New York Criminal Attorney Blog

US SUPREME COURT VOTES TO APPLY SECOND AMENDMENT TO STATE AND LOCAL GUN REGULATION

June 28, 2010 | Jasmine Hernandez

The United States Supreme Court has issued a ruling applying the US Constitution, Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” to State and local gun regulation. Ruling in the case of McDonald v. Chicago a 5 to 4 majority of justices decided for the first time that both State and local gun laws must not violate the Second amendment. While this is a landmark decision, it answers very few questions. It did not give any guidelines as to what regulations were permissible and what regulations were not and it even left to the lower Court the issue of whether the Chicago Law in question violated the Second Amendment.

This decision is likely to spur more litigation than it resolved by opening up litigation to strike down local gun regulation all over the Country. New York gun laws which are among the toughest in the Country will almost certainly be challenged under this ruling.

Tilem & Campbell, PC is criminal defense firm that handles a vast array of gun and weapons related cases in both State and Federal Courts and maintains the website www.handgunattorney.com. Senior Partner, Peter H. Tilem is a former prosecutor assigned to the Firearms Trafficking Unit of the New York County District Attorney’s Office, is a member of the NRA and has vast experience in handling gun and weapons related litigation.

NEW YORK KNIFE LAWS -Part 2

June 23, 2010 | Jasmine Hernandez

As experienced criminal defense lawyers we have been seeing an increase in the number of people contacting us after being arrested with a knife. In our continuing effort to educate the public about criminal law, this series will summarize New York State and New York City Knife laws. In Part 1 we discussed what are referred to as “per se” weapons. Weapons or in this case knives that mere possession of constitutes a crime. In part 2 we will discuss knives that are only illegal if you have intent to use that knife illegally against another person but as you will see there is a twist to that requirement. In Part 3 we will discuss knife laws that are particular to New York City only and do not apply other places in New York State.

New York State Penal Law §265.01 (2) makes it illegal to possess any dirk, razor, dangerous knife, dagger or stiletto only if there is intent to use it unlawfully against someone else. The problem develops in Penal Law §265.15 where the law actually creates a presumption that a person who possesses a dagger, stiletto, dirk or dangerous knife has the intent to use it unlawfully against someone else if it is made, adapted or designed primarily for use as a weapon. And its hard to know exactly what that means. What does it mean that a knife is made primarily for use as a weapon?

The answer is unclear. In Queens a Criminal Court judge ruled that possession of a dagger without more was sufficient to make out a charge of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree. People v. Nwogu. In Manhattan, another Criminal Court Judge ruled that possession of a knife combined with a statement that the knife was for self defense was enough to make out a charge of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree. The judge reasoned that by stating that it was for self defense it shows that the defendant considered the knife a weapon and therefore the presumption applied but that judge ruled that if the defendant had remained silent that the evidence would be insufficient. People v. Richards.

NEW YORK KNIFE LAWS -Part 1

June 18, 2010 | Jasmine Hernandez

As criminal defense attorneys who handle a large number of gun and weapon charges we have seen an substantial increase in clients who come to us with charges relating to possession of knives. Now, in the wake of the New York Post article which reported that the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office has entered into a deal with retailers such as Home Depot, Eastern Mountain Sports and Paragon Sports to stop the sale of many folding knives it seems appropriate to review the legality of knives in New York.

As we wrote in our April 2, 2009 blog, New York State Penal Law sec. 265.01 makes it a crime to possess any of the following knives: a gravity knife; switchblade knife; pilum ballistic knife; metal knuckle knife; and cane sword. The problem starts with the definition of “Gravity Knife” from the New York State Penal Law. Sec. 265.00 (5) states that a Gravity Knife is any knife that can be opened by gravity or the application of centrifugal force. What the latter part means is that if the knife can be “flicked” opened (centrifugal force), it is illegal to possess. It gets more complicated if you think that a large, experience police officer can probably “flick” open any knife given a couple of attempts and enough force and so virtually any lock-blade pocket knife can probably be considered a switchblade. It is this “gravity knife” issue that caught up major retailers like Home Depot.

Additional issues arise from the “exemptions”, which are defenses listed in the Penal Law. These are codified in Penal Law §265.20(6) an make it legal to possess a gravity knife or switchblade for use while hunting, fishing or trapping by a person carrying a valid license (for hunting, trapping or fishing).

NEW YORK SEARCH & SEIZURE – TWO MEN LOOKING INTO THE TRUNK OF A VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY WHAT APPEARS TO BE AN EXCHANGE OF MONEY BETWEEN THE TWO MEN INSUFFICIENT BASIS TO SUBSEQUENTLY STOP CAR [People v. Cascio]

May 7, 2010 | Tilem & Associates

An issue that comes up very frequently in New York criminal cases is “when may the police properly stop a vehicle”? The intuition or hunch of an officer, even if it thereafter turns out to be correct, cannot justify a stop. Absent at least a reasonable suspicion that its occupants had been, are then, or about to be, engaged in criminal activity, the stopping of an automobile by the police constitutes an impermissible seizure. In addition, any contraband, such as drugs or guns, recovered as a result of improper police conduct may be suppressed.

For example, in People v. Cascio, 63 A.D.2d 183, the defendant had pleaded guilty to Assault in the Second Degree but appealed the denial of his suppression motion. Officers observed defendant and another man walk to the rear defendant’s parked car, open the trunk, look inside and then exchange what appeared to the officer to be money. Based upon that observation, the officers followed defendant’s vehicle and eventually attempted to pull it over. Defendant fled and a chase ensued. Ultimately the defendant crashed his vehicle, a struggle followed and marijuana was found in the vehicle.

The trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress the seized evidence but the Appellate Court reversed finding that the record lacked any objective evidence of criminal activity. It was insufficient that the officer “felt” a crime was about to be committed. Therefore, the stop was illegal and the evidence found as a result of the stop should have been suppressed. Accordingly, the Appellate Court vacated defendant’s guilty plea and reversed his conviction for Assault in the Second Degree.

TILEM & CAMPBELL SCORES ANOTHER TRIAL WIN IN WESTCHESTER DWI CASE

May 2, 2010 | Tilem & Associates

Tilem & Campbell managing partner Peter Tilem scored his fourth straight DWI trial victory this week when the Cortlandt Justice Court in Westchester County New York, acquitted his client of all charges which included DWI (VTL 1192(3), Aggravated Unlicensed Operation (VTL 511) and Speeding (VTL 1180). The defendant was facing a year in jail.

While the arresting officer testified to signs of the defendant’s intoxication, Mr. Campbell focused the defense on signs of the defendant’s sobriety and the defendant’s flawless operation of his vehicle. For example, on cross-examination, the arresting officer admitted that he followed the defendant for several miles and that there was nothing about how the defendant drove the vehicle that indicated he was intoxicated; that the defendant maintained his lane at all times; that he did not hit anything or drive erratically; that he safely pulled his vehicle to the shoulder and came to a safe stop. The officer also admitted that the defendant complied with all orders, produced his license, registration and insurance card without any problems and that he exited his vehicle with no problems. The only traffic violation the officer claimed to have observed was speeding.

The Court found that there was reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was actually intoxicated. Further, the Court found that the defendant had no knowledge that his license was suspended. Finally, the Court found the defendant not guilty of the speeding charge because the arresting officer could not recall if there was a posted speed limit sign at the time he stopped the defendant.

TILEM & CAMPBELL TAKES RED LIGHT TICKET TO TRIAL and WINS

April 27, 2010 | Jasmine Hernandez

In March 2010, Tilem & Campbell senior partner Peter H. Tilem took a passing a steady red light summons to trial in Ardsley Village Court here in Westchester County. The offense was videotaped by the video camera behind the patrol car’s rear view mirror. Yesterday, Ardsley Village Justice Walter Schwartz issued a written decision finding the motorist not guilty and dismissing the ticket.

The issue raised at trial by Mr. Tilem is under what circumstances a police officer may issue a ticket for passing a red light when the police officer does not view the same traffic light as the motorist but rather views that the light is green in the perpendicular direction. May the police officer infer that the light facing the motorist is red? It turns out that the answer is no, the Officer may not reach that inference and rather would be required to examine the light to make sure it was working properly.

In the Ardsley case tried last month, the police officer never inspected the light but rather testified in very conclusory terms that the light was “working properly.” In addition, the police officer attempted to bolster his case by claiming that he saw the shadow of the red light from his angle, but that testimony was called into question when he admitted, during cross-examination by Mr. Tilem, that the weather was clear, that it was mid-day and that the cylinders over the lights were designed to prevent motorists from seeing the light from the side and becoming confused.

POLICE MAY ORDER INDIVIDUAL FOUND SLEEPING IN DRIVER’S SEAT OUT OF CAR WHERE HE EXHIBITED SLURRED SPEECH AND SLOW REACTIONS

April 22, 2010 | Tilem & Associates

Many times police will encounter a vehicle with someone sleeping in the driver’s seat. This often leads to arrests for DWI related charges. The issue in such a situation is whether the police may approach that vehicle, awaken the driver and thereafter ask the driver to exit the vehicle. As with virtually all issues associated with stops, seizures and searches, there is no set answer. This issue is decided on a case-by-case basis taking several factors and variable into account.

In People v. May, 81 A.D.2d 805 the police encountered a parked vehicle in New York City with the driver slumped over the steering wheel. The keys were in the ignition but the car was not running. One of the officers knocked on the window and awakened the defendant. The defendant’s reactions were slow and his speech was slurred. The officer asked defendant to exit the vehicle and while defendant was doing so, a gun fell to the ground. The trial court held that the police were allowed to approach the vehicle and check on the occupant/defendant but that the police were not justified in asking defendant to exit the vehicle because they had no basis to suspect he was involved in criminal activity or was violating the Vehicle and Traffic Law.

The Appellate Division reversed finding that the officers’ conduct was not the product of mere whim, caprice or idle curiosity, but was instead based on specific and articulable facts such as the fact that defendant was slumped at the wheel with the key in the ignition and, when he was aroused, his speech was slurred and his movements were slow. Considering the original approach of the vehicle was legal, in these circumstances, the police could properly ask defendant to step out of the car and display his license and registration.

NEW YORK SEARCH & SEIZURE – POLICE MAY NOT STOP AN INDIVIDUAL SOLELY BECAUSE HE IS THE SAME RACE A SUSPECT

April 15, 2010 | Tilem & Associates

In New York, a stop of a vehicle on a public roadway is a seizure and must be based upon reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. People v. Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d 413, 369 N.Y.S.2d 67 (1975). Many times, a vehicle stop is made because the vehicle or its occupants match the description of a suspect wanted in connection with an offense. But what if the only identifying feature known about the suspect is his or her race? Is it enough to stop an individual simply because his or her race matches that of a wanted suspect?

The answer is no. Many times race does play a role in the determination of reasonable suspicion, since witnesses and victims will often describe suspects by their skin color. (see, generally, Johnson, Race and the Decision to Detain a Suspect, 93 Yale LJ 214). A suspect’s race is “a characteristic which may properly be used as one element of identification”. Franklin v State, 374 So 2d 1151, 1154 (Fla). Indeed, race is “an identifying factor which . . .assists the police in narrowing the scope of their identification procedure.” United States v Collins, 532 F2d 79.

A person’s race, however, cannot serve as the sole basis for reasonable suspicion. The New York Court of Appeals has held that ethnic identity alone is an insufficient basis upon which to premise reasonable suspicion. People v George T., 39 N.Y.2d 1028 (1976). Therefore, it is improper for the police to stop someone simply because they are the same race as the suspect even where an individual of one race is seen is a neighborhood inhabited primarily by members of another race. People v. George T. supra.

NEW YORK CHILD ABUSE AND MALTREATMENT (NEGLECT): HOSPITALS AND THE TWENTY-FOUR HOUR HOLD PERIOD

April 10, 2010 | Tilem & Associates

The number one concern of parents/guardians who find out they are the subject of a child protective services (CPS) abuse and/or maltreatment (neglect) investigation is whether CPS can remove their children from their home. To summarize, as I wrote in my previous blog, your child can be taken without a court order by CPS when they have reasonable cause to believe that letting the child remain with you would pose an imminent threat to the child’s health or life and there is not enough time to obtain a court order. (See NY Fam. Ct. Act §1024; Soc. Serv. Law § 417).

However, what many people don’t realize is that hospitals and other similar institutions can hold your child under certain circumstances. New York Soc.Serv. Law § 417(2) authorizes hospitals and other institutions to hold your child for twenty-four hours if “the facts so warrant.” The “imminent danger” necessary for CPS to remove your child is not necessary for a hospital to hold your child for twenty-four hours.

The authority for a hospital to hold a child for twenty-four hours is much broader than the authority granted CPS to remove a child from his or her parents/guardian since “imminent danger” need not exist. This “twenty-four-hour hold” period gives hospitals time to contact CPS and hold the child until a CPS investigator can arrive. It prevents a parent/guardian from simply leaving with the child where it is apparent to that parent that hospital medical staff has concerns about abuse and/or maltreatment (neglect). A hospital might hold a child when the child is brought in with suspicious injuries indicative of abuse or excessive corporal punishment.

NEW YORK CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT – CAN CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES TAKE MY CHILD?

April 5, 2010 | Tilem & Associates

Our firm represents many parents and guardians who are the subject of child abuse and/or maltreatment (neglect) investigations throughout New York City, Westchester, Rockland, Dutchess, Putnam and other downstate counties. The first question almost everyone who is the subject of such an investigation asks is: “Can they take my kids?”

Your child can be taken without a court order by the police, child protective services and even you doctor when they have reasonable cause to believe that letting the child remain with you would pose an imminent threat to the child’s life or health and they believe there is not enough time to obtain a court order. (See NY Fam. Ct. Act §1024; Soc. Serv. Law § 417). Therefore, before your child can be removed, there must exist an imminent danger to the child’s life or health and not enough time to obtain a court order. The person who removes a child from the home must make every reasonable effort to inform the parent or guardian where the child has been brought. (See NY Fam. Ct. Act §1024(b)(ii)).

The New York Court of Appeals has interpreted section 1024 of the Family Court Act strictly thus limiting the practice of emergency removals. See Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 3 N.Y.3d 357 (2004). It is not enough that the child “appear” to be in imminent danger; the child must in fact be in imminent danger. This eliminates any polices where Child Protective Services err on the side of “safety” and remove as matter of course.