Articles Posted in IN THE NEWS

As of 2008, 2 million youths are arrested each year. While the original intent of the juvenile justice systems created throughout the country was to prevent stigmatization and collateral consequences that could naturally flow from an arrest. As experienced criminal defense lawyers know the system is less than perfect in that regard. Examples abound of the collateral consequences that can and sometimes do flow to juveniles who are arrested.

For example, children can be suspended or expelled from school under the federal “Gun Free Schools Act (GFSA) for certain weapons offenses committed on school grounds. The GFSA requires that schools that receive federal funds expel a student for one year for certain weapons offenses. A student can be expelled even if found not guilty of the weapons offense. Many states have expanded this to require expulsion for weapons offenses committed off school grounds (New Jersey) or in the case of Missouri any student charged with a felony can be suspended or expelled even if they were found not guilty of the offense.

A common belief is that individuals arrested as youths have their records destroyed when they reach the age of 18. This is not necessarily the case. In New York, for example, there is absolutely no provision for expungement of criminal records and the statutes that require that records be sealed, never completely seal the records leaving the records accessible for a host of reasons. This can lead to more limited employment options for youths who have been arrested, even if those records were eventually sealed.

In addition, the misapplication of sex offender registration databases can have long lasting effects on youths who are charged as juveniles with sex offenses. In Michigan, for example, 8% of the sex offender registration list is made up of juveniles including children as young as 9 years old. In a well publicized and outrageous case in New Jersey a 14 year old girl was arrested and faced child pornography charges after she posted naked pictures of herself on myspace. The charged carries a possible sentence of up to 17 years and mandatory registration as a sex offender.

Sex offender registration laws, which arguably could have the most severe collateral consequences for youths, are a prime example of just how far off mission the juvenile justice system has drifted. Clearly, the aforementioned 14 year old needs help. But she is clearly not the intended target of either child pornography laws or sex offender registration laws which were originally passed to register sexual predators.

The issue of the over criminalization of our society and the resulting collateral consequences that flow to a large percentage of the population has a tremendous cost to our youth and to our economy at large as a large percentage of people are either unemployable or underemployed as a result of the consequences of an arrest. The issue and costs are clearly too significant to ignore.

Continue reading

The issue of the over criminalization of our society has been the focus of an increasing amount of media coverage and even led to recent hearings in congress. As discussed in the past in this blog (September 27, 2011 blog), the number of federal criminal statutes has increased to over 4500 and the watering down of some basic protections has led to convictions of people without criminal intent. Now, a recent study reveals that the number of youths being arrested has steadily increased to a staggering 30% of all youths by the time they turn 23 years old. This number while staggering is not surprising in light of the trend toward over criminalization and the increased reliance on police to address problems.

The number itself bears repeating. Thirty percent of youths are arrested by age 23, nearly one third of all youths. This number reflects all youths, not any particular group and is therefore likely higher among boys than girls and among minorities than non-minorities. The explanation however, is a lot more elusive. Certainly, crime nationally is on a protracted decline but it seems the propensity to arrest, for even minor offenses is clearly on the upswing. There is clearly less of a willingness on the part of the police to allow a school or the parents to handle a minor infraction.

As a criminal defense lawyer, involved with the criminal justice system for more than 20 years, I have noticed, a dramatic increase in the willingness of the police to intervene in what used to be matters often left to the school or the parents. Recent examples that I have noticed include a young high school student who “keyed” another student’s car in the high school parking lot is arrested and charged with the felony of Criminal Mischief for damaging property in excess of $250. Another example involves youths who attend parties where underage drinking occurs are arrested rather than being brought to their parents. Often times the parents who hosted the party are arrested themselves, even if they didn’t know about the drinking.

The potential for these arrests as youths to have long lasting effects even into adulthood is a legitimate fear as youths with arrests and convictions can lose valuable civil rights, the ability to obtain professional licenses and the ability to get jobs. The study which led to the report concluded that risk factors such as “being poor, struggling in school and having a difficult home” life were all factors that increased the likelihood of a youth being arrested.

As we discuss in a future blog, the consequences of an arrest, even if it doesn’t result in a conviction can be devastating to a young person and his or her future plans. The societal issues that have created this problem need to be dealt with. However, more immediately, if you or a loved one has been arrested for an offense you should immediately obtain experienced legal representation who is in a position to explain the process and the potential consequences whether or not a conviction results.

Continue reading

The Office of Court Administration, transferred all of the cases out of the Greenburgh Drug Court this week in an apparent response to complaints made by Tilem & Campbell partner, Peter H. Tilem. The problems began when a client of Tilem & Campbell, unhappy with her representation in the Town of Greenburgh Drug Court hired the firm to represent her. When Mr. Tilem, a 20 year veteran of the legal profession, and a member of the bar of New York and Connecticut as well as the United States Supreme Court and numerous federal courts initially appeared in Court he was told that he was not permitted to practice before the Greenburgh Drug court. From that moment the situation got worse.
Mr. Tilem observed that this Court was violating numerous constitutional rights of his client and potentially others and reported the conduct to the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge of New York State. After only a couple of hours after the report was made Judge Friedman one of the two judges in the Greenburgh Drug court agreed to comply with the suggestions of the supervising judge. However, when Mr, Tilem appeared next time before Judge Forster, Judge Forster steadfastly refused to comply with basic due process requirements as suggested by the supervising judge. Judge Forster continued to attempt to keep Mr. Tilem from representing his client and permitted the drug court “team” a group of non-judges to vote on matters that can only be decided by a judge such as the issues of bail or sentencing.
Judge Forster told Mr. Tilem and a reporter for the New York Law Journal who wrote a front page article about the matter that because the Court was funded through a federal grant and not through the Court system that they could have their own rules and that the supervising judges were not their supervisors. Judge Forster obviously learned differently when Judge Alan D. Scheinkman, the Administrative Judge for the Ninth Judicial District transferred all of the cases out of the Greenburgh Drug Court to the White Plains Drug Court and leaving Judges Forster and Friedman with no Drug Court cases.
Prior to the actions of Judge Scheinkman, Tilem & Campbell filed an Article 78 seeking to restrain Judge Forster and members of the Drug Court “Team” from continuing a list of illegal activities and from sentencing the firm’s client. On November 25, 2011, an acting Justice of the Westchester Supreme Court signed an order barring Judge Forster from sentencing the Tilem & Campbell client and from continuing other illegal practices that were going on in the Court.
Judge Forster had threatened to give the client one year in the Westchester County Jail for a shoplifting case, a Petit Larceny of less than $250 from a TJ MAXX in the Town of Greenburgh. It was only after Mr. Tilem pointed out that the Court could not conduct the sentencing because Mr. Tilem had not had the required 24 hours to review the pre-sentence report from the Department of Probation, that the sentencing was adjourned giving Tilem & Campbell enough time to file the Article 78 and get the restraining order.
Yesterday, a Judge in the Westchester County Court reversed Judge Forster on the issue of bail. Judge Forster had previously remanded the client, meaning that she was held without bail. Yesterday, after an extensive bail hearing County Court Judge John P. Colangelo agreed that the client should be released on bail.
“Other Judges ruled against Judge Forster every step of the way,” according to Mr. Tilem. “The Supreme Court obviously decided that there was enough evidence of impropriety to issue a stay, an extraordinary remedy. In addition, she was reversed on bail and had her calendar taken away, “according to Mr. Tilem.”

Continue reading

As criminal defense lawyers most of the time we represent the rights of the accused but sometimes we are called upon to represents the right of a victim. In the typical case, the victim report a crime to the police, the police investigate, make an arrest and the case is referred to the District Attorney’s Office. The victim needs no lawyer because the prosecutor will prosecute the case and often assist the victim in getting compensation from the perpetrator or the Crime Victim’s Assistance Fund.

However, all too often, especially in New York City, criminal cases are not handled in the typical way leaving victim’s to fend for themselves. In a recent case handled by this office and as reported in the New York Post yesterday, an individual who was ripped off by a car dealership and whose signature was forged on loan documents for a car was repeatedly denied the right to make a police report by the New York City Police Department. With no police report, no investigation and no arrest its as if the crime did not occur and the victim must deal with the consequences, in this case a monthly car loan bill that he didn’t bargain for, by himself.

By getting an experience criminal defense lawyer involved we were able to file complaints, with the Bank that issued the loan, the New York State Attorney General’s Office, credit reporting agencies such as TRW, Experian and Equifax and the United States Federal Trade Commission. In addition, we are working on getting the loan rescinded. As a result of our work the Bank has already terminated its relationship with the car dealership which has more than 40 complaints against it to the New York Department of Consumer Affairs.

The practice of not taking police reports is unfortunate but also wide spread as has been reported on several occasions by the New York Post and other Newspapers. It appears to be a result of a combination of laziness, sometimes ignorance and is also a symptom of how the Police Department tracks crime statistics. Simply put, if there is no police report the crime didn’t happen so crime must be going down. But the practice endangers the public and causes inconvenience and expense for the victims.

Here is a dealership that has over 40 complaints against it and rather than investigating what is happening, the police allow this dealership to continue to rip people off. Sometimes, the consequences of not taking a report or investigating a crime can be even more severe. Its at those times that an experienced New York Criminal defense lawyer can help.

Continue reading

Aggravated Harassment in the Second Degree defined under New York Penal Law 240.30, makes it a class “A” misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail to basically cause a communication to occur with another person by mail or telephone or other electronic means in a manner likely to cause to alarm or annoyance if that communication is made with the intent to annoy, harass, alarm or threaten a person. When the New York State Legislature talks about communication what they are really talking about is speech. New York State is attempting to regulate what you say and that is problematic in light of our Constitution’s First Amendment protection of speech; even unpopular or disagreeable speech.

In a decision issued earlier this week and has huge implications for New York criminal defense lawyers, Judge Valerie Alexander ruled that Penal Law sections 240.30 (1) and (2) were unconstitutional in that they were vague and over broad. She ruled that this Aggravated Harassment statute is analogous to one found unconstitutional by New York’s highest Court in 1989 and that Federal decisions have agreed that the statute is unconstitutional.

Penal Law section 240.30 clearly attempts to punish particular speech. The issue of what speech may be regulated by law in light of the Constitutional protections associated with speech has been the subject of numerous United States Supreme Court decisions. While not an absolute right (for example in might be permissible top punish someone for yelling fire in a crowded theater), freedom of speech is a fundamental right worthy of substantial protection. The New York State legislature made no attempt to distinguish in the statute between protected speech and unprotected speech or define a line that may not be crossed. Rather New York attempted to punish all speech that was annoying or alarming. Clearly, that is unconstitutional. The judge indicated that a criminal prohibition against communicating in an alarming or annoying way is by its nature facially unconstitutional.