Currently, if you are convicted of a felony or one of 37 misdemeanors in the state of New York, you must submit to a DNA screening and have your genetic code entered into a database. But the volume of this database could be significantly increased if Governor Andrew Cuomo has his way.

Supporters of the Governor’s measure say that the DNA database already helps to catch criminals and prevent future crimes, and that by expanding the database it will only be more effective.

Opponents, on the other hand, claim there are not enough safeguards in place to ensure people’s civil liberties are protected and the value of the database has not been completely quantified..

The New York’s division of the American Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) is calling for an independent task force to study the outcomes of investigations using DNA and whether people’s rights remain protected in those processed. They are also asking that the state Commission on Forensic Sciences become a independent body with “expanded regulatory oversight authority,” according to WGRZ Channel 2.

The database was started in 1996 and has been expanded three times since, in 1996, 2004, and 2006. In that time, there have reportedly been 10,200 matches, helping law enforcement to solve numerous crimes and resulting in convictions in 189 homicides, 591 sexual assaults, 1,344 burglaries, and 320 robberies. It has also led to 27 exonerations.

By matching the evidence at a crime scene, for example, with someone already entered in the DNA database, police can more quickly identify and eliminate suspects. Similarly, they can prevent wrongful convictions and cases of mistaken identity.

“By expanding the databank, we will give law enforcement one more tool to bring criminals to justice, clear those who have been wrongly accused, and prevent more New Yorkers from becoming future victims of horrible crimes,” says Senator Jeffrey Klein (D-Bronx) expressing his support.

Of course law enforcement and similar organizations support the move to expand the database. The expansion would add another 200 misdemeanor crimes to the list of those in which DNA is collected.

The NYCLU is concerned about both due process and about the fallibility of DNA evidence. The legislative director of the organization says that research has shown “a surprisingly high incidence of error, fraud and abuse in the handling, analysis and presentation of evidence.”

Senator Klein has sponsored the legislation that would make the expansion possible.

DNA collection is only one of the many consequences of a criminal conviction. Many of these consequences can impact your life long into the future. If you are accused of committing a criminal offense, contact our offices today to discuss how we might be able to help.

Within the last two months of the Occupy Wall Street movement, we’ve seen people getting shoved around and pepper-sprayed by the police. But those being subjected to force aren’t just the protestors of the 99%, they are the reporters covering the movement. This week in a New York Times editorial, we hear from one such journalist who brings up some interesting points about the occurences and the handling of the “allegations” by the police.

A mayoral aide, Stu Loeser, sent out an email to reporters in NYC. In that email he “said that he heard of journalists ‘supposedly’ wearing police press badges who ‘allegedly encountered problems on the streets of New York.” Michael Powel, a reporter and writer of the NYT editorial says all of this “alleged” behavior was witnessed first hand by reporters and cops alike and was done in a manner in blatant disregard of the rights of the press.

“Over several days, New York cops have arrested, punched, whacked, shoved to the ground and tossed a barrier at reporters and photographers.” When the city was asked if there was some change in policy regarding the treatment of the press, they were brushed off as if the recent behaviors had never happened and that suggesting there was some sort of shift in policy would be an admittance of wrongdoings that simply didn’t occur (in the eyes of the city).

Of course, the police want people to know that they do not allow members of the press to break the law in order to gather the news. But circumstances over the past few months show again and again that members of the press were doing little more than snapping photos, asking questions, and taking notes.

One photographer, who attempted to snap pictures of a bloodied protestor being carried off by police, was charged by officers who lifted a barrier and struck the photographer in the chest, knees, and shins while informing him he was not allowed to photograph on the sidewalk. Other reporters have faced disorderly conduct arrest for doing nothing more than documenting the Occupy movement.

The city of New York gives out police press passes, these passes are worn around the neck and seem to be the city’s way of okaying some members of the press for covering police actions while others are not. But these passes don’t necessarily do any good, particularly because the city is so stingy in granted them and even renewing them.

The passes did save some holders from arrest during the Zuccotti Park eviction last week. Police took those press members to a “pen”, secluded from the park, while those without were lumped in with the other protestors. Pass-carrying press members could only hear shouts from their pen, unable to witness the eviction and what it all entailed.

Horrifying images of police abuse nationwide are becoming disturbingly commonplace, from the pepper-spraying of UC Davis students, to DC police violently pulling a handicapped man out of his wheelchair.

It is our hope that these incidents can ultimately result in real reforms in how the police are ordered to handle peaceful and lawful protests in the Occupy movement and beyond.

Last week hundreds of protesters took to the streets in NYC and this time it wasn’t about Occupying Wall Street. Instead, these protesters were there to speak out against the city’s Stop-and-Frisk policies. Over 30 people were arrested, including some pretty notable names. Despite their anger at the program, Mayor Bloomberg stands behind the practice and credits it with driving the crime rate down in the city.

Civil rights activist and Princeton professor Cornel West was among those arrested last week in front of the 28^th Police Precinct station house on Frederick Douglas Boulevard. The group started their march at the Adam Clayton Powell State Office Building on 125^th Street and marched down to the precinct house. Other big names were there including Carl Dix, of the Revolutionary Communist Party and James Vrettos, a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

With these men, were hundreds of others, those who were victims of the stop-and-frisk campaign and those who simply disagreed with the practice, speaking out against its racist application and infringement on the rights of the people.

New York City Police executed about 600,000 stop and frisk encounters in 2010. About 85% of these stops were executed on racial minorities even though these groups make up only slightly more than half of the city’s population. In other words, the practice is being applied unfairly on minorities.

Mayor Bloomberg defends the practice, saying it is used in “communities where we have lots of guns and lots of murder victims.” He says this practice is one of many that can be credited with a 35% reduction in the crime rate over the past 10 years.

Those who have been on the receiving end of the stop-and-frisk campaign feel differently. Simply being in a neighborhood known for higher crime doesn’t give the police the right to stop and pat you down. In essence, they are treating you like a law violator without any probable cause that you have violated a law.

Carl Dix wrote about his arrest for the Huffington Post, calling the stop-and-frisk part of the New Jim Crow, alluding to the disproportionate rates at which minorities are affected and possibly even singled out by the criminal justice system. He said, “We must harbor no illusions that shattering the New Jim Crow is going to be any less of a fight…than it took to shatter the Jim Crow of my youth.”

The group is planning to converge on the 73^rd police precinct in Brownsville on November 1^st.

Civil disobedience, as seen here and with the Occupy Wall Street movement, has been at the cornerstone of many larger movements throughout the history of this country. But, many of these more modern movements have also been marked with countless arrests and criminal charges for the people who led them. If you’ve been arrested while exercising your right to protest, and perhaps charged with something like disorderly conduct, contact our offices today to discuss your case.

Wyandanch police and Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy are pushing for a judge to allow a civil gang injunction in an effort to reduce violence and criminal activity. The injunction is basically a civil order that says known gang members are not allowed to meet or even speak to one another in a defined area. These “safety zones”, though questionable, have been growing across the country.

Critics say gang injunctions violate the rights of the people they name. The suspected gang members’ rights to assemble and freedom of speech are stepped on in the name of curbing potential crime.

So what’s required for a gang injunction safety zone? The police must simply show they have a geographical area that is troubled by gang activity and they must provide a list of gang members to which the injunction will apply.

The New York Civil Liberties Union is challenging the injunction but things don’t look good for the organization. According to NPR, one journal cited 122 known attempts at injunctions nationwide in recent years. Of these 122 attempts, only 3 were denied.

Prosecutors love these safety zones because they make things much easier for them. In criminal court, you must prove something “beyond a reasonable doubt” in order for it to be affirmed. In civil court, you merely have to show by a “preponderance of evidence” that someone is a gang member. This is a fancy way of saying the evidence shows it is more likely than not to be true.

By naming someone on a civil gang injunction, then law enforcement merely has to find them in the area named and arrest them. Violating the injunction turns things into a New York State criminal offense, where the offender can be charged with a misdemeanor and sentenced up to one year in jail.

One of many problems with these orders is that police and prosecutors aren’t always hip to who is in what gang and if someone is actually a gang member or merely knows gang members because of their community. One man, identified on the Wyandanch proposed injunction says he is not nor has ever been a gang member. He shows off his lack of gang tattoos here and says “If I was Blood, I would say I was Blood.”

“Basically what you have is enforcement at a heightened level—at a lower level of suspicion—in predominantly minority neighborhoods,” says Columbia University Law School professor Jeffrey Fagan, who specializes in policing strategies and says there is little evidence that such injunctions reduce crime.

The judge hearing the case for the injunctions suggests those named as gang members get a lawyer if they expect to be removed.

The investigation into a ticket fixing scandal among the NYPD is drawing to a close and criminal charges are expected in more than 12 cases. This is fewer than previously expected but the investigation has had far reaching effects, both in the department and across the city.

When the investigation was first revealed, earlier this week, reports estimated that there would be at least two dozen criminal cases arising from the probe. Some even suggested as many as 40 officers would be charged. And while many will face internal discipline, just a few over twelve are expected to face formal charges.

Prosecutors have been presenting evidence to a grand jury since April and the criminal charges should be formally levied within the next few weeks, according to the New York Times.

The investigation has had far reaching impact, as many officers under investigation have sought retirement and one has reportedly attempted suicide.

Just this past week, Officer Robert McGee touched the third rail of an elevated train track, something that people who know him say was an attempt to end his life. McGee testified before the grand jury last week in exchange for immunity. He was currently on modified duty and had lost his gun and badge.

Much of the force, whether in defiance or fear of making waves, has simply stopped issuing traffic tickets. The NYPD has dispatched internal affairs investigators to monitor officer testimony in traffic courts and the officers have responded by writing fewer tickets, a way of avoiding court time altogether.

Part of the investigation hinged on officers who would conveniently “forget” details of a case when someone of importance was on the receiving end of the ticket. This inability to recall details of the case would lead to the charges being dropped. Sometimes the officers simply wouldn’t show up to their court dates, whether as a favor to someone else on the force whose friend or family member happened to be the defendant, or in response to a direct order from supervisors.

The vast majority of us don’t receive this preferential treatment when we are found in violation of the law, whether it so for traffic tickets or more serious criminal offenses. Instead, we are left to face the charges without any favors being handed down from the police or anyone else in the system, for that matter.

This week the City of New York gave up its fight to keep more than 1,000 records a secret. Fight they did, for several years the city has claimed that their records concerning police shootings were exempt from the Freedom of Information Law and that they didn’t have to disclose them to anyone. This decision means that the NYPD will now hand over more than 1,400 reports on over 1,000 shootings to the New York Liberties Union.

The city had previously filed an appeal against the latest decision regarding the case, where Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Emily Goodman ruled the NYPD’s records were not exempt from disclosure. That ruling took place on February 14^th, and the city had been working on its appeal since– until this week.

Most police actions require the keeping of reports and records. When the police shoot someone, this is especially true and there are often additional internal investigatory reports as well. Civil liberty organizations like the ACLU had tried repeatedly to gain access to such reports over the years, to no avail.

Another similar case, where the ACLU sought information on the race of the shooting victims had the same result, with Justice Joan A. Madden ruling the city didn’t have “adequate justification for not producing information as to the race of persons” shot at by police.

The NYPD is known for their secretive nature. If they can keep something from the press and the public, they will. And they thought, for years, that they could withhold information on police who took their power of law enforcement to the greatest extreme.

The NYPD “has a terrible record when it comes to openness,” said Christopher Dunn, associate legal director for the NYCLU. “We keep having to sue the department under FOIL (Freedom of Information Law), and the courts rightly keep ruling that it cannot withhold important documents from public view.”

So will this ruling change anything? Because the department has been ordered by the court to reveal these specific reports, they will likely comply. But if a case arises where they are asked to disclose something that hasn’t gone before the court, they’ll likely fight it tooth and nail, as they did this time.

As a member of the public it can often feel like the police are a force that stand against us rather than stand to serve us. Though not true for every individual officer, the few who take their power to the extreme, make a bad name for the entire unit.

According to a report from the Wall Street Journal this week, cases brought before judges are more likely to end in a “not guilty” verdict than those heard by juries. The decision to opt for a jury trial is one made by the defendant in a case and is not made hastily. The factors that go into a decision like this, no doubt have an effect on whether or not an acquittal is reached.

Judges handed down convictions in 61% of their felony cases while juries did the same in 67% of cases between 2006 and 2010. While the difference doesn’t seem dramatic, it is notable, especially if you are the defendant.

As this report points out, there are many reasons a defendant may opt for a judge rather than a jury. While your right to trial by jury is granted in the constitution, the decision is ultimately yours.

A judge may be a better move if there are many technical legal nuances in your case. A jury, after all, could potentially get lost in all of the specifics. Judges, as educated and trained legal professionals, are more equipped to deal with the complicated cases.

Also, juries may be more swayed by emotion. So, particularly gruesome cases are sometimes benefitted by a judge, again trained to not be caught up in the emotions and instead stick to the legal facts of the case.

There are many different things to consider when you and your defense lawyer discuss whether or not a jury trial is appropriate. After all “you only need one to hang a jury” as New York University professor of law Rachel Barkow says. A single dissenting juror in a panel of 12 could be the demise of your case.

So, while the cases looked at between 2006 and 2010 may have had more success in front of judges, that doesn’t necessarily mean that judges are more lenient and that all cases stand a better chance in front of a bench. It does, however, show that the sort of cases heard by a jury and those determined in a bench trial vary widely.

If you are facing criminal charges in a New York Court, the decision to have a jury or bench trial is just one of many that you will need to make with the help of your criminal defense attorney. Having a local attorney who knows the local courtroom players can be critical. Contact our attorneys today if you are charged with a criminal offense and need an advocate on your side.

The city of Buffalo has 125 surveillance cameras on its street corners and public areas. This is up from 60 just a few years ago. They want more and are consistently talking about how great the cameras are in an effort to gain support, and potential funding.

According to BuffaloNews.com, the cameras have critics but the general public is warming up to them. In particular, business owners are requesting cameras be installed near their establishments as they believe the devices truly do deter crime, while providing peace of mind to the customers.

As if the cameras weren’t enough, however, the city is now posting signs at each of the 125 locations. The signs will read, “This Area Monitored by Police Surveillance Cameras.” As one critic says, however, those who would be deterred by the cameras already know too well where the cameras are.

“Everyone knows the camera is there. Trust me…. The sign isn’t going to make a difference. The sign isn’t a deterrent. The camera is a deterrent.”

Not everyone would agree with that particular statement, however, as another defense lawyer points out “If you put a camera on a corner with a big sign saying you’re being watched, crime will move off that corner. But it will simply go to another corner.”

Sure there are cases where the cameras did help gain a conviction or one instance where the cameras spotted a man with a knife and police were able to respond and arrest the man before it potentially became a violent scene. But are these 3,4, or 5 cases worth the expense of the cameras on the budget and the lives of the people?

The cameras are intrusive. They monitor everyone who walks passed them. If they were monitoring a specific suspect or a specific group on a specific corner, that would be another story. But instead, they are watching all of Buffalo.

Officials say they work. They don’t have any evidence that crime has fallen because of the cameras because crime is falling everywhere. One citizen, who works inside of a building that has a camera outside said it well, “The cameras we have are helping to deter it, and while I don’t have statistics to prove it, my good sense tells me crime is decreasing.”

The chances of you getting arrested for something that was caught on camera are pretty slim. Not only because no one in their right mind would knowingly commit an offense on camera but because the cameras don’t always provide usable footage. However, evidence is evidence and understanding the integrity of the evidence against you can help your attorney determine the likelihood that you would be convicted if the case goes to trial.

If you are facing criminal charges in New York state, whether or not there is camera footage, you need someone on your side. Contact us today to discuss the specifics of your case and how we might be able to help.

A 26-year old man is now free to return home after serving seven months on Riker’s Island for a crime he didn’t commit. He was held because witnesses picked him out of a line-up, despite his alibi and no physical evidence linking him to a crime. Though his jail stint is evidence of a serious problem, there’s no word from the NYPD or the prosecutor that any mistakes were made.

Lanell Dowling was with his girlfriend the night a woman was robbed in Brooklyn. A police sketch was drawn and a tipster called in to say the drawing resembled Dowling.

The police arrested Dowling and took him to the precinct for a line up. Four mugging victims picked him out of a line-up and he was booked and charged with four robberies. His bail was set at $100,000, an amount his family could not afford. So he sat in jail, for seven entire months.

Dowling’s bail was reduced to $20,000 and he was able to leave jail. Though the victims refused to speak with his attorney, the defense was able to show that text messages and MySpace postings reflected Dowling could not have committed the crimes in question. Just this week all charges against him were dropped.

Eyewitness identification is often flawed despite the witness’ certainty that they have fingered the “right” person. In DNA exonerations, flawed witness identification plays a role about 75% of the time. But despite the knowledge of shortcomings in witness identification, police and prosecutors alike still lend it far too much credibility.

Had Dowling actually committed the robberies on that night, a $100,000 wouldn’t have been unreasonable. But holding him pretrial with nothing more than the line-up as evidence seemed to be a rush to judgment on the part of the prosecution.

Being wrongfully convicted of a crime happens. Not often, but it happens. Being wrongfully accused of a crime also happens, perhaps far more frequently. This is because when someone is accused of a crime they didn’t commit, their attorney works hard to ensure they aren’t penalized for the offense and that they aren’t later counted as one of the “wrongfully convicted”.

Eyewitness identification isn’t consistently reliable and this is just one aspect of Dowling’s case that would have no doubt been explored at trial, had it made it that far. But without any other evidence of his guilt, the prosecution could not build an entire case.

If you’ve been accused of something you didn’t do, a criminal defense attorney can help. Contact our attorneys today to discuss your case and the options available to you.

Under current state law, you can hit your spouse or partner and only be charged with a misdemeanor—no matter how many times you do it. But if Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, other lawmakers, and domestic violence advocates get their way, you could face a much tougher penalty the second time around.

The bill is a bipartisan effort to stop domestic violence abusers before someone ends up dead. Currently, the legislation is stalled in committee in both houses, according to the NY Post, though it seems to have pretty significant support.

It’s called the aggravated domestic violence bill and it would make a second offense of domestic violence an automatic felony. Currently, the victim must suffer “serious physical injury” for the offense to be elevated to a felony. This law would change that.

If you blacken your girlfriend’s eye one time, you can be charged with a misdemeanor. But if this legislation passes, the second time you punch her, you will be charged with a felony and you will face a mandatory 5 years probation and up to 4 years in prison, a pretty big jump compared with the maximum 1 year in jail that the current misdemeanor charge carries.

Like most crime legislation, this bill also has a story. The family of a police officer who was killed when responding to a domestic violence case wants to see it passed. Officer Alain Schaberger was killed when he was shoved off of a stoop by a four-time domestic violence offender, someone who would have likely been in jail had the aggravated domestic violence law been in effect back then.

It’s understandable that many would like to see this law passed. Oftentimes abusive relationships get progressively more abusive until something stops the abuse in its tracks. That something could be a prison sentence or it could be murder.

Domestic violence do get much sympathy from the courts and from the public in general. When you are accused of a domestic violence offense, however, you aren’t often afforded that same benefit of the doubt. Having someone on your side can make a big difference when it seems like everyone else is judging you.

If you’re accused of assaulting a loved one, contact our attorneys today. We can discuss your options with you and help you determine what the outcome of your case might be. Even if you’ve faced similar charges before, all hope is not lost.