Pharmacy robberies have climbed all across the country, and in Long Island alone, two such robberies resulted in six deaths.  The drugs of choice are narcotic pain killers, like oxycodone. They are highly addictive, and some addicts are willing to do just about anything to keep their supply coming.

Local pharmacies have taken to bolstering their security measures in light of the growing robberies. Installing panic buttons, cameras, and bullet proof glass are just some of the ways that pharmacists are fighting back and hoping to deter would-be robbers.

Some have even stopped carrying the pain killers that robbers would go after, opting to turn away some people with legitimate needs and pain management issues rather than run the risk of attracting armed criminals.

On June 19^th, a clerk, pharmacist, and two customers were killed as a man stole thousands of pain pills from Haven Drugs in Medford. On New Year’s Eve, a federal agent who was picking up his father’s medication was killed when he tried to stop a robbery in progress. The robber, a retired police lieutenant who had recently been released from prison, was also killed.

Last year, on Long Island, there were at least a dozen of these robberies. In New York State, between 2006 and 2010, the number of pharmacy robberies jumped from 4 to 30. Nationally, we saw a jump of 79% during that same time period.

The growth in these robberies is directly related to the growing prescription drug addiction problem in this country. Prescription pain killers, like oxycodone, are highly addictive and have become the drug of choice for many. But when the doctor stops refilling your prescription or when your supplier dries up, where do you turn?

Many pain clinics, or pill mills, sprouted up across the country as a way to unethically issue prescriptions to addicts. They were simply getting their piece of the pie, making money off of the addiction. But lawmakers are cracking down on these clinics, which are more populous in southern states like Florida and Georgia.

Those people robbing pharmacies are likely addicted to the pills themselves, though they could also be dealers looking to replenish their supply. These pills can bring a hefty price on the street.

Pharmacists are being more vigilant, wiping counters throughout the day in hopes of collecting prints if a robbery does go down, installing better cameras and alarm systems, and simply being more alert to their clientele.

When you have an addiction, you can sometimes be motivated to commit offenses you wouldn’t otherwise. Sometimes, if caught, this presents a chance for you to get help. If you are charged with a criminal offense, whether its drug related or not, we may be able to help. Contact our offices today to discuss the details of your case and what can be done.

Radiation scanners mounted on squad cars seems like a scene out of a futuristic science fiction movie. But, if the NYPD and Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly have their way, it will be a reality sooner than you might think. The agency is working to develop a system of scanners that will identify people on the street who might be strapped with a firearm. While it’s all done in the name of public safety, one has to wonder if the end justifies the means.

The technology is said to work similarly to infrared imaging. The scanners will detect radiation that is emitted from the human body. Because this energy cannot travel through metal, it will be able to identify if that person is carrying a gun, theoretically. Of course, it could raise red flags if they are carrying an iPod, a smart phone, or anything else made with metal.

“This technology has shown a great deal of promise as a way of detecting weapons without a physical search,” says Commissioner Kelly according to the New York Post, who revealed the program in his State of the NYPD address.

Kelly would like to see the technology installed on cop cars in the near future. But, the technology still needs some work.

Currently, the scanners only work from a distance of three to four feet. The department would like to see them work for up to 25 meters, scanning in every which direction from within the comfort of a squad car.

As civil liberties lawyer Norman Siegel points out, “It will make an already aggressive policy of stop, question and frisk seem tame.”

The NYPD are already notorious for stopping and frisking disproportionate numbers of minorities, all on the premise that the neighborhoods in which they are found make them more likely to be involved in criminal activity. If a scientifically “sound” device now tells them when someone is carrying a metal object, they could use this potential weapon as justification for treating such innocent citizens as being armed and dangerous.

Photos shown of the new technology do indicate that it does little more than provide a blurry outline of whatever metal object is detected. It’s easy to see how an iPhone, for example, could be mistaken for a small firearm.

Chances are we have not heard the last of this imaging technology, and opposition to it will likely grow as it becomes closer to reality.

When you are searched, the officer should have good cause to have stopped you and have evidence that they could find something on you indicating a criminal offense. Understanding the laws regarding searches and seizures is something your defense attorney can assist you with.

If you’re facing criminal charges, contact us today for a consultation on your case and to see how we might be able to help.

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.

In an agreement with prosecutors, former NYPD narcotics detective Stephen Anderson a testified in court that numerous officers and even supervisors in the division he worked for would set up innocent people in order to make arrest quotas. Charged with planting cocaine on four men in a Queens bar, Anderson admitted he was trying to help our a fellow narcotics detective who’s numbers had been low.

“Tavarez was…was worried about getting sent back to patrol,” Anderson testified. To help him out, Anderson gave Tavarez the cocaine so he could take credit for a “buy and bust”, something Anderson said was common, according to the NY Daily News.

Anderson had made two legitimate arrests and apparently made it clear he wasn’t going to share those with Tavarez. “As a detective, you still have a number to reach while you are in the narcotics dvision.”

This isn’t the first time arrest quotas have caused a problem. Quotas aren’t even supposed to exist precisely because they encourage unlawful arrests and behaviors like the scene Anderson described.

Anderson’s testimony came in an effort to prove that the conduct in this specific case wasn’t a one-time deal. The judge asked if t Anderson had seen this sort of practice frequently, to which he replied, “Yes, multiple times.” He went on to say “It was something I was seeing a lot of, whether it was from supervisors or undercovers or even investigators.”

The case stemmed from a false arrest suit by two brothers who were arrested by Anderson and Tavarez. The city paid the men $300,000 to settle the suit after a video tape showed they had been set up.

When the pressure is on officers and detectives to be “productive” it’s usually directly related to how many arrests they are producing. An officer who makes many arrests appears to be more proactive and busy than one who doesn’t. But this isn’t always the case—an officer who takes the time to build good cases might not have the same number of arrests as one who is simply racking up the numbers.

Unfortunately, in all of this, it’s the innocent citizens who lose out. When Anderson was asked by the judge if he gave any thought to the citizens in these situations, he said, “It’s almost like you have no emotion with it, that they attach the bodies to it, they’re going to be out of jail tomorrow anyway; nothing is going to happen to them anyway.”

This story and revelation is alarming. And it begs the question, how common are such practices—not just in the narcotics unit but elsewhere throughout the department and even across the country?

If you are charged with a crime, there is always the possibility that you are innocent. The prospect of convincing a judge or jury of this fact can seem daunting. With a local defense attorney on your side, it is possible.

Contact our offices today for a consultation on your case and to find out what we can do to help.

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.

The NYPD has lightened enforcement of marijuana laws when it comes to personal possession. But not everyone is on the same page. As this article in the New York Times shows, parents are losing their children to the foster care system on allegations of neglect, often when they were found with a trivial amount of marijuana.

In New York, possession of 25 grams or less of marijuana is considered a “violation”, similar to a traffic ticket. It is not a criminal offense, though possessing it is against the law. But the NYT discusses several cases where a parent was found with less than 25 grams of pot and lost their children. The reason? Because New York City’s child welfare agency doesn’t make that same 25-gram designation.

One man, who was staying in a homeless shelter with his child, lost custody of the 1 year old when a worker there found a $5 bag of marijuana in his belongings. The child welfare officials justified the removal of the child stating the father once had alcohol on his breath and the baby wasn’t always sufficiently clothed. If beer-breath and a diaper-only clothed child was enough for neglect to be established, I know many parents who would have lost their children long ago.

State law says if a parent repeatedly misuses a drug, it is considered neglect. It doesn’t matter what type of drug it is. Also, if they have “substantial impairment of judgment”, there is neglect. The agency doesn’t have to catch the parent high or actually find any drugs at all. Merely admitting you once used marijuana could be enough to open a neglect investigation.

One woman, whose home was searched by police, was reported to the child welfare officials when the cops found 10 grams of pot. It wasn’t enough for a criminal charge, but she did lose her kids.

If officials are willing to take children away for a small amount of marijuana, you can bet they will look into cases where larger quantities and where other substances are found. The police typically report their findings to the agency when there are children in the home or present at the discovery of the drugs.

A criminal possession charge, regardless of the substance, can have lasting effects. Not only could you go to jail, pay fines, and lose your driving privileges, you could lose your children and find it hard to locate a job with a conviction on your record.

Anytime you are accused of a criminal offense, a criminal defense lawyer can be your advocate in the system, fighting for your rights and defending your good name.