Articles Posted in CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

As we have discussed often in this blog, suppression of evidence can often be the best avenue of an attack for an experienced criminal attorney. New York Courts have consistently held that one’s flight from the police, absent additional conduct creating a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed is insufficient to justify further police pursuit. In other words, one’s flight from police alone, is insufficient to justify further police intrusion.

In People v. Prillo, the New York Appellate Division, Third Department upheld this long-standing legal principle reversing the Broome County Court’s denial of a defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence. In Priollo, the police received a report of a suspicious person. The first officer to arrive saw a man fitting the description running out of a driveway towards her police car. At that time she had no reason to believe defendant had committed any crimes. She ordered defendant to stop. Defendant ignored her order, turned and started running away from the officer. The officer followed the running defendant in her patrol car. While he was running, defendant pulled jewelry and coins out of his pants and threw them on the lawn of a house he was passing. The property was recovered.

The defendant moved to suppress the property arguing that he tossed the items as a result of unlawful police conduct. The Broome County Court denied the motion. The Third Department reversed writing that while the officer could lawfully request information from the defendant about his presence in the area, the law did not require the defendant to answer the inquiry or stop running. The Court further wrote that flight from police, alone, was insufficient to justify further police intrusion such as a pursuit.

Tilem & Campbell is pleased to announce that Senior Partner Peter H. Tilem, Esq. has earned the highest rating from lawyer rating service AVVO. Peter Tilem earned the maximum rating of 5 out of 5 in each of the rating categories which include experience, industry recognition and professional conduct and received a rating of 10 out of 10 overall, which AVVO ranks as “Superb.” Mr. Tilem is admitted to practice before the Courts of the States of New York and Connecticut, the Federal Courts in the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York, the District of Connecticut and the the District of Columbia as well as the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit and the United States Supreme Court.

AVVO is a website that profiles and rates attorneys throughout the country in an effort to assist individuals who wish to hire an attorney. The rating agency has been sued by disgruntled attorneys in the past unhappy with their ratings but is widely believed to be useful in assisting the public in locating qualified lawyers.

In our May 24, 2009 blog entitled “New York City Bans Items that are Common and Lawful Most Other Places in New York State and in the Country” we detailed a long laundry list of items that are illegal in New York City, all of which are defined in the New York City Administrative Code sec 10-131. Items on our original list included mace, ammunition, imitation guns, assault weapons, rifles and ammunition feeding devices (gun clips or magazines). I left handcuffs off that list because I had never seen anyone arrested or summoned for possession of handcuffs. However, this office was recently contacted by a person who received a summons for possessing handcuffs in violation of New York City Administrative Code Sec 10-147.

Sec 10-147 makes it unlawful to possess handcuffs, thumb cuffs, leg irons and even flexible disposable handcuffs. Violation of 10-147 carries a maximum penalty of 10 days in jail and/or a $200 fine. There are numerous exceptions to this law such as possession by police officers, peace officers, military officers, police officers from other states carrying out their official duties in this State, licensed security guards and private investigators acting in the course of their job or while traveling to or from their job and many others. Kinky sex, which was the excuse that this person who was ticketed recently gave, is not one of the authorized exceptions.

In addition, there has been a lot written in this blog and a lot of press about the expansive definition being used, particularly in New York City of gravity knives and we have written about the aggressive enforcement of knife laws in New York City.

New York criminal defense law firm, Tilem & Campbell scored a major victory on a Rockland County Assault case when an Orangetown Judge dismissed the case after a suppression and probable cause hearing. The defendant had been charged with Assault in the Third Degree based upon an altercation that occurred in December 2009. The defendant had faced up to one year and jail on the “A” misdemeanor and had already been suspended from his job as a result of the incident and the charges.

http://www.tilemlawfirm.com/lawyer-attorney-1282538.html had filed a pre-trial motion back in May asking the Court to suppress statements and/or hold a suppression and probable cause hearing. The Hearing was held on July 28, 2010 and one investigator from the New York State Police testified. On cross-examination by Mr. Tilem the investigator admitted that the defendant had been attacked by the victim using eyeglasses as a weapon, that the victim was the initial aggressor and that he had probable cause to arrest the victim but chose not to arrest him.

In a decision dated August 3, 2010, the Judge ruled that the District Attorney’s Office failed to establish probable cause for the arrest and dismissed the Assault in the Third Degree charge.