New Jersey Criminal Lawyers Blog

In the case of State v. Coviello, a New Jersey Appellate Division panel, in a per curiam unpublished decision, ruled that a police officer, who was alerted to an outstanding warrant via a random plate look-up, had the requisite reasonable suspicion necessary to execute the traffic stop that led to the defendant's arrest. In so ruling, the Appellate Division panel reversed a Law Division order suppressing the motor vehicle stop.

In the case, the police officer was on traffic patrol and randomly entered defendant's license plate number into the Mobile Data Terminal installed in his patrol car. Info Cop, a software product that facilitates access to a searchable database of New Jersey DMV records, reported back through the terminal that the plate number entered was registered to an individual with an open warrant on his record.The police officer then executed a traffic stop of the car, which resulted in the defendant's arrest.

The Appellate Division panel ruled that, given the data available to the police officer from his Mobile Data Terminal, the police officer had a reasonable suspicion that stopping the vehicle bearing the license plate number he had entered into the system would enable the execution of the outstanding warrant (either because the driver of the car would be the owner of the vehicle, or because information gathered from the stop would lead to the whereabouts of the owner of the vehicle).

Apparently, the Law Division judge felt the officer did not have the reasonable suspicion necessary to execute the traffic stop; either because he did not have it on the merits, or because he came upon it impermissibly.

With the traffic stop reinstated as permissible, the matter has been remanded to the trial level for reinstatement of the defendant's initial guilty plea to DWI and refusing to submit to a breathalyzer test.

Continue reading "New Jersey Appellate Division Panel Says Open Warrant Alert Through Mobile Data Terminal Provided Police Officer With Reasonable Suspicion To Execute Traffic Stop That Led To Arrest" »

Elections for student council at a local Point Pleasant, Ocean County, New Jersey middle school not only ended in controversy, but the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division Criminal Part, became involved over allegations of criminal cyber-bullying.

Student council elections at Point Pleasant Memorial Middle School this year were hotly contested, as the winning candidate for vice president of the student government, a 12 year old boy, found himself embroiled in a political fight involving his mother, Susan Rogers, the Point Pleasant Borough Council President, and newly elected councilman Christopher Goss, as well as school board members and the parent of the student who the boy defeated in the school election.

Councilman Goss' Facebook page was where much of the drama began as the mother of the defeated candidate, Ann Hoffman-Zitarosa, wrote that she believed the young student had "bought" the election and that he was "slime" adding that the proverbial apple "doesn't fall far from the tree."

The electoral intrigue did not end however. Not satisfied to smear young Mr. Rogers on Facebook with mere words, pictures of the 12 year olds' campaign signs vandalized with crude sexual drawings also appeared online. The postings involving Rogers prompted another adult in a position of authority in the Point Pleasant school system to post on Facebook that the young boy could not help who his mother was and that he was learning from "a political machine that only knew how to use money to win friends & votes."

Once word leaked out that Susan Rogers had complained to the school board about the attention her son was receiving, a local blogger named Laura Beeden posted a suggestion on her blog that the mother-son duo were attempting to alter election results with bribes. The school election was controversial to the extent that the Superintendent of Point Pleasant Borough launched an investigation into the results of the student council race, finding that young Mr. Rogers had won his election fairly.

Criminal charges were filed against the adults. A Superior Court Judge found that there was a lack of probable cause to pursue the disorderly persons complaints which had been filed against Goss, school board member Joan Speroni, and Hoffman-Zitarosa. Susan Rogers was undeterred by the dismissal of the criminal charges and stated that she was pursuing civil remedies for defamation of character and libel, recently having sought an attorney to represent her son in the manner. For his part, Mr. Goss claims that this is all a political ploy by Susan Rogers, and that neither she nor her son could have seen the posts without monitoring his online activity.

In New Jersey, cyber bullying is covered under N.J.S.A. 2C:16-1, a statute dealing with bias and intimidation. The penalties for actions such as cyber bullying are covered under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-3.8. There are also resources throughout the state aimed at stopping cyber bullying, such as www.njbiascrime.org, and legislation enacted in 2002, N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13, requires school districts to adopt policies that combat bullying.

SOURCE: Asbury Park Press, "Judge drops cyberbullying charges," by Erik Larsen, Staff Writer, December 16, 2010.

Ocean County and Monmouth County, New Jersey have yet to see a publicized case regarding the recent "sexting" phenomenon. "Sexting" has been defined as sending sexually suggestive messages or images to another person via a cell phone, or posting suggestive messages or images on social network websites such as Facebook and Myspace.

nj.com article and Miller v. Mitchell case

Northern New Jersey has seen two publicized cases in Glen Rock and Clifton, both involving 14-year-old girls. Both cases were not prosecuted. In the Glen Rock case the school district held assemblies on cyber awareness for middle school and high school students. In the Clifton case, the girl caught sexting was ordered to complete six (6) months of counseling.

LINK to nj.com article

The most publicized legal case in the mid-atlantic states occurred in Wyoming County, Pennsylvania. This case reached the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The teens suspected of "sexting" were given a choice of either attending an education program designed by the District Attorney or face felony child pornography charges. The District Attorney considered the pictures transmitted by the two girls provocative. The teens' parents brought suit to enjoin the District Attorney from bringing criminal charges in retaliation for their refusal to attend the education program. The Third Circuit Court affirmed that the teens were entitle to preliminary injunctive relief because the District Attorney violated the teens' First Amendment right to free expression to appear in two photographs, freedom from compelled speech by being required to explain their wrong actions in an essay, and the parents' Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right was violated to allow them to direct their children's upbringing, by retaliating against them with criminal prosecution because they failed to attend the education program.

Miller v. Mitchell case

There are a number of New Jersey criminal law statutes that an individual could violate by committing an act of "sexting." The most serious would be distribution of child pornography. For example, someone receiving a photograph on a cell phone and then forwarding it to other cell phones could be in violation of this statute. Another charge would be possession of child pornography. Other charges that could be prosecuted for "sexting" are endangering the welfare of a child, harassment, stalking, and possibly domestic violence. An experienced criminal defense attorney will have to fully evaluate each set of circumstances presented by the client to determine how law enforcement obtained the "sexting" material that led to criminal charges to best defend a client through a motion to suppress evidence or an entrapment argument.

It is likely that in the near future the State of New Jersey legislature will pass new legislation regarding "sexting" as more teens and young adults continue this practice. Schools will have to develop new education programs on "sexting" along with public interest advertisements which can already be seen on television. Law enforcement is likely to take these cases more seriously when circumstance present a juvenile selling photographs of a fellow juvenile to an adult for child pornography distribution. With the ever evolving technology of cellular phones and mini-computers the laws regarding "sexting" will be changing frequently in the near future.

SOURCES

nj.com "The Sexting Generation" by Peggy O'Crowley, August 13, 2009, Inside Jersey.

Miller v. Mitchell, U.S. Court of Appeals for 3rd Circuit, Case No. 09-2144, opinion filed March 17, 2010.