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

Recently, Tilem & Campbell filed an appeal challenging the constitutionality of the federal statutory mandatory minimum sentences applicable to crack cocaine offenses and the 100:1 powder cocaine vs. crack cocaine ratio. The issues raised in the appeal will be discussed in future blogs as will the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kimbrough v United States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007).

However, one must have a basic understanding of the federal statutory mandatory minimum sentencing statutes and how they apply to both powder cocaine and crack cocaine to understand the arguments against them as well as the Kimbrough decision. Germane to this discussion is an understanding of the often discussed 100:1 powder cocaine/crack cocaine ratio. It is this ratio that has resulted in crack offenders spending decades in prison while powder cocaine offenders convicted of offenses involving the same weight often spend less than two years in prison.

Basically, for sentencing purposes in the federal system, the relevant statute (21 U.S.C 841) treats one gram of crack cocaine as equivalent to 100 grams of powder cocaine. For example, possession of just 5 grams of crack cocaine (about a thimble full) triggers a five year mandatory minimum sentence. However, it would take 500 grams of powder cocaine (1/2 kilo) to trigger the same mandatory minimum. (See 21 USC 841). Therefore, one who possesses what is clearly a personal use amount of crack cocaine (5 grams) faces the same sentence as a major dealer of powder cocaine.

Tilem & Campbell would like to wish our friends, clients, colleagues and loyal readers of this blog a very happy, healthy and successful holiday season and 2009. During this time of year it is important to remind everyone to be careful on the roads. As we celebrate with our families, friends and colleagues, certain things bear repeating:

Do not drink and drive. As discussed in our March 3, 2008 blog, even small amounts of alcohol can result in an arrest and charge for DWI or DWAI.

Refusing to take a breath test can result in the revocation of your driver’s license for one year whether or not you are convicted of DWI or DWAI. See our March 17, 2008 blog on refusal to submit to a chemical test in New York.

On the front page of today’s New York Times, the Times is reporting a sharp increase in shoplifting and shoplifting arrests across the Country. Citing several factors including the weak economy the Times is reporting that shoplifting arrests are up ten to twenty percent over last year.

At the New York criminal defense firm, Tilem & Campbell we have also seen the increase in New York shoplifting cases through telephone inquiries to the firm, cases on which the firm has been retained, and cases we see in Court. Here in White Plains, New York, home to several shopping malls, the increase is clearly visible in the cases that the White Plains Court is handling.

It is important to remember that shoplifting in New York can result in several criminal charges including Petite Larceny and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree both class “A” misdemeanors punishable by up to one year in jail. If the property stolen retails for more than $1000 the charges can be Grand Larceny and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property In the Fourth Degree, both felonies punishable by up to four years in prison.

As discussed in the previous blog, under certain circumstances, all occupants of a vehicle can be presumed to possess drugs, guns or other weapons found within the vehicle. We also discussed the effect of the presumption on the New York criminal case and went into some detail about the presumption as it applies to New york gun cases and New York Weapon cases.

Now we discuss the vehicle presumption as it applies to New York controlled substance cases. With certain drug possession offenses carrying a mandatory minimum of eight years, the stakes are very high when traveling in a vehicle with someone who may possess illegal drugs. Similar to the gun presumption, New York’s drug presumption applies to all vehicles except public buses (it applies in stolen vehicles unlike the gun presumption). According to a strict reading of the statute, the drug presumption applies to all persons in the vehicle at the time the drugs are found. Since generally the police take all of the occupants out of the vehicle, I would argue that in such a case the presumption does not apply.

Like the gun presumption, the drug presumption does not apply in three circumstances. The presumption does not apply to a cab driver or livery cab driver. It does not apply if a person in the vehicle is authorized to possess the controlled substance (has a prescription for the drug) and the drug is in the same packaging as when he received it. The presumption also does not apply when the drugs are found on the person of one of the occupants.

New York Criminal Law establishes a presumption that all people in a vehicle are presumed to possess either drugs or guns that are found within the vehicle. What that means is that in New York each and every person inside a car will generally be charged with gun possession or drug possession for contraband that is found anywhere in that car, regardless of where the drugs or guns are found. (With certain exceptions, some of which are discussed below.)

NEW YORK GUN POSSESSION PRESUMPTION

In the case of gun, with possession of a loaded gun in New York carrying a mandatory minimum of three and one half years in prison, you are taking a tremendous chance driving with someone who may have an illegal gun. The New York gun presumption applies to all vehicles except stolen vehicles and public buses and applies not only to firearms but other weapons. The presumption has three major exceptions. The presumption does not apply if the weapon is recovered on the person of one of the occupants of the vehicle. It does not apply to the driver of a cab or livery cab and the presumption does not apply if one of the occupants has a license to carry the weapon concealed.

Imagine you are laying in intensive care in a New York City hospital awaiting a life-saving heart transplant. Without the transplant, you will die. Now imagine a donor heart becomes available; it is flown in by helicopter as the members of your transplant team are notified to head to the hospital. The problem is, the surgeons and other specialists are not permitted to utilize red emergency lights or disobey certain traffic laws to speed their trip to the hospital even though your life hangs in the balance.

One would think that if an officer pulled over a surgeon for speeding on his or her way to a hospital for a medical emergency that the officer would escort the doctor to the hospital. Indeed, officers are taught that preserving life is always their first priority. Unfortunately, I have heard far too many complaints from doctors pulled over for speeding on their way to an emergency who, instead of receiving an escort from the officer, were delayed while the officer wrote a speeding ticket. Something is very wrong with a system that rightfully allows the Emergency Medical Technicians (paramedics) who drive the ambulance the dying patient is in to disregard certain traffic laws and regulations (VTL 1104) but does not extend the same privileges to the doctor who will perform those life saving procedures. Indeed, even sanitation patrol vehicles may disregard certain traffic laws and utilize emergency lighting and sirens. In other words, glorified garbage men have more priority than doctors in route to save a life. (See VTL 101 & 1104).

However, there might be legal way to classify a doctor’s vehicle as an authorized emergency vehicle thus allowing him or her to disregard certain traffic rules and regulation and to also utilize red emergency lighting. In People v. Levy, 188 Misc.2d 103, 727 N.Y.S.2d 248 (2001), the Appellate Term for the Second Department held that a volunteer ambulance service member’s vehicle qualified as “emergency ambulance service vehicle” as defined in VTL 101 because the defendant produced uncontroverted proof that the vehicle was affiliated with a volunteer ambulance service. Specifically, the defendant produced a dashboard placard showing that his vehicle was affiliated with a local private ambulance service.

In previous blogs I discussed the reduced speed limits in work zones as well as the definition of a work area. As discussed, many White Plains speeding tickets are issued in the work zone along I-287. Much of the highway work is done by members of The Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA) of which I am a member in good standing. Prior to becoming a criminal attorney I worked through Local 731 of LIUNA and to this day I still pay my monthly dues and carry my “card”.

As we approach and pass through construction zones, all of us have seen flagpersons either redirecting the flow of traffic or advising oncoming traffic of hazards and the need to slowdown. Basically, a flagperson is one employed by the state, municipalities, local authorities, public authorities including public utility companies or individuals working for companies under contract with such state agencies who have been assigned to direct and control traffic on public highways in connection with any construction or maintenance work. A flagperson is also one employed to direct traffic at railroad crossings and who has been authorized to direct traffic in connection with escort vehicles operating on a public highway (See VTL § 115-b for the exact definition of “flagperson”).

I have worked as a flagperson and I can state from experience that it is one of the more dangerous jobs. The flagperson is generally in the line of traffic and most drivers don’t’ realize that a flagperson has the same authority as a police officers in terms of directing traffic. (See VTL § 1102). Lately, however, most municipalities now station police officers at construction zones on local streets to help slow down the traffic flow. Nevertheless, a motorist must comply with a lawful direction or order of a flagperson whether a police officer is present or not. (VTL § 1102).

If you are charged with a New York gun or New York firearm offense it is imperative that your criminal defense attorney be completely familiar with the legal definitions of relevant terms. These definitions are found in New York Penal Law § 265.00. In this blog I will summarize several legal definitions applicable to Articles 265 and 400 of the New York State Penal Law. For more information visit our website.

FIREARM SILENCER – PENAL LAW § 265.00(2)

Generally, a firearm silencer is anything that silences, lessens or muffles the sound of the firing of a revolver, gun, pistol or other firearm (for the exact definition of “firearm silencer” see NY Penal Law § 265.00(2).

In the introduction of my series of blogs pertaining to firearms, gun possession and other weapons charges, I discussed the need for experienced and competent legal representation. I also explained that Tilem & Campbell’s Senior Partner Peter Tilem was formerly an Assistant District Attorney in Manhattan and worked extensively in the Gun Trafficking Unit.

In this blog I will discuss the legal definition of a “machine gun”. Offenses pertaining to firearms and other dangerous weapons are found in Article 265 of the New York State Penal Law. Section 265.00 of the Penal Law (which is the first section of Article 265) contains the definitions for terms used in Article 265 as well as Article 400 of the Penal Law.

MACHINE GUN – NY PL § 265.00(1)

If you have been charged in New York or in Federal Court with any type of gun possession, firearm offense or other offense involving weapons or dangerous instruments, you must have qualified and experienced legal representation. The stakes are high. In New York, simply possessing a loaded, operable, unlicensed firearm outside your home or business carries a mandatory minimum 3 ½ year sentence if convicted. That means if you are convicted, you will do a minimum of 3 ½ years “upstate” prison time.

Tilem & Campbell can provide you the skilled legal representation you need should you be charged with a firearms offense. Not many attorneys can match Senior Partner Peter Tilem’s experience, expertise and inside knowledge of firearm and gun offense prosecutions. Prior to entering private practice, Mr. Tilem spent ten years as an Assistant District Attorney in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office. For several of those years, Mr. Tilem was with the Firearms Trafficking Unit of the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office which was a multi-agency operation combining New York State, New York City and Federal law enforcement agencies such as the FBI and the ATF in multi-jurisdictional illegal gun trafficking investigations and prosecutions. As part of his prosecutorial duties with the firearms trafficking unit, Mr. Tilem traveled the east coast investigating and building cases against those involved with illegal firearms distribution.

Certainly there are other highly qualified defense attorneys. However, if you are charged with a gun, firearm or other weapons offense, ask your attorney or potential attorney if they have ever worked as an Assistant District Attorney investigating and prosecuting multi-jurisdictional and multi-agency gun and firearm trafficking cases firsthand. Their answer will most likely be no. Ask Peter Tilem of Tilem & Campbell if he has first hand experience in investigating and prosecuting these cases and the answer will be absolutely yes.

Contact Information