Steve Penny, the president and chief executive of USA Gymnastics, resigned after the organization came under fire for the way it has handled sex abuse cases against officials and coaches.

Over the years, the Olympic sports organization has been severely criticized by former gymnasts and members of Congress for its inaction over sexual abuse allegations. In particular, Penny faced intense pressure over the handling of accusations against Larry Nassar. Nassar is a former doctor for the USA Gymnastics national women’s team who worked full time at Michigan State University for almost 30 years.

Nassar was accused of sexually assaulting girls and women during routine examinations as well as groping and fondling gymnasts as teenagers. He has been charged with over 20 counts of sexual assault since September and has denied all the charges he faces in both the state and federal system. Nassar is being held without bail in Michigan after his arrest for child pornography in November last year.

More than 60 women have filed lawsuits against USA Gymnastics and Michigan State alleging their negligence permitted Nassar’s abuse to continue. One woman said supervisors did not fire Nassar until 2015 even though she had voiced concerns about his conduct to Michigan State in 2014. Penny eventually reported him to federal authorities.

Besides Penny, some lawsuits have named former USA Gymnastics national team coaches Bela and Martha Karolyi as codefendants. They were accused of creating a culture of abuse that enabled Nassar to take advantage of young athletes. According to court documents, they allegedly “had knowledge of inappropriate conduct and molestations committed by [Nassar] before and during his employment, yet chose to allow him to remain unsupervised where he sexually abused plaintiff.”

Federal agents busted a multimillion-dollar drug operation that hid cash and heroin in wooden furniture. Three men were arrested for their alleged role in the drug ring following a raid in the Bronx neighborhood of New York. They are now facing multiple drug possession charges.

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) found a large collection of furniture in a storage unit and nearby U-Haul truck. Upon further investigation, they discovered more than six pounds of heroin and $4.1 million in cash hidden inside furniture compartments.

According to the authorities, DEA and HSI agents tracked monthly furniture shipments to and from a Bronx storage facility. They found that the three suspects allegedly ran a narcotics operation that spanned several states. The heroin was imported from a Mexico drug cartel. It was then shipped from Texas for sale in New York and Massachusetts.

The three defendants allegedly used bottled fox urine in an attempt to hide the smell of the drugs. They denied any wrongdoing after being charged with multiple counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in Manhattan Criminal Court.

“The organization thought of every detail, from adding a tricycle to their stash of furniture in order to appear like a relocating family, to spraying contents with repellent to ward off police K-9 units,” said New York DEA Director James Hunt.

Drug possession charges are serious. It is important to seek the help of an experienced criminal defense attorney to fight such allegations.

New York police uncovered a large credit card fraud and identity theft ring in Queens that is thought to have affected hundreds of thousands of victims. They arrested 30 people in connection with the scheme and named them in two indictments comprising 662 criminal counts.

According to prosecutors, the ring stole personal information amounting to over $3.5 million in losses to individuals, businesses and financial institutions. It operated from April 2015 to January this year. Authorities also closed four mills in Queens that were used to manufacture fake credit cards and other forged documents.

Investigators said that Muhammad Rana, 40, was the leader of the identity theft ring. Rana and his assistant Inderjeet Singh, 24, allegedly employed Ranvie Seepersad, 25. Seepersad worked at a car dealership where he stole personal data from his own clients along with other victims. He obtained names, birthdates, addresses, social security numbers and financial records.

Other members of the ring used the stolen information to produce fake debit or credit cards. They also posed as the victims to make high-end purchases or request lines of credit from banks. In addition, the group employed shoppers to purchase expensive items from various retailers, which would later be resold by Rana himself or other middlemen.

In one week alone, law enforcement agents executed 24 search warrants at the suspects’ homes. They seized over $400,000 in cash, five vehicles, gold coins and bars, blank credit cards, card readers and skimmers, fake IDs and files with victims’ personal information.

The defendants face multiple charges including criminal possession of a forged instrument, criminal possession of stolen property, falsifying business records, identity theft, forgery, conspiracy, petit larceny and grand larceny, among others. Convictions are likely to result in lengthy prison sentences.

A Bronx man was arrested for killing an emergency medical technician after running her over with her own ambulance, according to the New York Police Department. He now faces murder and manslaughter charges.

Jose Gonzalez, 25, was charged with two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of second-degree murder, first-degree manslaughter and first-degree robbery in the death of Yadira Arroyo, a 14-year EMS veteran. He pleaded not guilty to all the charges during an appearance in the Bronx Supreme Court.

Prosecutors accused Gonzalez of riding on the back of Arroyo’s ambulance as it was heading to the Bronx in response to a call. Authorities said a passing driver flagged her down. When Arroyo, 44, and her partner exited the ambulance to investigate what was happening, Gonzalez allegedly jumped into the driver’s side of the vehicle.

He then put the ambulance in reverse and slammed it into Arroyo and her partner, who suffered minor injuries. Gonzalez then accelerated forward, dragging Arroyo into the middle of an intersection. The vehicle stopped after crashing into parked cars. Both EMTs were rushed to the hospital, where Arroyo later died.

Gonzalez has an extensive criminal record comprising 31 prior arrests and four misdemeanors. His attorney claimed he suffers from mental illness. He was placed at the hospital until his court appearance due to concerns about his physical and mental health. According to court documents, Gonzalez’s toxicology tests came out positive for PCP and marijuana.

While being taken to a car after leaving a police station, Gonzalez said, “I’m innocent. I didn’t do nothing” He is scheduled for another court appearance in August.

Individuals facing murder charges need an aggressive lawyer who can handle the complexities and pressure of such cases. The attorneys at Brill Legal Group have the knowledge and experience necessary to build a strong defense against murder and manslaughter charges.

A robbery suspect, an 18-year-old teen, was shot 14 times and killed after pointing a pellet gun at police. His violent death has raised questions about why officers unleashed a barrage of bullets on the teen rather than simply trying to deter him from fleeing.

According to authorities, Sergio Reyes walked into a Brooklyn deli and stole two six-packs of Corona beer at gunpoint. A store employee said he left the store without paying for the beer. The teen then returned shortly to take more beer.

Police said they arrived at the scene after receiving reports of an armed robbery at around 12:40 a.m. Three officers began interviewing witnesses inside the store, according to NYPD Chief of Patrol Terence Monahan. “He … put a gun to my face and threatened to kill me,” said a store employee describing Reyes’ behavior. “I told him he was on camera and he got scared and ran off. A little while later I heard the gunshots fired down the block.”

Law enforcement said they spotted Reyes walking down the street. He had fled shortly before two plainclothes officers and a sergeant arrived. Police said they ordered the high schooler to stop before he pointed the realistic-looking pellet gun at them. Upon seeing the black firearm, police fired multiple shots at the suspect.

“The officers gave verbal commands [to drop the weapon],” Monahan said. “The suspect had a black firearm in his hand and raised it towards the officers.”

Officials said Reyes was pronounced dead after being taken to Woodhull Medical Center. They found the pellet gun near the teen’s body. Reyes’ family is seeking answers about why police officers fired so many shots at him.

A state appellate panel revived a medical malpractice lawsuit against North Shore University Hospital in New York due to conflicting evidence. According to the four-judge Second Department panel, the trial judge should not have dismissed the case as medical records contradicted the expert witness testimony submitted by the hospital.

Plaintiff Joseph Kleinman sued North Shore University Hospital and surgeon George DeNoto after he developed abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) following a complicated, five-hour hernia operation in 2009. The condition involves the buildup of pressure inside an enclosed muscle space. The plaintiff accused the hospital of failing to make a timely and proper diagnosis of his ACS.

The hospital’s expert witness, a board-certified surgeon, claimed that Kleinman did not have ACS following his surgery. However, medical records indicated otherwise. In addition, the court said DeNoto had electronically signed the patient’s discharge summary, which showed that he had ACS. Due to the contradictory testimony, the appellate panel said the hospital was not entitled to summary judgment in the medical malpractice lawsuit.

Furthermore, Kleinman alleged that he suffered various injuries because DeNoto failed to inform him of the potential risks associated with the surgery he performed. He also claimed the surgeon did not advise him about alternative surgical procedures. However, the court said the hospital’s witness failed to demonstrate that the informed consent DeNoto received from Kleinman met the appropriate standard of care for that particular type of surgery.

A former Uber driver faces four years in prison for his role in an interstate gun trafficking ring. Law enforcement officials said the group smuggled dozens of guns into New York City from South Carolina, North Carolina and Tennessee.

As reported by the Daily News, Marlon Manswell, 32, admitted to driving his accomplice from the Port Authority Bus Terminal to Brooklyn to sell guns. Authorities said he pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal sale of a firearm in the second degree and conspiracy in the fourth degree.

Manswell’s four-year prison sentence will be followed by five years of probation. He was fired from Uber in October 2015 after his arrest, according to a company spokeswoman.

The NYPD’s Gang Squad Brooklyn North used undercover surveillance and wiretaps to build the case. Their investigations led to the seizure of around 50 illegal guns including revolvers and semiautomatic weapons. The ring transported them into New York City from out of state via the so-called Iron Pipeline route, where the majority of New York’s illegal firearms come from.

Three others were also arrested and charged for their involvement in the gun trafficking ring. Manswell and his accomplices helped sell the guns to undercover officers from June to October 2015.

New York has some of the nation’s strictest firearms laws. Individuals facing weapons charges in the state should contact the experienced attorneys at Brill Legal Group to fight the accusations.

Police charged a Brooklyn man with killing his wife and dismembering her body, marking a brutal culmination to the couple’s almost decade-long history of domestic violence.

Phillip Martin, 42, was charged with murder and concealment of a corpse after the disappearance of his wife. Police said worried family members reported Diana Rodriguez-Martin, 43, missing after she did not show up to a scheduled doctor’s appointment. When asked about his wife’s whereabouts, Martin told relatives and investigators that she left in mid-January with their dog.

According to a CBS 2 New York report, investigators found Martin’s story suspicious. When police arrested him several days later, upon questioning Martin allegedly admitted to fatally hitting Rodriguez-Martin and dismembering her body. He said he disposed of his wife’s remains in a dumpster.

Neighbors described the couple’s relationship as volatile. “They argued day and night, but who would have thought it would have come to this?” one neighbor told the New York Daily News.

The couple’s history of domestic violence-related incidents dates back to 2008. Over the years, law enforcement officers were called to their home eight times for domestic violence complaints. According to police, Martin was previously arrested twice for allegedly attacking Rodriguez-Martin in 2013 and 2016. His wife also had two prior arrests for assaulting her husband.

If you are receiving an excessive amount of connection requests on LinkedIn from people you do not know, be careful not to provide them with any personal or financial information. Such requests could be part of phishing campaigns, which are among the most prevalent methods of obtaining someone’s passwords and personal data.

In one such campaign, hackers created several fraudulent LinkedIn accounts by pretending to be corporate headhunters attempting to entice working professionals in industries such as telecommunications and government agencies. They then convinced their victims to provide their business emails. Once they were in possession of the business emails, the hackers gained access to the desired targets, the CEOs and higher management.

Upon successful completion of a phishing campaign, the hackers can use the stolen data to repeat the process. By accessing important data, including titles and emails, they acquire a mechanism by which they can assume the identity of high-level executives within the company. The hackers may then send emails to employees, who are compelled to transfer funds at the request of the phony executive to the hacker’s account.

Or, a hacker could pretend to be a supplier to the business, and send a vendor email that can be misconstrued as part of normal communication. Only when the employee tries to verify the transaction is the phishing campaign discovered.

Be wary of scammers who create false identities or assume the identity of a real person or company. If you believe to have been a victim of identity theft or other internet crimes, or if you were wrongly accused of having committed internet crimes, such as phishing or identity theft, contact the criminal defense attorneys at the Brill Legal Group, P.C.

A nonprofit is charged with falsely depicting a veteran as a sex offender and evicting him from his home. According to PIX 11 News, residents of a Brownsville neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York saw posters throughout the community warning them about former U.S. Army Specialist Ellison McKnight. The posters claim that McKnight was a level-three sex offender.

Mike Erber, the operator of the nonprofit, Mutual Assurance Guaranteed Veterans, or MAG-V, is alleged to have put up the fictitious fliers. According to Peter Kempner of Brooklyn Legal Services and the Director of the Veteran Justice Project, Erber has falsely accused McKnight of being a sex offender thus, endangering his safety. Kempner claims it was a plan to evict McKnight from his apartment.

During a hearing at a Brooklyn Housing Court, Erber said that the U.S. Department of Veterans informed him that McKnight was a sex offender. When Erber was asked to produce documents supporting his claims, he could not do so. The judge at the hearing issued an order restoring McKnight to his home.

Erber, however, ignored the court order and did not allow McKnight to return to his apartment. McKnight and his attorneys returned to court and obtained two more orders restoring him to his home. However, Erber has continued to ignore the orders. McKnight fears going to a shelter due to safety concerns, and he has resorted to sleeping wherever he can.

Erber, who currently faces misdemeanor charges, has been accused of illegally evicting and scamming veterans. Moreover, Erber has been accused of misappropriating rent money of the residents.

McKnight’s story serves as an example of how an accusation of a sex crime can have devastating consequences to a person’s life. If you have been falsely accused of committing a sex crime, call the experienced criminal defense attorneys at the Brill Legal Group, P.C.

As reported by NBC New York, John Gotti, the grandson of a notorious New York City mobster who bore the same name, pleaded guilty to the following charges:

• Second-degree criminal sale of a controlled substance
• Conspiracy to commit a class A felony
• Third-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance arising from two arrests in 2016

According to the Queens District Attorneys’ Office, he could spend 25 years to life in prison for the part he played in an extensive prescription drug operation. Gotti said he would give over $259,000 in drug proceeds that officials confiscated during an arrest on August 4, 2016 and another $7,000 in drug proceeds confiscated in an arrest on June 30, 2016.

Similar to his grandfather, Gotti was captured by hidden listening devices. Investigators eavesdropped on his telephone conversations, and placed a bug in his vehicle. Thus, they were able to record his conversations concerning his Oxycodone trafficking business. In like manner, his grandfather was caught after the FBI installed such devices at Gotti hangouts throughout New York City.

The recorded conversations revealed that Gotti sold over 4,200 pills each month, from which he earned approximately $100,000 monthly. On a yearly basis, he earned about $1.6 million. According to officials, Gotti stated that he kept his drug trafficking documents and $200,000 in profits at the home of an associate in the event police decided to take them and arrest him.

If you were arrested for possession or sale of drugs in New York, call the experienced criminal defense attorneys at the Brill Legal Group, P.C.

As reported in The New York Times, the Justice Department made the decision not to file a civil fraud case against Angelo R. Mozilo, a co-founder of Countrywide Financial, which was one of the largest originators of subprime mortgages in the time leading up to the financial crisis. Prosecutors in Los Angeles, in conjunction with those at the Justice Department in Washington, spent over two years analyzing the benefits of filing a civil fraud case against Mozilo. However, they chose not to file suit against Mozilo after a federal appeals court in New York overturned a $1.27 billion penalty against Bank of America and a prior Countrywide executive.

Mozilo, age 77, and many other prior Countrywide executives, received letters from federal prosecutors informing them that the prosecutors concluded an investigation into the sale of billions of dollars of mortgages to homebuyers who had dubious credit histories. Because of the duration of the review process, it was not surprising to learn that federal prosecutors chose not to continue with a civil fraud case under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA).

The potential for the Justice Department to file a FIRREA lawsuit against Mozilo was revealed when Bank of America settled its own FIRREA case for $16.65 billion in August 2014. The initial investigation of Mozilo by the Justice Department was interpreted by some legal analysts as a means by which prosecutors could respond to objections that those responsible for the financial crisis had not been held culpable of any wrongdoing.

If you have become the target of a mortgage fraud investigation, call the criminal defense attorneys at the Brill Legal Group, P.C. to discuss your situation.

A New York state appellate court recently threw out multiple weapons charges against a man accused of stockpiling firearms and explosives in his parents’ Long Island home. New York has some of the nation’s strictest weapons laws, especially when it comes to firearms. However, in weapons possession cases certain errors made by law enforcement at the time of arrest, such as illegal searches, can lead to dropped charges.

Marc Ringel, the 57-year-old defendant in the case, was arrested in 2012 following a police search of the Long Island residence. Nassau County police confiscated 120 guns of various sizes and calibers, forged gun permits, ammunition, grenades, chemicals for explosive devices, forged currency and 10 pounds of marijuana. An Appellate Division panel unanimously ruled that the police search was illegal and that officers had no right to enter the house without a warrant.

Ringel was charged with 35 counts of weapons possession, criminal possession of a forged instrument in the first and second degrees, criminal use of a firearm in the first and second degrees, unlicensed possession of explosives, unlawful storage of explosives and reckless endangerment in the first degree. He was released from prison after serving nearly five years of a 10-year sentence.

Weapons possession charges, especially criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, are considered among the most serious in the state and are aggressively enforced. Convicted offenders face a mandatory prison sentence of between 3 ½ years and 15 years. A person could potentially be found guilty of the offense when they possess a loaded firearm outside their home without a New York permit, regardless of intent.

Nassau County police responded to a silent alarm call at the Long Island home on the afternoon of March 6, 2012. Ringel told the authorities his parents were away in Florida. Thinking he might be lying, officers told Ringel they needed to open the door “and make sure everybody is okay.”

Ringel’s behavior was described as “shifty” and “very jittery” when police confronted him in the driveway of the house. However, the court said his questionable demeanor did not provide “the objective reasonable facts giving rise to a reasonable belief that someone in the house required emergency assistance” that would have justified a warrantless entry.

Although Ringel allegedly tried to go back inside the house and block the police from entering, they eventually managed to gain entry. No one was inside, but an officer spotted a handgun and two hand grenades. Authorities then obtained a search warrant and found the cache of weapons.

Ringel filed a motion to suppress his statements to the authorities and the evidence found in the house. It was denied. He pleaded guilty to the charges but appealed the suppression decision. A panel then held that suppression should have been granted.

In this case, the police could have taken other steps to check their suspicions regarding the silent alarm without intruding on an individual’s constitutional right to retreat into his home. According to Ringel’s lawyer, Nassau County police officers overstepped their bounds when they forced their way into the home in response to the silent alarm.

One of the Fourth Amendment exceptions to requiring a warrant is an emergency situation in which someone needs assistance. While the police claimed safety was a concern due to the silent alarm going off, Ringel’s lawyer said, “Even the District Attorney admitted that the silent alarm wasn’t enough [grounds to enter the home], because there are too many of them and many are false alarms.”

The bottom line is an individual’s rights under the law should not be disregarded. Attorneys work to protect such rights for those accused of weapons possession charges and other offenses by ensuring they are treated fairly.

A New York physician assistant faces a five-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to conspiring to illegally distribute the painkiller oxycodone.

Michael Troyan, 38, was ordered to forfeit the $710,000 he made in the drug sales. He must also serve three years of supervised release. His physician assistant license was listed as inactive on the New York State Department of Health records at the time of his sentencing.

According to federal prosecutors, from 2011 to 2015 Troyan distributed more than 70,000 pills, which were later sold illegally. Officials said an investigation was launched when an unnamed surgeon reported Troyan as a possible drug dealer. He was caught after an undercover investigation videotaped him receiving large quantities of cash in exchange for fake oxycodone prescriptions at his Riverhead office.

The licenses of physician assistants can be affected by alleged misconduct in the workplace. The Office of Professional Medical Conduct investigates all complaints about physician assistants. The office has the power to impose professional discipline through fines or license suspensions or revocations.

The consequences can be even more acute with a criminal conviction. Factors such as whether the physician assistant’s criminal conduct compromised patient care and whether the behavior was isolated or recurrent all affect the severity of the punishment.

A New York Police Department sergeant was stripped of his gun and badge after fatally shooting a 66-year-old woman with a history of erratic behavior inside her Bronx apartment.

NYPD Assistant Chief Larry Nikunen said the sergeant responded to a neighbor’s 911 call about the emotionally disturbed woman’s irrational behavior. Upon entering the seventh-floor apartment, he found her alone in a bedroom holding a pair of scissors.

The sergeant convinced the woman to drop the scissors. However, she grabbed a wooden baseball bat and tried to hit him with it, according to police. Nikunen said the sergeant reacted by firing two shots from his revolver, striking the woman in her torso. She was pronounced dead after being taken to a hospital.

The sergeant, who is an eight-year NYPD veteran, was placed on modified duty. Nikunen said he was armed with a stun gun at the time but did not use it. Police are investigating the incident and trying to determine why the sergeant opted to use deadly force instead of his Taser.

At issue is whether the sergeant acted in self-defense in shooting the woman, in which case the deadly use of force would be justified. A baseball bat can be considered a deadly weapon as it can pose an imminent threat of serious injury or death. To show the sergeant’s act was not one of self-defense, it would have to be proven that the woman was so physically weak that swinging the bat would not have resulted in a serious bodily injury.

NYPD Sergeants Benevolent Association President Ed Mullins said the shooting was justified as the sergeant opened fire only because he was “fearing for his own life, as well as the lives of others.”

In a controversial move, the New York State Police announced state residents must now recertify their pistol or revolver licenses every five years. The new requirement is part of the 2013 Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act.

Individuals who had their pistol or revolver license issued before January 15, 2013 have until January 31, 2018 to renew their permit. If the license was issued on January 15, 2013 or after, the recertification deadline is five years from the issue date.

Under the old firearms laws, people who had a pistol permit could keep it for life without having to renew it. However, the license could still be revoked for reasons such as mental health issues, a felony conviction or certain misdemeanor charges.

According to state police, gun owners who fail to recertify within the deadline could have their pistol or revolver license revoked. In addition, those who do not renew their permit could face a Class A misdemeanor charge and be sentenced to up to a year in jail.

Many have opposed the new SAFE Act requirement saying it inconveniences law-abiding gun owners and will be a logistic nightmare. Oneida County Assistant Pistol Licensing Officer Dan Sullivan said the law puts people at risk of having their gun license revoked due to simple mistakes. For example, a pistol owner may not receive their recertification notice because they forgot to update their address with the DMV.

The recertification process requires pistol owners to confirm basic personal information. Details about the firearms they possess — such as make, model, serial numbers and caliber — must also be included. In addition, they need to verify that they are not prohibited from possessing firearms under state and federal laws.

George Ongley claimed the hospital’s doctors were responsible for his brachial plexopathy, commonly known as upper shoulder nerve damage. The plaintiff alleged the injury occurred because surgeons improperly positioned his arm during an abdominal aortic repair procedure he underwent at the age of 85.

A New York federal judge ruled there was no “reasonable degree of medical certainty” that the doctors’ negligence caused the injury. She said the opinion of Ongley’s medical expert on what caused the shoulder injury was speculative. The medical expert had testified that several factors may have resulted in the nerve damage.

The judge also rejected the plaintiff’s alternate claim that he suffered the injury due to an improper transfer from the operating table to a gurney. She cited the testimony of one of the doctors, who said four individuals and a slide apparatus were used to move Ongley.

Medical experts from both sides agreed the transfer method matched the expected standard of care. The judge decided the plaintiff could not provide any evidence of doctors deviating from the standard of care at any time during his surgery. For the medical malpractice lawsuit to have merit, Ongley would have to prove that surgeons breached their standard of care, and the breach directly caused his injury.

The use of guns for self-defense is at the center of a debate that has been reignited with the January 6 mass shooting at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. In comparison to other states with more lenient firearm laws, New York heavily restricts the ownership and use of guns. Permits are required for those seeking to purchase and carry handguns. As part of the state’s tough stance on firearms, it is illegal for gun owners to carry a concealed weapon in New York without first obtaining the appropriate permit.

What happens when an individual uses a gun for self-defense? Self-defense is legally defined as an individual’s right to use reasonable force in order to protect themselves or someone else from a physical threat. This may involve the use of deadly force under some circumstances. There is a very thin line between what constitutes self-defense and what does not.

It is possible for a solid self-defense argument to lead to acquittals in serious cases of alleged assault. However, using a self-defense strategy carries inherent risks. A skilled criminal defense attorney can help the defendant understand the possible defenses available in their particular case and identify the one most likely to yield a favorable outcome.

In one recent case, a Manhattan woman was charged with stabbing a transgender black man in a racially motivated Christmas night subway attack. The woman’s lawyer argued she acted in self-defense and resorted to violence only after the man allegedly “tried to take out her eyes with his nails and fingers.” She was charged with assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon.

A defendant’s actions would not be justified if they were the initial aggressor or used excessive force in response to an attack. Under New York law, an initial aggressor refers to the person who first attacks or threatens to attack. In this case, the woman’s statement indicates she may not have been the initial aggressor. However, she may have used excessive force.

If an assault is classified as a misdemeanor and does not result in serious injuries, then self-defense laws regarding the use of non-deadly force would apply. If the injuries sustained from an assault are serious or if a deadly weapon such as a gun was used, the prosecutor may seek a felony assault or an attempted murder conviction.

In order to employ a self-defense strategy, the defendant must have had a reasonable belief that using physical force was an unavoidable last resort for protecting themselves from immediate danger. Additionally, a reasonable person in the defendant’s situation would have believed the same.

In another case, a New York taxi driver used his legally concealed gun to protect himself from a passenger who tried to attack him with an icepick. “I believe she would have killed me if I had been close enough to her,” said the driver. He was able to get the woman to back off without having to fire a shot. The man decided to register and carry a gun after he was stabbed 13 times in a violent attack four years ago while driving his cab.

To use self-defense, there must exist an imminent threat of the use of physical force. The self-defense argument is ineffective for crimes in which the shooting or other form of assault occurs as retaliatory action after the threat has passed.

Although self-defense is a legitimate legal strategy, it is a tricky and complicated one to use as there are many factors that come into play. The consequences of a gun-related conviction can be devastating, even if it is an act of self-defense. In such cases, going to court without an experienced criminal defense attorney to build a strong case can have disastrous consequences.

The loss of a nursing license can completely destroy a career. Even a temporary license suspension may create difficulties in finding another position.

A nursing professional can face an investigation for misconduct based on allegations such as failure to properly maintain medical records, criminal convictions, abuse or neglect of patients, gross negligence or practice under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

New York nurses are governed by the state Department of Education’s Office of Professional Discipline (OPD). The office is responsible for investigating complaints of professional misconduct against a licensee. Their scope of investigation includes examining documentation and interviewing coworkers, patients and friends. Besides imposing fines or probationary terms, they may also suspend or revoke licenses.

Physician assistants accused of failing to meet the standards of practice may face investigations by the Office of Professional Misconduct (OPMC). Along with coordinating disciplinary hearings, the office is responsible for investigating every complaint, regardless of merit. As a result, OPMC investigations are serious and have the potential to destroy an individual’s professional reputation and career. The OPMC has the power to revoke, suspend or limit licenses.

A nursing professional or physician assistant whose license is threatened by a disciplinary proceeding should immediately seek the help of an attorney. The attorney can provide legal guidance on how to protect one’s rights and avoid the risk of losing one’s professional license. Do not ignore an investigation in the hopes that the matter will be resolved on its own.

The women filed separate medical malpractice lawsuits against Dr. Paolo Bolognese in Queens County Supreme Court in October. The plaintiffs — from Georgia, Virginia and New Mexico — were all diagnosed with Chiari malformation. The rare, painful condition consists of brain tissue extending into the spine.

Bolognese, who specializes in Chiari malformation, performed surgeries on the three women. According to the complaints, he made such serious errors that the patients developed post-surgery complications such as spinal cords cysts, difficulty moving, impaired bladder function and sleep problems.

The lawsuit alleged Bolognese improperly placed hardware during the surgery of one plaintiff, while he dissected the neck muscles of another. The third woman claimed he failed to close her wound properly and ignored her subsequent complaints about excruciating pain.

As the case proceeded, prosecutors discovered the surgeon has been sued for medical negligence at least 20 times during his medical career. Bolognese who now practices at Neurological Surgery in Rockville Centre co-founded the North Shore University Hospital’s Chiari Institute. He was temporarily suspended by the institute for allegedly failing to operate on a patient who was anesthetized for brain surgery.

However, several former patients have spoken up in Bolognese’s defense. One woman said she “woke up feeling much better” after a 10-hour surgery the neurosurgeon performed on her. She said Bolognese’s decision to specialize in Chiari malformation makes him an easy target.

Medical professionals facing legal action for misconduct should contact an experienced attorney to challenge the accusations head-on. Medical malpractice can put one’s medical license and career on the line. Brill Legal Group has successfully represented physicians, nurses and other medical professionals facing criminal charges or disciplinary hearings.

The case, filed in Albany federal court on December 3, follows a Supreme Court decision from March that suggested individuals may have a constitutional right to possess Tasers and other stun guns in Massachusetts. New York and four other states — New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Hawaii — prohibit civilians from owning stun guns. The stun-gun ban in Washington D.C. was lifted in September after a lawsuit.

The latest complaint was brought by California-based national gun rights advocacy group the Firearms Policy Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition. Matthew Avitabile, the mayor of Middleburgh, New York, is also a plaintiff in the case.

According to the lawsuit, Avitabile originally wanted to buy a Taser for self defense. The complaint said, “Plaintiff would prefer to minimize the likelihood that he would have to resort to deadly force in the event he was forced to defend himself or his home from a violent criminal attack.”

Avitabile argued the Taser ban is unconstitutional and that nonlethal stun guns should be available for self defense like traditional firearms. The lawsuit claimed using a nonlethal form of self defense would spare the plaintiff from potential arrest in case he is forced to use a weapon while defending his property from intruders. In addition, the complaint said knives, pepper sprays and other weapons are not as effective as stun guns when it comes to self defense.

The right of self defense is legally defined as an individual’s right to use reasonable force in order to defend themselves or someone else when their safety was threatened. In certain situations, this includes the use of deadly force.

While self defense is a valid legal defense, there are specific circumstances under which it can be used in court. The defendant must prove he or she was not the initial aggressor, did not use excessive force in response to an attack, and reasonably believed that using force was necessary as a last resort to prevent immediate danger. In addition, the self defense claim must make sense in relation to the rest of the evidence.

In New York, proportionality is a key factor in a justification defense. A person’s response to an attack must be proportional to the attack. The threat of attack must also be immediate.

In cases that involve deadly force, the defendant must prove that he or she faced an imminent risk of injury, death or rape from the attacker. Self defense cannot be used if the individual acted only because of a threat of future harm.

Many serious cases of alleged assault can result in acquittals due to a successful self-defense argument. However, there are risks associated with using a self-defense strategy. A good criminal defense attorney can examine the details of a case and determine which defense will obtain the best outcome.

David Bergstein and co-defendant Keith Wellner were arrested in California and New York respectively, according to the FBI. Bergstein is the chief executive of private equity firm Cyrano Group Inc. while Wellner is the former chief operating officer and general counsel of Weston Capital Asset Management, an advisory firm.

Prosecutors claimed the defendants allegedly defrauded Weston’s hedge fund investors by devising a plan to hide details about transactions that involved their funds. Bergstein and Wellner transferred money from one group of Weston investors to pay another. According to the indictment, they also used millions of investor dollars for their own benefit.

Bergstein and Wellner could face from five to 20 years in prison, in addition to hefty fines ranging from $10,000 to $5 million per offense. Wellner is a repeat offender who was prohibited from working in the securities industry after previously settling fraud charges with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Bergstein’s movie credits as executive producer include the 2004 comedy “The Whole Ten Yards” and 2015 film “In the Heart of the Sea.” Five of his movie companies went bankrupt in 2010, according to court records.

Gabriel Young, 26, and his co-defendant Omar Hidalgo pleaded guilty to a felony charge of second-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument. Young was sentenced to one to three years in prison in Westchester County Court.

Hidalgo tried to purchase an iPad from a Best Buy store in Hartsdale in December 2015. He was carrying a forged credit card with the name Daniel Lopez. Hidalgo also had a forged Georgia driver’s license that had Lopez’s name but his photo on it.

A store manager approached nearby police officers after he thought the credit card and license looked suspicious. The officers, who had already been on site, determined them to be fraudulent.

Hidalgo left Best Buy and got into a rented vehicle with Young in the driver’s seat, according to authorities. Police removed them from the car and found the forged license along with multiple forged credit cards in Hidalgo’s wallet. An initial search of the car revealed a cellphone, four forged credit cards and some cash.

After the car was impounded, investigators found another 83 forged credit cards under the passenger floor, along with a forged Connecticut license. Young had used one of the credit cards to buy food from a Smash Burger restaurant in the area before his arrest. Police also recovered several PlayStation 4 game systems and dozens of gift cards.

In New York, credit card fraud is a felony offense that is aggressively prosecuted. As a result, individuals charged with the crime need an experienced defense attorney on their side.

The task force will be led by First Lady Chirlane McCray and NYPD Commissioner James O’Neil. It comprises government experts, law enforcement officials, members of social services and abuse survivors. The group has 150 days to develop and present a comprehensive, citywide strategy for tackling domestic violence.

“We are already taking steps to protect survivors’ homes and paychecks, and to hold abusers accountable,” said McCray. “Now, we’re going to focus the full force of City government to prevent domestic violence.”

The task force will address four goals, one of which is to increase conviction rates and reduce dismissal rates in domestic violence cases. Last year, four out of five city boroughs had conviction rates below 33 percent and dismissal rates of over 53 percent. Abuse survivors will also be able to partner easily with police and prosecutors to build strong cases that lead to convictions.

Another aim is to ensure abusers are held accountable through the use of precision policing which has helped reduce other types of violent crime. The task force will also develop a concrete plan to stop repeat offenders.

Such measures will make it easier to prosecute people accused of domestic violence. An experienced attorney can help fight such serious charges by building a solid defense that stands up to aggressive prosecutors seeking a conviction and harsh criminal penalties.

Passengers leaving from LaGuardia and John F. Kennedy airports are vulnerable to identity theft and price gouging. Uber said the fake drivers have been stealing cash and credit card information from people before they use the app to request a ride. The drivers are allegedly colluding with fixers who linger near arrival areas and aggressively solicit passengers. It is illegal for drivers to schedule or accept rides at airports without using the official Uber app.

The company conducted a 15-day review of the situation at the two airports, saying it has “reached crisis levels.” They found that scammers are making as many as 2,300 illegal rides each week.

Uber filed an official complaint with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which manages the metro-area airports. Company spokesman Josh Mohrer wrote a letter requesting the department to investigate the problem, saying, “In recent weeks, the conditions at the terminal have noticeably worsened.”

Identity theft, credit card fraud and related crimes are serious charges that require skilled defense. An experienced attorney can fight on the accused person’s behalf to avoid jail time.

Ring leader Davit Kudugulyan, 45, pleaded guilty to second-degree money laundering in New York State Supreme Court in June 2015. He was sentenced to one to three years in prison and a restitution payment of $750,000 for orchestrating the multi-state scam.

Kudugulyan and three separately convicted codefendants used skimming devices to wirelessly scan and steal credit card details from gas station users in Georgia, South Carolina and Texas. According to prosecutors, the victims were unable to detect the Bluetooth-enabled devices which were installed inside the pumps at several gas stations.

The defendants then used the scanned data to withdraw money from various Manhattan ATMs, usually taking out less than $10,000 in an attempt to avoid drawing attention to the scheme. They then deposited the cash into newly opened bank accounts in New York and later withdrew it at banks in other states. The group laundered more than $2 million between March 2012 and 2013.

In addition to the four main ring organizers, eight other codefendants have been convicted in relation to the crime. Two of Kudugulyan’s codefendants were sentenced to two to six years behind bars after pleading guilty to second-degree money laundering in December 2014. The fourth codefendant was sentenced to five years’ probation in January for the same charge.

Jon Cruz, 33, paid minors to send him sexually explicit images between July 2014 and December 2015. Investigators said he had multiple conversations with at least five victims in New Mexico and New York. He used mobile apps and social media such as Instagram to solicit lewd photos in exchange for money.

According to authorities, the Manhattan resident used a former student’s photo as his Facebook profile picture to lure teenage boys. Investigators recovered 40 naked pictures of underage victims on Cruz’s home computer. They also discovered that the former teacher used a school computer to carry out the crimes.

In March 2015 Cruz resigned from the high school, which is one of the most competitive in the city. He enjoyed popularity at the school as a speech and debate coach recognized for taking the school team to the national level with his leadership.

As part of the plea, the prosecution agreed to recommend a sentence ranging from 11 to 14 years. However, Cruz may still end up serving more time in prison. He will be sentenced on January 27.

Raymond Fontanez, 41, was indicted on 1,020 counts of possessing an obscene sexual performance by a child, possessing a sexual performance by a child, promoting an obscene sexual performance by a child and promoting a sexual performance by a child.

“The defendant allegedly had hundreds of disturbing, revolting videos of young children — even toddlers — engaged in sexual acts,” said Bronx District Attorney Darcel D. Clark. “Each of those images amounts to child abuse, and each time they are played or shared the children are re-victimized, so the cruelty never ends for them.”

Investigators detected an IP address seeking to distribute 10 pornographic images and videos of children. They traced the IP address to a computer in the defendant’s Mott Haven apartment, according to the district attorney’s office. After obtaining a search warrant, detectives searched Fontanez’s laptop where they found in excess of 500 child pornography images and videos.

Fontanez was arraigned before Bronx Supreme Court Justice George Villegas on August 9. He faces up to seven years in prison if convicted.

Devon Guishard led the identity theft ring. He and Tameek White were charged with felony grand larceny in the September 26, 2015 scam. Patricia Fields and Michael Maurice Grayson were charged with felony identity theft.

Grayson and Fields adopted the identities of a Florida doctor and a retired FBI agent from Ohio in order to obtain financing for the vehicle. They forged their U.S. passport cards and drivers’ licenses. The duo also used the victims’ Social Security numbers and forged their signatures on various applications and purchase papers, including registration and insurance.

According to the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office, White brought a down payment of $9,000 to the car dealership so that the purchase would appear genuine. White updated Guishard about the sale’s progress via cellphone. Guishard arrived at the dealership when the transaction was completed and drove the vehicle away.

The group intended to resell the vehicle in other states. Investigators located the stolen car in Texas. Authorities found the identity theft ring conducted similar luxury car scams elsewhere in New York, as well as Arizona, California, Maryland, New Jersey and Texas.

White was sentenced on August 5 to time served in jail. Fields and Grayson each face between one to three years in prison. Guishard will be sentenced to two to four years in prison.

A criminal complaint stated he manipulated Comverse options and sold stocks worth around $150 million between 1991 and 2005. Alexander admitted in court that he and other executives defrauded investors out of millions of dollars by using “backdating” to choose dates for granting options for employees. He made a profit of $138 million.

Alexander fled to Africa with his family in 2006 while he was under investigation for backdating stock options. Prosecutors were preparing to bring a fraud case against him for the scheme that allowed the purchasing of stocks at huge discounts. Alexander was indicted on 35 counts including fraud, conspiracy, witness tampering and obstruction of justice.

However, after returning to the United States 10 years later Alexander pleaded guilty to just a single count “relating solely to backdating.” The indicted executive’s lawyers asked for his release on a $25 million bond, arguing he was not a flight risk. U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis denied bail, claiming that Alexander was untrustworthy.

The former CEO will be kept in a maximum-security prison until his December 16 sentencing. He could face up to 10 years in prison. Alexander’s attorney claimed he returned from Namibia “so he would have this nightmare behind him.”

New York criminal defense attorney Peter E. Brill of Brill Legal Group appeared in an exclusive interview on WHDT World News with journalist Mark Maxwell about a topic that has sparked debate among the legal community. In the October 11 interview, Brill discusses the ethics and ramifications of Donald Trump’s repeated threats to jail Hillary Clinton.

Brill comments on whether there is any legal precedent for a president to launch a targeted investigation against a political opponent. Trump has claimed he will appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton’s use of a private email server if he becomes president. The Republican nominee led the audience in chants of “lock her up” during his October 10 rally in Pennsylvania.

In the interview, Maxwell also asks Brill for his views on FBI Director James Comey’s decision to not prosecute the Democratic candidate in the email case and whether he thinks a special prosecutor should have been appointed from the very beginning. Brill, who is one of only two New York attorneys to be certified by the National Board of Trial Advocacy in Criminal Law, sheds light on the topic by sharing his knowledge of the inner workings of the Justice Department.

A Manhattan federal jury found Larry Davis, 65, and his company guilty of defrauding the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. His company, DCM Erectors Inc., won contracts to work on the World Trade Center site destroyed by the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Davis pretended he was promoting a minority-owned businesses in order to obtain almost $1 billion for the construction.

Prosecutors claimed that in 2007 Davis was awarded contracts that required him to allocate millions of dollars to hiring subcontractors that were minority or women-owned businesses. Davis set up two fake firms to help him obtain contracts. He paid bribes to have documents signed for submission to the Port Authority. Meanwhile, DCM or other firms affiliated with the contractor carried out the construction.

The scheme earned him $256 million for work on the Freedom Tower and a $330 million contract for the World Trade Center Transportation Hub. Prosecutors claimed the amount paid to Davis’s firm ultimately surged to nearly $1 billion when he claimed more funds were needed to complete the construction. The Mississauga, Ontario, resident was arrested in 2014. He will be sentenced on November 15 and faces up to 40 years in prison.

U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Preet Bharara announced the charges and stated that the Criminal Investigation unit of the Internal Revenue Service and the Postal Inspection Service had contributed to the investigation. Prosecutors allege that Scali misappropriated funds and evaded his tax obligations.

According to prosecutors, Scali allegedly sought to defraud a prospective purchaser of real estate by misappropriating funds that had been held in escrow. He is also accused of failing to file personal and corporate tax returns and misleading the IRS as to the years for which he had not filed tax returns and his reasons for failing to do so.

The indictment also claims that Scali committed perjury and obstruction of justice when he allegedly provided false information in federal court.

Scali was arrested and arraigned on July 8. The six individual charges he faces each carry maximum sentences of between 3 and 20 years in prison. He is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Danny Juliano, 50, still had check-signing authority for the Woodbrooke Estates Home Owners Association, where he was a past president. The 629-unit townhouse and condo development is located in Rossville, Staten Island.

Authorities claim that over a period of more than three years, Juliano made cash withdrawals of $366,380, telling the association board that he was taking advantage of cheap prices for pool supplies in New Jersey.

Prosecutors said that Juliano was indicted on charges of grand larceny and tax fraud, because he did not report the funds he received as income. His attorney said that he was released on his own recognizance and would be required to surrender his passport within 72 hours. The homeowners association declined to comment to the New York Daily News.

According to NYPD payroll records, Juliano worked as an evidence and property control specialist.

Embezzlement and related charges are serious crimes that require a sophisticated defense. People accused of such crimes are innocent until proven guilty, and an experienced criminal defense attorney can help protect their rights.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/350g-nyc-embezzlement-nypd-property-control-specialist-article-1.2642077

Brittany’s Law was passed again by the State Senate June 14 with a 50 to 11 vote. However, defenders of civil liberties and even advocates for victims of domestic violence have spoken out against the proposed legislation.

The New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence opposes Brittany’s Law and has urged people to ask that their senators vote no on the bill. The Coalition said that it opposes registries because they do not prevent domestic violence, violate the privacy of victims and may give potential victims a false sense of security. The group also said that such registries have a disproportionate impact on people of color and may have unintended consequences.

The Democratic majority in the state Assembly also opposes the bill, with a spokesman stating that domestic violence registries make ex-offenders less stable by preventing them from finding employment and housing.

The proposed legislation is named for Brittany Passalacqua, a 12-year-old girl who was killed in 2009 along with her mother Helen Buchel. John Brown, who was dating Buchel, was convicted of two counts of murder in 2010. He had previously served three years in state prison for injuring his infant daughter. Brittany’s grandmother, Dale Driscoll, said she believes that if a domestic violence registry had been available, Buchel would not have become involved with Brown.

Gerald Seppala, Steven Brown and James David Williams face conspiracy, money laundering and wire fraud charges. If convicted, they could face decades in prison. Prosecutors claim that the men lied about producing feature-length films and documentaries. In a 2014 civil lawsuit filed against the men, investors claimed they were told their money would go toward films starring Harry Connick Jr., Nicolas Cage and Willie Nelson.

Prosecutors claim that the men made false representations and promises from 2012 to 2016. They allege that the men used the money for personal expenses, paying back previous investors and funding other projects. Williams was accused of using some of the money to purchase a house and car for himself. The civil lawsuit alleges that an individual and two companies lost $10.9 million that was supposed to be invested in four films. The suit claims that the defendants sent falsified financial records to investors showing investments that had not been made.

Brown was arrested in New York City and was freed on $200,000 bail. Williams was arrested in Los Angeles and Seppala was arrested in Wayzata, Minnesota.

Caspersen, accompanied by his attorney, pleaded guilty in a Manhattan federal courtroom to one charge of wire fraud and one charge of securities fraud, each of which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. Caspersen’s attorney argued that his gambling addiction and mental illness caused him to commit the fraud.

Caspersen raised money from friends, family members and other investors and used it to trade one-week put options, betting against the Standard & Poor’s index and often instructing his broker to trade all the cash in his account each week. According to news reports, that account held $112.8 million as recently as February 1, which would have been more than enough to pay back Caspersen’s investors. However, he continued to make all-in bets against the market.

In court, Caspersen read from a statement saying that he had harmed people he cared for and was sorry and ashamed. In a plea agreement, Caspersen and federal prosecutors agreed to a sentencing range of up to 16 years in prison, as well as possible restitution and fines. However, it was unclear whether Judge Jed S. Rakoff would view Caspersen’s mental health as a mitigating circumstance and use leniency in the sentencing. Judge Rakoff has criticized federal sentencing guidelines, calling them “irrational” and too harsh.

U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet sentenced Owen Li, the founder of Canarsie Capital LLC, to probation. The judge earlier indicated that he was likely to give Li a five-year prison sentence, which was in line with the recommendations of prosecutors and less than the sentence advised by federal guidelines. The judge reconsidered, saying that Li had done “all a human being could do” to “clean up the tragedy” and take responsibility for his crimes.

In December, Li pleaded guilty to securities fraud and making a false statement. Over a period of three weeks in January 2015, Li lost nearly all of the $57 million in investments that he was overseeing, after moving most of the portfolio into market index options whose value collapsed soon afterwards. Prosecutors said that Li misled the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and overstated the performance of the fund to investors.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Ferrara said that Li showed “exceptional” cooperation, but a prison term would still be justified as a deterrent to others.

Securities fraud charges can be complex and may involve related investigations by multiple agencies. Anyone accused of financial crimes needs representation by an attorney with extensive experience in these matters.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/latestnews/2016/06/13/Prompting-gasps-judge-spares-NY-hedge-fund-executive-prison-fraud

Manhattan prosecutors have charged 39 people with grand larceny and related charges in what they claim is a credit card fraud scheme that resulted in the loss of more than $250,000 worth of luxury goods from Saks Fifth Avenue and Barneys in the past year. The people accused include members of Pop Out Boyz, a rap group based in Brooklyn that released a single entitled “For a Scammer,” with lyrics that mention “cracking cards.”

Capt. Christopher Flanagan, commander of the NYPD’s Financial Crimes Task Force, said that credit card fraud is becoming a “big issue” in Brooklyn. Credit card numbers are stolen when customers use them at retailers all over the world, traded on the Internet’s hidden “dark web,” and encoded onto new cards using machines.

Identity theft and credit card crimes are serious charges that require a sophisticated defense. A person accused of such crimes may be wrongly accused, the police or prosecutors may have made mistakes or violated the defendant’s rights, or the person may be a small-time player caught up in a dragnet. Many attorneys are unfamiliar with the complexities of such charges, so it is important to be represented by experienced legal counsel who will explore every possible defense.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/02/nyregion/rappers-based-lyrics-on-their-credit-card-fraud-prosecutors-say.html?_r=0

The SEC alleged in its report that Jason Galanis, who was previously charged with accounting and stock fraud in unrelated cases, conducted the operation, claiming that Galanis wrote in an email to associates that the “primary objective” of the plan was to obtain “discretionary liquidity.”

The SEC further alleged that Galanis and his father, John Galanis, structured limited recourse bonds and persuaded a Native American tribal entity affiliated with the Oglala Sioux Nation to issue them. The SEC claims that Galanis then installed officers at two investment firms to use clients’ funds to purchase $43 million in bonds. According to the SEC, the funds were transferred to a bank account in Florida controlled by Galanis and his associates, where they were used to purchase luxury goods.

The SEC is seeking permanent injunctions and disgorgement plus penalties and interest, as well as officer-and-director bans against four of the individuals.

Rawls, a former Philadelphia officer, was first investigated by a suburban Philadelphia police department. In March 2015, authorities seized his computer but were not able to unlock the encrypted files. In a police forensics laboratory, Rawls attempted to use several passwords, but said he could not remember the correct one. He won a state court contempt hearing on self-incrimination grounds, but the case was moved to federal court, where authorities argued that someone can be compelled to surrender evidence when authorities are aware of its existence, the so-called “foregone conclusion” exception. A federal judge accepted this argument and jailed Rawls for contempt of court in October.

Kit Walsh, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, wrote in a brief that authorities were forcing a choice that the Fifth Amendment is intended to protect against, between perjury, self-incrimination or contempt.

As a former officer, Rawls is being held in solitary confinement for his own protection. He has never been charged with a crime.

Fortunately, judges are beginning to crack down on such operations. Defense attorneys for Kerron Andrews, a Baltimore man charged with attempted murder in 2014, discovered he had been located via the warrantless use of a cell site simulator. In March, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals threw out all evidence in the case gathered with the device, in what is possibly the first appellate decision concerning the use of Stingrays. Further prosecution of the case may be impossible.

Hoping to build on that ruling, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation investigated the circumstances surrounding the arrest of Milwaukee man Damian Patrick. In response to an amicus brief the two organizations filed recently, the government admitted that the Milwaukee P.D. used a Stingray without a warrant to locate Patrick. The police first told Patrick that an anonymous source had told them of his whereabouts and later implied the information came from his service provider, Sprint.

In 2014, police used a cell site simulator to locate murder suspect Robert Copes at his apartment home and discovered the blood of the murder victim in the apartment. On April 25, 2016, Circuit Judge Yolanda Tanner reluctantly threw out that evidence because police had not obtained a search warrant, despite having court permission to use the Stingray.

Clearly, judges are quite concerned about the pitfalls of widespread use of cell site simulators, and if police want to avoid jeopardizing prosecutions, they must be very careful to obtain proper permission before using them.

The technology is cell site simulation, accomplished by use of “Stingrays,” named for the leading brand of the devices. These portable devices mimic cell phone towers, causing nearby cell phones to connect to them instead of towers. Communications pass through the Stingrays, allowing their presence and operation to remain transparent to the compromised users nearby. Police are then able to determine the locations of connected devices and, in some cases, observe the calls and text messages that pass through.

The devices cannot be configured to target only a suspect’s phone; instead, they target all phones within their signal range. Even in cases where police receive proper judicial approval for the use of Stingrays, connecting to and tracking innocent people’s phones raises important questions of privacy. But the troubling fact is that police in some cases do not even bother to obtain a warrant before using Stingrays to track suspects.

Many civil liberties advocates speculate that law enforcement may even be using cell site simulators to gather information on protestors at public gatherings, irrespective of whether any of them are suspected of any crimes. Actual evidence of this is scant, but if true, it would hardly be surprising given similar operations in the past. Last year, for example, The Intercept reported that the NYPD was engaged in surveillance of peaceful Black Lives Matters protests and kept files on individuals activists.

In our next post, we’ll explain how recent court rulings are keeping law enforcement’s use of cell site simulators in check.

Williams Wells, 42, pleaded guilty in federal court in Manhattan to one count of wire fraud and one count of securities fraud, according to the office of U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara. Each of the counts carries a maximum fine of $5 million and a maximum sentence of 20 years in federal prison.

Authorities said that Wells engaged in the scheme from September 2009 until his arrest on October 1, using his firm, Promitor Capital LLC, to obtain investment funds by making false claims that he had consistently achieved positive returns in U.S. equity markets. In reality, according to Bharara, Wells lost money every year, amounting to more than $500,000 in losses over six years. By September 2015, Promitor was managing less than $1,000, according to authorities.

Wells obtained over $1.5 million in investment funds from family members, colleagues and friends, using new investor funds to pay back other investors in a Ponzi-like scheme, according to Bharara.

The charges against Wells were connected to a broad coalition of agencies called the President’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. Wells’ sentencing will be scheduled for a future date.

Securities fraud and wire fraud are complex and serious charges, and anyone accused of such a crime should seek representation from an experienced criminal defense attorney. The Brill Legal Group has extensive experience representing defendants accused of securities fraud and all types of white collar criminal charges.

Williams Wells, 42, pleaded guilty in federal court in Manhattan to one count of wire fraud and one count of securities fraud, according to the office of U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara. Each of the counts carries a maximum fine of $5 million and a maximum sentence of 20 years in federal prison.

Authorities said that Wells engaged in the scheme from September 2009 until his arrest on October 1, using his firm, Promitor Capital LLC, to obtain investment funds by making false claims that he had consistently achieved positive returns in U.S. equity markets. In reality, according to Bharara, Wells lost money every year, amounting to more than $500,000 in losses over six years. By September 2015, Promitor was managing less than $1,000, according to authorities.

Wells obtained over $1.5 million in investment funds from family members, colleagues and friends, using new investor funds to pay back other investors in a Ponzi-like scheme, according to Bharara.

The charges against Wells were connected to a broad coalition of agencies called the President’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. Wells’ sentencing will be scheduled for a future date.

Securities fraud and wire fraud are complex and serious charges, and anyone accused of such a crime should seek representation from an experienced criminal defense attorney. The Brill Legal Group has extensive experience representing defendants accused of securities fraud and all types of white collar criminal charges.

Budden, 35, appeared in Manhattan Criminal Court March 3 and pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct, which is a violation, not a crime. Budden was ordered to lead a law-abiding life. The criminal charges of grand larceny and domestic violence were dismissed.

The case had been pending since Budden’s arrest in August 2014, when he was accused of pushing and choking his ex-girlfriend and stealing her cellphone. The deal that was reached resulted in Budden never being indicted on the original charges of grand larceny, robbery and criminal obstruction of breathing.

Budden’s attorney said that the violation Budden pleaded guilty to is akin to making an unreasonable noise in public or blocking traffic. Both Budden and his attorney said they were very pleased with the outcome.

Charges of domestic violence and grand larceny are very serious, and anyone accused of such a crime should immediately seek the assistance of a qualified and experienced criminal defense attorney. It is very important not to make any statements to police officers before consulting with one’s attorney. The Brill Legal Group has extensive experience defending people accused of grand larceny, domestic violence and other serious criminal charges.

Budden, 35, appeared in Manhattan Criminal Court March 3 and pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct, which is a violation, not a crime. Budden was ordered to lead a law-abiding life. The criminal charges of grand larceny and domestic violence were dismissed.

The case had been pending since Budden’s arrest in August 2014, when he was accused of pushing and choking his ex-girlfriend and stealing her cellphone. The deal that was reached resulted in Budden never being indicted on the original charges of grand larceny, robbery and criminal obstruction of breathing.

Budden’s attorney said that the violation Budden pleaded guilty to is akin to making an unreasonable noise in public or blocking traffic. Both Budden and his attorney said they were very pleased with the outcome.

Charges of domestic violence and grand larceny are very serious, and anyone accused of such a crime should immediately seek the assistance of a qualified and experienced criminal defense attorney. It is very important not to make any statements to police officers before consulting with one’s attorney. The Brill Legal Group has extensive experience defending people accused of grand larceny, domestic violence and other serious criminal charges.

According to the New York State Department of Taxation, nine “clients” and two tax preparers were arrested on charges of claiming exaggerated refunds and filing false tax returns.

Officials say that the two tax preparers allegedly attempted to defraud New York State by preparing false state tax returns for relatives and friends for the 2008-2011 tax years. According to officials, the two were employed as tax preparers and filed fraudulent returns claiming incorrect amounts of income and refundable credits that the filers were not owed.

Heather Sweet, 35, was charged with one felony grand larceny count and eight felony counts of offering a false instrument for filing. Rebecca Tyner, 56, was charged with one felony grand larceny count and five felony false instrument counts.

Both defendants pleaded not guilty at their arraignments. Officials said that if the two tax preparers were convicted, they could each be sentenced to up to seven years in prison. The officials also said that Tyner faces over $10,000 in fines and Sweet faces more than $20,000 in fines. Of the nine “clients” arrested, each is facing one or more felony false instrument charges. According to officials, the nine taxpayers each believed that by having their returns filed by Sweet or Tyner, they would be paid refunds they were not owed. Each of the taxpayers could face up to four years in prison if convicted.

Fraud charges are very serious and complex charges, and it is important for anyone charged with such a crime to obtain representation from a criminal defense attorney. The Brill Legal Group has extensive experience defending people accused of fraud charges.

According to the New York State Department of Taxation, nine “clients” and two tax preparers were arrested on charges of claiming exaggerated refunds and filing false tax returns.

Officials say that the two tax preparers allegedly attempted to defraud New York State by preparing false state tax returns for relatives and friends for the 2008-2011 tax years. According to officials, the two were employed as tax preparers and filed fraudulent returns claiming incorrect amounts of income and refundable credits that the filers were not owed.

Heather Sweet, 35, was charged with one felony grand larceny count and eight felony counts of offering a false instrument for filing. Rebecca Tyner, 56, was charged with one felony grand larceny count and five felony false instrument counts.

Both defendants pleaded not guilty at their arraignments. Officials said that if the two tax preparers were convicted, they could each be sentenced to up to seven years in prison. The officials also said that Tyner faces over $10,000 in fines and Sweet faces more than $20,000 in fines. Of the nine “clients” arrested, each is facing one or more felony false instrument charges. According to officials, the nine taxpayers each believed that by having their returns filed by Sweet or Tyner, they would be paid refunds they were not owed. Each of the taxpayers could face up to four years in prison if convicted.

Fraud charges are very serious and complex charges, and it is important for anyone charged with such a crime to obtain representation from a criminal defense attorney. The Brill Legal Group has extensive experience defending people accused of fraud charges.

Court documents show that Burghardt served 87 months in prison previously, after he pleaded guilty to charges of attempted receipt of child pornography. After serving his time, Burghardt was placed on probation and prohibited from having a computer or cell phone in his possession, records show.

According to prosecutors, during a routine visit to Burghardt’s home, his probation officer heard a cell phone ringing. Burghardt claimed that it was just a kitchen timer, but when the phone rang a second time, the probation officer demanded to see it and confiscated it, prosecutors said. When probation officers searched the phone, they found 28 video files and 1,437 images depicting child pornography, prosecutors said. According to court documents, authorities also found additional images of child pornography on Burghardt’s girlfriend’s computer.

According to court documents, Burghardt violated several other probation conditions, including maintaining unreported internet accounts and failing to report a relationship with a woman with a 10-year-old daughter.

Distribution and receipt of child pornography are serious charges. Anyone accused of such a crime should contact an attorney before speaking to police. The Brill Legal Group has extensive experience representing defendants accused of child pornography offenses.

Court documents show that Burghardt served 87 months in prison previously, after he pleaded guilty to charges of attempted receipt of child pornography. After serving his time, Burghardt was placed on probation and prohibited from having a computer or cell phone in his possession, records show.

According to prosecutors, during a routine visit to Burghardt’s home, his probation officer heard a cell phone ringing. Burghardt claimed that it was just a kitchen timer, but when the phone rang a second time, the probation officer demanded to see it and confiscated it, prosecutors said. When probation officers searched the phone, they found 28 video files and 1,437 images depicting child pornography, prosecutors said. According to court documents, authorities also found additional images of child pornography on Burghardt’s girlfriend’s computer.

According to court documents, Burghardt violated several other probation conditions, including maintaining unreported internet accounts and failing to report a relationship with a woman with a 10-year-old daughter.

Distribution and receipt of child pornography are serious charges. Anyone accused of such a crime should contact an attorney before speaking to police. The Brill Legal Group has extensive experience representing defendants accused of child pornography offenses.

Last updated over a decade ago, the guidelines steer judges in financial crime cases toward prison sentences that vary based on the dollar value of ill-gotten gains. Opinions on the revisions ran across the spectrum. On one end, the U.S. Justice Department objected to the revisions, appearing to base their judgment on public opinion. The Department said the move was contrary to “overwhelming societal consensus.”

On the other hand, many defense attorneys at the American Bar Association felt the proposals were too moderate. They have long advocated for softened guidelines and had pushed for broader revisions. Indeed, even some judges have said the recommended prison terms for financial offenders are too harsh.

In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court decided, in United States v. Booker, that all federal sentencing guidelines were advisory. Prior to the decision, they were mandatory — judges’ hands were tied, and the specific mitigating circumstances of each case had no bearing on the punishment imposed. Following Booker, judges would often hand down sentences in fraud cases that fell short of the Sentencing Commission’s guidelines. This illustrates that the recent revisions were probably overdue, especially considering the cumulative effects of inflation on the actual value of fraudulent gains.

Last updated over a decade ago, the guidelines steer judges in financial crime cases toward prison sentences that vary based on the dollar value of ill-gotten gains. Opinions on the revisions ran across the spectrum. On one end, the U.S. Justice Department objected to the revisions, appearing to base their judgment on public opinion. The Department said the move was contrary to “overwhelming societal consensus.”

On the other hand, many defense attorneys at the American Bar Association felt the proposals were too moderate. They have long advocated for softened guidelines and had pushed for broader revisions. Indeed, even some judges have said the recommended prison terms for financial offenders are too harsh.

In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court decided, in United States v. Booker, that all federal sentencing guidelines were advisory. Prior to the decision, they were mandatory — judges’ hands were tied, and the specific mitigating circumstances of each case had no bearing on the punishment imposed. Following Booker, judges would often hand down sentences in fraud cases that fell short of the Sentencing Commission’s guidelines. This illustrates that the recent revisions were probably overdue, especially considering the cumulative effects of inflation on the actual value of fraudulent gains.

First, let’s cover federal law. Anyone convicted of a felony, other than certain white-collar crimes, is prohibited from owning a gun. The same applies to those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence against a spouse and those who, following a court hearing, are subject to a domestic violence restraining order. It does not apply in cases where a temporary restraining order is issued in advance of a hearing, nor to those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence against partners with whom they never lived.

A handful of states have passed laws to expand these restrictions to cover those convicted of certain other misdemeanors. In New York, these include “serious offenses” such as child endangerment, sex crimes and stalking. Some state legislators characterize the limited definition of “serious offenses” as a “loophole” in the law. The Democratic-controlled state Assembly has repeatedly passed bills to further expand the covered misdemeanors to include menacing, forcible touching and other offenses. The bill has so far not passed the Republican-controlled state Senate.

A 2013 state law requires convictions of the aforementioned additional misdemeanors to be reported to the state Division of Criminal Justice Services, which reports to the FBI, which in turn conducts background checks. But advocates of the Assembly bill say that without a concurrent state law, this notification requirement is unlikely to result in state and local police disarming convicts.

First, let’s cover federal law. Anyone convicted of a felony, other than certain white-collar crimes, is prohibited from owning a gun. The same applies to those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence against a spouse and those who, following a court hearing, are subject to a domestic violence restraining order. It does not apply in cases where a temporary restraining order is issued in advance of a hearing, nor to those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence against partners with whom they never lived.

A handful of states have passed laws to expand these restrictions to cover those convicted of certain other misdemeanors. In New York, these include “serious offenses” such as child endangerment, sex crimes and stalking. Some state legislators characterize the limited definition of “serious offenses” as a “loophole” in the law. The Democratic-controlled state Assembly has repeatedly passed bills to further expand the covered misdemeanors to include menacing, forcible touching and other offenses. The bill has so far not passed the Republican-controlled state Senate.

A 2013 state law requires convictions of the aforementioned additional misdemeanors to be reported to the state Division of Criminal Justice Services, which reports to the FBI, which in turn conducts background checks. But advocates of the Assembly bill say that without a concurrent state law, this notification requirement is unlikely to result in state and local police disarming convicts.

In early 2015, the FBI took control of a website known as Playpen which was used to distribute large amounts of child pornography. For two weeks after the seizure of the site, from February 20, 2015, to March 4, 2015, the FBI continued to operate the site in order to gather more evidence against more offenders. During that time, many thousands more sexual videos and images of children were downloaded.

To be clear, the FBI, by its own admission in court filings, literally distributed child pornography in an effort to capture offenders. The New York Times recently published several experts’ opinions on the matter, including law professors and anti-abuse advocates.

Corey Rayburn Yung of the University of Kansas School of Law argued that the government’s own position appears to be that every time child pornography is distributed or viewed, the victim is further harmed. For example, the Supreme Court held in Paroline v. United States that victims could seek restitution from mere possessors — not just distributors or creators — of child pornography. Yung also points out that in contrast to stings involving guns or drugs, the FBI cannot hope to contain the contraband in this case — it can be copied without limits.

Xavier Von Erck, an anti-child-abuse advocate, argued that the FBI’s actions may have prevented any number of future crimes from occurring. He said those who possess and distribute child pornography often are actively engaged in abuse of victims in their immediate area.

Clearly, the FBI is likely to use strategies like this again in future cases. Criminals and ordinary people’s ability to hide their online activities is increasing, and in the instances where authorities gain access to a potential trove of evidence, the temptation to make more arrests even at the cost of further victimization is enormous.

In early 2015, the FBI took control of a website known as Playpen which was used to distribute large amounts of child pornography. For two weeks after the seizure of the site, from February 20, 2015, to March 4, 2015, the FBI continued to operate the site in order to gather more evidence against more offenders. During that time, many thousands more sexual videos and images of children were downloaded.

To be clear, the FBI, by its own admission in court filings, literally distributed child pornography in an effort to capture offenders. The New York Times recently published several experts’ opinions on the matter, including law professors and anti-abuse advocates.

Corey Rayburn Yung of the University of Kansas School of Law argued that the government’s own position appears to be that every time child pornography is distributed or viewed, the victim is further harmed. For example, the Supreme Court held in Paroline v. United States that victims could seek restitution from mere possessors — not just distributors or creators — of child pornography. Yung also points out that in contrast to stings involving guns or drugs, the FBI cannot hope to contain the contraband in this case — it can be copied without limits.

Xavier Von Erck, an anti-child-abuse advocate, argued that the FBI’s actions may have prevented any number of future crimes from occurring. He said those who possess and distribute child pornography often are actively engaged in abuse of victims in their immediate area.

Clearly, the FBI is likely to use strategies like this again in future cases. Criminals and ordinary people’s ability to hide their online activities is increasing, and in the instances where authorities gain access to a potential trove of evidence, the temptation to make more arrests even at the cost of further victimization is enormous.

Lamont Hamilton, 31, was arrested in January 2015 on charges of opening a fraudulent account at a Chase bank and subsequently trying to withdraw large sums of money. However, he claims he is a victim of identity theft, having had his wallet stolen in 2013. His lawsuit alleges that security footage from the bank clearly shows the perpetrator is not Hamilton and that investigators failed to examine that evidence.

On April 13, 2015, after Hamilton had been at Rikers Island for several months, prosecutors dropped the charges against him. He is suing the city, J.P. Morgan Chase, and several police officers for $5 million.

If the allegations in Hamilton’s suit are true, there is no excuse for the lack of investigative diligence and the foot-dragging that left him languishing in jail for months. At the time Hamilton claims his wallet was stolen, he was on parole for an earlier robbery conviction. Unfortunately, police and prosecutors often are quick to assume that former convicts are probably guilty of charges against them, and this can lead them to cut corners.

Anyone accused of fraud or other serious white-collar crimes needs strong legal representation. If you face criminal charges, an experienced attorney will get you out of jail as fast as possible and critically examine all available evidence. If you need legal defense, call the Brill Legal Group.

Lamont Hamilton, 31, was arrested in January 2015 on charges of opening a fraudulent account at a Chase bank and subsequently trying to withdraw large sums of money. However, he claims he is a victim of identity theft, having had his wallet stolen in 2013. His lawsuit alleges that security footage from the bank clearly shows the perpetrator is not Hamilton and that investigators failed to examine that evidence.

On April 13, 2015, after Hamilton had been at Rikers Island for several months, prosecutors dropped the charges against him. He is suing the city, J.P. Morgan Chase, and several police officers for $5 million.

If the allegations in Hamilton’s suit are true, there is no excuse for the lack of investigative diligence and the foot-dragging that left him languishing in jail for months. At the time Hamilton claims his wallet was stolen, he was on parole for an earlier robbery conviction. Unfortunately, police and prosecutors often are quick to assume that former convicts are probably guilty of charges against them, and this can lead them to cut corners.

Anyone accused of fraud or other serious white-collar crimes needs strong legal representation. If you face criminal charges, an experienced attorney will get you out of jail as fast as possible and critically examine all available evidence. If you need legal defense, call the Brill Legal Group.

Cottom is the 19th man to be convicted of child pornography-related charges stemming from an FBI investigation into websites residing on the so-called “darknet.” The darknet comprises online websites and other resources accessible only with special software, usually Tor. Tor is anonymizing software that conceals the location and identity of servers (computers that host websites) and users.

Authorities conducted a lengthy and high-tech investigation that apparently overcame the anonymizing capabilities of the darknet and resulted in the seizure of three high-profile child pornography websites. Last January, the man convicted of operating the servers that hosted the websites, Aaron McGrath, was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

In a separate investigation, the FBI in November 2014 seized a number of darknet sites that functioned as black markets where users could obtain prescription drugs, cannabis and other substances. The agency is maintaining strict secrecy around the specific methods used to find the locations and operators of the sites, and the extent to which the Tor network is compromised remains unknown.

Tor is used to conceal communication for all manner of purposes. Criminals can use it to distribute child pornography, but others use it to obtain medication without a doctor’s prescription or medical cannabis in jurisdictions where it remains illegal. Journalists and ordinary citizens also use it to circumvent government restrictions on free speech or even hide from abusive spouses.

If you use Tor for any purpose, you should be aware of the possibility that the network has been permanently compromised by the FBI. And if you are accused of any computer-related crime, contact the Brill Legal Group.

Cottom is the 19th man to be convicted of child pornography-related charges stemming from an FBI investigation into websites residing on the so-called “darknet.” The darknet comprises online websites and other resources accessible only with special software, usually Tor. Tor is anonymizing software that conceals the location and identity of servers (computers that host websites) and users.

Authorities conducted a lengthy and high-tech investigation that apparently overcame the anonymizing capabilities of the darknet and resulted in the seizure of three high-profile child pornography websites. Last January, the man convicted of operating the servers that hosted the websites, Aaron McGrath, was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

In a separate investigation, the FBI in November 2014 seized a number of darknet sites that functioned as black markets where users could obtain prescription drugs, cannabis and other substances. The agency is maintaining strict secrecy around the specific methods used to find the locations and operators of the sites, and the extent to which the Tor network is compromised remains unknown.

Tor is used to conceal communication for all manner of purposes. Criminals can use it to distribute child pornography, but others use it to obtain medication without a doctor’s prescription or medical cannabis in jurisdictions where it remains illegal. Journalists and ordinary citizens also use it to circumvent government restrictions on free speech or even hide from abusive spouses.

If you use Tor for any purpose, you should be aware of the possibility that the network has been permanently compromised by the FBI. And if you are accused of any computer-related crime, contact the Brill Legal Group.

Alexander Garkusha, a real estate developer, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud in a Brooklyn federal courtroom on a recent Monday. He admitted to obtaining corporate press releases from distribution services before they were released to the public and using them to profit from stock trades. Garkusha admitted to profiting some $125,000 in just three months.

Hackers in Ukraine stole over 150,000 press releases from PR Newswire, Marketwired and Business Wire. Garkusha, a U.S. citizen born in Russia, was among nine people indicted by securities regulators. He is the first to admit wrongdoing and will be sentenced May 6. He agreed to forfeit to authorities the $125,000 made from insider trades. Charges remain pending against Igor Dubovoy, Arkadiy Dubovoy, Vitaly Korchevsky and Leonid Momotok, who have all pleaded not guilty.

As more and more sensitive corporate data becomes stored on internet-accessible servers, we expect to see many more cases of this nature. At the Brill Legal Group, we have extensive experience in defending against both fraud charges and computer hacking charges. If you are facing charges of securities fraud or computer crimes, contact us today.

Alexander Garkusha, a real estate developer, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud in a Brooklyn federal courtroom on a recent Monday. He admitted to obtaining corporate press releases from distribution services before they were released to the public and using them to profit from stock trades. Garkusha admitted to profiting some $125,000 in just three months.

Hackers in Ukraine stole over 150,000 press releases from PR Newswire, Marketwired and Business Wire. Garkusha, a U.S. citizen born in Russia, was among nine people indicted by securities regulators. He is the first to admit wrongdoing and will be sentenced May 6. He agreed to forfeit to authorities the $125,000 made from insider trades. Charges remain pending against Igor Dubovoy, Arkadiy Dubovoy, Vitaly Korchevsky and Leonid Momotok, who have all pleaded not guilty.

As more and more sensitive corporate data becomes stored on internet-accessible servers, we expect to see many more cases of this nature. At the Brill Legal Group, we have extensive experience in defending against both fraud charges and computer hacking charges. If you are facing charges of securities fraud or computer crimes, contact us today.

New York’s Van Dyke Money Gang used a Western Union money order scheme to net more than $1.5 million in 2015, the article says. The Neighborhood Crips of New Jersey created fake gift cards for retail outlets. And multiple South Florida gangs filed false tax returns under stolen identities in order to steal refunds.

The AP quoted Al Pasqual, a fraud consultant at Javelin Strategy and Research, who characterized the shift as a simple case of risk versus reward.

Pasqual posed the question, “Why would you spend time on the street slinging crack when you can get 10 years under federal minimums, when in reality you can just bone up on how to make six figures and when you get caught you’re doing six months?”

Pasqual said that while some gangs use the white-collar schemes as a side business to fund operations selling drugs and guns, others have adopted them as their primary means of making money.

The NYPD is adapting by coordinating personnel from the grand larceny division with those from the gang unit and other divisions.

Police say that in March, April and May of 2015, Nassau County detectives received tips on the alleged activity from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. A subsequent investigation by Nassau and Suffolk County police and the FBI resulted in the arrest.

Kerniss was charged with four counts of possession of a sexual performance by a child and seven counts of promoting a sexual performance by a child.

Defense attorneys in this case will likely investigate whether the defendant had reason to believe the subjects of the images were of a lawful age and whether a third party may have accessed the defendant’s computer or Twitter account without his knowledge.

Possession and distribution of child pornography are serious charges. If you are accused of such crimes, it is important that you speak with an attorney before making any statements to the police. The attorneys at the Brill Legal Group have extensive experience in defending against computer-related criminal charges of all types.

The nature and severity of the penalty depends upon the amount of alcohol that the defendant has consumed. In general, a blood alcohol content (“BAC”) level above 0.08% is deemed to be legal intoxication (“DWI”). A BAC between 0.05% to 0.07% constitutes driving while a person’s ability to drive is impaired (“DWAI”). A person can also be convicted of DWAI if he or she has used a combination of drugs and alcohol or a combination of the two.

A first DWIA violation is punishable by a fine from $300 – $500, a maximum jail term of 15 days, and a 90-day suspension. Penalties for DWI convictions become more severe for subsequent convictions. For example, a third DWAI conviction in 10 years can entail a fine ranging from $2,000 to $10,000, a 4 year jail sentence, and a minimum one year revocation. A BAC of 0.18% is deemed to be aggravated DWI (“DWI AGG”), and the penalty for a first violation is a fine of $1,000 to $2,500, a maximum jail term of 1 year, and a minimum revocation for one year. A third AGG-DWI conviction in ten years requires a minimum fine from $2,000 to $10,000, a minimum jail term of seven years, and license revocation for at least 18 months.

This blog does not have enough space to discuss the many subtleties in the scheme of punishment for DWI and DWAI violations. Anyone facing allegations of having committed such a crime may find a conference with an experienced criminal defense attorneys. Such a lawyer can provide a helpful evaluation of the facts and the governing laws and an estimate of the probability of obtaining a favorable plea bargain or an outright acquittal.

Source: New York Department of Motor Vehicles, “Penalties for alcohol or drug-related violations,” accessed on Dec. 4, 2015

A driver’s license suspension means a temporary revocation of a person’s right to drive in New York. The suspension period can be definite or indefinite. A definite suspension has both a specific beginning date and a specific termination date. Both dates are set forth in the order for suspension issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”). A definite suspension will automatically terminate on the specified date, and the right to drive will be restored upon payment of the suspension termination fee if the license is otherwise valid. An indefinite suspension ends upon satisfaction of the conditions stated in the notice of suspension. Generally, an indefinite suspension is a lesser penalty because the right to drive can be quickly restored as soon as the conditions are satisfied.

The revocation of a driver’s license is a more serious penalty than a suspension; it means that the person can no longer legally drive in New York unless and until the DMV gives its approval. The right to drive can only be restored if the driver seeks approval from the DMV after the period of revocation expires. The DMV may require a passing grade on both the written and driving tests and the payment of a reapplication fee. The DMV may refuse to restore a revoked license if the driver has a high risk driving record or fails to meet the Department’s other requirements.

Losing the right to drive can have serious adverse consequences for a person. Anyone facing traffic violation charges that can be punished with an order for either license revocation or suspension may wish to talk to an attorney who specializes in defending such charges. A conference with a knowledgeable and experienced attorney can provide a helpful analysis of potential penalties and an evaluation of the likelihood of obtaining a favorable plea agreement or an outright acquittal.

Source: New York Department of Motor Vehicles, Suspensions and Revocations, accessed on Nov. 28, 2015

Under New York law, every driver is deemed to have given permission to police, as a condition of receiving a driver’s license, to determine his or her blood alcohol content level (BAC) if a police officer has “reasonable grounds” to believe that the person has been driving under the influence of alcohol. The BAC level may be tested by analyzing a person’s breath, blood, urine or saliva, but the most common method is the use of a device known as a breathalyzer.

Before administering such a test, the police officer must inform the suspect that refusing to take a breathalyzer test will automatically cause his or her driver’s license to be revoked for not less than one year. If the driver then refuses to take a breathalyzer test, his or her license is immediately suspended for fifteen days pending an administrative hearing. If the evidence at the hearing shows that the officer in fact had reasonable grounds for believing that the driver was drunk, the license will be revoked for one year, and the driver may be fined $500. This decision may, under certain circumstances, be appealed.

Refusing a breath test can have serious consequences. In the modern age of cell phones, a person who has been stopped and asked to take a breath test can contact an attorney with experience in defending DUI cases. The attorney can evaluate the situation and provide helpful advice about whether to take the test or refuse it.

Source: New York Vehicle & Traffic Laws, §1194, accessed Nov. 22, 2015

The chalky white powder looks deceivingly innocent. It is a bitter-tasting powder with no ordor that dissolves easily in alcohol or water before swallowing, injecting, smoking or snorting it. Once the drug enters the blood stream it begins to kick up the dopamine levels already existing in the body, producing a sudden chemical high, often referred to as a rush. While it takes very little to achieve the rush at first, an individual develops a tolerance for the drug and subsequently requires higher doses to get high.

Making meth, selling it, possessing it, possesing it for the intention of distributing it or even having the wherewithall to make it often results in many years in jail, various legal penalities and often thousands of dollars in fines.

Meth sold on the streets or the black market is typically concocted in a meth lab, which may range in size from a small apartment to a huge warehouse. Or it may be made by an addict using the “shake and bake” method. Meth may be found in the poorest slums to the richest of neighborhoods. There are no boundaries when it comes to making money illegally. Even though forms of methamphetamine are prescribed by physicians for various conditions that may include obesity and Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), it is not the acknowledged source of meth available on the streets.

For the calendar year 2014, law enforcement dealt with 9,306 meth incidents, including seizures of labs, “dumpsites” or “chemical and glassware.” Missouri alone boasted 1,825 busts and seizures in 2012. To get an idea of just how prevalent meth incidents are in the U.S., visit the DEA Meth Lab Map by clicking here.

Making meth is virtually child’s play and only requires about a $100 investment in various precursor chemicals that may be found quite easily at the drug or grocery store. One small batch of meth can net its maker thousands of dollars. A quarter of a gram may sell for $20. An eight ball at 3 ½ grams could sell for $200. Prices vary depending on where one lives, who one knows and how much is bought.

Using meth is a health concern in many ways, with issues ranging from violent behavior to sexually transmitted diseases. Of additional concern is the legal ramifications of making meth and being charged or having information about a situation where someone is making meth. In all cases dealing with an arrest and charge involving meth, or other illegal drugs, reach out and contact an experienced criminal defense attorney. It is the only way to navigate through the criminal system with some degree of protection.

Thomas C .Grajek is a criminal defense lawyer in Tampa, Lakeland, and Polk County Florida. To contact a Lakeland criminal defense lawyer or to learn more, visit http://www.flcrimedefense.com/ or call 863-688-4606.

The post Meth Makes Millions appeared first on Thomas C. Grajek – Attorney At Law.

To be found not guilty as pled according to the defense of renunciation means a defendant is not considered to be guilty of an offense or is not likely to be labelled as an accomplice provided the defendant informs law enforcement in enough time to allow them to prevent a possible crime in progress. Additionally, the defendant is found to have ended his or her participation before the actual commission of the crime and the defendant’s actions, up to the point when he or she ended involvement, did not contribute to the commission of the crime.

Abandonment or withdrawal laws do vary from state to state and it is vital you connect with an experienced criminal defense attorney in order to navigate your way through the criminal justice system. A skilled attorney is able to mitigate your charges, reduce them or even get them dropped, depending on the circumstances of the case. The one common denominator in all states, however, is that the person charged must be able to show they abandoned their criminal intent and genuinely attempted to stop others from committing a crime.

Typically when the defense of renunciation is brought forward, the prosecutor attempts to prove the abandonment was not voluntary and only occurred because something came up that made the plan to carry out a crime difficult.

Renunciation as a defense against a criminal charge is also known as abandonment and withdrawal. If the defense is successfully pled, it may prove that a defendant is innocent. The main key to pleading this defense is that the abandonment or renunciation must be wholly voluntary. In other words, the criminal must not renounce intentions to carry out the crime as the result of considering that he or she may get caught or because the crime could not easily be carried out.

A defense mounted in a situation where a charged individual voluntarily renounced their goal to carry out a crime or attempted to prevent a crime from happening is referred to as an affirmative defense. The renunciation of one individual does not affect a group of individuals where the others did not also abandon their criminal intentions. It is important to note that abandonment is not a defense to an attempt charge. An attempted crime is one where an individual was interrupted before completing the specific crime.

Refer to Florida Section 777.04(5)(a) Florida Statutes (2004) for further information on the Abandonment Defense.

Thomas C .Grajek is a criminal defense lawyer in Tampa, Lakeland, and Polk County Florida. To contact a Lakeland criminal defense lawyer or to learn more, visit http://www.flcrimedefense.com/ or call 863-688-4606.

If you are going to throw a party for whatever reason, make sure you are aware of the laws in your state relating to serving alcohol to guests.

Some states have laws on the books that confer criminal or civil liability if a host serves alcoholic beverages to underage guests or to guests that are clearly drunk. Some states do not. The rationale behind the existence of laws of this nature is to put a lid on underage drinking at parties and to mandate that hosts not allow drunken guests to drive. Some states impose liability on a host or hostess for injuries or damages caused after guests leave a gathering.

Your gathering or party may be held anywhere, from your own home to a rented property under your control. Be aware that the state you live in may hold you liable for any party held on your property, even if you are not there and have not provided alcohol to underage partygoers.

When hosting a private party and the alcohol is free for those in attendance, you are referred to as a social host. Laws that apply to social hosts do not apply to bars or other commercial locations that sell alcohol to customers.

Aside from facing criminal charges for drinking and driving, drunk drivers may also face civil lawsuits for their role in a serious or deadly accident. The host or hostess of the function the driver was attending may also be a named defendant in a civil lawsuit for continuing to provide a drunken partygoer with booze.

Were minors present at the social function you hosted? Were they served alcoholic beverages? If so, that minor or his or her parents may sue you for serving alcohol in violation of existing state laws, whether an accident or injury happened or not. All states prohibit serving liquor to minors. Negligence plays a part in lawsuits of this type, as the social host has a duty of care not to serve minors and not to continue to serve drunken attendees.

States with liability laws applicable only to minors: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, New Hampshire, Utah and Wyoming.

Depending on the state you live in, there may only be criminal penalties for commercially licensed locations, bars and stores that sell alcohol to minors. Other states sanction social hosts who violate the laws relating to serving drinks to minors — referred to as aiding and abetting in the delinquency of a minor. A social host must realize a that guest is intoxicated and should not be provided with any more alcohol. Many hosts do not also realize this same law also applies to other intoxicating substances.

Each state has its own range of fines and penalties. If you have been fined or have been named in a lawsuit, seek experienced criminal defense counsel to find out the parameters of your particular situation and what options may be open to you.

States that have social host liability laws that apply across the board to all guests are:

• Alaska
• Arkansas
• Connecticut
• Hawaii
• Maine
• Maryland
• Massachusetts
• Missouri
• New Jersey
• Ohio
• Oklahoma
• Oregon
• Pennsylvania
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• Tennessee
• Washington
• Wisconsin

Thomas C .Grajek is a criminal defense lawyer in Tampa, Lakeland, and Polk County Florida. To contact a Lakeland criminal defense lawyer or to learn more, visit http://www.flcrimedefense.com/ or call 863-688-4606.

The $5,000.00 “civil penalty” has been ruled unconstitutional in some jurisdictions, but not others.  Therefore, the issue is now before the 2^nd District Court of Appeal that will ultimately decide the issue.  It was thought a decision would be forthcoming soon, but the Court requested additional argument about the issues so it will probably be some time before the issue is ultimately decided.  In the meantime, you may need to preserve this issue so you may not have to pay that penalty if you plea to the charge or are found guilty at trial.

There are many defenses to Solicitation for Lewdness/Prostitution of cases such as:

• Is what the arrested person did actually a crime?
• Did the accused agree to a legal act such as a massage?
• Did the police conduct the investigation correctly?
• Did the officers preserve all the evidence?
• Did the police entrap the person into committing  acrime?

I have handled numerous cases originating from these sting operations in Polk County and argued that the $5,000.00 penalty is unconstitutional.  I have also tried these types of cases.  If you have been arrested in this sting, call a criminal attorney that has experience and knows how to defend you against these charges.

Call Now (727) 457-8660

Thomas C. Grajek
Attorney at Law
24140 State Road 54, Suite E

Lutz, FL 33559

(next to Ferman Chrysler Jeep)

A good DUI lawyer will get copy of both the video and 911 call in order to defend a person accused of DUI when they are available.  There are certain legal requests that must be done in order to obtain copies of this evidence.  A copy of the video can be seen here:

http://tbo.com/news/crime/polk-man-driving-wrong-way-on-i-4-faces-dui-charge-20150817/?utm_content=bufferfe45e&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&utm_campaign=buffer

In addition to the DUI charge, the driver was also arrested for Reckless Driving for allegedly endangering other vehicles on the road.  Both of these charges are misdemeanors.  The driver allegedly refused the breath test which is his right under the law, but will result in an administrative suspension of his license for one (1) year.  This suspension can be fought by filing a request for a Formal Review or the driver may be eligible for a hardship permit for the entire year of suspension depending on his previous driving history.

If you have been arrested for DUI, you need an experienced and aggressive DUI attorney that knows how to obtain the evidence against you and has the experience to defend you in court.

DON‘T HESITATE!!!   PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS!!! 

 CALL DUI ATTORNEY THOMAS GRAJEK NOW!!!

 863-838-5549 cell

 You only have 10 days to request a Formal Review!

NCDD

The law says that possession of marijuana is a crime, but being in the same room as the drug is not. While the distinction may seem to be vague, it may make a difference to an accused if they are able to prove they were merely in the presence of marijuana, but the drug was not theirs.

It is easier yet if the person who did own the stash admits to owning it, which should mean the second person (who did not own the drug but perhaps smoked it) should not be charged with anything. Of course, each case has its unique circumstances and what goes for one case may not fly with the police or courts for another, even if it may be similar in nature.

Anyone caught in the same situation with another person where marijuana is present does, however, run the risk of being charged with conspiracy to possess with the intention to distribute the drug later or conspiracy to commit a prohibited act. That may seem like a stretch if one person admits the drug belongs to them and not the second person present, but from a law enforcement point-of-view, anything can be, and has often been, possible.

A crime does not have to be committed for an individual to charged with conspiracy to possess, or any charge relating to conspiracy, including conspiracy to commit a prohibited act. The prosecution only needs to show that there was intent to commit a crime for the charges to stick, per U.S. Code 18:371.

Conspiracy charges are not like other drug charges because a conspiracy involves agreeing with someone else or a group of people to break the law. Because of the nature of the charge, a prosecutor must then prove several things to secure a conviction, which may include, but are not limited to:

1. There was an agreement between two (or more) individuals to violate a federal drug law
   
2. Each party involved in an alleged conspiracy knew about the agreement and opted to take part in violating a federal drug law.

(For a general overview of penalties for marijuana possession, visit Federal laws and penalties)

The most common drug charge filed is being in possession of any controlled substance. Being in possession means the individual charged is: in actual control, custody, care or management of said substance. This implies the person has actual physical possession of the drug, as opposed to constructive possession, which refers to any drug found in a location where an individual had access to or control over. In that particular scenario, a person, even though charged with possession, may be able to challenge that charge by demonstrating they did not have care, control or custody of the substance in question.

Anyone facing a conspiracy charge relating to drugs needs to seek competent criminal defense counsel and find out what his or her options are.

Thomas C .Grajek is a criminal defense lawyer in Tampa, Lakeland, and Polk County Florida. To contact a Lakeland criminal defense lawyer or to learn more, visit http://www.flcrimedefense.com/ or call 863-688-4606.

There are two delineating criteria factored into considering if a criminal complaint is to be used in a case. One factor looks at whether state or federal laws were broken, which usually determines what court a trial may be held in. Another depends on the nature of the crime and whether it constitutes a serious felony or a less serious misdemeanor. Since different jurisdictions with differing rules and regulations may be involved, it is vitally important to speak with a knowledgeable criminal defense attorney to determine how to proceed, should you be charged criminally.

An accusatory instrument/criminal complaint (initially laid by the police) eventually wends its way to a prosecutor. This instrument, or charge, is the beginning of a criminal prosecution or trial. The charge, or papers that constitute the charge, are filed in court and contain the details of the crime and the individuals that allegedly committed the crime. However, this does not happen in every criminal case or in every court.

A criminal complaint may be filed either before or after an accused is arrested. A complaint filed in advance of someone being arrested states that a crime was committed (usually referred to as a warrant that shows probable cause), what that crime was, what law was broken, etc., and that the named individual in the complaint is the one who did the deed. If a judge agrees with the complaint as filed, one of two things happen: the named individual is sent a summons with information on when and where to appear in court, or they are arrested.

Criminal complaints, federally or at the state level, do have several things in common. An example is a detailed, written list of what criminal charges may be filed. Appended to the list are specific facts and details pertaining to the case — facts that outline the crime an individual may be facing. Case facts tend to dictate which law or state or federal statute the alleged perpetrator is accused of breaking. Before filing a criminal complaint, the prosecutor must swear an oath that the complaint, as set out, is accurate and truthful.

If you are charged with a misdemeanor the U.S. prosecutor may or may not file a complaint. Federal misdemeanors are those with jail terms of a year or less, a fine or both. These cases typically go straight to trial and do not require a grand jury indictment.

Not all people who commit crimes have a criminal complaint filed against them. That is optional on the part of the U.S. prosecutor dealing with the case. It depends on whether a state or federal law was violated, how serious the crime is and whether it is a federal felony or a misdemeanor. Federal felonies (usually punishable by a prison sentence of more than a year or death) are far more serious than misdemeanors, but in order for the federal prosecutor to take an accused to trial for a felony, a grand jury indictment is required under the auspices of the Fifth Amendment.

State rules are entirely different from federal rules and for this reason anyone trying to navigate the criminal justice system on their own is likely to find themselves in need of help. If you are facing criminal charges at the state or federal level, reach out and connect with an experienced criminal defense attorney. The rest of your life depends on it.

Thomas C .Grajek is a criminal defense lawyer in Tampa, Lakeland, and Polk County Florida. To contact a Lakeland criminal defense lawyer or to learn more, visit http://www.flcrimedefense.com/ or call 863-688-4606.

While there, a person who was just arrested for DUI was trying to “waive” their right to a Formal Review and apply for a hardship license for the entire period of suspension.  In a breath test refusal case, this suspension is one (1) year.  In an unlawful breath (driver blew over 0.08 legal limit) case, the suspension is six (6) months.  This allows a 1^st time DUI driver to keep some form of a license during the entire DUI ordeal.  If you request a Formal Review, fight the suspension, and lose, there is a 90 day “hard” suspension in refusal cases and a 30 day “hard” suspension in unlawful breath cases.

In order to be eligible for the hardship license, you must waive your right to a Formal Review.  I have attached the form to this post for your convenience.  You also MUST enroll in DUI school.  PREVIOUSLY, a driver ONLY had to present proof that they paid for DUI school (receipt).

THIS HAS NOW CHANGED! 

YOU MUST NOW ACTUALLY SIT DOWN WITH A COUNSELOR AND GET YOUR DUI CLASS SCHEDULE AND PRESENT THAT TO THE DHSMV Bureau of Administrative Reviews at 2814 E. Hillsborough Ave., Tampa, FL 33610.

You must also pay an application fee of $25.00 and explain to a hearing officer why you are in need of a license.

FINALLY, ALL THIS MUST BE DONE WITHIN 10 DAYS!

If you have been arrested for DUI, call an experienced DUI attorney that is a member of DUIDLA and NCDD!

Thomas C. Grajek

POLK                                                 TAMPA                                             PASCO

206 Easton Dr. Suite 102                   1910 Orient Rd.                                  24140 State Road 54 Suite E

Lakeland FL 33803                            Tampa, FL 33610                                Lutz FL 33559

(863) 838-5549                                  (813) 789-6404                                   (727) 457-8660

DMV waiver of formal review hearing form

NCDD

http://www.flcrimedefense.com/2015/05/florida-couple-found-guilty-of-sex-on-the-beach-and-now-will-be-classified-as-sexual-offenders-and-face-prison-time/

Bay News 9 is reporting that the prosecutor is only seeking 2 1/2 years in prison for the male involved in the case.  If the judge agrees to mitigate Jose Caballero’s sentence to that prison sentence, it will be a hug break for him as he is facing a mandatory 15 years in prison.  The State can agree to mitigate the sentence which is one of the few ways to legally mitigate a Florida Mandatory Minimum penalty.  The Bay News 9 story can be found at:

http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/bn9/2015/7/6/state_seeks_2_1_2_ye.html

The 21 year old female, Elissa Alvarez, was sentence to time served.  anytime an individual is sentenced to “time-served” for a crime that person is “Adjudicated Guilty” which means they are convicted of the offense.  This makes Ms. Alvarez a convicted felon.  Both are now sex offenders and must register and face the onerous conditions placed on sex offenders in Florida or even another state if they move.  In addition, Ms. Alavarez is prevented from sealing or expunging any other criminal record due to the adjudication.  This charge, “lewd and lascivious battery in the presence of a minor” is not an offense that can be sealed under Florida law even if the judge “withheld adjudication”.

If you have been arrested for a sexual offense, call an experienced sex crimes attorney.

Thomas C. Grajek

POLK                                                 TAMPA                                             PASCO

206 Easton Dr. Suite 102                   1910 Orient Rd.                                  24140 State Road 54 Suite E

Lakeland FL 33803                            Tampa, FL 33610                                Lutz FL 33559

(863) 838-5549                                  (813) 789-6404                                   (727) 457-8660

Unfortunately, I get many calls months AFTER the individual pled out and now it’s too late to help them.  Today, someone called asking me how much I charge to expunge a record.  However, that person went to court with a Public Defender who did not handle the case correctly and the person was Adjudicated Guilty.  The Public Defender did not negotiate or argue for a Withhold of Adjudication.  Because of this very important part of the criminal sentencing, this person is NOT ELIGIBLE TO SEAL OR EXPUNGE ANY CRIMINAL RECORD!  Even though this defendant had never been in trouble before, he was convicted.  This is just one reason why you need an experienced criminal defense attorney to represent you.  This person is now having trouble finding a job because this arrest keeps coming up in background checks.  Public Defenders work hard, but they are often new, inexperienced attorneys that are learning on the job which means they are learning on your case!  Their mistakes can cause you a lifetime of problems.

What are some of the important things you need to know BEFORE you go to court?  Call now to discuss your case with me BEFORE you go to court!

CALL NOW AND SPEAK TO AN EXPERIENCED, AGGRESSIVE CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER.

CALL AND SET YOUR FREE OFFICE CONSULTATION NOW! 

 THOMAS C. GRAJEK  

 POLK                                                 TAMPA                                             PASCO

206 Easton Dr. Suite 102                   1910 Orient Rd.                                  24140 State Road 54

Lakeland FL 33803                            Tampa, FL 33610                                Lutz FL 33559

(863) 838-5549                                  (813) 789-6404                                   (727) 457-8660

The officer asked the driver for his documentation — driver’s license, insurance, registration — and then asked the driver to come back to the cruiser with him. The driver declined. The officer questioned the passenger, called for backup, finished issuing tickets and asked the driver if he would submit to a dog sniff.

The driver and other car occupants objected. The dog later found methamphetamine. The Supreme Court indicated that keeping the vehicle beyond the time needed to wrap up the traffic matter constituted an unlawful seizure.

In Rodriguez v. United States, (No. 13-9972), the U.S. Supreme Court Justices handed down a ruling stating that once a “routine” traffic stop is completed, law enforcement cannot, unless there is “reasonable” suspicion, hold a driver and/or passenger to have a dog sniff their persons or property for illegal drugs. The main reasoning behind the Justices’ decision was that authority for a seizure or stop ends when all tasks related to a traffic violation are, or should have been, completed.

The court said: “A seizure for a traffic violation justifies a police investigation of that violation” — no more — and “authority for the seizure…ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are — or reasonably should have been — completed.” Detaining a vehicle to bring in a drug-sniffing dog to search for drugs is definitely not allowed under this ruling.

The Rodriguez v. United States, (No. 13-9972) decision is a bit at odds with Illinois v. Caballes. The latter has been understood to allow a dog to sniff, if that sniff takes place during the traffic stop window of time. Under the Rodriguez decision, a sniff would be forbidden if it unnecessarily prolongs the traffic time.

In either instance, as in many others, it is the circumstances of the situation that dictate the possible outcomes. Until further lawsuits are filed, dog sniff and traffic stop law remains hazy. Something that was not dealt with in this case was whether or not there was reasonable suspicion of a further crime, which would have permitted law enforcement to detain the driver. Another issue in this cases that may warrent further examination is defining a dog sniff as a “search.”

Thomas C .Grajek is a criminal defense lawyer in Tampa, Lakeland, and Polk County Florida. To contact a Lakeland criminal defense lawyer or to learn more, visit http://www.flcrimedefense.com/ or call 863-688-4606.

The couple was seen by numerous tourists who also claimed a 3 year old child witnessed the man and woman having sex.  Despite cries by witnesses to stop the couple did not listen.  Obviously, in this day and age of cell phones, people took a video of the two having sex.  This was a highly publicized case and you can read more and see the blurred, but still graphic video at:

http://www.bradenton.com/2015/05/04/5781129_couple-found-guilty-of-having.html?rh=1

The defense the couple used that they were only simulating a sex act did not go over well with the jury which convicted the couple of a lewd act in 15 minutes.

Because the male had a previous conviction for trafficking in cocaine and was recently released from a Florida prison sentence for that charge, he qualified as a Prison Release Reoffender (PRR) under Florida Statute 775.082 “Penalties; applicability of sentencing structures; mandatory minimum sentences for certain reoffenders previously released from prison.”

Under 775.082, a “Prison Release Reoffender” (PRR) means any defendant who commits, or attempts to commit:

• Treason;
• Murder;
• Manslaughter;
• Sexual battery;
• Carjacking;
• Home-invasion robbery;
• Robbery;
• Arson;
• Kidnapping;
• Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon;
• Aggravated battery;
• Aggravated stalking;
• Aircraft piracy;
• Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb;
• Any felony that involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against an individual;
• Armed burglary;
• Burglary of a dwelling or burglary of an occupied structure; or
• Any felony violation of s. 790.07, s. 800.04, s. 827.03, s. 827.071, or s. 847.0135(5).

within 3 years of being released from a correctional facility.  Lewd & Lascivious crime under Florida Statute 800.04, therefore “sex on the beach” qualifies as PRR crime. Because the male was released from prison within the last 3 years of committing this crime, he must be sentenced to 15 years prison (the maximum for this offense).

The female convicted of sex on the beach in this case does not face the automatic 15 year sentence and is subject to the Florida Sentencing Guidelines.  This is where the felony “Scoresheet” comes into play.  It was not clear what the exact charge was for the 20 year old female.  She could have been charged with committing a lewd act in the presence of a child or just a lewd act.  If it was only a lewd act, that would be a Level 5 offense which scores 36 points.  Under the Florida Sentencing Guidelines she would also score 80 points for “penetration”.  Putting that in the Scoresheet formula would result in a minimum sentence of 5.5 years.

36 points + 80 points = 116 – 28 = 88 * 0.75 = 66 months minimum

12 months in a year, so

66 / 12 = 5.5 year minimum prison sentence.

If it was scored as a Level 7 offense (56 points instead of 36), this would increase the minimum prison sentence to 6.75 years.

There would be no “Victim Injury Points” because the State of Florida is the victim in this case and there was no contact with any children, only consenting adults.

The prosecutor stated they would only be seeking a jail sentence in the female’s case, but if she is given a jail sentence, that will mean she is a convicted felon in addition to being a sexual offender.  The judge can mitigate her sentence and not give prison time if he finds she qualifies for one of Florida’s “Mitigating circumstances” under Florida Criminal Statute 921.0026 which allow departure under the minimum sentence.  The mitigating circumstances listed in the Florida statute are:

• (a) The departure results from a legitimate, uncoerced plea bargain.
• (b) The defendant was an accomplice to the offense and was a relatively minor participant in the criminal conduct.
• (c) The capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminal nature of the conduct or to conform that conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired.
• (d) The defendant requires specialized treatment for a mental disorder that is unrelated to substance abuse or addiction or for a physical disability, and the defendant is amenable to treatment.
• (e) The need for payment of restitution to the victim outweighs the need for a prison sentence.
• (f) The victim was an initiator, willing participant, aggressor, or provoker of the incident.
• (g) The defendant acted under extreme duress or under the domination of another person.
• (h) Before the identity of the defendant was determined, the victim was substantially compensated.
• (i) The defendant cooperated with the state to resolve the current offense or any other offense.
• (j) The offense was committed in an unsophisticated manner and was an isolated incident for which the defendant has shown remorse.
• (k) At the time of the offense the defendant was too young to appreciate the consequences of the offense.
• (l) The defendant is to be sentenced as a youthful offender.
• (m) The defendant’s offense is a nonviolent felony, the defendant’s Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet total sentence points under s. 921.0024 are 60 points or fewer, and the court determines that the defendant is amenable to the services of a postadjudicatory treatment-based drug court program and is otherwise qualified to participate in the program as part of the sentence. For purposes of this paragraph, the term “nonviolent felony” has the same meaning as provided in s. 948.08(6).

The judge can consider other mitigating factors not listed above.  The most likely one to be used in this case is f,g, j, and possibly k.

Neither are subject to a $5,000.00 civil penalty like “johns” are in prostitution cases either which is set for oral arguments on Wednesday before the 2nd DCA.  I will continue to follow the sentencing in this case and keep you updated.

IF YOU THINK YOU ARE BEING INVESTIGATED FOR A SEX CRIME OR HAVE BEEN ARRESTED FOR A LEWD & LASCIVIOUS OFFENSE, CALL NOW AND SPEAK TO AN EXPERIENCED CRIMINAL SEX CRIMES ATTORNEY.

THOMAS C. GRAJEK 863-688-4606

http://www.tmz.com/2015/04/17/adrien-broner-dui-arrest-video-ohio-rich-famous/

What’s wrong with this DUI investigation?  This DUI arrest was in Ohio by a member of the Ohio State Patrol so the law may be different than in Florida, but she immediately orders him out of the vehicle. In Florida, this may be a violation of the citizen’s rights and the driver would have a basis to file a motion to suppress the DUI investigation, the Field Sobriety Exercises, and the breath test results.  Before an officer can order you out of the car, the officer must have probable cause to arrest you, search your vehicle, or be able to state reasons why the officer was in fear and may have needed to search the driver for weapons.

You will also note that the trooper plays “language games”.  The trooper immediately and clearly ordered the driver out of the vehicle.  However, a short time later, the trooper says “I asked you out, you get out”.  Why do police change the words they use?  Because, under the law, there is a major difference between asking a citizen to do an act and ordering the citizen to do an act.  The law requires the officer to have a certain amount of facts to establish “probable cause”, before they can order a citizen to do something.  An officer can request a citizen at any time to do anything and the citizen may comply or refuse if they wish.  Police officers ARE TRAINED to believe that when they tell you to “GET OUT OF THE CAR!” that statement is a REQUEST and NOT A COMMAND!  Common sense and your 3rd grade English teacher taught you better than that and you know what a command is when you hear one.  However, if there is NO VIDEO, the officer will use commanding language at the scene of the arrest, but when they testify in court, they will characterize their language as requests!  That is why it is important that you write down everything that happened immediately after your arrest and the EXACT LANGUAGE THE POLICE OFFICER USED for court later on when you fight the charge.

What else is wrong with this DUI investigation?  The trooper has the driver perform the Field Sobriety Exercises in the middle of a busy road!  Why not on the side of the road where it is safer?  Where there is an actual line to walk on instead of an imaginary line?  At 2:20 the trooper says he is not on the line, but what line? The imaginary line in the trooper’s head?  How does she know the driver had a different imaginary line in his head?  Yet, that is supposed to be a “clue of impairment” according to the Field Sobriety manual.

If you have been arrested for DUI, you need to retain a DUI lawyer with experience, that knows the case law regarding DUI’s, and how the government’s National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration manual states how a DUI investigation is supposed to be performed correctly.  Call NOW for a free consultation to learn what defenses you may have to your DUI.

Time is of the essence in a DUI case!

 You only have 10 days to request a Hardship License

 OR

 a Formal Review of the “Implied Consent” suspension of your license so call my cell phone now.

 Aggressive Polk DUI defense lawyer Thomas C. Grajek

 863-838-5549 cell

NCDD

This is why you should be very careful before you talk to the police or ANYONE ELSE if you think you are being investigated of ANY CRIMINAL OFFENSE without first speaking to a criminal defense attorney.  Just this week I had a client come in because he thought he was being investigated for a felony.  The police DO NOT have to give you or show you what evidence they may (or may not) have against you.  THE POLICE CAN LIE TO YOU!  The police can say they have evidence against you that does not exist in the hopes that you make an admission like Hernandez did, which can mean the difference between a guilty or not guilty verdict.  You may end up supplying the police with evidence they never would have had if you did not speak to them.  ALWAYS TALK TO AN EXPERIENCED CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY FIRST!  A criminal lawyer can help you determine whether it will help you or hurt you if you talk to the police before you are arrested.

If you are being investigated for a serious felony or a simple misdemeanor, call for a FREE CONSULTATION IMMEDIATELY!

CALL NOW AND SPEAK TO AN EXPERIENCED CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY NOW!

THOMAS C. GRAJEK 863-688-4606

NCDD

In Williams case, he allegedly made an illegal turn out of a McDonald’s parking lot.  He then allegedly stopped at a green light.  After going through the light, the police allege he swerved over the lines on both sides of his vehicle almost hitting the curb.  He was then was pulled over by the Florida State University Police Department and the standard red, watery, and blood-shot eyes were supposedly observed by the officer.  The driver then allegedly swayed while standing and had to lean on the car for support which again, are standard allegations in all DUI cases.  If there is a video, this will determine whether the allegations are true.  The reports do not indicate whether he submitted to field sobriety exercises or a breath test.  You DO NOT  have to submit to the field sobriety tests under Florida law as many people believe is compulsory

This arrest will probably hurt his draft stock as he had previously been involved in a car accident and fled the scene.  Police and prosecutors usually assume that alcohol was involved and that is why someone would flee the scene.  However, this is very common as people are scared and panic because the do not know what to do.  In that previous case, he returned to the scene, but was not investigated for alcohol.  However, being arrested weeks before the draft and the biggest payday of your life will cause NFL teams to consider how risky it will be to select him in the draft.

An experienced DUI attorney is essential to your DUI case.  Your job and ability to support your family could be on the line.  You need to hire an attorney that tries this case before a jury and is not afraid to fight for you.  A lawyer that attends DUI seminars on a regular basis and keeps up with the latest changes in the law and trial strategies.  That is why I am a member of the National College for DUI Defense (NCDD) and The DUI Defense Lawyers Association (DUIDLA) to ensure my clients get the best representation in their time of need.

If you have been arrested for DUI or any crime, do not hesitate to call a lawyer!

PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS!!!  CALL NOW !!! 863-838-5549 (cell)

I handle all Florida and Polk County Driving under the Influence cases.  Call now for your free consultation.

NCDD

Profiling does not take place in a vacuum and investigators rely on any evidence found at a crime scene to draw conclusions. Other important aspects police consider are the crime location, the circumstances of the crime, whether it is similar in nature to another crime (using the same modus operandi), if there is any physical evidence left behind, or weapons used that may have been used in other crimes. Police use blood spatter analysis, fingerprinting and casting on scene as well to get a picture of the individual who may have committed the crime.

Criminal profiling also goes by another name, offender profiling. It is defined as the method or process used to attempt to get a handle on the characteristics and mindset of an unknown offender or unsub (unknown subject/suspect).

Solving crimes takes more than 40 minutes with commercials thrown in and major luck getting big breaks. It is a long process involving a number of tools, and one of them happens to be criminal profiling. Police use it most often to assist in solving particularly egregious crimes, such as murder, kidnapping and sexual assault. When it comes to attempting to put together a profile, all aspects of the crime come into play, from the smallest, seemingly inconsequential detail, to the possible discovery of a weapon with fingerprints.

Part of the benefit of criminal profiling is that the results may indicate a pattern that helps narrow down many facets of the case. Profiling can elucidate details about the unsub, such as whom the individual might be and what risks he or she took to commit the crime, the latter indicating intelligence and planning versus a crime of passion.

In addition, elements of setting can come to light, like where the suspect usually carries out the crimes, and what the motive for the crime appears to be. The preliminary answers to these, and other questions, usually provide investigators with a good sense of whom they may be hunting.

Forensic evidence is not the only element that makes up a criminal profile. It involves, but is not limited to, victim characteristics, crime scene evidence and even detective/profiler intuition. Information gleaned from a criminal profile can include intelligence, sex, approximate age, race, religious beliefs and psychological traits. Though this methodology is useful, it has its flaws, because it produces educated guesses rather than exact answers. It also opens the door to stereotyping, which could lead to false profiles. Some view criminal profiling as a pseudoscientific technique.

This tool has many advantages, including the ability to detect criminal behavior patterns, which saves time hunting for the perpetrator, and predicts where the criminal could be active in the future. Profiling cannot take place without a very detailed analysis of the crime scene done by forensic investigators.

Thomas C .Grajek is a criminal defense lawyer in Tampa, Lakeland, and Polk County Florida. To contact a Lakeland criminal defense lawyer or to learn more, visit http://www.flcrimedefense.com/ or call 863-688-4606.

At one time, once a sexually dangerous inmate served a full sentence, he or she was released. The U.S. Supreme Court has now indicated this may no longer be the case when it comes to sexually dangerous convicts.

How is a convict classified as being sexually dangerous? There are two conditions that an inmate must meet prior to receiving this classification. In the first, a court must see clear evidence and convincing proof that the convict would not be able to stop molesting children or cease sexually violent conduct, should release occur. The second condition is that neither the state in which the convict is incarcerated nor the state where a trial was held, should they be differing locations, wish to accept custody of the offender.

Former President George W. Bush first granted the legal authority to hold convicted sexually dangerous offenders indefinitely in 2006 under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (2006). When the act first came into being, four inmates, who had served their sentences, filed a legal challenge stating they had the right to release from prison after their sentences were served. Prison officials did not let them out because they were viewed as being at high risk to re-offend.
The first court of appeal initially found in favor of the inmates and decided that Congress had gone too far in mandating that sexually dangerous prisoners remain in jail once sentences were completed. On appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 7-to-2 decision, the court reversed the initial ruling in United States v. Comstock.

Was the government overstepping its constitutional boundaries or does government have the power to hold this class of offenders indefinitely? The ratio decidendi indicated the government does indeed have the right to indefinitely detain this class of offenders.

This is an important case to note, as it addresses a legal concept referred to as federalism – a safeguard against the government overstepping its authority. In theory, the federal government may only act if it has been given the power to do so by the Constitution, and the Constitution does not expressly state that Congress has the power to indefinitely hold such prisoners. In other words, the Supreme Court decision expanded the government’s power to encompass such indefinite detainment, which may pose some decidedly delicate legal questions in the future.

Thomas C .Grajek is a criminal defense lawyer in Tampa, Lakeland, and Polk County Florida. To contact a Lakeland criminal defense lawyer or to learn more, visit http://www.flcrimedefense.com/ or call 863-688-4606.

Polk County deputies allege the teen anonymously placed hoax calls to law enforcement officials in an effort to lure SWAT teams to respond to Ft. Meade high school over the past four-months.  Deputies say the investigation began in September, when an unidentified male called the sheriff’s office and Fort Meade High School and said he was going to “drive to Fort Meade High School in a black Jeep Cherokee and shoot everyone with an AK-47,” prompting a SWAT team to place the school on lockdown.

So how did the police find him if the calls were being placed “anonymously”?  Detectives say they identified the suspect because the Canadian teen was communicating online with a student from Fort Meade allegedly telling the student “I am going to Swat your school,” just prior to the “anonymous” phone call.  In October, deputies allege the suspect again told the witness he was going to “swat” her school, then sent an email to the school, saying he was going to “blow everyone up,” prompting another lockdown.  In November, deputies say the suspect called the sheriff’s office and told the dispatcher he had just killed that witness’ parents inside his parents’ Winter Haven home, and would shoot any responding law enforcement officers. The witness told deputies it was a hoax.

Polk deputies allege that the Canadian suspect is an experienced computer programmer who is allegedly on probation for similar crimes in Canada. Police say the suspect allegedly confessed to the Polk “swatting” crimes and is suspected in similar crimes throughout the U.S.

The teen is being held on charges of extortion and disorderly conduct.  Most people think of extortion as when a suspect extorts money from a celebrity by threatening to release unflattering pictures of the celebrity if they do not pay the suspect money.  However, the purpose of the Florida Extortion statute 836.05 “Threats; extortion” is to “condemn malicious making of threats to others, verbally or by written communication, with intent to extort money or other pecuniary advantage, or to compel persons so threatened or any other person to do any act or refrain from doing any act against his will.  In this case, that would be forcing the SWAT team to respond to the school or the school being placed on lockdown.  This can be a very dangerous situation and why the crime is a very serious felony carrying a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison (2nd degree felony).

Under Florida Statute 985.557 “Direct filing of an information; discretionary and mandatory criteria”, this juvenile could be prosecuted in adult court instead of the juvenile division.  This is a Level 6 offense that carries 36 points on the felony scoresheet.  44 points or more scores prison.

If you have been arrested for a crime, call an experienced criminal defense lawyer that will fight for you in court!

Thomas C. Grajek – 863-838-5549 

NCDD

There are some harsh penalties associated with a prostitution arrest.  These include the public shaming that comes form having the sheriff and newspaper put your name on their website as someone arrested.  For the “john”, there is a $5,000.00 “civil penalty” required by the statute.  Other penalties include forfeiting any property seized, community service hours, and paying the cost of the investigation.  The $5,000.00 civil penalty is currently on appeal to the District Court of Appeal in another jurisdiction.

There are also many defenses to these case and I just got a prostitution case dismissed last week by filing a motion to suppress arguing my client was illegally arrested.  If you have been arrested as part of this sting call an experienced criminal defense attorney that knows how to defend these crimes, conducted jury trials, was featured in Newsweek about prostitution arrests, and has argued against the $5,000.00 civil penalty.

Thomas C. Grajek – 863-688-4606

Missouri resident Brad Abeln was killed in January after another driver swerved and pushed him into the guardrail.

According to whistleblowers, the faulty guardrail contains a steel bar that should function as a shock absorber but instead acts as a sort of bayonet, piercing through the automobile body and injuring or killing those inside. A whistleblower trial against the manufacturer, Trinity Industries, is underway in a federal court in Texas.

The New York Times has found emails showing that official concerns about the fatal consequences of the guardrail design date back to 2012. Those concerns were not made public, and states did not begin banning the guardrail until this year.

In the wake of Abeln’s death, the state of Missouri and a non-profit advocacy group commissioned a study of the guardrail. The results showed that the guardrail had a fatality rate three times higher than that of a previous design. Missouri banned future purchases of the guardrail in late September.

The federal lawsuit against Trinity Industries alleges that the company secretly changed the guardrail design to save money, and then mislead state transportation departments to hasten purchases.

Several wrongful death lawsuits have been filed in relation to the guardrail, according to Bloomberg News.

The federal case is Harman v.Trinity Industries Inc. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case number is 2:12-cv-00089.

Put the experienced Missouri criminal defense lawyers at James Law Group on your side. Learn more at http://www.jameslawgroup.net/

Fewer Americans are aware of Black Wednesday — the day before Thanksgiving. The term originated in the hospitality industry in reference to the packed bars that characterize Thanksgiving Eve. But for law enforcement, “Black Wednesday” has taken on a more sobering meaning. A spike in car crashes is fast making Thanksgiving Eve one of the year’s most deadly holidays, according to numerous advocates including Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD).

With folks hitting the bars after a long day of travel home, it is no wonder that Thanksgiving Eve is a dangerous day to drive.

Choose a designated driver. Remember that the designated driver does not have to be someone out with the group. Perhaps Dad, a cousin or an aunt would be willing to play taxi for the evening, helping avoid bad decisions.

Wear seat belts. Other drivers are more likely to be impaired or tired over the holidays. You can reduce your chance of catastrophic injury by wearing a seat belt. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reminds us that males are more likely than females to not wear a seat belt. Tell the men in your life to buckle up!

Make it an early night. According to MADD, many crashes happen in the early hours of Thanksgiving morning, when the last of the bar crowd is heading home. Skip the added risk and head home early.

We wish you and your family a safe and happy start to the holiday season.

Put the experienced Missouri criminal defense lawyers at James Law Group on your side. Learn more at http://www.jameslawgroup.net/

If you have been arrested for possession of cannabis, there are a number of potential defenses to your case.  Some of the defenses to a possession case are:

• Can the prosecutor prove the drugs belonged to you
• Can the prosecutor prove the evidence seized was in fact cannabis?
• Did the police have the right to search you?
• Was the lab work done properly that tested the marijuana?
• Is it a constructive possession case where more than one person could have possessed the marijuana?
• Did the police have to right to stop you or your vehicle?
• Did the police call the K-9 dogs in time?
• Where the K-9 dogs trained properly?
• How often are the drug dogs wrong?

If you have been arrested for possession of drugs or a controlled substance, call an experienced drug defense attorney today for a free consultation today!

Thomas C. Grajek – 863-688-4606

The new count includes at least six more deaths and four more injuries that GM has not acknowledged. And the independent administrator, Kenneth Feinberg, says that the number is likely to rise.

As Feinberg told the PBS NewsHour, the main reason is that the independent compensation program uses a less strict standard to evaluate claims. For example, the program includes the claims of injured or killed parties other than the driver, such as passengers or pedestrians. Also, the program does not deny claims if a secondary factor, such as speeding, contributed to the death or injury.

According to CBS News, these findings have raised major criticism aimed at GM. Some claim that this shows that GM has sought to avoid taking total responsibility for the damage caused by the faulty ignition switch. Other critics assert that the independent compensation program itself will not be able to uncover the true extent of the damage because key makes and models were excluded from consideration by the fund.

The compensation program began accepting applications this summer, and it will continue to accept applications until December 31 of this year.

Contact a personal injury lawyer the James Law Group at 636.397.2411.

Now though, the federal government may be trying to help citizens accused of crimes.  Last week, a newspaper in Michigan was fighting in court to have mugshots of people arrested released so they could post them under public records law.  Surprisingly, the federal government was fighting the release of mugshots by arguing that by releasing the mugshots, it violates an arrested person’s privacy interest.  After all, we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.  So, if someone makes up an allegation accusing a person of a crime, that person has to pay for it by being embarrassed and having their reputation ruined by having their mugshot posted, even though they are innocent?  Unfortunately, that is how the system currently works.  This case is unlikely to change the release of mugshot photos as another federal court, the 6th Circuit has already ruled that there is no privacy interest in mug shots of persons who have been arrested.

If you have been arrested and need your arrest sealed or expunged due to background checks, call an experienced Sealing and Expunging Lawyer.

Even if your charges have been dropped, dismissed, or you were found NOT GUILTY, you still need to seal or expunge your record.

Thomas C. Grajek  863-688-4606

The driver refused the breath test.  In Florida, the police are not allowed to request a breath test until after someone is arrested for DUI.  The driver is not allowed to contact an attorney and is not given any information on the reliability of the breath test machine.  A driver does not have to submit to a breath test.  It can be a crime if this is a 2nd time refusing the breath test and the administrative suspension for the 1st breath test refusal was upheld.  Why would you help the police a breath test sample when the police do not give you ANY INFORMATION about the breath test machine including the software that calculates your breath test result???

With Halloween approaching, DUI units will be out on the roads discouraging drunk driving so please drink and drive responsibly!

If you have been arrested for DUI , call me IMMEDIATELY!!!  TIME MATTERS IN A DUI CASE!!!

call an experienced DUI lawyer that is a member of both the DUI Defense Lawyers Association (DUIDLA) and the National College for DUI Defense (NCDD).

DON‘T HESITATE!!!   PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS!!! 

CALL POLK COUNTY DUI ATTORNEY THOMAS C. GRAJEK NOW !!!

863-838-5549 cell

Because you only have 10 days to request a Formal Review or get a hardship license!

NCDD

Because the arrest just occurred, I was not able to get a copy of the actual police report, but there appears to be some issues with this search and whether it was lawful.  A search can be conducted if someone consents to the search.  You have a constitutional right to NOT give consent to search to law enforcement.  If no consent was given in this case, law enforcement needs some other legal reason to be able to search the home.

Normally, the odor of marijuana will give an officer probable cause to search a person or their vehicle under Florida case law.  However, a person’s home is subject to greater protection that a person or vehicle out in public.  To search a person’s home, law enforcement must obtain a warrant to search unless there is an exception to the warrant requirement.  These exceptions are listed in the statute.  The exception most likely to be relied upon by the deputies in this case is exigent circumstances meaning that if the deputies did not search immediately, there was a possibility the evidence (cannabis) could be destroyed (flush down the toilet).   However, just because that may be possible, does not automatically qualify a situation as “exigent circumstances”.  This is because the police may be required to secure the premises and the individual while the police secure a warrant.

Without seeing the police report, it is difficult to tell whether this teacher’s constitutional rights were violated, but it appears there may be a Motion to Suppress that could be filed in this case requesting the court throw out the evidence of the search because the deputies did not obtain a warrant prior to the search making it an illegal/unconstitutional search.  If the search was illegal, the motion would be granted, the evidence seized thrown out of court, and the case dismissed.

If you have been arrested for a drug charge or any other criminal offense, call a member of the Florida and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers to fight for you in court!

Polk County Criminal Defense Lawyer Thomas C. Grajek – 863-838-5549 cell

NCDD

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220 (d) requires the defendant to also provide:

• A written list of the names and addresses of all witnesses whom the defendant expects to call as witnesses at the trial or hearing,
• Any witness statement (other than the person arrested),
• Reports or statements of defense experts (including results of physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons),
• any tangible papers or objects that the defendant intends to use in the hearing or trial.

The prosecutor is also allowed to inspect, copy, test, and photograph the above information and material that is in the defendant‘s possession or control.

That is why it is very important that you start collecting evidence in your case IMMEDIATELY.  This may include text messages, voice mails, pictures of the alleged scene, witness names and phone numbers, letters, or anything else that may help in the defense of your case.  If you wait until the day of trial, the judge could rule that you committed a DISCOVERY VIOLATION for not timely revealing the information and the court may EXCLUDE it from evidence!  That means the evidence would be inadmissible and the jury would never hear your evidence!

If you have been arrested, collect this evidence right away and get it to your defense attorney!  Otherwise the evidence may be destroyed (such as a gas station video, evidence may have to be subpoenaed to obtain it, and it could be excluded if not timely disclosed to the prosecutor.

If you have been arrested, retain an experienced criminal defense attorney that knows Florida’s Rules of Criminal Procedure!

I handle ALL CRIMINAL CHARGES!

DON‘T HESITATE!!!   PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS!!! 

CALL POLK COUNTY CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER THOMAS C. GRAJEK NOW !!!

863-838-5549 cell

NCDD