months, and courts are getting overwhelmed as new cases continue to come in. Even since courts have started to reopen, concerns around the effective administration of justice remain—chief among these being the ability to get a fair jury trial during the COVID-19 pandemic.

While all New Yorkers are hopeful that the worst of the pandemic is in the rear-view mirror, New York is still struggling to return to a level of normalcy even as safety measures remain in place.  These safety measures can substantially interfere with a defendant’s due process rights and their ability to obtain a fair trial.

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees every criminal defendant the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury and “to be confronted with the witnesses against him,” and “to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.” However, each of these rights may be seriously hampered by the restrictions in place during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a New York gun possession case discussing the defendant’s claim that officers searched him without possessing the necessary probable cause or reasonable suspicion. After reviewing the evidence and applying the relevant law, the appellate court agreed, finding that the defendant’s motion to suppress should have been granted. As a result, the indictment against the defendant was dismissed.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, police officers saw the defendant standing on the side of the road and mistook him for his brother, whom they knew had a warrant out for his arrest. As the officers approached the defendant, he fled on foot. Eventually, the officers caught up to the defendant and, upon searching him, found a loaded gun. Subsequently, the defendant made a statement admitting to possessing the gun.

In a pre-trial motion to suppress, the defendant argued that the officers lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion to approach him. The defendant asked the officers about the existence of the warrants and whether the warrants were still valid. However, the defendant did not specifically ask to see the warrants and the prosecution did not produce them. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendant was later convicted.

Continue reading

Earlier this year, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a New York drug possession case involving the defendant’s claim that a stop and search of her vehicle violated her constitutional rights. Ultimately, however, the court determined that the search was supported by reasonable suspicion, rejecting the defendant’s arguments that the officers conducting the search lacked reasonable suspicion.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the defendant was on parole for an unrelated offense. Evidently, a confidential informant provided information to the defendant’s parole officer that the defendant was selling cocaine. The parole officer believed the informant to be reliable, because the informant had given the officer accurate information three other times.

Specifically, the informant told the officer that the defendant would be returning in a Nissan Altima with Connecticut license plates. The parole officer requested that local law enforcement stop the defendant’s vehicle. Based on the parole officer’s request, police stopped the defendant’s car (which matched the description given by the informant) and found cocaine inside the vehicle.

Continue reading

Earlier this year, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a New York gun possession case, requiring the court to review the lower court’s decision denying the defendant’s motion to suppress. After reviewing the facts and applicable legal principles, the court agreed with the court below, affirming the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress a firearm that he discarded while being chased by police officers.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, a confidential informant told his parole officer that “two individuals would be in a specified area in a silver or gray Pontiac and would have a firearm in the vehicle.” Police officers traveled to the location, where they saw a vehicle matching the description provided by the informant.

While the police officers were following the car, they claim that the driver failed to signal at least 100 feet before making a turn. The officers pulled over the vehicle. The defendant was in the passenger seat. The officers asked the defendant several questions, claiming that he was slow to answer and seemed nervous. The officers asked the defendant out of the vehicle and immediately held his hands behind his back.

Continue reading

If you haven’t been arrested for DWI (driving while intoxicated) or are not familiar with DUI laws, you probably have no idea what an ignition interlock device is. This small tool is a requirement for drivers who violated drunk driving laws throughout the United States. In fact, each state has an interlock installation program.

Ignition interlock devices (IID) have been around for years. California was the first to use the device when it established a pilot program following the Farr-Davis Safety Act of 1986. Today, the IID is an essential tool for discouraging recidivism and minimizing the number of repeat offenders.

If you or someone you know has recently been convicted of drunk driving, here are some vital facts about ignition interlock devices.

Earlier this year, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a New York attempted murder case stemming from a shooting outside an apartment complex. The court’s opinion discussed, among other issues, the defendant’s motion to suppress the identification of the defendant made by the complaining witness. Ultimately, the court concluded that, although there may have been issues with the witnesses’ identification of the defendant, because the witness knew the defendant from before the incident, the defendant’s constitutional rights were not adversely impacted.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, a man was shot outside his apartment complex on September 18, 2011. While at the hospital, the man told detectives that the person who shot him was known as “Chulo.” On two separate occasions, the witness identified the defendant from a single-photo, presented to him by a detective. Two years later, after the defendant’s arrest, the complaining witness identified the defendant again, this time in a double-blind sequential lineup.

Initially, the defendant challenged the procedures used during the double-blind lineup as suggestive. However, the court denied the defendant’s motion. Afterward, the defendant expanded his challenge to include the two previous identifications where the witness was only shown a single photograph. The trial court denied the defendant’s request, relying on the prosecution’s assurance that the witness knew the defendant. In response, the defendant requested a Rodriguez hearing, which involves questioning the witness outside the presence of the jury regarding his familiarity with the defendant. The judge denied the defendant’s request for a Rodriguez hearing, and a jury convicted the defendant, who then appealed.

Continue reading

Contact Information