ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

Published on:

by

New York DWI lawyers must understand the science as well as the law.  Under long-standing U.S. Supreme Court case law, the prosecution must disclose all evidence that is material to guilt or innocence to the defense. This means that in a New York DWI/DUI case, the prosecution has an obligation to hand over not just the evidence that it plans to use to establish that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but also evidence that would tend to show that the defendant did not commit the crimes charged.

In a recent New York DUI case, the court considered the extent of the discovery that must be provided to a defendant facing charges of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

The Facts of the Case

The defendant was pulled over while traveling 81 miles per hour in a 50-mile-per-hour zone. Upon pulling the defendant over, the officer claimed the defendant had glassy eyes, slurred speech, and an odor of alcohol on his breath. When asked, the defendant told the officer that he had consumed a single drink.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

New York criminal law does not, generally speaking, attach criminal liability to actions that are not accompanied by the requisite level of “guilty knowledge,” or mens rea. Thus, most New York crimes are broken down into at least two elements, the “act” element, and the “knowledge” or “intent” element. Even when a New York criminal statute does not specify that a certain level of knowledge or intent is required, courts will read in such a requirement. Possessory offenses are an excellent example of how this principle is applied by the courts.

A possessory offense is one in which the “act” element of the crime is fulfilled merely by possessing a prohibited object. New York drug and gun crimes are common examples of possessory crimes. For example, under New York Consolidated Laws Article 265, “a person is guilty of criminal possession of a firearm when he or she … possesses any firearm.”

At first glance, the wording of the statute would seem to indicate that anyone who has a weapon in their possession, regardless of whether they know they possess it, is guilty of the offense. However, criminal law disfavors this type of strict liability. Thus, courts generally require that a defendant knowingly possess a firearm before imposing criminal liability. It is important to note that the term “knowingly” goes to the object itself, and not the prohibited nature of the object. For example, a defendant who knowingly possesses a weapon but does not know that it is illegal to possess the weapon will be found to have “possessed” the illegal weapon.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a New York criminal law case discussing whether a police officer’s search of the defendant’s backpack was lawful. The Court examined whether the defendant abandoned property as a result of lawful or unlawful police conduct.  Ultimately, the court concluded that the police officer was justified in his actions leading up to the point where the defendant discarded the bag. Thus, the court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the gun.

The Facts of the Case

Police received an anonymous radio call that there was a man with a handgun riding the B9 bus towards Canarsie. Police waited at a bus stop, and when the defendant exited the bus, a police officer approached the defendant and asked him if he would mind talking to the officer for a moment.

At this point, the police officer claimed that the defendant became nervous and put his right hand into his pocket. When the police officer asked the defendant to remove his hand, the defendant refused. The police officer then drew his weapon and forcibly tried to remove the defendant’s hand from his pocket. The defendant fled and the police officer pursued him. Shortly thereafter, the defendant discarded the bag, the police officer searched the bag, and the police officer recovered the firearm.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

A state court recently issued an opinion in a New York gun possession case requiring the court to determine if a gun found in the defendant’s motor home was the product of an illegal search. Ultimately, the court concluded that the defendant’s motorhome was afforded the same protection as any other residence, and that the warrantless search was not justified.

The Facts of the Case

Police received a call that someone was stealing electricity by connecting their motorhome up to a telephone wire. Police responded to the scene to see the defendant’s motorhome connected to a nearby telephone pole by a wire coming out of the top of the motorhome.

According to police, an officer knocked on the door of the motorhome. When the defendant answered, police asked him about the wire, and the defendant admitted it was not legal. Police then put the defendant in handcuffs and walked him toward the police car. On the way to the car, police claimed that the defendant said “there is a gun in there.” Another officer then went into the motorhome, located the gun, and confiscated it.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

Recently, a state court issued a written opinion in a case involving allegations that the defendant violated a New York order of protection. The case required the court to determine if the defendant was correct in asserting that the police entered her home without a warrant and without sufficient cause to do so. Ultimately, the court concluded that the police acted improperly, and thus any evidence obtained as a result should have been suppressed.

The Facts of the Case

The defendant had been previously placed on probation based on an unrelated matter. As a condition of that probation, the court issued an order of protection, requiring the defendant to stay away from a certain individual.

One day, police received a call from the downstairs neighbor of the defendant, stating that she heard noises in the apartment. This concerned her because she believed the defendant to have been incarcerated. Police verified that the defendant had previously been released from jail, but went to the apartment anyhow.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

Generally, a defendant in a New York criminal trial does not go to trial expecting that they will be found guilty. On the one hand, if a defendant is innocent of the crimes charged or believes the case against them to be weak, they will fight the case in hopes of being found not guilty. On the other hand, if a defendant believes the case against them to be a strong one, they will normally negotiate a plea agreement through their attorney.There are some cases, however, that fit somewhere in the middle. For example, consider a New York gun possession case in which a gun is recovered from a person by a police officer. If the gun is admitted into evidence, the prosecution will not have a difficult job at trial, needing only to prove that the defendant possessed the gun. However, the defendant may have a strong motion to suppress the gun from evidence, based on the police officer’s conduct leading up to the search and seizure.

In this case, the defendant would litigate a motion to suppress the physical evidence in the case, namely the gun. If successful, the prosecution would be unable to admit the gun into evidence, and in many gun possession cases, the prosecution will withdraw at this point. However, if the defendant’s motion is denied, there is often little to be gained by proceeding to trial – at which the prosecution need only prove that the defendant possessed the weapon.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

The Federal and New York State Constitutions provide citizens who are charged with New York crimes certain rights that must be respected. In addition, there are certain statutes that grant New York criminal defendants additional rights. In the event that any government agent – including police and prosecutors – fails to respect these rights, courts have an obligation to take remedial action, up to and including dismissing the charges. In a recent case, a New York appellate court dismissed criminal charges against a defendant based on the government’s failure to provide accurate and timely notice of the charges he faced.The Facts of the Case

On June 27, 2016, the defendant was charged with various crimes after a 12-year-old girl observed him touching his penis while sitting in his vehicle. Initially, the girl told police that she saw the defendant at Northern Boulevard and 106th Street.

On May 8, 2017, the prosecution filed additional charges against the defendant. The prosecution did not change the named location of the alleged offense and specified that the conduct at issue took place between June 17, 2016 and May 5, 2017. The defendant objected to the charges, arguing that they were overly broad, and requested that the prosecution file a document more specifically stating what he was charged with committing and when it was alleged to have occurred.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

In the past, we have written several blogs about the importance of suppression in criminal cases in general and specifically with DWI cases.  Recently, a court granted a defendant’s motion to suppress in a New York DUI case that was initiated by police officers pulling the defendant over for having tinted windows. The court granted the motion based on a total lack of testimony regarding the officers’ observations of the degree of tint on the defendant’s windows. The court noted that excessive tint is a valid basis for a New York traffic stop. However, here the prosecution failed to elicit evidence that the tint on the defendant’s windows was greater than that which was legally permissible.

The Facts of the Case

The defendant was pulled over by an off-duty police officer based on the vehicle’s tinted windows. The off-duty officer testified that he instructed the defendant to pull over and, through his open window, could smell the odor of alcohol and could see that the defendant’s eyes were watery and bloodshot. The officer also testified that he based these conclusions on his twelve years as a New York City police officer. The officer explained that the only reason he pulled the defendant over was that he noticed “tinted windows.”

The off-duty officer called in back-up, who arrived a short time later. The back-up officer was less experienced than the off-duty officer, but testified to having made between 12-15 DUI arrests in his 15 months as a New York City police officer. The officer also noted that the defendant smelled of alcohol.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

Late last month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a New York DUI case requiring the court to determine if the police officer that stopped the defendant possessed probable cause to do so. Ultimately, the court concluded that the police officer did not have probable cause to stop the defendant’s vehicle for a traffic stop after hearing his tires squeal as he pulled away from an intersection. Thus, the court held that the defendant’s motion to suppress should be granted.

The Facts of the Case

A police officer was on patrol around 2:30 in the morning. The area bars had just closed, and there were a number of pedestrians in the area. While waiting at an intersection, the police officer noticed that as the light turned green, the tires on the defendant’s vehicle squealed as he pulled away from an intersection at a quick pace.

The police officer decided to pull over the defendant based on his screeching tires and rate of acceleration. At the officer’s request, the defendant provided his driver’s license and explained that he was on his way home from work. He told the officer that he did not know why he was pulled over, and the officer informed him of the basis for the traffic stop.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

When someone is convicted of a crime in New York, they are entitled to appeal the conviction or to have a higher court review the conviction to make sure that the judge presiding over the trial did not commit any legal errors that may have invalidated the conviction. However, as a general rule, a New York criminal appeal will only be successful if certain steps are taken at trial to preserve the error for appellate review.

The concept behind requiring the preservation of error is that a judge should have the opportunity to review the alleged error at the time it was made so that she can revisit the decision. If a trial judge’s potential mistake is not brought to the attention of the trial judge, there is no opportunity for the judge to reverse their decision or take other corrective actions to remedy the error. In addition, the legislature wants to encourage litigants to bring potential errors to the attention of the judge sooner, rather than later, in order to reduce the chance that a trial is carried on in vain.

For these reasons, a party must generally make a specific objection in order to preserve an error for appellate review. Absent a specific objection, the reviewing court will likely dismiss the appeal. A recent case illustrates this concept.

Continue reading