Lack of Consent to Search Permits Withdrawal of Guilty Plea in NJ

Police received a tip from an informant about two black males selling drugs out of a car belonging to defendant. When police located the vehicle at the location provided, they notified defendant of their belief there were drugs in the trunk and requested permission to search. Upon denial of consent to search, officers proceeded to open the trunk and located the drugs the informant stated they would find. After entering a plea of guilty to two counts of third-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) with intent to distribute, the defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea. In spite of the fact defendant may have been notified of his right to file a suppression motion, and that his right would be waived by entering a plea of guilty, defendant chose to plead guilty. Defendant later filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. After the Court below denied the defendant the relief sought, the New Jersey Appellate Court found that the Motion to withdraw the plea should have been granted. Defendant's appeal was granted on his contention that he did not consent to the search of the trunk of his car. Defendant claimed that he expressly denied consent to open the trunk of the car but the police did not honor his rights. Because the search may have violated defendant's rights, granting defendant's motion to withdraw the guilty plea was appropriate. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter. If you face criminal charges as a result of an illegal search, you should consult an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information regarding illegal search and seizure, 4th Amendment rights, drug charges or other criminal law matters, including municipal court matters, in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com.

Incarceration For Willful Non-Payment of Child Support in NJ Requires Specific Findings of Fact

At times, failure to pay child support is intentional and other times it is unintentional. Judges may not make arbitrary decisions based upon their personal judgments as to the character of the non-paying individual. In the case in which such findings may lead to incarceration or invasion of the individual's rights from an order to wean and ankle bracelet for monitoring, this is even more so. When a court is making a finding regarding the ability of a child support obligor to pay, the judge is required to permit the obligor to testify on his or her own behalf and to present evidence in support of their inabilty to pay. Due to changed circumstances such as job loss, other court ordered obligations, failure of a business, disability, lack of work or other reasons for reduced income an obligor may be entitled to a reduction in child support and some flexibility regarding payment of arrears. A judge must set forth on the record specific finding of facts as to how they reached their decision in a matter. When an obligor's freedom and rights are at stake, the requirement of clear reasons from an unbiased point of view is even more necessary. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter. If you are seeking, or subject to, enforcement or modification of child support in Family Court, you should consult an experienced family law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on child support, enforcement, modification, alimony, divorce, dissolution of civil union or domestic partnership, custody or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com.

Motions for Reconsideration in NJ Family Court

Due to the highly sensitive nature of family court matters, one or both of the parties is often unhappy with the decision of the judge in their matter. A party unhappy with the judge's decision has the right to seek reconsideration of that decision by following the appropriate guidelines and procedures. Two critical issues in deciding whether to seek reconsideration are burden of proof required to justify reconsideration and the timeliness of the Motion for Reconsideration. The controlling New Jersey Court Rule 4:49-2 states that the Motion must be served within 20 days of the service of judgment on all parties and must state the specific basis on which the Motion is made, including a statement of the matters or controlling decision which the party making the Motion believes the court has overlooked or as to which it has made an error in judgment. Courts often see Motions for Reconsideration because a party is unhappy with the judge's decision but there are occasions upon which there are pertinent facts or decisions overlooked in the initial hearing or there may simply be an error the judge's decision. In light of the fact that the instances in which a Motion for reconsideration is granted are rare, such Motions must be carefully drafted. Such Motions should only be sought after serious consideration is given to the matter and the likelihood of success seems strong. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter. If you are seeking reconsideration of a Family Court decision, you should consult an experienced family law attorney immediately in order to determine the likelihood of meeting the criteria and in order to file timely. For more information on reconsideration, modification, alimony, divorce, dissolution of civil union or domestic partnership, custody, child support or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com.

State Must Prove Operation of Vehicle to Win DUI Case in NJ

In NJ, courts have the discretion to broadly construe "operation" of a motor vehicle to include intent to drive while intoxicated. Intent to drive while under the influence has been proven by as little as sitting in a vehicle with the keys in your possession. There is not a true "motion" requirement for the vehicle and the arresting officer need not witness operation. However, no matter how amorphous the definition of "operation" may be, the fact remains that the prosecution bears the burden of proving the defendant was impaired, had the means to operate a vehicle in very close proximity and the intent to operate said vehicle while still under the influence of drugs or alcohol. A DWI in New Jersey carries serious consequences. If you are charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, illegal drugs such as heroin, cocaine, marijuana or ecstasy or prescription drugs such as oxycontin, percocet, roxycottin, valium or other drugs which may hinder your ability to drive, even if you have a prescription for them, you should consult an experienced DUI attorney immediately in order to ensure your rights are protected. Before conceding guilt, your matter should be fully reviewed by an experienced attorney to prevent you from being convicted when the state does not have adequate evidence to prove it's case. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter. If you are charged with a crime, you should consult an experienced DUI attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on driving while intoxicated, driving under the influence, controlled dangerous substances (CDS) in a motor vehicle or other criminal law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com.

Removal of a Child From Their Native Country Under the Laws of NJ

The Hague Convention is an international law into which countries may enter for the purposes of international cooperation. The Hague Convention has been signed by 89 countries. Haiti, Nepal and the Russian Federation have signed but not ratified. The Hague Convention has sections pertaining to international abduction of a child. One sections requires the return of a child wrongfully removed from their habitual residence as long as the action for return is filed within one year of the date the child is removed. Any application filed after one year requires the court to consider whether the child is well-settled in the new country of residence. Exceptions to the one year timeframe include a showing that the abducting parent has taken steps to conceal the child's whereabouts from the parent seeking return or there is grave risk of harm to the child by the receiving state or family members therein. There are defenses which may be asserted by the parent who removed the child from their native country. In the event the other parent consented to removal, the court will not force a return of the child to their habitual residence. If the child is old enough to make such a decision, the child may decide whether they wish to stay in the country to which they have been removed or return to their habitual residence. Finally, if there is grave risk of physical or psychological harm to the child in their new residence, the court will order the return of the child to their habitual residence. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter. If you are seeking to remove a child from or have a child returned to another state or territory, you should consult an experienced family law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on relocating with children, child custody, child support, enforcement, modification, alimony, divorce, dissolution of civil union or domestic partnership, custody or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com.

Presumed Innocent Until Proven Guilty in NJ

Often those facing criminal charges find themselves facing substantial prosecutorial prejudice, especially if they have faced prior charges. Even those who have been acquitted of prior charges or who have had prior charges dismissed by the prosecution face such prejudice. Prosecutors rely heavily on the representations of police officers and work under the assumption that the facts presented by those officers are truthful. Prosecutors are involved in long-term investigations and oversee task forces in which police officers operate in the field to obtain information for prosecutors to use to obtain convictions against criminal offenders. In such cases, the prosecutor is intimately involved in the development of the evidence he or she will later present to a judge in order to obtain a conviction. The prosecutor is not simply putting on the State's case but is, in essence, putting on his or her own personal case against the defendant. As a result of their personal involvement and reliance on officers, prosecutors are rather zealous at times, sometimes overly so. Prosecutors must act within the bounds of the law. One way prosecutors overstep the rules is to attempt to shift the burden of proof to the accused in the minds of the jury. They will try to infer to the jury that if the defendant chooses to exercise his right not to testify against himself or herself then the jury may infer guilt. In a recent case, State v. Urgent, the defendant was convicted of robbery and unlawful possession of a weapon (a knife). The prosecutor attempted to influence the jury to believe the defendant's failure to produce certain witnesses permitted the jury to infer the defendant's guilt. The New Jersey Appellate Court's holding in State v. Urgent reinforced the notion that a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty and that the burden of proof remains on the prosecutor by reversing the guilty finding and remanding the case to Superior Court for a new trial. This means the prosecutor must prove the accused is guilty and, although the accused should present any available evidence in his or her favor, the accused is never required to prove innocence. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter. If you are facing criminal charges, you should consult an experienced criminal law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on criminal law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com.

NJ Rape Shield Law Protects Content of Messages To And From A Child In A Criminal Trial

A defendant accused of aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault and endangering the welfare of a child may introduce, at trial, evidence of the child's participation in communications constituting "sexual conduct." Lack of opportunity to introduce the fact that communications existed could deprive a defendant of their right to defend against the State's charges and evidence needed for a fair trial must be admitted as long as the value of the proofs are not outweighed by their prejudicial effect. The fact that a child previously participated in the exchange of text messages and internet communications with adult males while the child also pretended to be an adult may be introduced as evidence by the defendant. However, the specific content of the messages is protected under the New Jersey Rape Shield Law (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-7) based on the notion that any probative value of the content of the messages is substantially outweighed by the prejudice the messages would cause. The goal of the court in making this determination is to serve the interests of justice while protecting the privacy of the victim. The NJ Rape Shield Law is not limited to the protection of children but was amended in 1988 to include children under its protection. The law is intended to limit the introduction of the victim's prior sexual behavior to both protect the victim's privacy as well as prevent prejudice in the minds of the jury regarding the victim and any potential to have been a willing participant in the defendant's conduct. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter. If you are accused of a sex crime, you should consult an experienced criminal law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on sex offenses or other criminal law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com.

Substantial Increase in Penalties for Harboring a Sex Offender in NJ?

Pending legislation in New Jersey would increase the penalty for harboring or concealing a sex offender. The current offense grades for violating N.J.S. 2C:29-3 are 3rd degree if the sex offender is guilty of a 2nd degree offense and 4th degree if the sex offender is guilty of a 3rd degree offense. Any lesser offense on the part of the sex offender would subject the individual harboring or concealing the offender to a disorderly persons offense. If passed Assembly bill A-2079 subject an actor harboring or concealing a person subject to registration as a sex offender while the person has knowledge the sex offender has not registered to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment without eligibility for parole. In the event the offense is of the 3rd degree, the actor would be ineligible for parole for a minimum of 3 years. In the event the offense is of the 4th degree, the actor would be eligible for parole for a minimum of 1 year. This bill is sponsored by Assemblywomen Munoz, serving Morris, Somerset and Union, and Simon, serving Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex and Somerset, and Assemblyman Caputo, serving Essex County. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter. If you are accused of a sex offense or harboring a sex offender, you should consult an experienced criminal law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on sex offenses or other criminal law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com.