New York Criminal Attorney Blog

TILEM & CAMPBELL SCORES ANOTHER BIG VICTORY IN QUEENS GUN CASE

July 21, 2010 | Tilem & Associates

New York criminal defense firm Tilem & Campbell, scored another big victory in a Queens gun possession case when the Queens District Attorney’s Office agreed to reduce the class “C” violent felony gun charge to Disorderly Conduct a non-criminal violation. The client who was arrested with the handgun inside LaGuardia Airport as he was about to board a flight was originally facing a mandatory minimum sentence of 3 and 1/2 years in a New York State Prison. The client will pay a $250 fine and have his record sealed.

The client was originally arrested after he attempted to check the pistol in his checked baggage at the airport and was apparently not aware of New York’s very strict gun laws. In New York, possession of a loaded firearm outside a person’s home or place of business carries a mandatory minimum of three and a half years in prison even for a first arrest. In addition, the pistol does not actually have to be loaded to be legally “loaded” simply possessing the ammunition and the gun capable of firing that ammunition at the same time is enough to constitute a “loaded firearm” under New York law.

This is the second such victory this year for Tilem & Campbell. Earlier this year, in March, Tilem & Campbell scored a disorderly conduct violation on another gun case from LaGuardia airport. Senior Partner Peter H. Tilem a former prosecutor, worked in the Firearms Trafficking Unit of the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and has a tremendous amount of experience in handling New York gun cases and other types of New York weapons cases.

DOES YOUR DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED CASE INVOLVE SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY – VEHICULAR ASSAULT IN THE SECOND DEGREE [PL 120.03] – PART 1

July 18, 2010 | Tilem & Associates

If you cause serious physical injury to another person in New York while Driving While Intoxicated (VTL 1192(2), (3)) or Driving While Ability Impaired by Drugs (VTL 1192(4)), in addition to DWI charges, you may also face the more serious charge of Vehicular Assault in the Second Degree (Penal Law 120.03(1)). Vehicular Assault in the Second Degree is a Class E Felony for which you could be sentenced for up to four years in state prison.

For a driver to be guilty on Vehicular Assault in the Second Degree, the prosecution must prove not only that the driver was intoxicated by alcohol or impaired by the use of a drug or the combination of alcohol and any drug or drugs, but also that the intoxication and/or impairment was the cause of the serious physical injury to another. Of course, the prosecution must also prove a serious physical injury as well. (Penal Law 120.03(1)).

However, if a driver causes a serious physical injury to another while operating a vehicle while intoxicated or impaired by the use of drugs or the combination of drugs and alcohol, the law creates a rebuttable presumption that that the driver operated the vehicle in a manner that caused the serious physical injury to another. In other words, if you are Driving While Intoxicated or impaired by drugs and someone suffers a serious physical injury it is presumed that the serious physical injury was caused by how you drove the vehicle.

NEW YORK KNIFE LAWS – Defenses

July 13, 2010 | Jasmine Hernandez

As a prominent criminal defense firm our lawyers have become aware of the dramatic increases in knife arrests in New York City and we have been examining the defenses available to our client’s who find themselves charged with possession of a gravity knife, switchblade or some other dangerous knife in New York. While this is not the forum to disclose the details of our defense strategies to our opponents, there are some generalities that need to be examined.One of the most basic and obvious defenses is the knife itself. Does it function the way the police say it functions. A surprising number of knives that the police claim are gravity knives or switchblades do not constitute the legal definition to make them illegal.

Another basic defense to any type of possession crime involves the constitutionality of the police conduct. Why the the police stop you, search you and seize the knife? If the police acted illegally then the knife can be suppressed by the Court and the case dismissed.

In addition to issues pertaining to the function of the knife and the police conduct in recovering the knife, there are statutory exemptions which may provide a defense and permit certain people to certain knives under certain circumstances. For example New York law permits people with hunting or fishing licenses to possess switchblades under certain circumstances.

CHARGED WITH DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED IN NEW YORK? NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO CALL YOUR “FAMILY” ATTORNEY. WHEN CHARGED WITH DWI IN NEW YORK, YOU NEED A LAWYWER EXPERIENCED WITH DWI DEFENSE

July 7, 2010 | Tilem & Associates

Tilem & Campbell managing partner Peter Tilem is certified in Driving Under the Influence Detection and Field Sobriety Testing. He has taken the same training many law enforcement officers have. He has also completed the National Association Criminal Defense Lawyers 2009 DUI Defense Seminar. Mr. Campbell is an experienced New York DWI trial attorney having tried both felony and misdemeanor DWI cases.

Peter Tilem is a former prosecutor who is experienced in not only defending DWI cases but with prosecuting them as well. Having been a former prosecutor who prosecuted thousands of cases, including DWI, Mr. Tilem brings a unique perspective to DWI defense. Together, Mr. Campbell and Mr. Tilem provide you with a competent, aggressive, experienced and knowledgeable defense team.

Generally, people charged with crimes fall into two categories: (1) true criminals; or (2) decent people who happen to commit an offense. The large majority of individuals charged with Driving While Intoxicated (VTL 1192(2) and/or VTL 1192(3)) fall into the second category. In other words, generally, those charged with DWI are otherwise law-abiding, gainfully employed decent members of society who happen to commit the crime of Driving While Intoxicated. Unlike most crimes, Driving While Intoxicated affects all socio-economic classes, all neighborhoods, all races, all ethnicities, all religions, all professions and all cross-sections of society.

NEW YORK KNIFE LAWS -Part 3

July 1, 2010 | Jasmine Hernandez

There are two local New York City laws that have been aggressively enforced in the five boroughs of New York City recently and our firm has seen numerous people charged with these offenses. They involve possession of a knife over 4 inches (4″) and possession of a knife in public. Both laws can be found in the New York City Administrative Code §10-133.

Section 10-133(b) makes it an offense, punishable by up to 15 days in jail to possess any knife with a blade of 4″ or more in length in a public place. This very broadly worded statute can include use of a steak knife at the outdoor seating area of a restaurant and a whole bunch of other innocent situations.

Section 10-133(c) makes it an offense to possess any knife in public view or wear a knife which is outside the clothing of any size in any public place. Again, this statute makes it an offense to possess knives in New York City in a wide variety of innocent situations including at block parties, picnics or barbeques.

US SUPREME COURT VOTES TO APPLY SECOND AMENDMENT TO STATE AND LOCAL GUN REGULATION

June 28, 2010 | Jasmine Hernandez

The United States Supreme Court has issued a ruling applying the US Constitution, Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” to State and local gun regulation. Ruling in the case of McDonald v. Chicago a 5 to 4 majority of justices decided for the first time that both State and local gun laws must not violate the Second amendment. While this is a landmark decision, it answers very few questions. It did not give any guidelines as to what regulations were permissible and what regulations were not and it even left to the lower Court the issue of whether the Chicago Law in question violated the Second Amendment.

This decision is likely to spur more litigation than it resolved by opening up litigation to strike down local gun regulation all over the Country. New York gun laws which are among the toughest in the Country will almost certainly be challenged under this ruling.

Tilem & Campbell, PC is criminal defense firm that handles a vast array of gun and weapons related cases in both State and Federal Courts and maintains the website www.handgunattorney.com. Senior Partner, Peter H. Tilem is a former prosecutor assigned to the Firearms Trafficking Unit of the New York County District Attorney’s Office, is a member of the NRA and has vast experience in handling gun and weapons related litigation.

NEW YORK KNIFE LAWS -Part 2

June 23, 2010 | Jasmine Hernandez

As experienced criminal defense lawyers we have been seeing an increase in the number of people contacting us after being arrested with a knife. In our continuing effort to educate the public about criminal law, this series will summarize New York State and New York City Knife laws. In Part 1 we discussed what are referred to as “per se” weapons. Weapons or in this case knives that mere possession of constitutes a crime. In part 2 we will discuss knives that are only illegal if you have intent to use that knife illegally against another person but as you will see there is a twist to that requirement. In Part 3 we will discuss knife laws that are particular to New York City only and do not apply other places in New York State.

New York State Penal Law §265.01 (2) makes it illegal to possess any dirk, razor, dangerous knife, dagger or stiletto only if there is intent to use it unlawfully against someone else. The problem develops in Penal Law §265.15 where the law actually creates a presumption that a person who possesses a dagger, stiletto, dirk or dangerous knife has the intent to use it unlawfully against someone else if it is made, adapted or designed primarily for use as a weapon. And its hard to know exactly what that means. What does it mean that a knife is made primarily for use as a weapon?

The answer is unclear. In Queens a Criminal Court judge ruled that possession of a dagger without more was sufficient to make out a charge of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree. People v. Nwogu. In Manhattan, another Criminal Court Judge ruled that possession of a knife combined with a statement that the knife was for self defense was enough to make out a charge of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree. The judge reasoned that by stating that it was for self defense it shows that the defendant considered the knife a weapon and therefore the presumption applied but that judge ruled that if the defendant had remained silent that the evidence would be insufficient. People v. Richards.

NEW YORK KNIFE LAWS -Part 1

June 18, 2010 | Jasmine Hernandez

As criminal defense attorneys who handle a large number of gun and weapon charges we have seen an substantial increase in clients who come to us with charges relating to possession of knives. Now, in the wake of the New York Post article which reported that the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office has entered into a deal with retailers such as Home Depot, Eastern Mountain Sports and Paragon Sports to stop the sale of many folding knives it seems appropriate to review the legality of knives in New York.

As we wrote in our April 2, 2009 blog, New York State Penal Law sec. 265.01 makes it a crime to possess any of the following knives: a gravity knife; switchblade knife; pilum ballistic knife; metal knuckle knife; and cane sword. The problem starts with the definition of “Gravity Knife” from the New York State Penal Law. Sec. 265.00 (5) states that a Gravity Knife is any knife that can be opened by gravity or the application of centrifugal force. What the latter part means is that if the knife can be “flicked” opened (centrifugal force), it is illegal to possess. It gets more complicated if you think that a large, experience police officer can probably “flick” open any knife given a couple of attempts and enough force and so virtually any lock-blade pocket knife can probably be considered a switchblade. It is this “gravity knife” issue that caught up major retailers like Home Depot.

Additional issues arise from the “exemptions”, which are defenses listed in the Penal Law. These are codified in Penal Law §265.20(6) an make it legal to possess a gravity knife or switchblade for use while hunting, fishing or trapping by a person carrying a valid license (for hunting, trapping or fishing).

NEW YORK SEARCH & SEIZURE – TWO MEN LOOKING INTO THE TRUNK OF A VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY WHAT APPEARS TO BE AN EXCHANGE OF MONEY BETWEEN THE TWO MEN INSUFFICIENT BASIS TO SUBSEQUENTLY STOP CAR [People v. Cascio]

May 7, 2010 | Tilem & Associates

An issue that comes up very frequently in New York criminal cases is “when may the police properly stop a vehicle”? The intuition or hunch of an officer, even if it thereafter turns out to be correct, cannot justify a stop. Absent at least a reasonable suspicion that its occupants had been, are then, or about to be, engaged in criminal activity, the stopping of an automobile by the police constitutes an impermissible seizure. In addition, any contraband, such as drugs or guns, recovered as a result of improper police conduct may be suppressed.

For example, in People v. Cascio, 63 A.D.2d 183, the defendant had pleaded guilty to Assault in the Second Degree but appealed the denial of his suppression motion. Officers observed defendant and another man walk to the rear defendant’s parked car, open the trunk, look inside and then exchange what appeared to the officer to be money. Based upon that observation, the officers followed defendant’s vehicle and eventually attempted to pull it over. Defendant fled and a chase ensued. Ultimately the defendant crashed his vehicle, a struggle followed and marijuana was found in the vehicle.

The trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress the seized evidence but the Appellate Court reversed finding that the record lacked any objective evidence of criminal activity. It was insufficient that the officer “felt” a crime was about to be committed. Therefore, the stop was illegal and the evidence found as a result of the stop should have been suppressed. Accordingly, the Appellate Court vacated defendant’s guilty plea and reversed his conviction for Assault in the Second Degree.

TILEM & CAMPBELL SCORES ANOTHER TRIAL WIN IN WESTCHESTER DWI CASE

May 2, 2010 | Tilem & Associates

Tilem & Campbell managing partner Peter Tilem scored his fourth straight DWI trial victory this week when the Cortlandt Justice Court in Westchester County New York, acquitted his client of all charges which included DWI (VTL 1192(3), Aggravated Unlicensed Operation (VTL 511) and Speeding (VTL 1180). The defendant was facing a year in jail.

While the arresting officer testified to signs of the defendant’s intoxication, Mr. Campbell focused the defense on signs of the defendant’s sobriety and the defendant’s flawless operation of his vehicle. For example, on cross-examination, the arresting officer admitted that he followed the defendant for several miles and that there was nothing about how the defendant drove the vehicle that indicated he was intoxicated; that the defendant maintained his lane at all times; that he did not hit anything or drive erratically; that he safely pulled his vehicle to the shoulder and came to a safe stop. The officer also admitted that the defendant complied with all orders, produced his license, registration and insurance card without any problems and that he exited his vehicle with no problems. The only traffic violation the officer claimed to have observed was speeding.

The Court found that there was reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was actually intoxicated. Further, the Court found that the defendant had no knowledge that his license was suspended. Finally, the Court found the defendant not guilty of the speeding charge because the arresting officer could not recall if there was a posted speed limit sign at the time he stopped the defendant.