NARCOTICS Category Archives — Page 8 of 8 — New York Criminal Attorney Blog Published by White Plains, New York Criminal Defense Lawyers

NEW YORK’s VEHICLE PRESUMPTION – KNOW WHO YOU’RE IN THE CAR WITH (AND WHAT THEY HAVE) Part I

December 17, 2008 | Jasmine Hernandez

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.

NEW YORK CRIMINAL DEFENSE FIRM CHALLENGES MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES IN FEDERAL CRACK CASES

October 1, 2008 | Tilem & Associates

New York criminal defense firm Tilem & Campbell has filed Court papers seeking to prevent the use of mandatory minimum sentences in federal crack cases. Citing the reasoning in the recent Supreme Court decision, Kimbrough v United States that permitted Federal District Courts to consider the “100-1” ratio when considering whether or not to sentence below the federal sentencing guidelines in crack (or cocaine base) cases, Tilem & Campbell asked the Courts to take the ruling one step further and declare the mandatory minimums unconstitutional. The “100-1” ratio refers to the fact that under the current federal sentencing scheme, an offender sentenced for cocaine base is likely to get roughly the same sentence as a person sentences for 100 times as much cocaine.

The Supreme Court in Kimbrough found that this “100 -1” ratio was unwarranted based upon the fact that cocaine base (crack) and cocaine are two forms of the same drug with the same active ingredient and the same physiological and psychotropic effects. In addition, citing statistics from the United States Sentencing Commission, the Supreme Court indicated that there was a racial disparity with minorities and in particular African-Americans receiving longer sentences for crack offenses than their white counterparts who were committing cocaine offenses.

Tilem & Campbell filed the challenges in both the US District Court for the Southern District of New York and the US District Court for the Eastern District Court and decisions are awaited from both Courts.

CHANGES IN FEDERAL CRACK SENTENCING

April 20, 2008 | Jasmine Hernandez

The issue of crack cocaine sentences in federal cases is one that has bothered experienced federal criminal defense attorneys, especially in New York, for some time. Unlike the New York State Court System, where crack is treated the same as cocaine*, in the federal criminal system, individuals charged with crack face the same amount of time as a person who possesses or sells 100 times the amount of cocaine. That is to say, that the sentence for 5 grams of crack (about the amount of tow sugar cubes) and 500 grams of cocaine (half of a kilo) will be approximately the same, all other factors being equal.

This disparity has led to claims of discrimination. In 2006, 82 percent of federal defendants who were sentenced for selling crack were African-American. Even the United States Sentencing Commission seems to agree having reduced crack cases by 2 points on the federal sentencing guidelines and made the reduction retroactive.

In addition, the United States Supreme Court seems to be stepping into the mix. In Kimbrough, a case decided recently in the Supreme Court, the High Court decided that a federal judge may consider the crack-cocaine discrepancy in sentencing someone below the range set by the federal sentencing guidelines.