New York Criminal Attorney Blog

New York Court Denies Motion to Suppress in Possession of Firearm Case

December 22, 2021 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a recent opinion involving a New York gun possession conviction, the defendant’s motion to suppress was denied. On appeal, the defendant attempted to establish that the police officers who found a firearm in his backpack did not have the right to search him in the first place. The court disagreed, denying the motion to suppress and affirming the defendant’s conviction.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, a police officer and his partner were patrolling the streets at approximately 11:00 pm one evening. While inside their vehicle, the pair received a radio call reporting that an individual had been shot nearby. The radio call specified that at the scene of the crime, there was a “Black male wearing a white t-shirt” with a backpack. According to the call, the male in question was carrying a gun.

Less than a minute later, the officers arrived at the location of the shooting. Upon a search of the area, it appeared to the officers as though no one had been shot. The officers did see, however, that a woman nearby was standing close to the defendant, a Black male wearing a white t-shirt. The woman was yelling at the defendant, accusing him of threatening her with a gun.

New York Court Denies Defendant’s Appeal in Drug Case

December 16, 2021 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a recent opinion from a New York court involving a New York drug possession charge, the defendant’s appeal was denied. The defendant made two arguments in hopes of fighting the original guilty verdict: 1) that the confidential informant who provided incriminating information against him was unreliable, and 2) that the statements the defendant made to police officers at the time of his arrest were inadmissible. The court disagreed with both of these arguments, finding the defendant guilty and sentencing him to time in prison as a result of the verdict.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant had been found guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree after police officers found crack cocaine just outside of his residence. Officers had permission to search inside and around the residence because they had received a warrant from the court; this warrant was granted because a confidential informant had provided the court with information suggesting that the defendant possessed cocaine in violation of New York law.

The Decision

The defendant appealed his guilty verdict, arguing that the informant providing the incriminating information was not shown to be “reliable or trustworthy”, and thus that the officers’ warrant was invalid. The court disagreed. The court that issued the warrant did get the opportunity to learn the informant’s identity, and the court communicated to the informant that he was sharing information under penalty of perjury. Given these facts, it was reasonable for the court to believe the informant when he provided incriminating information, and the warrant that the court issued was valid as a result.

New York Court Partially Sides with Defendant in Drug and Firearms Case

December 10, 2021 | Peter Howard Tilem

Recently, a New York court denied a defendant’s motion to suppress incriminating statements but granted his request for a new hearing in a drug and firearms case. The defendant had been indicted and tried for possession of firearms and controlled substances, but he appealed the verdict by saying that his statements to police officers should have been suppressed. The court denied this motion to suppress but did grant the defendant another hearing based on a second argument he made – that the court did not properly consider whether the DNA evidence used against him was properly analyzed. The court thus reversed the verdict and sent the case back down to the lower court for a new trial.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, police officers in Brooklyn (executing a search warrant they had previously obtained) entered the defendant’s apartment to conduct an investigation. Pursuant to police department policy, the officers handcuffed the defendant upon entry. While inside the apartment, a detective asked the defendant his name, date of birth, address, height, and weight. No Miranda warnings were given prior to this line of questioning. At that point, the defendant stated that his children’s mother was letting him stay in the apartment. He also motioned toward a bed in the living room.

After the defendant left his apartment, the officers found weapons, drugs, and drug paraphernalia in one of the apartment’s back bedrooms. The defendant was later indicted and tried on several counts related to the possession of firearms and controlled substances.

New York Court Vacates Defendant’s Escape Conviction, Concluding Police Officers Were Not Actually Faced with an Emergency Situation

December 4, 2021 | Peter Howard Tilem

Recently, a New York court vacated a defendant’s criminal escape conviction after he challenged the lower court’s suppression ruling. Originally, the defendant was convicted after police officers claimed they had no choice but to search the defendant’s drawstring backpack since they were faced with an emergency situation that posed an immediate safety risk. The appellate court denied this claim, concluding that there was no such emergency and that the officers should not have actually searched the defendant’s backpack. Even though the defendant had already served time in prison, the court vacated the conviction that was based on his attempt to escape prison after having been arrested. This is an extremely important Fourth Amendment, search and seizure case holding that absent an emergency or fear that the evidence will decay or be destroyed, the police may not search a closed container incident to a lawful arrest.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, police in New York received a call about the defendant trespassing in a residential building. Upon the police officers’ arrival, the building’s superintendent identified the defendant, who was standing near the building, as the trespasser. The officers approached the defendant and tried to ask him a few questions, but he cursed at them and fled. After the officers caught up to the defendant, they took him to the ground and handcuffed him. One officer suffered a knee injury as a result.

The other officer handcuffed the defendant, who was wearing a drawstring backpack and called for backup. The same officer patted down the defendant and the backpack; during this pat-down, the officer felt something in the backpack. Immediately looking inside, he found a box with the words “9mm” written on it. The officer removed the box, opened it, and saw what he believed to be an illegal silencer. The officer arrested the defendant for criminal trespass and weapon possession.

New York Court Denies Defendant’s Motion to Suppress in Drug Case

November 28, 2021 | Tilem & Associates

Recently, a New York court denied a defendant’s motion to suppress incriminating evidence in a drug case. The defendant was originally charged with criminal possession of marijuana: the main evidence used against him in court was marijuana that an officer found after conducting an external canine search of his vehicle. The defendant appealed, arguing that the officer had invaded his sense of privacy and did not have reason to conduct this kind of search of his car. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments, ultimately affirming his conviction of criminal drug possession.

The Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, a police officer saw the defendant greet another person on the sidewalk outside a convenience store and suspected the two people were conducting a drug deal. Suspicious, the officer followed the defendant as he drove away, knowing already that the corner where he saw the people was in an area where drug sales frequently occurred. The officer noticed that one of the defendant’s two rear license plate lamps was out, so he pulled the defendant over for a traffic stop. After speaking with the officer, the defendant consented to a search of the backseat of his vehicle.

Instead of conducting the search as planned, the officer walked his canine around the exterior of the vehicle. Within seconds, the canine started barking at the trunk of the car. The officer opened the trunk and found marijuana. The defendant was later charged with one count of criminal possession of marijuana in the second degree.

RITTENHOUSE CASE SHOWS THE EXTENT TO WHICH PROSECUTORS WILL GO TO PROSECUTE LAWFUL GUN OWNERS

November 22, 2021 | Peter Howard Tilem

As New York Self Defense lawyers, and as the providers of the only pre-paid legal plan for gun owners available in New York, we actively monitored the Kyle Rittenhouse case with both shock and amazement. Shock at the fact that the case was brought but also amazement at the lengths the prosecutor would go to get a conviction. To be clear, the jury verdict was correct and Kyle Rittenhouse appeared justified to use deadly physical force to protect his own life. At the very least, it is clear, that there was a reasonable doubt about whether he reasonably believed that deadly physical force was necessary to protect his own life, thus justifying the jury verdict.

The prosecutions’ own witnesses largely helped the defense. The testimony of the only surviving “victim” Gage Grosskreutz was critical for the prosecution but turned out to help the defense case when he admitted that Kyle Rittenhouse didn’t shoot him until he pointed a weapon at Rittenhouse and advanced toward him pointing a gun. The testimony of another prosecution witness, Richard McGinniss, also severely damaged the prosecution’s case when he testified that Joseph Rosenbaum, who was shot and killed by Rittenhouse seemed very angry as he lunged for Rittenhouse’s gun. Presumably, the prosecutor knew what these witnesses were going to say. Presumably, the prosecutor had interviewed these witnesses and prepared them for their testimony and cross-examination. Yet the case was brought anyway.

Additionally, the prosecutor’s cross-examination of Kyle Rittenhouse himself, shows a certain level of desperation. The prosecutor asked Mr. Rittenhouse about his post-arrest silence, a clear no-no which provoked a severe rebuke from the judge. That line of questioning was really bewildering considering that even a first year law student who has taken basic Constitutional Law would know not to ask a defendant about his post arrest silence. Then the prosecutor, in violation of the trial judges pre-trial rulings went into an area of questioning that he was specifically ordered by the judge not to ask. However, one of the most surprising and truly desperate questions came when the prosecutor asked Rittenhouse if his user name on TikTok was “4doorsmorewhores” in an attempt to make him look dirty.

New York Court Denies Defendant’s Motion to Suppress in Recent Gun Case

November 15, 2021 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a recent opinion from a New York court, a defendant’s motion to suppress was denied. The defendant was charged with criminal possession of a weapon after police arrived at his building to investigate a domestic disturbance. He argued on appeal that the officers who found the gun violated his privacy rights by entering into his private residential building. The court disagreed, denying his appeal and sustaining his verdict.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, police arrived at the defendant’s house after having received a call from the defendant’s father-in-law reporting that he was choking his wife. Officers arrived at the scene and, because they were unable to make contact with the defendant, positioned themselves outside of the apartment building in a nearby alley. Meanwhile, the defendant opened his second-floor window and threw a black backpack into the window of a neighboring building. He came out onto his porch to speak with the officers and stated several times that he had a gun.

Suddenly, the defendant raised what appeared to be a gray-colored object toward the officers, and officers shot him two times. While he was transported to the hospital, the officers searched inside the black backpack and recovered a rifle and ammunition.

Scathing Dissent Submitted by New York Appellate Judge in Fourth Amendment Case

November 9, 2021 | Peter Howard Tilem

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects residents from unreasonable search and seizure of themselves and their property by law enforcement. The protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment are generally understood to be the strongest when the home of a suspect is involved. The New York Court of Appeals recently released a ruling concerning a Fourth Amendment claim that social guests in the home of a friend are entitled to some level of fourth amendment protection by their presence in the home. Although the Court ultimately rejected the defendant’s arguments, one judge on the panel submitted a passionate dissent to the majority decision, suggesting that the law in this area is not entirely settled at this time.

The defendant in the recently decided case was charged and convicted of a drug crime after police allegedly witnessed him sell drugs to an undercover officer and followed him into an apartment building. The police entered an apartment in the building that they believed the defendant had entered but had no warrant to enter that home. After noticing evidence of commercial drug activity in the home, police obtained a warrant to search the home and found the evidence which was later used to convict the defendant at trial.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of the evidence that was collected by police, challenging their entry into the home of his friend without a warrant. The defendant maintained that he had been eating dinner in the apartment “all night” and the police misidentified him. Under the Fourth Amendment, the defendant argued, people are entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy when they are socially visiting the home of a friend for dinner. The trial court rejected the defendant’s contentions without holding a hearing, ruling that he had no right to challenge the search of another person’s home.

New York Appellate Division Vacates or Reduces Several Sex Crime Convictions

November 3, 2021 | Peter Howard Tilem

When juries are given the ability to determine a defendant’s guilt, the stigma of the crimes alleged sometimes plays a larger factor in the jury’s decision than evaluation of the required elements of the crime. Because of this, it is extremely important in the administration of criminal justice that juries are only allowed to convict defendants of crimes that are legally possible based upon the allegations of the criminal complaint and the evidence presented at trial. The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court recently addressed a defendant’s appeal from several New York sex crime convictions, which claimed the evidence against him was legally insufficient to support the convictions.

The defendant in the recently decided case was convicted of first degree sexual abuse after he allegedly made sexual contact with the victim without their consent. Before the trial, the defendant objected to being tried for first-degree sexual abuse, as that charge required a showing that force or compulsion was used to affect the sexual abuse. Additionally, the defendant appealed a conviction for first-degree sexual assault that was handed down based upon his touching two parts of the victim’s body during the same occurrence. The defendant’s pretrial motions were denied, and the defendant was ultimately convicted of the crimes, along with several others stemming from the same criminal episode.

The defendant appealed his convictions to the Appellate Division, arguing that the evidence presented at trial was legally insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant subjected the victim to sexual abuse using forcible compulsion. The Appellate Division agreed with the defendant’s arguments, finding that there was not any evidence presented at trial with which a jury could find that forcible compulsion was used. The Appellate Division reduced this conviction to a third-degree sexual assault, which was supported by ample evidence presented at trial. Additionally, the court found that the two separate counts stemming from the same occurrence should not have resulted in two convictions and vacated one of the convictions outright. The defendant’s other arguments were rejected by the court.

ARE EIGHTY PERCENT LOWERS LEGAL IN NEW YORK (IT DEPENDS)

October 28, 2021 | Peter Howard Tilem

As New York’s premier Second Amendment Lawyers we are monitoring pending legislation to criminalize the

Click Here For A Critical Update on 80% Lowers in New York

possession and sale of 80% (Eighty Percent ) lowers in NY. These unfinished frames have been a recent target of the anti gun crowd who often refer to these unfinished frames or receivers as “Ghost Guns.” Currently there are no laws on the books in New York State that ban the sale or possession of 80% lowers however legislation is currently pending in Albany and a relatively recent and very ambiguous law was recently passed in New York City which makes in a crime to possess or sell an “unfinished frame or receiver.”