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

Tilem & Associates, New York’s premier law firm for gun owners is pleased to announce the creation of a new pre-paid legal program, NY Tac Defense,  for New York gun owners which includes legal representation for self-defense Pre-Paid Legal services for gun ownerscases and red flag (ERPO) cases for enrolled clients.  Clients enrolled in the NY TAC DEFENSE can pay either a low monthly rate of $38.50 per month or can enroll in a discounted annual plan which is $385 for the year and is the equivalent of getting two months free.

Peter H. Tilem, the owner of Tilem & Associates, PC, spent 10 years in the New York County District Attorney’s Office where he was assigned to work on a variety of cases which included gun cases and homicides.  Since entering private practice Mr. Tilem has represented a large number of gun owners and has been involved in many justification or self-defense cases.

As of May 2018, several insurance programs, including NRA Carry Guard and a USCCA (United States Concealed Carry Association) program were being offered in New York but were subsequently alleged to be violating New York insurance regulations.  Both programs and others have since pulled out of the New York market.  The NY TAC Defense Program is a pre-paid legal product that allows clients to retain the firms services and pre-pay the legal services so that if they need to hire a lawyer for a self-defense shooting the client will not need to come up with a large lump sum retainer of $50,000 or more to retain a law firm.  It is not insurance and therefore does not indemnify against any losses.  It is simply an opportunity to retain a lawyer in advance.

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a New York gun case, reversing a lower court that found the defendant’s motion to suppress lacked merit. In holding that the defendant’s motion should have been granted, the appellate court explained that the defendant’s conduct failed to provide the officer with probable cause to search the vehicle without a warrant.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, a police officer saw the defendant make a left turn without using a signal. As the officer initiated the traffic stop, the defendant pulled into a driveway. The defendant initially got out of the vehicle, but the officer told him to get back inside. The defendant was unable to open the window, explaining to the officer that it was broken. Eventually, the defendant moved to the passenger side, opened the door, and fled.

Once the officer caught the defendant, the defendant explained he ran because he had a warrant for his arrest. The officer went back to the defendant’s car, noticing the smell of marijuana. The officer looked through the car, finding small baggies and a substance that he believed was crack cocaine. The officer then obtained a warrant to fully search the car. Upon searching the vehicle, the officer found a semi-automatic handgun.

Continue reading

Earlier this month, the United States Supreme court issued a written opinion in a criminal law case discussing an issue that will become very important in many New York drug possession and firearms cases. The case involved the question as to whether a police officer can reasonably assume that the person who is operating a vehicle is the registered owner of that vehicle. While this inquiry may seem like an unimportant one, in reality, it will have a major impact on motion practice and suppression hearings across the country.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, a sheriff deputy ran the license plate on the back of a pick-up truck to find that the registered owner had a revoked license. The deputy pulled the vehicle over, assuming that the registered owner was driving the vehicle. When the deputy discovered that the defendant was indeed the one driving, he cited the defendant.

The defendant filed a motion requesting to suppress all the evidence gathered from the stop, arguing that the deputy lacked reasonable suspicion when he decided to pull the defendant over. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion, but the appellate court reversed. On appeal to the state’s high court, the case was again reversed, this time in favor of the defendant. That court held that the deputy was acting on a “hunch” when he assumed that the registered owner of the car was the one who was driving it. The prosecution appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Continue reading

Last month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a New York gun possession case discussing whether the arresting officer had a “founded suspicion” that there was criminal activity afoot. Ultimately, the court held that the defendant’s motion to suppress the firearm that was found on him should have been granted, because the arresting officer approached, stopped, questioned and subsequently searched the defendant without sufficient reason.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the defendant was out walking his dog in an area known to be an “open air drug market” when he was approached by a police officer. That night, the temperature was about 40 degrees, and the defendant was wearing a mask that covered part of his face. The officer, who had only been on the force a few months and was working underneath a more experienced officer, pulled his vehicle in front of the defendant’s line of travel, got out of the car, and approached the defendant to ask him why he was wearing a mask. The defendant responded that he was walking his dog.

At this time, the more experienced training officer asked the defendant what was in a bag that he was carrying. The defendant responded that it was “weed.” The arresting officer then frisked the defendant and found a gun. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the gun, arguing that the arresting officer lacked reason to stop and question him, as well as to conduct the pat-frisk that led to the discovery of the gun.

Continue reading

As we reported in February, the Supreme Court heard argument on  a drug case that will likely have significant consequences for many facing New York gun charges.  Now, the United States Supreme Court issued a written opinion  in the case.  Specifically, the case required the Court to interpret the provision of the Armed Career Criminals Act (ACCA) imposing mandatory sentences for those who are convicted of a gun offense after having previously been convicted of at least three drug offenses.

The ACCA seeks to impose escalating punishments for the possession of a firearm, based on a defendant’s prior record. For example, if a defendant is convicted of a gun offense, and has three prior “serious drug offenses,” the defendant is subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of at least 15 years. Of course, not every state’s laws are written the same way, and this requires federal courts to determine whether a drug conviction should be considered a “serious drug offense” under the ACCA.

The Facts of the Case

According to the Court’s opinion, the defendant pleaded guilty to a firearm offense and, based on the defendant’s six prior cocaine-related convictions, he received a sentence of 15 years’ incarceration. On appeal, the defendant challenged the lower court’s finding that the six offenses qualified as “serious drug offenses” under the ACCA.

Continue reading

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a New York gun case discussing the automobile exception to the search warrant requirement. Generally, law enforcement must obtain a search warrant that is supported by probable cause before they can conduct a search. However, over the years, courts have crafted a variety of exceptions to the warrant requirement. One of the most often cited exceptions is the automobile exception.

The automobile exception came about based on the understanding that vehicles are mobile. Thus, if police officers were required to obtain a warrant to search a car, there would be a risk that the officers would not be able to locate the car again, or that any evidence inside the car could be hidden or destroyed. Thus, if an officer has probable cause to believe that there may be evidence or contraband inside a vehicle, the officer can search the vehicle without a warrant.

According to the court’s opinion, police officers witnessed the defendant give a carton of cigarettes to another man in exchange for money. The officers approached the defendant, who was standing near the open door of a van. As the officers got closer to the van, they could see that it was full of duffle bags and that one of the bags contained additional cartons of cigarettes. One of the officers then opened one of the packs in the carton that the defendant had just exchanged, noticing that there was no New York tax stamp. Officers arrested the defendant. Before driving the defendant’s car back to the station, one of the officers conducted a “quick check” of the vehicle, finding a firearm under the passenger seat.

New York Traffic lawyers have experienced first hand the empty roads and the opportunity to speed and we have seen a decrease in the number of calls from ticketed drivers.  Sadly, it appears that the proverbial party is over.  During the month of April, the number of traffic tickets issued has dropped from over 85,000 in April 2019 to just over 10,000 during April 2020.  Now, the New York State Police has asked that troopers return to normal traffic enforcement duties.  In a memo to State Troopers, from their Superiors, Troopers were told that the pause was necessary but that now due to increased awareness about the transmission of the COVID-19 Virus and the issuance of PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) to Troopers, the time has come to return to normal enforcement.

While the memo refers to an increase in aggressive drivers during the pandemic, New York traffic attorneys know how much revenue is raised by the issuance of traffic tickets and how much the State is surely losing in traffic ticket revenue during the pandemic.  The pause in enforcement was scheduled to end today May 1, 2020.

With approximately 90 New York State Troopers testing positive for the Covid-19 virus it may be hard to convince Troopers who may be reluctant to interact with the public if avoidable.  Although, apparently both the State Police and the Union have been distributing Personal Protective Equipment to Troopers, the level of enforcement will probably partly depend on the continued availability of PPE.  In addition Governor Cuomo has already announced that first responder and particularly State Troopers will receive priority for Covid-19 antibody testing.  Obviously, having ample testing available to law enforcement officers such as New York State Troopers may give them more comfort in performing their jobs.

New York Self-Defense laws give a person broad authority to use physical force and even deadly physical force to defend themselves and to defend others from attack.  Article 35 of the New York Penal Law creates a defense to even the most serious criminal charges such as murder, attempted murder, assault and attempted assault.  The question is what do you do in the aftermath of a self defense shooting?  Who do you call?  What do you do?  What do you say?  Do I need an attorney?  How do I find the right attorney?  Will I be arrested?  Will I be charged with a crime?  Could I be charged with murder? Assault?  Attempted Murder? Reckless Endangerment?

The immediate aftermath of a New York self-defense incident are critical.  Some of the considerations are tactical and not legal such as what do I do with my weapon before the police arrive?  There are some excellent articles that you should read by the USSCA and the NRA about those issues.  It is important that your weapon be safeguarded and not hidden so that when the police arrive you do not appear to be a threat.  Remember, you are shaken up, in shock and not reasoning or thinking clearly.  If possible, someone else should call 911, which will be the first statement about the incident to law enforcement and will be recorded.  That recording may very well end up being played in Court either during proceedings brought against you or your attacker.  Make sure that medical help is requested either for you or your attacker or both.  If anyone asks are you ok the true answer to that question is that you don’t know.  Adrenalin will be pumping you may be physically injured or in shock.

It is important that you not touch or tamper with the crime scene and probably is better in most circumstances to stand away and not attempt to render aid to your attacker.  When the police arrive it is important that you not present as a threat.  Make sure that you are not displaying a weapon, even if its holstered.  As criminal defense attorneys we always recommend not speaking to the police but in the unique situation of a self defense shooting we recommend a small modification of that general rule.  Have a short, one or two sentence, statement ready for the police just to start their investigation on the right track and then invoke your right to counsel.

There is no doubt that the Corona Virus Pandemic has disrupted every aspect of New York life.  This is especially true for New York lawyers practicing in New York Criminal Courts.  With New York Courts closed except for essential matters, New York criminal lawyers and their clients find themselves having to navigate a whole new landscape that is having a major impact on criminal clients.

Consider just a few facts:  New York Criminal Cases are often being adjourned into June or even July from March or April.  What about the constitutional and statutory rights to a speedy trial?  Under New York CPL 30.30 (1)(b), A prosecutor must be ready for trial within 90 days of the commencement of a criminal case where a client is charged with an “A” misdemeanor.  Which means that many clients should be getting their cases dismissed when the Courts reopen.  However, CPL 30.30 (4)(g), excludes from the 90 calculation periods of delay caused by “exceptional circumstances”.  While I know of no Court that has ruled on this issue yet, I do not think it will be too long before Courts rule that all of the time occasioned by the Covid-19 pandemic will be excluded under that section.  This may raise many issues for clients.

What about the DWI client that was arraigned on a DWI in February and had their license suspended pending prosecution under New York law.  We got her a hardship license so that she could drive to and from work but the client lost her job and so is not permitted to drive and her case has already been adjourned until June at the earliest.  Four months after the arraignment.

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a New York drug possession case discussing the defendant’s motion to suppress. Specifically, the defendant appealed the lower court’s denial of his motion to suppress arguing that the arresting officer’s pat-frisk of the defendant was illegal. Without answering the ultimate question, the appellate court concluded that the trial court failed to engage in the proper inquiry, and sent the case back to the trial court for further analysis.

According to the court’s opinion, a police officer watched as the defendant visited a known drug house. As the defendant left, the officer followed the defendant’s vehicle to “try to get a reason to stop it.” The officer witnessed the defendant make two traffic violations, and pulled him over. As the police officer approached the defendant’s car, he saw the defendant moving around and reaching behind the driver’s seat. The officer removed the defendant, patted him down, and felt what he believed to be narcotics in the defendant’s pants. The officer asked the defendant what he had on him, and the defendant admitted to having seven grams of crack.

The defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance. In a pre-trial motion, the defendant argued that both the crack and his statement to police should be suppressed. However, the trial court found that the officer “had a founded suspicion of criminal activity before the frisk was conducted, thus authorizing the arresting officer to ask the defendant whether he had anything on him.” The trial court denied the defendant’s motion.

Contact Information