New Jersey Criminal Lawyers Blog

In a recent unpublished New Jersey Appellate Division case, the court discarded a jury verdict on New Jersey Constitutional grounds. (State v. Brown) The 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from illegal search and seizure. The New Jersey Constitution provides even more protections for the citizens of New Jersey.

Whether a police officer violated the constitutionally granted right was a question decided by the trial judge at a pretrial hearing. The defendant was a passenger in a vehicle driven by his uncle. The vehicle was traveling at a high rate of speed and cut across three lanes of traffic with no signal. This prompted a West Deptford Police Officer to pull the vehicle over. The Police Officer testified that once he approached the vehicle, he smelled "raw marijuana" which gave him probable cause as to illegal behavior. He asked all present to exit the car. Upon further observation, the officer noticed a bulge in the waistband of the defendant. When asked about it, the defendant told the officer that it was "weed". In fact it was a bag of marijuana and vials of PCP, which the defendant claimed was for personal use, not distribution. After discovering the illegal drugs, the officer then decided to search the vehicle. He found additional viles of PCP located in a food container. The trial judge erred in not suprressing certain evidence found in the backseat of the car in which defendant was a passenger, which led to the improper admission of defendant's statement. The consequences of these errors result in the entire jury verdict being irretrievably tainted. The case was remanded for a new trial on all charges. (State v. Brown.)

There are exceptions, which would allow an officer to search a vehicle without a warrant. The New Jersey Supreme Court has interpreted the New Jersey Constitution to mean that a warrantless search of a vehicle is permissible when, "(1) the stop is unexpected; (2) the police have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime; and (3) exigent circumstances exist under which it is impracticable to obtain a warrant." In this case, the first two requirements were indeed met. The stop was unexpected as it was due to a vehicle traveling at a higher rate of speed than allowed by law. Also, the officer did have probable cause as he smelled marijuana and found contraband in the waist of the defendant's pants.

The third requirement, however, was not met. The Appellate Division was not convinced that the prosecutor presented enough evidence to show "exigent circumstances." Exigent circumstances is a heavily fact based standard which is always analyzed on a case-by-case basis. Here, the prosecution argued that the car was in a dangerous area on the side of the road and that they were worried that the remaining passengers would destroy evidence if they were allowed to return to the vehicle (they were not under arrest.) The court did not believe that the car was in a dangerous location or that the evidence was in jeopardy of destruction as the remaining passengers were cooperative. Furthermore, the Appellate Division believed that the officers could have and should have called in for a warrant.

Continue reading "New Jersey Appellate Court Remands For New Trial On Drug Charges Due To Unconstitutional Search! " »

A conviction under N.J.S.A. 2C: 29-2b (Resisting Arrest; Eluding Officer) requires that the person fleeing must "knowingly flee or attempt to elude any police or law enforcement officer after having received any signal from such officer to bring the vehicle or vessel to a full stop."

A recent unpublished New Jersey Appellate Division case discussed this issue. (State v. Padilla-Bustamante). The relevant facts involve the defendant who "fled" the scene of a crime because he feared for his own safety. While giving a ride home to some people he knew from a tavern, the defendant stopped for gas. While at the gas station, the defendant's passengers left his automobile and began to engage in a fight. He left the scene and returned. The passengers involved in the fight returned to the car and the defendant once again fled the scene. He was signaled by a police officer to pull over, but did not. The vehicle came to a stop only when it was involved in a collision. At that point, the defendant and a passenger exited the vehicle and ran into a wooded area. A police officer caught up with them and the defendant explained that he was the driver of the vehicle and fled the scene because he was afraid for his safety.

At trial, a jury convicted the defendant of "eluding". The defendant argues that the jury instruction on the doctrine of flight was clear error by the judge. The Appellate Division agreed, overturning the conviction for eluding and remanded the trial. The trial judge explained the doctrine of "flight" as occurring after "an offense" or "a crime" but did not explicitly say which crime he was referring to (there were multiple charges levied against the defendant). The Appellate Division found that this was clear error because the instructions to the jury could have implied a presumption of guilt, which could have unfairly prejudiced the jury's perception of the character of the defendant. The "flight" charge was not at all connected to the "eluding" charge, but the jury instruction by the trial judge seemed to confuse the two. The "flight" charge could only be linked to the other charges levied against the defendant. The eluding charge required that the defendant knew he was eluding an officer. At trial, the defendant claimed that he did not look in his rear view mirror and he did not stop because he was in fear for his safety. A reasonable jury could hear that evidence and choose not to convict him of eluding.

Continue reading "Eluding A Police Officer In New Jersey. "Knowledge" Is Required For A Conviction. Discuss Your Case With An Experienced NJ Criminal Defense Attorney." »

In a recent Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division case (State v. Zeikel), the question of sentencing for repeat offenders of New Jersey DWI laws was addressed. More specifically, the Appellate Division had to decide if two prior DWAI (Driving While Ability Impaired) charges from New York State had any bearing or no bearing at all on the enhanced sentencing as a repeat DWI offender in New Jersey. The Appellant, Jeffrey Zeikel argued that they should not have any bearing on his current New Jersey DWI sentencing because the New York DWAI charge is not "substantially similar" to the New Jersey DWI, DUI, Refusal statute. This is a requirement under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 which reads: "A conviction of a violation of a law of substantially similar nature in another jurisdiction...shall constitute a prior conviction under this subsection unless the defendant can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the conviction in the other jurisdiction was based exclusively upon a violation of a proscribed blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of less than 0.08%."

In defining the statutory language of "substantially similar" the court ultimately ruled that a New York State DWAI is similar to a New Jersey DWI. The statutory language places the burden of proving that it is NOT "substantially similar" on the defendant. In other words, Mr. Zeikel needed to show by "clear and convincing evidence" that the New York DWAI conviction was based exclusively on a violation that proscribed a BAC of less than 0.08%. In this case, Mr. Zeikel could not present the appropriate evidence as the older New York DWAI's occurred in the 1980's. Due to their age, the proper New York authority no longer had an evidentiary record of them. Simply, if the defendant cannot introduce evidentiary proof (whether it is available or not), the prior convictions will serve to enhance the punishment of the current New Jersey DWI charge.

The court also relied on previous holdings on the same issue, which was quite damaging to the defendant's case. According to Div. of Motor Vehicles v. Lawrence, the court held that a New York DWAI was "of a substantially similar nature as a New Jersey DWI conviction," and in comparing the language and policy goals of the New York and New Jersey statutes, the court concluded that, " both laws deal with alcohol related offenses and are aimed to deter and punish drunk drivers." Essentially, the New Jersey court gave full faith and credit to the New York DWAI statute when it decided to use a prior conviction under it for enhancement purposes.

Continue reading "Did You Receive A DWAI In New York Or A Similar Charge In Another State? If So, It Could Be Used To Enhance The Penalties Of Your Current New Jersey DWI Conviction! Discuss Your Case With An Experienced NJ DWI Lawyer. " »

In a recent United States Supreme Court case (Bullcoming v. New Mexico), a defendant's DWI conviction was reversed and remanded on Constitutional grounds. The opinion of the highest court in the land is of course binding on all inferior courts in the United States. The principle at issue was a defendant's constitutional right to confront witnesses that present testimony or evidence used to prove his guilt. The confrontation clause is in place so that a defendant may confront his accusers so as to ensure a fair trial.

The underlying issue at question was whether or not a lab report showing a defendant's blood alcohol content (BAC) may be admitted into evidence during DWI proceedings without corroborating testimony by the analyst who actually prepared the report. The government attempted to submit in person testimony of another analyst who worked at the particular lab but did not prepare the defendant's actual report. This was problematic for the defendant and the Supreme Court. Since the analyst who was present at the trial could not answer specific questions regarding the preparation of the defendant's lab report, the court ruled that the admittance of the lab report itself was violative of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Confrontation Clause.

The court also ruled that report was purely testimonial in nature. When a report is testimonial, it can mean that the report was specifically prepared in preparation of litigation. Here, it is clear that the lab report (measuring blood alcohol content) was only prepared to show that the defendant was intoxicated while driving his motor vehicle. The report was in fact key evidence and essential to the case. Because the defendant could not question the analyst who prepared the report, it's validity, authenticity, and process could not be ascertained with certainty.

There are a few exceptions that would allow the report without the corroborating testimony of the analyst. If the analyst was not available to testify, the lab report could be submitted without him or her. There are very stringent standards, however, to show that he is not available to testify. Another exception could be that the defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine the analyst pre-trial (either by deposition or interrogatory).

The right to confront an accuser is a fundamental right granted under the United States Constitution and it applies in every courtroom in the United States. If you believe that you're right to confrontation has been violated, contact an experienced DWI attorney who can navigate your legal issues. It is important to obtain counsel that is knowledgeable in DWI, DUI, and Refusal proceedings in New Jersey to protect your rights.

Continue reading "Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution Finds It's Way into DWI Proceedings Through the U.S. Supreme Court; New Jersey Courts must follow!" »

A defendant charged and convicted of a 2nd or subsequent New Jersey DWI may wish to file a Petition for Post Conviction Relief (PCR) for a number of reasons. One such reason was raised during the trial of Karen Weil (State v. Weil). Ms. Weil, plead guilty to a 3rd DWI and applied for PCR (post trial), which was subsequently denied. Post Conviction Relief in this case was requested because the defendant believed that she had sustained a "substantial denial in the conviction proceedings of [her] rights under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution or laws of New Jersey" (R. 7:10-2) stemming from a prior (first) DWI conviction in 1994.

Defendant, Karen Weil filed a "Laurick" application for Post Conviction Relief (State v. Laurick). A defendant who has sustained a prior un-counseled DWI conviction could be entitled to a step down in the jail sentence associated with a 3rd DWI conviction. For a 3rd DWI conviction there is a mandatory jail term of not less than 180 days. If Ms. Weil's "Laurick" application were successful, she would only be required to serve a jail sentence affiliated with a 2nd offense DWI which is not less than 48 consecutive hours nor more than 90 days.

As shown by Ms. Weil's case, a step down for a Post Conviction Relief "Laurick" application is not easy. Ms. Weil claimed that she could not remember whether or not she was represented by a public defender in her 1994 DWI conviction but she specifically recalls not being represented by private counsel. Since it had been 16 years since the initial DWI conviction, the court could not provide records or court transcripts. The only information available was a copy of the back of the summons, which indicated that Ms. Weil paid a $50.00 public defender fee. The defendant argued that this information alone was not enough to establish that she was in fact represented by counsel and is entitled to relief due to the facts that all other records were not available.

The State argued that Ms. Weil needed to establish a prima facie case and the court agreed. As to the delay, New Jersey Municipal Court Rules state that there is a less than stringent five-year time limit for filing a PCR petition. Ms. Weil had in fact waited for 16 years and did not convince the court that it was not a result of her neglect.

Defendants who file a Laurick PCR application are charged with the burden of proof and must overcome a few hurdles, which the New Jersey Supreme Court has articulated in the progeny of State v. Laurick. Before getting to the two-tiered analysis of Laurick, a defendant must first prove that he or she did not receive notice of a right to counsel in a DWI proceeding. After establishing that no notice was given, the defendant must show two things: (1) unaware that he or she was entitled to counsel and (2) if the defendant was considered to be indigent (could not afford private counsel) then he must show that he would have derived a benefit from notice that he was entitled to a public defender. If the defendant was non-indigent and could afford private counsel, the defendant needs to show that the lack of notice affected the outcome of the case. Defendant, Karen Weil was not able to meet the significant burden of the test, therefore, her conviction was affirmed and no PCR was granted.

Continue reading "Significant Burden Must Be Overcome for Success on Post Conviction Relief "Laurick" Application for Prior NJ Drunk Driving Conviction. " »

In a recent Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division case (State v. Wilson, 421 N.J.Super. 301 (App. Div. 2011)), the charged defendant appealed from an unfavorable trial court decision regarding the "growing" and "use" of seventeen marijuana plants on his personal property. The defendant was charged under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-4 (first degree maintaining or operating a production facility) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(10)(b) which is a second degree offense due to the fact that he had possessed marijuana in an amount of over 10 plants but less than 50 plants. He was only convicted of the 2nd degree offense and another related drug charge, while he was acquitted by a jury of the first-degree offense. The defendant was sentenced to 5 years in prison: the minimum term of imprisonment for a 2nd degree crime. N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(a)(2). Defendant appealed the conviction on three points. The most important and far-reaching point was a "personal use" exemption, which the Appellate Division was reluctant to adopt.

John Ray Wilson, the defendant, suffers from Multiple Sclorosis (MS) and has been allegedly self medicating with the marijuana he grows. During a routine "marijuana search mission" a National Guard helicopter spotted marijuana plants growing on the defendant's property and notified local police on the ground. When police officers arrived at Mr. Wilson's property, they immediately noticed the marijuana plants growing. After briefly speaking with the officers, Mr. Wilson signed a "Miranda Warning Acknowledgement Card" and consent form for the officers to search his property. The search yielded the discovery of 17 marijuana plants that appeared to be healthy, cultivated, and cared for. When asked at trial, the defendant admitted that he had grown the plants from seeds he had ordered over the Internet. To plant the seeds and grow the plants, the defendant admitted to breaking up the ground to loosen the soil and continually watering them. At trial, Mr. Wilson claimed to be cultivating the plants to ease the symptoms of MS. He also tried unsuccessfully to submit testimony by a doctor in order to show the beneficial effects of marijuana on MS symptoms.

The Appellate Division spent some time weighing the defendants "personal use" defense, as it was an issue of first impression for the court. The defendant submitted a rather broad interpretation of the statute, while the State submitted a more narrow one that both the trial court and Appellate Division agreed with. The defendant asserted that a "personal use" exemption was meant to apply to the entire "manufacturing" process. The State contended that the "personal use" exemption is specifically limited to the preparation or compounding of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS). These arguments both warranted merit which led the Appellate Division to analyze the language of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-2. The court noted that, "Manufacture is defined as the production, preparation, propagation, compounding, conversion, or processing of a CDS." In addition, the statute also states that the definition "does not include the preparation or compounding of a CDS." Since the personal use exemption was specifically limited to only two of the six enumerated activities, the other four remained with no exemption. Since the defendants activities did not constitute "preparation" or "compounding" and were more closely related to "production" the "personal use" exemption was not available to him as a defense. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial courts ruling and effectively narrowed the interpretation of the statute.

Continue reading ""Personal Use" Defense For Manufacturing Marijuana in New Jersey Limited to Preparation or Compounding of a CDS! Discuss Your Case with an Experienced New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney." »

On Saturday, October 29, 2011 the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is partnering with national, state and local law enforcement officials to hold a third National Prescription Drug Take-Back Day. The event allows for the public to rid their homes of potentially dangerous prescription drugs.

There are many local collection sites for residents of Ocean County and Monmouth County, New Jersey by checking the DEA website and the "Got Drugs?" banner.

The DEA reports that the rate of prescription drug abuse is at an alarmingly high level as two- and-a-half times more people currently abuse prescription drugs than the number of those using cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens, and inhalants combined. Prescription drugs left in home medicine cabinets are highly suspectible to diversion, misuse and abuse by residents of the home and their guests. Imagine, a guest visiting your house and while using your bathroom taking prescription medication from your medine cabinet.

Illegal possession and distribution of prescription drugs in New Jersey can have serious immediate and long term consequences. Depending on the amount of prescription drugs possessed at the time of your arrest you could be facing significant prison time, a fine up to $300,000.00 and other fines and penalties. One long term consequence of being guilty of a prescription drug offense is that you will be disqaulified from employment in the New Jersey public school system. If you are arrested for a prescription drug offense it is important to immediately discuss the facts and circumstances of your case with an experienced New Jersey criminal defense attorney.

Continue reading "Ocean County Residents Should Turn In Prescription Drugs During DEA Take-Back Day. Avoid Illegal Prescription Drug Consequences. " »

In the wake of Columbus Day festivities in Seaside Heights, New Jersey, patrons to the events might find themselves in trouble with the law. Anytime there is a large gathering of people for a multi-day event in close proximity to an abundant amount of bars, the Seaside Heights Police are usually out in full force. The three-day Italian Festival brought a lot of fun, a lot of good food, and unfortunately, patrons may have been arrested for common disorderly persons offenses in Seaside Heights, municipal ordinance violations in Seaside Heights, motor vehicle violations in Seaside Heights and in some cases, indictable criminal offenses in Seaside Heights.

Disorderly persons offenses in Seaside Heights are commonly written and are a general category of offenses that are punishable by up to a $1,000 fine, payments of restitution, up to 6 months in jail, and other fines and penalties. If you were arrested for a disorderly persons charge in Seaside Heights, it is important to realize that you may have options. Contact an experienced Seaside Heights Criminal Defense Attorney to discuss your case. Some commonly written disorderly persons offenses in Seaside Heights include: disorderly conduct (N.J.S. 2C:33-2), trespass (N.J.S. 2C: 18-3(b)), criminal mischief (N.J.S. 2C: 17-3), simple assault (N.J.S. 2C: 12-1), fake ID (N.J.S. 2C: 28-7), underage drinking (N.J.S. 2C:33-15), possession of CDS (N.J.S. 2C:35-10), and resisting arrest (N.J.S. 2C:29-2).

Very common at such large events are Underage Drinking charges (N.J.S. 2C: 33-15) and Fake ID charges (N.J.S. 33:1-81). Underage drinking charges carry a mandatory fine of $500. If the underage drinkers are found consuming alcohol in a motor vehicle they could face a suspension of their drivers license for up to 6 months. Fake ID charges are also quite serious and violators could be looking at the same penalties. Conviction of both could lead to a loss of license for 6 months and fines of no less than $1,000. If you have been charged with Underage Drinking, Fake ID, or any other disorderly persons offense, call an experienced New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney to discuss your case and protect your rights.

In addition to disorderly persons offenses, Seaside Heights Police Officers often write tickets for moving violations. Motor vehicle violations can also carry serious penalties including points assessed to your driver's license, fines, or suspension of your driver's license. Commonly written motor vehicle violations include: speeding (N.J.S. 39:4-98 and N.J.S. 39:4-99), failure to yield to a traffic sign (N.J.S. 39:4-81), reckless driving (N.J.S. 39:4-96), and careless driving (N.J.S. 39:4-97). DWI, DUI, and Refusal charges are very serious motor vehicle violations in New Jersey. Penalties for a DWI, DUI, or Refusal conviction can include jail-time, loss of your driver's license, heavy fines, mandatory participation in an Intoxicated Driver Resource Center (IDRC) program, installation of an Ignition Interlock Device and additional fines and penalties.

Continue reading "Arrested in Seaside Heights? Call an Experienced Seaside Heights Criminal Defense Attorney." »

In a recent unpublished New Jersey Appellate Division case (State v. Koch), a seemingly routine underage drinking charge became the subject of great scrutiny for the court. A local ordinance was written and the defendant Koch was charged with a "quasi-criminal" offense to which a Municipal Court of Mansfield Judge ordered a fine of $250 and $33 in court costs. Koch appealed the decision to the Law Division and the same result was reached. Koch then appealed to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

The validity of the local underage drinking ordinance was not at issue for the court to decide; rather, the method in which Koch was charged controlled and commanded the attention of the court. The underage drinking charge made it unlawful for "any person under the legal age to knowingly possess or consume alcoholic beverage on private property." The defendant and his girlfriend were admittedly at a house party. Neighbors complaining of the noise and the smell of marijuana called the police. When the police officers arrived, some partygoers fled into the woods and no attempt was made to go after them. Defendant Koch was among those who remained. Patrolman DeWitt lined up all those in the house and told them that they were not free to leave. He then proceeded to "sniff" the breath of everyone in the line. As the officer approached, Koch (according to Officer DeWitt's testimony) allegedly exclaimed, "I only had one." The record states that the officers detained the partygoers for approximately 20 minutes. After the "sniff" tests were completed, no charges were written and the officers discharged everyone.

Later on in the evening, Koch was pulled over by Officer DeWitt and two different stories about the stop were submitted. Koch claimed that he was the driver of his girlfriend's maroon Pontiac and the vehicle was in motion when Officer DeWitt signaled for him to pull over. Officer DeWitt claimed that the car was stationary and that Koch had given him a story that he was driving because his girlfriend Ashley was under 18 and could not drive past midnight. Koch claimed that Officer DeWitt's testimony was not true and attempted to submit a videotape of the stop to impeach his testimony. No charge was issued at the time and Koch was ordered to continue driving. Koch only found out that he was charged with the underage drinking ordinance when he was suspended at school because of it.

At trial, the Municipal Judge and the Law Division would not allow the videotape of the stop to be admitted. The videotape shows that the maroon Pontiac was in motion for a considerable amount of time before being pulled over. The Appellate Division concluded (at the urge of defense counsel) that this tape should have been admitted to impeach Officer Dewitt as a witness (both for the vehicle stop and statements made at the party.)

Perhaps more relevant than the evidentiary issue were the grounds that Koch was charged and the procedure the officers followed in doing so. Koch argued and the Appellate Court agreed that because the partygoers were told that they could not leave, they were considered to be "in custody". Furthermore, the partygoers were subjected to a "sniff" test and were not told that they could refuse to do so. The "sniff" test was administered in a custodial setting and therefore, the officers were required to read Miranda rights to all those detained. Furthermore, the court ruled that a "sniff" test and the officer's testimony of smelling alcohol were insufficient as a matter of law to sustain a conviction. The smell of alcohol can only be used to gain probable cause, not as grounds to convict a suspect. On those grounds, the Appellate Division reversed the conviction.

Continue reading "Were You Read Miranda Rights? Discuss Your Arrest With An Experienced NJ Criminal Defense Attorney." »

The 23rd Annual Chowderfest weekend, takes place October 1 and 2, presented by the Southern Ocean County Chamber of Commerce held at 9th Street and Taylor Avenue, in Beach Haven, Long Beach Island, New Jersey. This is the last busy weekend for visitors, locals and merchants to enjoy great food and music and have fun on Long Beach Island.

Whenever there is a large number of visitors to an event some people will be arrested for disorderly persons offenses, receive motor vehicle violations, drive drunk or commit more serious crimes. If you are arrested on Long Beach Island you need an experienced New Jersey criminal defense attorney to defend your case.

Disorderly persons offenses are a general category of offenses that can have serious consequences. If you are charged with a disorderly persons offense in Barnegat Light, Long Beach Township, Harvey Cedars, Surf City, Ship Bottom, or Beach Haven you could face up to a $1,000.00 fine, may be ordered to pay restitution, spend up to six months in jail, and pay other monetary fines and penalties. Discuss with an experienced LBI criminal defense attorney the alternatives to pleading guilty to a disorderly persons offense.

Commonly written disorderly persons offenses on Long Beach Island include:
disorderly conduct (N.J.S. 2C:33-2), trespass (N.J.S. 2C: 18-3(b)), criminal mischief (N.J.S. 2C: 17-3), simple assault (N.J.S. 2C: 12-1), fake ID (N.J.S. 2C: 28-7), underage drinking (N.J.S. 2C:33-15), possession of CDS (N.J.S. 2C:35-10), and resisting arrest (N.J.S. 2C:29-2).

The municipalities of Long Beach Island saw a combined 985 motor vehicle violations in 2010. Some commonly written motor vehicle violations in Long Beach Island include: speeding (N.J.S. 39:4-98 and N.J.S. 39:4-99), failure to yield to a traffic sign (N.J.S. 39:4-81), reckless driving (N.J.S. 39:4-96), and careless driving (N.J.S. 39:4-97). Long Beach Island also saw 123 DWI, DUI, and refusal offenses written in 2010. These offenses are extremely serious and the penalties can include loss of your driver's license, significant fines, jail time, completion of a program at an Intoxicated Driver Resource Center, and the installation of an ignition interlock device.

LBI police officers wrote numerous charges this summer for possession of fake ID, misrepresentation of age to purchase alcohol and underage drinking. The charge most commonly written falls under the New Jersey Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) laws, a Title 33 offense. More specifically, Long Beach Island Police Officers are writing a N.J.S. 33:1-81 charge to violators. The Title 33 statute makes it a punishable offense to present false identification for the purposes of obtaining alcohol (N.J.S. 33:1-81c). The penalties for a conviction include a mandatory fine of no less than $500.00 and mandatory suspension of your driver's license for 6 months.

In addition to the Fake ID charge, you may also be arrested for the disorderly persons offense of underage drinking (N.J.S. 2C: 33-15). A conviction for underage drinking carries a mandatory $500.00 fine and if you are caught consuming that alcohol in a motor vehicle, you could be facing a 6-month driver's license suspension as well. If you are convicted of both the underage drinking offense and the Fake ID offense you are facing at least $1,000.00 in fines plus other court costs and a suspension of your driver's license for 6 months. Losing your license for 6 months can be quite inconvenient. Quite simply, you will have to either rely on public transportation or others to drive you wherever you need to go.

Continue reading "Arrested in LBI (Long Beach Island)? Call an Experienced LBI Criminal Defense Attorney. " »

If you have been arrested for any disorderly persons offense in Wall, drunk driving in Wall, or have committed a more serious crime in Wall you need an experienced New Jersey criminal defense attorney that is familiar with the location where your incident took place and will work aggressively to defend your case.

Frequently charged disorderly persons offenses in Wall include: disorderly conduct (N.J.S. 2C:33-2), trespass (N.J.S. 2C: 18-3(b)), criminal mischief (N.J.S. 2C: 17-3), simple assault (N.J.S. 2C: 12-1), fake ID (N.J.S. 2C: 28-7), underage drinking (N.J.S. 2C:33-15), possession of CDS (N.J.S. 2C:35-10), and resisting arrest (N.J.S. 2C:29-2). A conviction for a disorderly persons charge can result in fines, jail-time, and in some cases payment of restitution. There are alternatives available to pleading guilty and defenses that can be argued in Wall Township Municipal Court.

There are numerous motor vehicle moving violations in Wall Township issued each day on the congested roads of the Garden State Parkway, Route 34, Route 138 and Route 35. Some common moving violations in Wall include: speeding (N.J.S. 39:4-98 and N.J.S. 39:4-99), failure to yield to a traffic sign (N.J.S. 39:4-81), reckless driving (N.J.S. 39:4-96), and careless driving (N.J.S. 39:4-97). There were over 350 DWI, DUI and refusals in Wall in 2010. Talk to an experienced Wall criminal lawyer about the circumstances of your motor vehicle violation or drunk driving charge before going to Wall Municipal Court.

Continue reading "Arrested in Wall Township? Call an Experienced Wall Criminal Defense Attorney." »

If you have been arrested for any disorderly persons offense in Brick, drunk driving in Brick, or have committed a more serious crime in Brick you need an experienced New Jersey criminal defense attorney that is familiar with the location where your incident took place and will work aggressively to defend your case.

Frequently charged disorderly persons offenses in Brick include: disorderly conduct (N.J.S. 2C:33-2), trespass (N.J.S. 2C: 18-3(b)), criminal mischief (N.J.S. 2C: 17-3), simple assault (N.J.S. 2C: 12-1), fake ID (N.J.S. 2C: 28-7), underage drinking (N.J.S. 2C:33-15), possession of CDS (N.J.S. 2C:35-10), and resisting arrest (N.J.S. 2C:29-2). A conviction for a disorderly persons charge can result in fines, jail-time, and in some cases payment of restitution. There are alternatives available to pleading guilty and defenses that can be argued.

In 2010, there were an estimated 4,000 motor vehicle moving violations in Brick. Some common moving violations in Brick include: speeding (N.J.S. 39:4-98 and N.J.S. 39:4-99), failure to yield to a traffic sign (N.J.S. 39:4-81), reckless driving (N.J.S. 39:4-96), and careless driving (N.J.S. 39:4-97). There were over 300 DWI, DUI and refusals in Brick in 2010. Talk to an experienced Brick criminal lawyer about the circumstances of your motor vehicle violation or drunk driving charge before going to court.

Continue reading "Arrested In Brick? Call An Experienced Brick Criminal Defense Attorney. " »

New Jersey law enforcement officers, including local police officers and State Troopers, have a goal of preventing drunk driving in New Jersey during the last days of summer. The New Jersey Division of Highway Traffic Safety is utilizing the Drunk Driving- Over the Limit, Under Arrest and the Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over campaigns. From August 19 through September 5 many local and state law enforcement officers will be conducting field sobriety checkpoints.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 1990 (Michigan v. Sitz) upheld the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints. The Court held that the interest in reducing alcohol-impaired driving was sufficient to justify the brief intrusion of a sobriety checkpoint. If conducted properly, sobriety checkpoints do not constitute illegal search and seizure in most states. Click here for further information of sobriety checkpoints.

Penalties for a first offense DWI in New Jersey can include loss of your driver's license from 7 months to 1 year, a fine of up to $500.00, 12 to 48 hours of detainment and/or counseling as prescribed by the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center, up to 30 days in jail, mandatory installation of an Ignition Interlock Device, and other fines and penalties. An experienced New Jersey DWI criminal defense attorney may uncover possible defenses to your case to minimize the penalties you are facing.

Due to the fact that no New Jersey DWI, New Jersey DUI, or New Jersey refusal case has the same set of facts, an experienced New Jersey DWI attorney, will take the time to discuss and review with you:
• The circumstances that permitted the stop;
• The tests the police conducted to determine if you were intoxicated;
• The specific results of the breathalyzer, Alcotest®, or blood test that the State will use against you;
• The adherence by the police to the strict procedures necessary to sustain a valid blood alcohol content (BAC) reading;
• The possible fines and penalties you may be sentenced to if convicted of a New Jersey DWI, DUI, or refusal;
• The possible suspension of your New Jersey or other state's driver's license;
• The possible installation of an ignition interlock device in your vehicle;
• The possibility of being sentenced to jail;
• The determination of whether the use of expert witnesses would be a benefit in defending your case;
• The review of all possible defenses and mitigating factors to obtain the best result.

Continue reading "New Jersey Drunk Driving Crackdown! If You Are Arrested For Drunking Driving In New Jersey Call An Experienced NJ DWI Lawyer." »

It was recently reported in the Asbury Park Press that Seaside Heights police are cracking down on disorderly conduct on the Seaside Heights boardwalk and surrounding areas of the borough. If you have been arrested for any disorderly persons offense in Seaside Heights, drunk driving in Seaside Heights, or have committed a more serious crime in Seaside Heights you need an experienced New Jersey criminal defense attorney that is familiar with the location where your incident took place and will work aggressively to defend your case.

Frequently charged disorderly persons offenses in Seaside Heights include: disorderly conduct (N.J.S. 2C:33-2), trespass (N.J.S. 2C: 18-3(b)), criminal mischief (N.J.S. 2C: 17-3), simple assault (N.J.S. 2C: 12-1), fake ID (N.J.S. 2C: 28-7), underage drinking (N.J.S. 2C:33-15), possession of CDS (N.J.S. 2C:35-10), and resisting arrest (N.J.S. 2C:29-2). A conviction for a disorderly persons charge in New Jersey can result in fines, jail time, probation, community service and in some cases payment of restitution. There are alternatives available to pleading guilty and defenses that can be argued.

In 2010, there were over 900 motor vehicle moving violations in Seaside Heights. Some common moving violations in Seaside Heights include: speeding (N.J.S. 39:4-98 and N.J.S. 39:4-99), failure to yield to a traffic sign (N.J.S. 39:4-81), reckless driving (N.J.S. 39:4-96), and careless driving (N.J.S. 39:4-97). There were 120 DWI, DUI and refusals in Seaside Heights in 2010. Talk to an experienced Seaside Heights criminal lawyer about the circumstances of your motor vehicle violation or drunk driving charge before going to court.

Continue reading "Arrested in Seaside Heights? Call an Experienced Seaside Heights Criminal Defense Attorney." »

It was recently reported in the Asbury Park Press that Point Pleasant Beach police are cracking down on disorderly conduct on the Point Pleasant Beach boardwalk and surrounding areas of the borough. If you have been arrested for any disorderly persons offense in Point Pleasant Beach, drunk driving in Point Pleasant Beach, or have committed a more serious crime in Point Pleasant Beach you need an experienced New Jersey criminal defense attorney that is familiar with the location where your incident took place and will work aggressively to defend your case.

Frequently charged disorderly persons offenses in Point Pleasant Beach include: disorderly conduct (N.J.S. 2C:33-2), trespass (N.J.S. 2C: 18-3(b)), criminal mischief (N.J.S. 2C: 17-3), simple assault (N.J.S. 2C: 12-1), fake ID (N.J.S. 2C: 28-7), underage drinking (N.J.S. 2C:33-15), possession of CDS (N.J.S. 2C:35-10), and resisting arrest (N.J.S. 2C:29-2). A conviction for a disorderly persons charge can result in fines, jail-time, and in some cases payment of restitution. There are alternatives available to pleading guilty and defenses that can be argued.

In 2010, there were over 630 motor vehicle moving violations in Point Pleasant Beach. Some common moving violations in Point Pleasant Beach include: speeding (N.J.S. 39:4-98 and N.J.S. 39:4-99), failure to yield to a traffic sign (N.J.S. 39:4-81), reckless driving (N.J.S. 39:4-96), and careless driving (N.J.S. 39:4-97). There were over 119 DWI, DUI and refusals in Point Pleasant Beach in 2010. Talk to an experienced Point Pleasant Beach criminal lawyer about the circumstances of your motor vehicle violation or drunk driving charge before going to court.

Continue reading "Arrested in Point Pleasant Beach? Call an Experienced Point Pleasant Beach Criminal Lawyer." »