Covered by NYDaily News. Las Vegas man accused of threatening a prominent attorney and making vile remarks.
Covered by New York Times, and other outlets. Fake heiress accused of conning the city’s wealthy, and has an HBO special being made about her.
Accused of stalking Alec Baldwin. The case garnered nationwide attention, with USAToday, NYPost, and other media outlets following it closely.
Juror who prompted calls for new Ghislaine Maxwell trial turns to lawyer who defended Anna Sorokin.
Clients can use our portal to track the status of their case, stay in touch with us, upload documents, and more.
Regardless of the type of situation you're facing, our attorneys are here to help you get quality representation.
We can setup consultations in person, over Zoom, or over the phone to help you. Bottom line, we're here to help you win your case.
The Spodek Law Group understands how delicate high-profile cases can be, and has a strong track record of getting positive outcomes. Our lawyers service a clientele that is nationwide. With offices in both LA and NYC, and cases all across the country - Spodek Law Group is a top tier law firm.
Todd Spodek is a second generation attorney with immense experience. He has many years of experience handling 100’s of tough and hard to win trials. He’s been featured on major news outlets, such as New York Post, Newsweek, Fox 5 New York, South China Morning Post, Insider.com, and many others.
In 2022, Netflix released a series about one of Todd’s clients: Anna Delvey/Anna Sorokin.
Why Clients Choose Spodek Law Group
The reason is simple: clients want white glove service, and lawyers who can win. Every single client who works with the Spodek Law Group is aware that the attorney they hire could drastically change the outcome of their case. Hiring the Spodek Law Group means you’re taking your future seriously. Our lawyers handle cases nationwide, ranging from NYC to LA. Our philosophy is fair and simple: our nyc criminal lawyers only take on clients who we know will benefit from our services.
We’re selective about the clients we work with, and only take on cases we know align with our experience – and where we can make a difference. This is different from other law firms who are not invested in your success nor care about your outcome.
If you have a legal issue, call us for a consultation.
We are available 24/7, to help you with any – and all, challenges you face.
The right to bear arms is protected under the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. However, the government also has an interest in regulating firearms and investigating crimes involving guns. This can create tension when law enforcement agencies issue subpoenas for gun records held by firearms dealers and manufacturers. Challenges have been brought claiming such subpoenas violate Second Amendment rights.
The US has a long history of firearms regulation, with the first federal gun law passing in 1934 (the National Firearms Act). Over the decades, additional laws like the Gun Control Act of 1968 have established a complex federal framework around the manufacture, sale, and possession of guns and ammo.As part of this framework, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) licenses firearms dealers and manufacturers and regulates record-keeping requirements. Dealers must maintain records of all guns received and sold, including the purchaser’s information. Manufacturers must also keep detailed production records.
In order to enforce federal gun laws and investigate firearms trafficking cases, the ATF and other agencies can issue subpoenas to access records held by gun dealers and manufacturers.These administrative subpoenas allow investigators to obtain documents without court approval. They are used to piece together information on how guns move through legal channels into illegal markets.However, gun rights groups have raised concerns that broad subpoenas amount to federal fishing expeditions that violate constitutional liberties.
A recent case brought by the gun rights group Firearms Policy Coalition challenged an ATF subpoena issued to a Nevada firearms dealer. The subpoena sought over 5 years of records on thousands of customers.The group argued this amounted to an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. They also claimed violations of Fifth Amendment due process rights and Second Amendment infringements.Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that allowing limitless government access to gun records could have a chilling effect on people exercising their right to acquire firearms.However, the federal district court rejected these constitutional arguments. The judge ruled the subpoena was reasonable in scope and did not violate the plaintiffs’ rights. An appeal is likely.
At issue in these cases is how to balance an individual’s right to bear arms with the public interest in regulating dangerous weapons. The courts use different levels of “scrutiny” when analyzing alleged Second Amendment violations.Challenges to federal records subpoenas argue that strict scrutiny should apply because these actions could burden the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right. This would put the high burden on the government to prove a compelling interest and show the action is narrowly tailored.However, most courts have applied intermediate scrutiny in Second Amendment cases. This gives more deference to policymakers, requiring only that the law or action be substantially related to an important government interest. Under this standard, broad subpoenas may be allowed as part of the regulatory scheme.The Supreme Court recently ordered lower courts to use a historical framework when evaluating Second Amendment claims. How this could impact records subpoena challenges remains to be seen. For now, the legal battles continue between the government and gun rights advocates.
Please fill out the form below to receive a free consultation, we will respond to
your inquiry within 24-hours guaranteed.