ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

Articles Posted in GUN CRIMES

Published on:

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a New York gun possession case discussing two important concepts that frequently come up in any case involving a possessory offense, including New York drug crimes. Ultimately, the court concluded that the police officers acted appropriately and it denied the defendant’s motion to suppress a gun that was found in the trunk of his car.

The Facts of the Case

The defendant was arrested and charged with criminal possession of a firearm after police officers discovered a handgun in the trunk of a car the defendant was driving. According to the court’s written opinion, the police officers claimed that they initially approached the vehicle to request information from another man whose entire upper body was inside the trunk. As the officers approached the car, they noticed a gun in the trunk in plain view. The officers seized the weapon and arrested the defendant.

The defendant filed a motion to suppress the gun, arguing that the police were not justified in their approach of the vehicle and anything stemming from that illegal approach should be suppressed. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress and the defendant appealed.

Continue reading

Published on:

As we have discussed many times, experienced criminal defense lawyers know, that seeking suppression of evidence can often be the best defense to a crime charging possession (of drugs, guns or other illegal items).  Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a New York gun possession case. The case required the court to determine if the trial court properly granted the defendant’s motion to suppress. Ultimately, the court concluded that the police officers lacked probable cause to arrest the defendant, and affirmed the lower court’s decision to grant the defendant’s motion to suppress.  In this case, both the trial Court and the Appellate Court concluded that the police lacked probable cause to arrest someone who was found to be in possession of a handgun magazine.  It is important to note however that had this case been decided in New York City, where the administrative code of the City of New York makes it a crime to possess handgun magazines, the results may have been different.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, police received a call reporting a dispute at a local bar that possibly involved a gun. Upon arrival, police spoke to the bartender who told them that the defendant was the one suspected of having a gun. Police patted the defendant down, discovering that he had two ammunition clips in his pockets.

Police then arrested the defendant. A post-arrest search revealed no weapons, but the defendant’s car – which was parked across the street – was towed and impounded. The defendant was read his Miranda rights and consented to a search of the vehicle. While searching the trunk of the car, police recovered a stolen .45 caliber handgun.

Continue reading

Published on:

Earlier this month, a state court issued a written opinion in a New York gun case discussing whether a police officer’s actions in approaching, questioning, and searching the defendant were justified under the circumstances. Ultimately, the court concluded that the officer’s actions were unsupported by the requisite level of suspicion, and granted the defendant’s motion to suppress. In so doing, the court discussed the four types of police/citizen interactions.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the defendant was walking down the street at around 2 a.m. The police approached from behind in an unmarked car. The police were not responding to an emergency call and had not received any information that a crime had been committed. As police approached the defendant from behind, they noticed he had a bulge in his pocket. However, they could not see the shape of the bulge and did not know what it was.

Police pulled up next to the defendant, stating “police, can you stop for a second?” The defendant put his cell phone up to his ear and began to walk away at a hurried pace, although he was not running. At this point, a police officer exited the vehicle and approached the defendant, again telling the defendant to stop. As the officer got closer, he could see the defendant was holding a handgun in his right hand. The officer rushed the defendant, seized the gun, and the arrested the defendant.

Continue reading

Published on:

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:

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:

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:

New York Firearms Law and Second Amendment Firm, Tilem & Associates has filed three legal actions, two in New York State Supreme Court and one in Federal Court in Manhattan alleging that the New York City Police Department Licensing Division uses factors in licensing decisions that disproportionately deny African-Americans gun licenses.  In one outrageous case, the NYPD admitted to using false arrests, two arrests for which the NYPD was sued and ultimately settled, as part of the  basis for revoking pistol licenses from an African-American.

The NYPD Licensing division is the division within the NYPD that is responsible for issuing and renewing pistol licenses in the City of New York, and has the authority to limit, suspend or revoke a handgun license subject to review by the New York State Supreme Court.

In February 2017, during a hearing at the NYPD License Division offices before an NYPD hearing officer, a Detective assigned to the investigation section of the License Division testified under oath about using dismissed arrests as a basis to recommend revocation of an African-American license holder’s license.  In fact, and to the apparent surprise of the hearing officer, the Detective testified that anything reported to the NYPD License Division was considered an “incident” and that the Police Department did not necessarily consider the quality of the incidents but rather the sheer number and that included dismissed arrests.  The Detective also admitted to considering dismissed arrests for which New York City settled 2 false arrests claims in his decision to revoke.

Published on:

Ensuring that you have the right attorney handling your claim and representing your interests is critically important. At Tilem & Associates, our seasoned team of New York gun crime lawyers has handled countless matters involving criminal investigations and prosecutions. This means we not only feel confident in the courtroom but also understand the many different procedural and substantive aspects of your matter. As a recent New York appellate opinion demonstrates, it is essential to ensure that you have addressed all potential procedural issues as soon as possible.

The background of the case is as follows. The defendant brandished a firearm in front of a friend that was secured in his waistband and threatened to use it on another individual. He then went to a park, where he was seen near a specific individual. The police arrived, and the defendant and the individual fled in separate directions. Multiple witnesses testified to seeing defendant throw the gun, which was later located by the police. The police also found drugs, which the other individual admitted to owning. The defendant was charged with criminal possession of a weapon and resisting arrest. The other individual was charged with drug possession.

A public defender was assigned to the defendant’s claim. Roughly eight months later, the prosecution provided evidence showing that another public defender represented the other individual on his criminal charges stemming from this same set of facts. The attorney for the defendant stated that he intended to use the other individual as a potential witness for the defense before he learned about the potential conflict of interest. The defendant indicated that he wanted the public defender to continue representing him even though the attorney indicated that it may not be ethical for him to do so because another attorney in his office represented the other individual.

Continue reading

Published on:

 In many situations, it is best to  seek guidance from an experienced New York criminal lawyer as early in the process as possible.  The authorities do not always have your best interests in mind, whereas a criminal defense lawyer can advise you of your rights at each step of the process. As we have discussed in prior blogs about cases such as DWI or crimes involving possession of guns marijuana or drugs seeking suppression of the evidence, may be a defendant’s best defense.    A well-established constitutional rule states that evidence obtained from unlawful searches and seizures cannot be used against the accused. As a recent criminal case demonstrates, whether you can successfully assert this defense can have a huge impact on your involvement in a criminal investigation. Continue reading

Published on:

One of the most nerve-wracking and stressful phases of any trial is the sentencing phase. During this portion of the trial, a sentencing judge will consider a wide variety of factors in determining whether the defendant must face incarceration or other penalties. There are many rules that apply to sentencing that are designed to protect defendants from unfair sentences, or from facing penalties that exceed the scope of the alleged misconduct. As experienced New York City gun crime lawyers, the legal professionals at Tilem & Associates have the skills and knowledge it takes to navigate a sentencing hearing successfully and appropriately.

A recent appellate opinion highlights how important it is to understand the scope of your rights and available objections during a sentencing hearing. During the summer of 2011, a police officer was accused of raping, sodomizing, and sexually assaulting a schoolteacher in a courtyard area while off duty. The defendant used his police-issued firearm to threaten the victim, and evidence indicated that the weapon was loaded at the time the assault occurred. The defendant was charged with three counts of predatory sexual assault and three counts of a criminal sexual act in the first degree, and he was convicted of all of the charges. During sentencing, the defendant received a 25-year prison term with an additional 20 years of supervision after release for each of the counts of criminal sexual conduct and for each related count of predatory sexual assault. The sentence was to run consecutively, for a total of 75 years to life, with the sentence imposed for each criminal act running concurrently to the related conviction for predatory sexual assault.

The defendant appealed the consecutive sentencing, and the reviewing court upheld it, finding that the sentencing judge had a proper legal basis for imposing the consecutive sentences. It reasoned that while the convictions for predatory sexual assault involved similar criminal acts rendering concurrent sentences appropriate, the convictions for criminal sexual acts involved three distinct events, thereby justifying the consecutive sentencing.

Continue reading