WEAPONS OFFENSES Category Archives — Page 7 of 7 — New York Criminal Attorney Blog Published by White Plains, New York Criminal Defense Lawyers

CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON IN THE FOURTH DEGREE – SWITCHBLADE KNIFE.

February 8, 2009 | Tilem & Associates

“Switchblade Knife” is defined in New York as any knife that has a blade which opens automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device within the knife’s handle. (For the exact definition of “Switchblade Knife” see NY Penal Law § 265.00(4)).

It is an “A” Misdemeanor to possess a switchblade knife (Penal Law § 265.01(1) – Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree). However, it is not a crime to possess a switchblade knife if it is for use while fishing, hunting or trapping and you have a valid license to fish, hunt or trap issued pursuant to section 11-0713 of the New York Environmental Conservation Law (See Penal Law § 265.20(a)(6).

Although not stated in the statute, in order to be convicted in New York of illegally possessing a switchblade knife, you must “knowingly” possess the knife (See Model Jury Charge for Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree (CJI 2d N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01(1); People v. Ford, 66 N.Y.2d 428, 440, 497 N.Y.S.2d 637).

NEW YORK’s VEHICLE PRESUMPTION – NEW YORK DRUG AND NARCOTICS CASES – Marijuana Not Included Part II

December 20, 2008 | Jasmine Hernandez

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’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 FIREARMS AND OTHER WEAPONS CHARGES – PART III – ADDITIONAL DEFINTIONS

December 5, 2008 | Tilem & Associates

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).

NEW YORK FIREARMS AND OTHER WEAPONS CHARGES – PART II – MACHINE GUN

December 1, 2008 | Tilem & Associates

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)

NEW YORK FIREARMS, GUN POSSESSION AND OTHER WEAPONS OFFENSES – INTRODUCTION

November 27, 2008 | Tilem & Associates

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.

NEW YORK CRIMINAL DEFENSE FIRM WINS ANOTHER DISMISSAL IN NEW YORK GUN CASE

September 25, 2008 | Peter Howard Tilem

New York Criminal Defense Law Firm, Tilem & Campbell, scored another major victory in a New York gun case when it won a complete dismissal of all charges in a Bronx County case yesterday using a federal defense under the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA). The original charges included Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree and Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree. The Defendant faced a minimum sentence of 3 and 1/2 years in prison on the Second Degree charge which is a class “C” violent felony.

The case was won using a little known Federal Defense that provides a defense to gun charges in all 50 states for those transporting firearms from one place where they may legally possess that gun to another such place if done so in accordance with federal law.

The victory comes on the heels of a string of major victories in the past three months for Tilem & Campbell which included another dismissal of felony gun charges in a Brooklyn Gun case in June and the sentencing earlier this month to house arrest for a person charged in Federal Court with trafficking in a large number of firearms from Texas to New York. Unfortunately, the firm suffered one loss back in June when a Tilem & Campbell client was convicted by a jury of gun possession.

Brooklyn Felony Gun Case – Tilem & Campbell Scores Big Victory

June 12, 2008 | Tilem & Associates

New York Criminal Attorney’s Tilem & Campbell scored a major victory in Brooklyn Supreme Court yesterday when prosecutors agreed to dismiss all charges in a Kings County felony gun possession case. Peter Tilem, Senior Partner at Tilem & Campbell and former prosecutor in the Firearms Trafficking Unit at the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office handled the case for the client.

The case started back in August 2006 with a felony gun possession arrest in Brooklyn’s 75th Precinct. Police from the 75th Precinct’s elite Anti-Crime Unit claim to have stopped the vehicle the suspect was driving for not wearing a seatbelt directly in front of his apartment building. They further claim that his license was suspended and that he didn’t have identification on him. The police claim the suspect’s wife offered to go up to her apartment to get his identification and that when she didn’t come back down they went upstairs to find out what happened.

Police further claim that when they arrive on the suspect’s floor they smelled the odor of Marijuana (spelled marihuana in the New York State Penal Law) and that when the suspect’s wife opened the door they observed marihuana in plain view. The suspect’s wife then consented to a search of the entire apartment. Police claim to have found a pistol in the apartment.

QUEENS COURT LIMITS APPLICABILITY OF NEW YOK CITY KNIFE LAW

May 22, 2008 | Jasmine Hernandez

New York City Administrative Code 10-133(b) (Unlawful Possession of Knives or Instruments), makes it illegal to possess a knife with a blade of four inches or more in any public place in New York City. Criminal Lawyers and Judges have struggled with this section for years because the reach of the statute is so broad and because of how easy it is to violate this statute.

Firstly, there is no specific “mens rea” or mental culpability required for this offense. Most criminal statutes require a person to act intentionally, knowingly or recklessly. This statute does not even require that the person knowingly possess the knife. Most weapons offenses require that the possession be knowing possession. In addition, as all of us know, knives have many legitimate uses and even the average kitchen knife has a blade length over four inches. To demonstrate the reach of this statute, over twenty years ago a Queens Criminal Court Judge ruled that the statute could be applied to a Sikh priest who had the knife as part of a genuine religious observance.

Last month another Queens Criminal Court Judge ruled that possessing a knife over four inches in a car is not a violation of this New York City Administrative Code section since a person’s car, even though on a public street, is not a “public place.” In the recent Queens case, the knife was seen in the center console of a vehicle that was stopped by the police for a routine traffic infraction. The Court ruled that the center console of a person’s vehicle is not a public place and dismissed the New York City Administrative Code violation.