New Jersey Criminal Lawyers Blog

In a recent New Jersey Appellate Division case, the three Judge panel concluded that cellular telephone location searches are valid according to the Constitution of New Jersey. State of New Jersey v. Thomas W. Earls, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, DOCKET NO. A-2084-07T4, decided July 11, 2011. According to police officers, a cell phone signal was used to track a suspect from a string of burglaries. The signal could not lead them directly to the suspect; it could only point them in a general area. Once the general area was determined, police then had to move in and physically search for the suspect.

The suspect in this case, as mentioned, was involved in a number of burglaries and police officers were eager to track him down. One of the reported victims told police that the suspect had stolen his cellular phone. The police then obtained a cell phone data warrant and located the phone. The new "owner" of the stolen phone was arrested but was not the suspect the police were seeking. The new owner knew the suspect and told police that he had a storage unit with his quasi-girlfriend where he kept stolen property. Armed with the identity of the sometimes girlfriend, Middletown Police located her for questioning. The girlfriend led police to the storage unit and signed a release for the storage company to break the lock of the storage unit. When inside, Middletown Police found a number of stolen items leading police to obtain a warrant for the suspect's arrest.

Armed with a warrant for the suspects arrest and concern for the suspect's girlfriend's safety, the police began to aggressively search for him. Middletown Police Officers contacted T-Mobile, the suspect's cell phone carrier, and asked them to locate the suspect. T-Mobile stated that they could not provide police with an exact location, but could give them a general area to search. Although there were a series of misses, police eventually located the suspect at a hotel in Howell on Route 9.

Once inside, police officers presented the warrant and made the arrest. Officers later testified that they had taken a flat screen TV from the room as well as other merchandise because it was "in plain view", not requiring a separate warrant. During the "plain view" search, the officers took a suitcase and later asked the suspect if they could go through it. He consented and officers found more stolen goods and an undisclosed amount of marijuana. The suspect was indicted for: burglary (N.J.S.A. 2C: 18-2), theft of moveable property (N.J.S.A. 2C: 20-3(a)), receiving stolen property (N.J.S.A. 2C: 20-3(a)), and possession of marijuana (N.J.S.A. 2C: 35-10(a)(3)).

On appeal, the defendant alleged a constitutional violation of his right to privacy. His main argument was that police officers obtained information from his cell phone carrier, without a warrant, to locate him. The defendant claimed he was the victim of an illegal search and seizure. The Court had to decide if the search was violative of Article I, paragraph 7, of the New Jersey Constitution, which protects citizens of New Jersey from illegal search and seizure. The Court determined that the defendant's rights had not ultimately been violated because (1) the cell phone trace did not lead the police directly to him (only a general area), and (2) the use of a tracking device (in this case a phone) tracked the defendant through public roads and highways where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. There are a string of cases the court used to affirm their decision that essentially state the same principle. In this case, the Appellate Division upheld the lower courts ruling and the defendant's convictions did in fact stand.

Continue reading "Cell Phone Triangulation NOT Violative of New Jersey Constitution! Call an Experienced NJ Criminal Defense Attorney to Discuss your Case! " »

What many might not know, is that Monmouth County and all New Jersey law enforcement officials have an obligation and have been authorized to communicate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during certain arrests and violations. It might be obvious to most that immigration status and citizenship must be verified if an individual commits a serious or violent indictable offense in Monmouth County. But what is not immediately obvious is that an individual being pulled over and charged with driving drunk or driving while intoxicated in New Jersey can be deported as a result of the report to ICE.

In general, immigrants to the United States can be deported for a number of reasons including criminal activity, violent crimes, and marriage fraud. In 2007, now former Attorney General of New Jersey, Anne Milgram wrote and circulated "Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive No. 2007-3." In the Directive distributed to New Jersey law enforcement officials including Monmouth County, Ms. Milgram charged the State that officers should, "Necessarily and appropriately inquire about a person's immigration status under certain circumstances." One particular circumstance enumerated in the Directive is, "The arrest of undocumented immigrants for indictable offenses AND driving while intoxicated [violations]." It charges that if an arrest is made in conjunction with a DWI, the arresting officer must inquire about the immigrant's status and if appropriate must report it to ICE. This could ultimately lead to a deportation if a conviction for DWI is sustained and possibly even if it is not.

Some recent statistics have circulated via the Associated Press indicating that deportations due to DWI are significantly on the rise. In 2010, there were just about 393,000 deported individuals. Of those deported, an estimated 27,635 or 7 percent were deported due to DWI related incidents. In short, the Directive seems to have taken full effect. On it's face, the policy seems fair and just, but people are urged to keep in mind that New Jersey does not consider a DWI related offense a criminal offense as some other states do.

A conviction for a DWI, DUI, or refusal can lead to very severe penalties. For a first conviction of DWI in Monmouth County, an individual faces heavy fines and other fees, jail time, loss of their driver's license for up to 1 year, participation in an Intoxicated Driver Resource Center program, and the possible installation of an ignition interlock device. If an individual has a questionable immigration status, he or she could be facing deportation as well! Any non-citizen DWI offenders are encouraged to contact an experienced immigration attorney in addition to a Monmouth County DWI lawyer.

Continue reading "Deportation Due to a NJ DWI is on the Rise; Call a Monmouth County DWI Lawyer to Defend Your Case!" »

In the case of State of New Jersey v. Daniel Twian Brown, the Supreme Court of New Jersey in a decision dated January 25, 2011 held that the police had probable cause to arrest Mr. Brown after he came down from a roof by fleeing from a window at his girlfriend's apartment. Mr. Brown immediately fled to a public area when the police arrived to arrest him at his girlfriend's apartment. The police had sufficient probable cause to believe he committed a series of armed robberies from statements made by his co-defendants. The police did not need an arrest warrant for Mr. Brown in public. The police also had probable cause to arrest Mr. Brown for his conduct in resisting arrest, which they observed. Although there were defective arrest warrants that lacked probable cause, Mr. Brown's post-arrest statements following his lawful arrest were admissible.

The facts of this case involved the arrest of Mr. Brown on January 1, 2005. At the time of the arrest no judicial officer had reviewed the complaints or authorized Mr. Brown's arrest. Ten police officers went to Mr. Brown's girlfriend's apartment. Mr. Brown jumped out a window on to the roof of an adjacent building when the police knocked.

The Court's analysis stated the existing law regarding a warrantless arrest. For an arrest there must be probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person sought to be arrested committed the offense. The statements of Brown's co-defendants implicating him in the armed robberies met that test.

Absent exigent circumstances or consent, the police must obtain a warrant to conduct an arrest inside a home. To search for the subject of an arrest warrant in the home of a third party, the police must also obtain a search warrant, absent exigent circumstances or consent. Brown transformed the situation from an arrest in a third-party's private apartment, where police would need an arrest and search warrant, to the public arena, where the police could arrest him without a warrant based on probable cause that he committed the armed robbery.

Felony arrests made in public places and supported by probable cause can be valid without a warrant. Brown's conduct in the presence of the police provided an alternative basis to arrest him. After jumping onto an adjacent roof, Brown created a twenty-minute standoff with the police in a public place, posing a risk to the officers and the public. Brown chose not to stand his ground in his girlfriend's apartment and submit to a warrantless arrest, and instead fled and engaged in a public standoff.

The lesson of this case for defendants is not to flee to a public place if you know the police don't have an arrest warrant or search warrant. You have much more protections under the Fourth Amendment search and seizure laws while in your home or a third-party's home than you do in a public place.

Continue reading "Supreme Court Of New Jersey Allows Warrantless Arrest For Man Who Jumps Out Window Onto Roof And Rules His Statements Are Admissible." »

In its October 4th 'Around the State' feature, the Star Ledger reports the arrest of a 37-year-old Seaside Heights man, accused of an attempted home robbery in nearby Seaside Park, in which the two victims of the attempted robbery were stabbed. The man charged, Mark Snitzer, is currently being held at the Ocean County jail in lieu of $750,000 bail. We hasten to add the obvious truth that being charged with a crime is not the same thing as having committed a crime. Mr. Snitzer is entitled, at the least, to his day in court.

Mr. Snitzer has been charged with two counts of attempted murder, two counts of attempted robbery, and one count of unlawful possession of a weapon.

The attempted robbery and stabbing victims were taken to Jersey Shore Medical Center in the wake of the attack, and were listed in stable condition, according to the Star Ledger story.

Two attempted murder charges obviously represent very serious legal jeopardy. Attempting murder while in the act of another felony or felonies is an even more serious matter. It is not mentioned in the Star Ledger report, but it seems likely that Mr. Snitzer, who was arrested the morning after the crimes took place, was identified by the victims as the individual who committed the crimes. Again, it is appropriate to add here that being identified by the victims of a crime as having committed that crime is not the same thing as having committed that crime. In this country- and let's all be thankful for it- we have established court procedures informed by our state's and our nation's constitutional protections.

It is unclear what other evidence ties Mr. Snitzer to the crimes. Michael Mohel, deputy chief of detectives for the Ocean County Prosecutor's Office declined to tell the Star Ledger whether anything was stolen from the victims' home, or how the victims may have known Mr. Snitzer. Mr. Mohel noted that the case is still under investigation.

What can be said for certain at this time is that the police knew enough about the circumstances surrounding the crimes to arrive at Mr. Snitzer's door the morning after the robbery. It is likely the arrest occurred pursuant to an arrest warrant, as the police arrested Mr. Snitzer at his home and there was no indication of exceptional circumstances attending the arrest. Generally speaking, police can arrest someone in public without the need of an arrest warrant if they have probable cause that a crime was committed. , A judge or magistrate will determine whether the officer had probable cause to make the arrest, if the arrest is challenged by a criminal defense attorney. However, and again, generally speaking, when police arrest individuals in their homes, particularly in cases where the police go to the homes with that intention, an arrest warrant is necessary.

The crimes in this case took place at approximately 9 p.m. on Saturday evening, and the arrest of Mr. Snitzer occurred at 8 a.m. on Sunday morning. That timing, and the likelihood that an arrest warrant was issued for Mr. Snitzer- and therefore issued between the time the crimes took place and the arrest- suggest that police decided early on, for whatever reason or constellation of reasons, that Mr. Snitzer was their man. In this country, that's not the end of the story for Mr. Snitzer. Now the Ocean County Prosecutor's Office must decide whether to prosecute Mr. Snitzer. If so, the State will have the burden of proving its case to a jury that Mr. Snitzer, beyond a reasonable doubt, committed the crimes with which he's been charged.

We'll keep tabs on this case as it progresses through the criminal justice process.