NARCOTICS Category Archives — New York Criminal Attorney Blog Published by White Plains, New York Criminal Defense Lawyers

Searches and Seizures of Parolees in New York: What You Need to Know

July 1, 2024 | Peter Howard Tilem

What are the rights of a parolee when an officer wants to conduct an invasive search or seizure? In New York, recent case law explored this very question, looking at the circumstances under which a defendant can successfully challenge a search based on his constitutional right to privacy. According to the case, parolees do not, in fact, surrender their fundamental constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The case is a win for individuals on parole in New York.

Facts of the Case

The defendant in this case challenged an officer’s search of his pockets. The defendant was on parole, which meant he could be subject to officers searching his home without warning. One day, officer came by his house while looking for a fugitive he suspected might be in the defendant’s home. The officer did not find the fugitive, but the officer did notice a bulge in the defendant’s pocket. The officer then searched the defendant’s person and found heroin in his headphone case. The defendant later faced charges of drug possession.

“Reasonable” Relationship

The court reviewing the facts of the case had to decide whether this search was reasonable. The court first noted that the standard for searches for parolees is different than for those not on parole. According to already-existent New York case law, an officer’s search of a parolee has to do with whether the officer’s conduct was “reasonably related” to that officer’s duty.

New York Police Officers’ “Community Caretaking” Role in Traffic Stops

June 17, 2024 | Peter Howard Tilem

We have previously written that police officers, in New York and elsewhere, have what is called a “community caretaking” duty. This means that officers are not only obligated to enforce the law, but they also must assist an individual when they notice that he or she needs help. Recently, a New York court had to decide how this community caretaking responsibility applies to traffic stops on the road.

In the case that led to the court’s decision, an officer was driving behind another vehicle when the officer noticed one of the passenger doors quickly open and close. The officer thought someone in the car might have needed help, and he therefore initiated a traffic stop. Upon approaching the driver, the officer smelled marijuana. He asked the driver about possible drug use, and the driver admitted to having used ecstasy.

Motion to Suppress

The defendant was arrested, and he quickly filed a motion to suppress. The question before the court, then, was this: was the officer’s stop warranted? At the suppression hearing, the prosecution argued that the stop was acceptable under the officer’s community caretaking duty. The officer genuinely thought someone in the car needed help, and therefore the subsequent actions were reasonable. The trial court agreed with the prosecution and denied the motion to suppress.

New York’s New Standard

The higher court disagreed, and it ended up establishing a two-part test to determine if an officer can legally pull over a car under this community caretaking role. First, the officer must point to specific and objective facts that would lead a reasonable officer to think that a vehicle passenger needs help. Second, the police action must be as unintrusive as possible. Therefore, once the police officer realizes that no assistance is needed, he cannot justify further action under his community caretaking responsibility.

Right to Privacy in Bodily Searches in New York

June 7, 2024 | Tilem & Associates

Under the Fourth Amendment, individuals have a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The word “unreasonable” can have different meanings in different contexts, but a recent case coming out of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department, provides interesting case law for one of these contexts. The case serves as a reminder that if you ever have doubts about whether you have been unreasonably searched by a police officer, it is never a bad idea to speak with a New York criminal defense attorney to see if you have options to suppress whatever evidence the officer might have found.

Bodily Examinations

The April 2024 case lists out three kinds of bodily examinations (strip searches) that are common after an officer conducts an arrest: the strip search, the “visual body cavity inspection,” and the “manual body cavity search.” A strip search is when an officer has an individual undress and then visually looks over that person’s body. No physical contact is involved. A visual body cavity inspection, on the other hand, is when the officer visually inspects the individual’s body parts below the waistline. In a manual body cavity search, the officer goes so far as to make contact with the person’s genital or anal area to see if that person is hiding anything there.

In order to initiate a manual body cavity search (the most extreme of the three), an officer must have a warrant from the court, except in emergency situations. Courts recognize that this kind of search is a severe intrusion on a person’s right to privacy, therefore making it difficult for an officer to perform this search without a court’s permission.

Defendant in New York Drug Case Unsuccessfully Asks for Suppression of Incriminating Evidence

March 2, 2024 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a January 2024, New York Drug case before the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department, a defendant filed an appeal of the lower court’s denial of his motion to suppress. The defendant took issue with a police officer’s search of his person, arguing the officer did not have a legal basis to infringe upon his privacy during the traffic stop in question. The higher court reviewed relevant facts related to the defendant’s appeal and ultimately denied his request, affirming the lower court’s ruling in the process.

Convictions at Issue

The defendant was first charged with criminal possession of a weapon and criminal possession of a controlled substance in September 2019. After the State charged the defendant, he filed a motion to suppress the incriminating evidence that officers seized that led to the charges. Ultimately, the trial court denied the motion to suppress, and the defendant pled guilty. The court sentenced him to five years in prison. He promptly appealed.

Basis for Court’s Denial

In the defendant’s appeal, he challenged the denial of his motion to suppress. The higher court, however, reviewed the record and determined the defendant’s motion was, indeed, without merit. The defendant’s charges originated when an officer ran the defendant’s license plate and recognized the address as one related to a narcotics investigation that was ongoing. He then approached the defendant in the parking lot of a local gas station, asking to see his license and registration. The defendant’s license was invalid; there was a missing license plate light on the defendant’s car; and the officer recognized the defendant’s name as an individual known for facing frequent drug charges in the area.

New York Court Reaches Pro-Defendant Decision in Narcotics-Detection Dog Case, Ruling that Sniffing Does Indeed Constitute a Search

January 9, 2024 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent drug case in New York, the Court of Appeals, New York’s highest Court held that using a narcotics-detection dog to sniff a criminal suspect’s body is defined as a “search.” Before this case, New York case law was unclear about whether this specific action constituted a search, which is relevant because any “search” by a government official automatically triggers individual protections under the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment. By ruling that the narcotics-detection dog’s sniffing is a search under the law, the court opened up more defendants and suspects to important protections under this Amendment.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, officers on patrol saw what they believed to be a drug transaction one evening in a parking lot. The officers followed one of the individuals in his car when he left the parking lot, later stopping him for a traffic violation. The officers then requested that the suspect consent to a search of his vehicle. When the suspect declined, the officers brought out their canine to sniff for drugs both around the vehicle and on the defendant’s person.

The dog involved in the search alerted on three different occasions during the interaction. The suspect began to run away, and the officers chased him, caught him, and eventually found a plastic bag with 76 glassine envelopes of heroin. The suspect was charged with criminal possession of drugs, and he then filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the drugs.

New York Defendant Challenges Denial of Motion to Suppress in Recent Drug Case

December 9, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent New York Gun case before the Appellate Division, Second Department in New York, the defendant unsuccessfully asked for the court to reverse a trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. The defendant originally faced charges for criminal possession of a weapon, unlawful possession of marijuana, and violations of two vehicle and traffic laws. He pled not guilty, and his case went to trial. After the jury found the defendant guilty as charged, he appealed the lower court’s decision not to suppress the marijuana that the police officers had found in his vehicle. Ultimately, the higher court agreed with the denial, affirming the lower court’s verdict.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant in this case was driving one evening when he threw a cigarette out the window of his car. A patrol car behind him immediately began following him, eventually pulling him over for a traffic stop.

A police officer approached the defendant and smelled marijuana on his person. He also noticed that there was a clear bag of marijuana in the front passenger seat. He asked the defendant to exit the vehicle; while the defendant exited, the officer searched the trunk of the car and found two unloaded firearms in a shoe box.

New York Defendant Loses Appeal in Drug Case; Court Cites Lack of Standing to Suppress Evidence in its Opinion

September 20, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

Recently, a defendant in New York appealed his convictions for possession of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. The defendant was charged several years ago, and at trial he was found guilty as charged in January 2017. On appeal, the defendant argued that the lower court should have granted his motion to suppress incriminating evidence. Looking at the trial court’s record, however, the higher court decided to deny the defendant’s appeal.

Facts of the Case

The State of New York charged the defendant in this case when officers found illegal drugs in a jacket that he had recently discarded. By tracing the substances to the defendant, the investigators had enough information to formally charge him with criminal possession, and the defendant’s case later went to trial.

Before trial, the defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the officers had no legal right to search the jacket where they found the drugs. The trial court denied this motion, and the jury therefore heard evidence of the drugs inside the clothing’s pocket. After receiving his guilty verdict and subsequent sentence, the defendant promptly filed an appeal.

New York Defendant Successfully Appeals Lower Court’s Decision in Stop and Frisk Case

June 29, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent New York drug offense case subject to appellate review in the state of New York, the defendant challenged the lower court’s denial of his motion to suppress. The defendant was originally stopped by a police officer after the officer saw him exit his vehicle and pull up his pants. Arguing the officer did not have legal grounds to stop him, the defendant filed a motion to suppress the drugs that the officer eventually found on his person. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendant promptly appealed.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was sitting in his car one evening when an officer on patrol stopped behind his car to observe. The officer saw the defendant move from the driver’s seat to the passenger’s seat. He then saw the defendant exit the vehicle and pull up his pants as he walked out.

The officer approached the defendant and, after a brief exchange, patted him down. At that point, the officer found marijuana and heroin on the defendant’s person. He was criminally charged, and he quickly filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the drugs. Once that motion was denied, the defendant appealed.

New York Court of Appeals Sides with Defendants in Recent Firearms Case

March 8, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a recent New York gun case before an appellate court in the state of New York, the court had to decide whether a search warrant executed by several state troopers was valid. Originally, the trial court decided that evidence found by the troopers should be suppressed, and it granted the defendants’ motion to controvert the search warrant and suppress the incriminating evidence. On appeal, the State asked the higher court to reverse this decision, but the court could not find a reason to agree with the State’s arguments and ultimately denied the request.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendants were charged with drug and weapons offenses after state troopers searched their two-story home in Queens. A confidential informant had told investigators that he knew several firearms were in the defendants’ home since he had visited recently and been shown two guns by one of the residents.

Both the search warrant and the affidavit in support of the search warrant described a two story, two family home with a right entrance and a left entrance.

The officers searched the home and found drugs, ammunition, and guns on the first floor. Interestingly, they found nothing on the second floor. They also arrested several people. The defendants filed a motion to suppress, arguing the warrant that gave the officers permission to search the premises was invalid and that the evidence shouldn’t come in at trial. The Constitutions of both New York State requires that search warrants particularly describe the place to be searched and the items to be taken. This warrant authorized the search of the entire house even though the police were aware that it was a two-family home. Accordingly, the trial court granted this motion, and the evidence was suppressed.

Facing Drug Charges, New York Defendant Argues Warrants Were Insufficient to Support Officers’ Search of His Home

November 16, 2022 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent case before a New York court of appeals, the defendant appealed his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. On appeal, the defendant argued that the officers’ search warrants were invalid and did not meet the correct legal standard that would have allowed the officers to reasonably search the defendant’s apartment. Looking at the warrants, the court of appeals ultimately disagreed, sustaining the defendant’s guilty verdict.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, a confidential informant told undercover police officers that the defendant had illegal substances and weapons in his apartment. The defendant had no idea the police were suspicious of him, and he thus was unaware they had secured warrants from a judge to search his two apartments.

Soon, however, the officers executed their search warrants and came into the defendant’s apartment unannounced. They recovered various items, including one loaded pistol, heroin, fentanyl, and drug paraphernalia, immediately charging the defendant after having found these items.