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

|

If you are arrested in New York after police recover a weapon from a vehicle, whether you can challenge that evidence depends on whether you had a legal expectation of privacy in the car. A recent decision from the Appellate Division, Second Department, makes clear that passengers without ownership or control of the vehicle usually cannot contest the search unless the person is being charged under a statutory presumption.   The court reversed a trial court ruling that had suppressed a firearm found under a passenger seat and allowed prosecutors to use the evidence at trial.

What The Court Decided

The case began when police stopped a vehicle in Queens. During the stop, a detective testified that he saw the passenger move his hands between his legs and place an item under his seat. After the passenger was removed from the car, the detective looked through the windshield and saw the barrel of a firearm sticking out from under the passenger seat in plain view. The trial court initially ruled that the weapon should be suppressed, holding that the passenger could challenge the search.

On appeal, the Second Department disagreed. The court explained that passengers without ownership or possessory rights in a car have no legitimate expectation of privacy in the vehicle’s interior. Since the prosecution did not rely on statutory presumptions but on the officer’s direct observation, the passenger lacked standing to suppress the gun. The court held that the stop itself had already been found lawful and that the firearm was lawfully seized.

Continue reading

|

New York’s Appellate Division sent a clear message in People v Butler (July 3, 2025): officers cannot press a drug-sniffing dog against your clothing or skin unless they already have probable cause. The justices threw out a heroin conviction because a trooper let a canine push its snout into the defendant’s waistband during a traffic stop. That intrusion, the court ruled, crossed the line from a minimal sniff to a search so personal that it triggered the highest constitutional protections. If you ever face a roadside dog search, this decision can shape your options, your motions, and your leverage at every stage of the case.

The Decision Raises the Bar for Personal Privacy

The court compared a quick sniff around a car’s exterior with a dog’s nose pressed into intimate areas of a human body and concluded the two encounters are worlds apart. A vehicle sniff affects property; a body sniff affects dignity, autonomy, and personal security. Because the intrusion targets the “most private sphere,” the judges placed it in the top tier of the People v De Bour framework, which requires probable cause rather than mere reasonable suspicion. From now on, officers must point to concrete, verifiable facts suggesting you actually possess contraband before directing a dog toward your person.

Continue reading

|

On July 10, 2025, New York’s Third Department overturned a first-degree kidnapping conviction in People v Akins because the trial judge refused to instruct jurors on the lesser offense of unlawful imprisonment. That ruling matters to you because it shows how a single procedural error can erase the harshest charge on appeal. Understanding the court’s reasoning equips you to spot similar openings in your own case.

When prosecutors alleged the victim remained restrained for more than twelve hours, they triggered the heightened penalties that come with first-degree kidnapping. Trial testimony, however, left room to doubt the length of confinement. By blocking an unlawful-imprisonment option, the judge forced jurors into an all-or-nothing choice. Appellate judges stepped in and ordered a new trial on the kidnapping count, leaving lesser convictions intact. That result proves appellate courts will act when trial judges restrict a jury’s options without legal justification.

How Lesser-Included Offenses Shape Trial Strategy

Continue reading

|

In People v. Williams (2025 NY Slip Op 03603), the Appellate Division held that a man convicted after pleading guilty to first-degree assault and attempted robbery was wrongfully arrested and that prosecutors lacked probable cause to justify the detention. As a result, the court not only suppressed all evidence obtained from the illegal arrest but also dismissed the indictment outright. If you are facing criminal charges based on weak identification or questionable law enforcement conduct, this case sends an important message.

The Facts: Arrest Based Solely on Distinctive Pants

The defendant lived at a shelter run by the Department of Homeless Services (DHS). After an assault in front of a church in Manhattan, police located blurry video footage that did not clearly show the attacker. The victim described a black nylon jacket but did not mention any unique pants. Investigators later obtained clearer images of a man wearing distinctive ripped and patched pants walking nearby—but the footage did not show him committing any crime.

Ten days later, DHS authorities detained the defendant at his shelter because he was wearing similar pants. He was handcuffed to a bench for 30 to 45 minutes while awaiting confirmation. Based on video stills, a police detective arrived, identified the defendant, and arrested him. Inside a bag he carried was a shoe box containing pants matching those from the photos. A Miranda-derived statement followed—but no admission of guilt.

The Key Legal Issues: Was There Probable Cause?

The court focused on whether DHS had probable cause to arrest the defendant at the shelter. Even if police have reasonable suspicion to detain you temporarily, turning that detention into a full arrest without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment.

Here, the court found probable cause lacking. The victim had never described the distinctive pants. The video of the actual assault was murky, and the pants seen in nearby footage were not tied to the crime itself. DHS handcuffed the defendant without asking questions or gathering further evidence. That constituted a de facto arrest rather than an innocent encounter.

Because the People failed to present any DHS witness or direct testimony about when the handcuffing began or why it was deemed necessary, the suppression court could not evaluate probable cause. Additionally, the People introduced no alternative legal theory for why the arrest was valid—such as intervening probable cause or voluntary detention.

The Court’s Holding: Suppression and Dismissal

Since the court concluded that DHS effected a de facto arrest without probable cause, everything that came after must be suppressed. That includes the identification by police, the pants from the shoe box, and the defendant’s statement.

Declaring suppression insufficient, the Appellate Division granted outright dismissal of the indictment. Why? Because the suppressed evidence provided the only link between the defendant and the alleged crime. With no eyewitness, no physical proof, and no victim identification, the prosecution lacked a prima facie case. In similar circumstances, courts have found it appropriate to dismiss rather than retry with inadequate evidence.

Why Williams Matters If You’re Facing Charges

If you’re arrested based on circumstantial or weak evidence—especially where identification relies on clothing or appearance—People v. Williams shows that such a case may not hold up in court. That includes situations where:

  • You are detained solely based on appearance or attire
  • No one gives a detailed description linking you to a crime
  • Video footage is inconclusive or blurred
  • No witness actually recognizes you during hearing

Your defense attorney must challenge probable cause at the earliest stage. If detention turns into an arrest without lawful justification, the court should suppress all derivative evidence. If that suppression leaves the People with no case, dismissal may be warranted no matter what you previously pleaded.

What It Means for Your Defense Strategy

First, you must preserve your motion to suppress. It’s not enough to make a general objection—you must clearly argue that police lacked probable cause, especially during detention transformed into arrest. If DHS or non-police agents physically restrained you, that may already trigger suppression.

Second, if the suppression is granted and the People have no remaining evidence, ask for dismissal—not retrial. The Williams case shows that dismissal is the proper remedy when the only evidence is tainted.

Finally, even if you’ve entered a plea, post-conviction relief may still be available. Williams applied for reversal after pleading guilty. That demonstrates an aggressive, principled defense doesn’t end at sentencing.

Schedule a Confidential Review with Tilem & Associates

Facing charges based on weak or circumstantial evidence can feel daunting—but you still have rights. Tilem & Associates, P.C. routinely represents clients arrested under circumstances like those in People v. Williams. If you or a loved one was arrested under similar conditions, call Tilem & Associates, P.C. at (877) 377‑8666 for a free, confidential consultation. We will review your case, explain your options, and fight to protect your rights every step of the way.

Continue reading

|

The Appellate Division, Third Department’s decision in People v. Terry offers a useful roadmap of how New York courts analyze assault and robbery prosecutions built on surveillance video, shared-intent theories, and contested trial-management rulings. The panel rejected every claim raised by the defendant, who was convicted of attempted first-degree assault and two counts of second-degree robbery for a sidewalk attack outside an Albany convenience store. Understanding what swayed—and did not sway—the appellate court can help anyone facing similar charges evaluate potential defenses and appellate issues.

How the Incident Unfolded

Video showed Terry confronting the victim inside a store, shoving him, and throwing the first punch. Once outside, Terry and a woman identified as his sister repeatedly struck and kicked the victim until he collapsed on the concrete. While the victim was dazed on the ground, the sister rummaged through his pockets and removed his cell phone. Terry then returned and delivered a stomp to the victim’s head—conduct that, according to medical testimony, posed a high risk of catastrophic brain injury. The victim ultimately required staples to close a scalp wound, experienced lingering pain and bruising, and missed work.

Continue reading

|

If you are facing a serious charge like assault in New York, your right to a fair trial includes more than just a competent defense—it includes how the jury is instructed on evaluating eyewitness testimony. In People v. Salas, the New York Court of Appeals tackled a defendant’s argument that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on the potential challenges of cross-racial identification. The decision highlights how preserved objections and thorough jury instructions can shape the outcome of a criminal case.

Facts of the Case

The prosecution charged Salas with second-degree assault following a 2019 altercation in Manhattan. During trial, the People relied heavily on testimony from the victim, who identified Salas as his attacker. The identification was made after a single-photo display, and the victim and Salas were of different racial backgrounds.

Continue reading

|

In People v. Brenda WW, the New York Court of Appeals addressed how the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA) should be applied on appeal. Specifically, the Court clarified that while an appellate court has full authority to resentence a defendant under the DVSJA, it may not reduce or eliminate the mandatory postrelease supervision term by crediting excess time already served.

This decision underscores the importance of understanding both the procedural and sentencing implications of the DVSJA for those incarcerated as a result of surviving prolonged abuse.

The Background of the Case

Brenda WW was convicted of first-degree manslaughter, assault, and a weapons offense for killing her abusive husband. She received a sentence of twenty years to life, along with a five-year postrelease supervision term. Years later, she applied for resentencing under the DVSJA, which allows sentencing relief for incarcerated survivors of domestic abuse if they can prove that abuse was a significant factor in their offense.

Brenda presented extensive evidence that her husband had subjected her to years of brutal physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, including cigarette burns, strangulation, and repeated assaults. Based on this history, she argued that her twenty-year sentence was unduly harsh and requested relief under the DVSJA.

Continue reading

|

In People v. T.P. (2025), the New York Court of Appeals reversed a conviction for first-degree manslaughter, finding that trial counsel’s failure to object during a highly improper prosecutorial summation deprived the defendant of her right to a fair trial.

Case Summary and Facts

The defendant, referred to as T.P., was charged with first-degree manslaughter under Penal Law § 125.20(1) after she stabbed and killed her boyfriend during a violent confrontation. T.P. contended she acted in self-defense under Penal Law § 35.15, explaining that the victim had repeatedly abused her—physically, sexually, and emotionally—which was corroborated by witnesses and supported by a prior order of protection.

On the night of the incident, the confrontation escalated significantly. According to T.P., her boyfriend forcibly performed oral sex, strangled her, and during the ensuing struggle, fearing for her life, she grabbed a knife and stabbed him once.

Continue reading

|

Are Byrna and Other Less-Lethal Weapons Legal in New York?

In recent years, products like the Byrna launcher—a CO₂-powered less-lethal device that fires kinetic or chemical projectiles—have become increasingly popular among people looking for self-defense alternatives. But the legality of these devices in New York State is not straightforward. While state law treats them differently than firearms, local restrictions, especially in New York City, make the picture much more complicated.

In this article, we break down where Byrna and similar devices stand under New York and federal law, and how recent court decisions may affect their future legality. If you’d like to hear me discuss this issue directly, you can watch my short explainer video here:
👉 Watch the video

Continue reading

|

In People v. Bacon, the New York Court of Appeals reaffirmed a long-standing rule: if your defense lawyer fails to raise a specific constitutional objection during trial, you may lose the ability to argue that issue on appeal. This decision is a clear warning to anyone charged with a serious crime—the preservation of your rights depends heavily on the conduct and awareness of your attorney during every stage of trial.  It is essential to use experienced counsel when facing charges in New York.

What Happened in This Case

The case arose from a robbery and assault in Brooklyn. Two victims gave statements to police officers at the scene. One of them, while being treated in an ambulance, described the attackers, including the defendant. The prosecution did not call either victim to testify at trial. Instead, two police officers testified about what the victims had allegedly said, including identifying information about the defendant.

During the trial, defense counsel made only one specific objection to the officers’ testimony: a hearsay objection to a statement by one victim about what the other had said. The court sustained that limited objection. However, no constitutional objection was made under the Confrontation Clause, which protects your right to cross-examine the witnesses against you.

After the prosecution rested, the defense moved for a trial order of dismissal, arguing that the People’s evidence was not sufficient. Counsel mentioned that the jury could not evaluate the female victim’s physical or mental condition, and noted there had been no chance to cross-examine her. Still, the motion focused solely on the quality and sufficiency of the evidence, not on a constitutional violation.

Continue reading

Contact Information
188 E Post Rd
White Plains, NY 10601
Phone: 914-833-9785Toll Free: 877-377-8666

Attorney Advertising

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2026, Tilem & Associates, PC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design