New York Criminal Attorney Blog

New York’s New Gun Laws Part III – Expanded Red Flag Laws and Requirement of Microstamping

June 9, 2022 | Peter Howard Tilem

EXPANSION OF RED FLAG LAWS

On June 6, 2022 Governor Kathy Hochul signed an expansion of New York’s already problematic red flag laws giving the right to file Extreme Risk Protection Petitions to a wide range of health care workers. The list of healthcare workers includes doctors, nurses, social workers, psychiatrists, marriage and family therapists, and licensed mental health counselors who have treated the person who they wish to red flag within the 6 months preceding the red flag petition. The new law went on the require that police officers and district attorneys file red flag petitions under certain circumstances. Previously, it was discretionary with the police officer or district attorney whether or not to file a red flag case. The new law makes it mandatory under certain circumstances.

One issue that has not been reported is that this amendment to the extreme risk protection law creates a major new exception to the doctor-patient privilege. The doctor-patient privilege is codified in New York under CPLR 4504 and prohibits the disclosure of information obtained while attending the patient. The new law specifically authorizes a medical professional to disclose protected health information. In addition, it gives the Judges hearing the petition for an extreme risk protection order the authority to order the disclosure of protected medical records from other medical providers. This is perhaps one of the largest exceptions ever created to doctor-patient privilege and is likely to discourage many from getting treatment because of the potential for disclosure of their personal medical records.

New York’s New Gun Laws Part II – Licenses for semi automatic rifles and ban on sale and purchase body vests

June 9, 2022 | Peter Howard Tilem

New York’s New Type of License – Semi Automatic Rifles

Among the new package of laws that were signed into law by Governor Kathy Hochul was the requirement to obtain a license before purchasing or acquiring a new semiautomatic rifle (other than an “assault rifle“). The intention seems to have been to prevent the purchase of rifles by 18, 19 and 20 year old individuals but the law does much more. Notwithstanding, that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California has already ruled a similar California ban on 18, 19 and 20 year old young adults is unconstitutional. Under S.9458/A.10503 Article 400 of the Penal law was amended to create a new type of gun license called a license for a semiautomatic rifle. Similar to licenses to carry pistols the new law says that a license to purchase a semiautomatic rifle obtained outside of New York City will not be valid inside of New York City unless a special permit giving validity is obtained from the New York City Police.

The new law does not make it a crime to own or possess guns which were acquired before the effective date. Rather, the new law makes it a crime to purchase or obtain a new semiautomatic rifle without having the new type of license. The new licenses appear to be issued by the same licensing officers using the same criteria as license for handguns and is almost certain to back up and slow down the already overwhelmed system for obtaining handgun licenses. The new licenses require recertification every five years.

New York Governor Hochul Signs 10 New Gun Control Measures – Here Is What You Need To Know

June 9, 2022 | Peter Howard Tilem

On June 6, 2022, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed 10 new gun control measures into law. These laws were hurriedly written and passed and appear to be a knee jerk reaction to the tragedies in Uvalde and Buffalo but will have a heavy impact on the New York Second amendment community. As New York Second Amendment lawyers we have been contacted by a large number of concerned citizens, firearms trainers and gun store owners about the impact of these laws. Taken as a whole these may be the stupidest gun laws ever written. Here is a brief summary of what passed and what it means with links to get more information about each one. .

S.9458/A.10503 makes it a felony to either purchase a semiautomatic rifle without a license or sell a semiautomatic rifle to someone who does not have a license. The new law also raises the minimum age to buy a semiautomatic rifle to 21 years of age. To read more about the law click here.

S.9407-B/A.10497 makes it a crime to purchase body armor except for individuals in “eligible professions”. It makes it a felony to sell body armor to someone who is not in an “eligible profession”. To read more about this law click here.

New York Court Denies Defendant’s Argument in Weapons Case that Informant was Unreliable and Untrustworthy

June 5, 2022 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a recent New York gun crime case decided in a Appellate Court, the defendant unsuccessfully appealed his firearm conviction by arguing that his original arrest was based on unreliable information. His sentence was however reversed on other grounds. According to the defendant, there was insufficient evidence that the informant who had tipped police officers off to his activity was reliable and trustworthy. Because it was not clear whether or not the officers could trust the informant, it was unreasonable for the officers to arrest the defendant based on the single tip. The court considered the defendant’s argument but ultimately denied his appeal, citing the officers’ long-term relationship with the informant as evidence of the informant’s trustworthiness.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, a confidential informant let police officers know that there was an individual in a specified location with a gun in his hand. Upon hearing this tip, officers went to the scene and found the person matching the informant’s description. The officers approached the person, who later became the defendant in this case, and placed him under arrest. Upon his arrest, the defendant immediately stated, “I have a firearm in my waistband.”

The officers recovered the firearm and the defendant was charged and convicted of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. He appealed shortly thereafter.

In Light of the Uvalde Shooting Get Ready for Some Crazy Gun Control Proposals

May 31, 2022 | Peter Howard Tilem

As New York Second Amendment Attorneys we are constantly monitoring upcoming gun legislation. Following up on our blog the Twelve Most Ridiculous Gun laws, we just may have to revamp the whole list with some of the crazy new ideas that we have been hearing lately. So lets look at a roundup of recent gun legislation and suggestions.

New York has recently passed some ridiculous gun laws recently criminalizing the possession of unfinished frames which can basically include an hunk of aluminum, plastic or polymer. In addition, New York has made it a crime for a convicted felon to possess innocuous gun parts such as barrels or triggers. Nothing that can fire; possession of just the parts is now a crime.

Today, I read that there is legislation pending in Albany to require licenses to possess or purchase a semi-automatic rifle. Now remember, so called “assault rifles” are already banned in New York so this is for semi-automatic hunting rifles. How many of these semi-automatic rifles are used in crimes in New York any year? Keep in mind, that New York City already requires licensing of long guns and we can watch the news and see how that is going.

New York Court Grants Defendant’s Motion to Suppress in Firearm Case

May 23, 2022 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a recent New York gun crime case decided by a New York City trial court, one of two defendants filed a motion to suppress incriminating evidence. The court, looking at the circumstances surrounding the case, granted the defendant’s motion after considering the fact that the police officer that found the gun was not in immediate danger at the time of her search. As a result, the charges were dismissed.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, a New York police officer was on duty around 9:00 one morning when she was notified that a violent altercation had occurred nearby. The call reported that a woman’s ex-boyfriend had brought out a gun during a fight in the woman’s home. After the fight, the ex-boyfriend left the house and got into his car, driving away.

The officer began looking for the vehicle belonging to the ex-boyfriend, who later became one of the defendants in this case. About an hour later, the woman involved in the case called the officer to report that she had found the defendant’s car and that one of the defendant’s friends was sleeping inside the car. The officer immediately arrived at the car and knocked on the window, instructing the defendant’s friend to open the door.

New York Court Denies Defendant’s Appeal in Gun Case, Citing Sufficiency of Video Evidence

May 16, 2022 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a recent New York gun crime case a the defendant unsuccessfully argued, on appeal, that his conviction should be reversed based on questionable scientific methodologies used by the prosecutor. Originally, the defendant was charged with criminal possession of a gun after a violent altercation in a store. After a jury found him guilty, the defendant appealed, arguing that the court should have conducted research as to whether or not the State’s methodology for extracting DNA evidence was scientifically legitimate. Disagreeing with the defendant, the court affirmed the guilty verdict.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant in this case was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon after an incident inside a local store. The State’s major piece of evidence at trial was video footage taken from a security camera inside the store. The footage showed a group of men holding the defendant against a shelf, then showed the men scattering the scene before the defendant himself ran away. Approximately two minutes later, the footage showed a police officer looking at the shelf where the defendant had been held, finding a gun in the space where only the defendant had just been standing.

Relying on this evidence, a jury found the defendant guilty, agreeing that the video footage sufficiently proved that the defendant had the gun on his person before the men in the group ran away.

New York Defendant Unsuccessfully Appeals Assault Conviction, Despite Argument Regarding Insufficient Evidence at Trial

May 10, 2022 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a recent case coming out of a New York Court, the defendant appealed his convictions for robbery, criminal possession of a weapon, and assault. Originally, the defendant had been found guilty of all three crimes after he was involved in a violent incident in 2017. On appeal, he made several arguments, one of which was that the court lacked sufficient evidence to find him guilty of the violent crimes. The court rejected the defendant’s argument and affirmed the convictions.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was involved in a drug deal with one other person, who became his co-defendant in this case. While the defendant was participating in what the court later learned was a marijuana purchase, the defendant pulled out his gun and shot two victims who were sitting in their car. Both the defendant and his partner, the co-defendant, were criminally charged, as it was discovered that the two men were accomplices in the gunpoint robbery.

Later, investigators found jail house recorded telephone conversations between the defendant and his accomplice, proving that the two men were at least acquaintances. Considering both this evidence as well as testimony regarding the crimes committed, a jury found the defendant guilty of the following crimes: robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, assault in the first degree, and assault in the second degree.

New York Court Denies Defendant’s Appeal in Firearms Case

May 4, 2022 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a recent decision coming out of a New York court, the defendant’s appeal of his New York firearm conviction was denied. Originally, the defendant was charged after police officers found a firearm inside of his backpack while the defendant and some of his acquaintances were gathered in another person’s yard. On appeal, the defendant argued that the officers invaded his right to privacy. Disagreeing with the defendant, the court denied the appeal.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, two officers were on patrol one day when they drove past an empty house that they had seen many times while driving on the same street. They noticed that the house was boarded up with a padlock, a chain, and a “No Trespassing” sign in the front. Officers saw that a group of men had gathered in the backyard, and they exited their vehicle to go speak with the men.

Officers noticed that the men were passing a cigarette back and forth, as well as that the area smelled of marijuana. They also observed the defendant walk towards the back of the house with an object in his hand. The officers watched him then return to the group empty-handed.

New York Court Denies Defendant’s Appeal in Manslaughter Case

April 26, 2022 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a recent opinion coming out of a New York court, the defendant unsuccessfully appealed his guilty conviction for manslaughter in the first degree. The defendant’s case emerged after he got into a physical altercation with another man. Following the altercation, police showed up at the scene and questioned the defendant extensively. Based on testimony from these officers as well as other people familiar with the incident, the defendant was found guilty. On appeal, he argued that the court had incorrectly instructed the jury on how to proceed in deciding his case. Disagreeing with the defendant, the court eventually affirmed the original verdict.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was charged with manslaughter in the first degree after he choked another person for several minutes with an intent to cause serious physical injury. After the incident, the defendant spoke to police officers and explicitly admitted that he had choked and strangled the victim. He later spoke with a friend and a cousin, who both testified during the trial that the defendant had admitted the crimes to them soon after.

At trial, the defendant testified that he only briefly grabbed the victim’s neck. According to the defendant, his only goal was to stop the victim from fighting him, and he was acting more out of self-defense than out of aggression.