No Right To Detain Suspects Away From Premises While Executing Warrant

In the execution of a warrant, police knowingly allowed suspects to leave the apartment and travel approximately one mile prior to stopping the vehicle and returning the occupants to the apartment where the police search team was already at work and found a gun and drugs. The police then arrested the men and discovered that a key located during a patdown search at the motor vehicle stop unlocked the apartment door. Defendant moved to suppress statements to the police made during the motor vehicle stop and the apartment key itself. The district court denied the motion indicating the motor vehicle stop and return to the apartment was justified as a detention incident to the execution of a search warrant under Michigan v. Summers. The United States Supreme Court reviewed the matter of Bailey v. United States and read Summers as allowing detention of the occupants of the premises during a valid search without particularized suspicion as to the involvement of the occupant in potential criminal activity. The court found three interests of law enforcement justifying the detention including 1) officer safety, 2) preventing interference with the search or destruction of evidence and 3) preventing those who may be guilty from fleeing. Upon considering the distance of the defendants from the apartment the US Supreme Court held that the arrest approximately a mile away "involved an additional level of intrusiveness" detention beyond the immediate vicinity of the premises is invalid. Motions to suppress evidence are difficult but possible if the appropriate facts exist and may result in the dismissal of the prosecution's case against you. If you are charged with a crime in New Jersey, you should immediately hire an experienced criminal attorney who will review the facts of the case and determine how to best help you to defeat the charges against you. For more information on illegal searches, motions to suppress or other criminal matters including drug (CDS), gun, assault, domestic violence, burglary, theft, shoplifting and DUI/DWI in NJ visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter.

Limited Access to Discovery for Child Pornography Defense?

The New Jersey Supreme Court is weighing whether defendant is entitled to equal opportunity to review the prosecution’s discovery in a case involving child pornography. Defendant was charged with second-degree and fourth-degree counts of child-welfare endangerment after a search pursuant to a valid warrant revealed alleged child pornography on his home computer. In State v. Scoles, the defense sought to challenge the authenticity of images the State claimed to be child pornography. When the prosecution refused to permit the defendant unfettered access to the images and only agreed to permit limited review at the Somerset County Prosecutor’s Office. Defendant filed a motion to obtain the discovery in order to obtain exact copies of the images in order that defense counsel have convenient and unlimited review at all times as the prosecution would have during their trial preparation. The Superior Court Judge denied the defendant’s motion and an interlocutory appeal was also denied. The NJ Supreme Court is now considering whether permitting defense counsel to review the images within the prosecutor’s office only, and upon 48 hours notice, adequately served defendant’s right to review discovery in an effort to prepare a defense. Lawyers for the defense, and in amicus capacity, presented arguments based on the need for unlimited access in preparation and methods to protect the information from further dissemination including limiting who may review the images and requiring that they be installed on a device without ability to transmit. The prosecution’s argument centered on the premise that the need to prevent further dissemination of the images outweighed the need for defense counsel to review the images outside the prosecutor’s office, at any hour and without notice. The prosecution argued that computers keep a record of images displayed on them and returning the hard drive would not render the computer clean or protect the subjects of the images from further dissemination of said images. If you have been charged with a crime in New Jersey, you should obtain experienced defense counsel immediately to insure your rights are protected and the prosecution is not withholding exculpatory evidence, any search and seizure was proper, the state had probable cause and other facets of the case your defense attorney may challenge. 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 sex-offenses, child welfare-endangerment, child pornography or other criminal law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter.

Waiver of Juveniles to Adult Court is Now Subject to Higher Level of Scrutiny in NJ

Prosecutors showing probable cause that a juvenile committed certain enumerated violent and drug related offenses may waive juvenile offenders over 16 from the jurisdiction of the family court to adult criminal court. Previously the standard of review was "patent and gross abuse of discretion" when the prosecutor's decision to waive the juvenile into adult criminal court was challenged. On September 12, 2012, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided, in State in the Interest of V.A., changed the standard of review to the much lower standard of "abuse of discretion." The justices opinion indicated the lower standard was preferable due to the substantially enhanced punishment faced by juveniles tried in adult criminal court. In this case, the juveniles were charged with conduct amounting to first-degree robbery, second-degree aggravated assault and conspiracy. The justices, in consideration of the serious penalties for the offenses, offered guidelines governing the waiver of juveniles into adult criminal court including the nature of the offense, the need for deterrence, the possible sentence the juvenile will receive at trial and the juvenile's prior record. Juvenile matters are extremely sensitive in nature as they may result in a criminal record which destroys the hope of certain educational and employment opportunities for the remainder of the juvenile's life. If your son or daughter is facing criminal charges, you should consult an experienced criminal law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on juvenile criminal matters including municipal court matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter.

When Juveniles May Be Tried As Adults in NJ

Most NJ juvenile matters are under the jurisdiction of the Family Court. Upon satisfaction of the probable cause standard, prosecutors can obtain waiver of juveniles 14 or older to adult court if the juveniles commit certain enumerated crimes. In the case of juveniles ages 16 and 17, there is no right to present evidence of a reasonable prospect of rehabilitation outweighing the reasons supporting waiver to an adult trial. In a recent case in which juveniles seeking revenge were charged with murder, aggravated assault, conspiracy and attempted murder were fighting transfer from the Family Part to adult court, probable cause under the waiver statute was re-affirmed by the court as "a well-grounded suspicion or belief that the juvenile committed the alleged crime. " The court further held that if the state presents evidence, with reasonable inferences, that leads to a well-grounded suspicion that the juvenile committed one of the enumerated crimes then the probable cause for waiver standard is satisfied and the juvenile's matter may be transferred to an adult trial. Juvenile matters are extremely sensitive in nature as they may result in a criminal record which destroys the hope of certain educational and employment opportunities for the remainder of the juvenile's life. If your son or daughter is facing criminal charges, you should consult an experienced criminal law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on juvenile criminal matters including municipal court matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter.

Are You Being Tracked Through Your Cell Phone?

Use or possession of a cell phone comes with a big price tag if you have committed a crime in New Jersey. Law enforcement may contact your cellular carrier and track the location of your cell phone in the event they suspect you of committing a crime. In the event the police obtain a warrant to retrieve information from your cellular carrier, this method of tracking is legal. The warrant requirement subjects the police to show probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and you are the one who committed it to an impartial judge prior to the judge issuing the warrant. In State v. Earls, a burglary case, the court will rule on whether the police may seek information regarding your location from a cellular carrier without first obtaining a warrant. In the event the court upholds the warrantless tracking by police that occurred in Earls, the police power to monitor your cell phone will render your cell phone a constant signal of your location and movements. By simply owning a cell phone, you will lose ample privacy rights as the police will be able to track you whether you are in "plain view" or not. Within the Constitution the right to privacy was created and a decision in favor of the State in Earls would serve largely to strip away this right. If you believe you have been the victim of an illegal police search, you should consult an experienced criminal law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information regarding warrantless searches, your rights in criminal matters, burglary or other criminal law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter.

Limitations of Police as Witnesses at a NJ Criminal Trial

At trial, physical specimens, such as weapons used in commission of a crime, are used as evidence to convince jurors of certain facts. However, the prosecution or defense must use verbal testimony to explain their case to the jury. Even physical evidence has little significance without adequate explanation of why it is being presented. In light of the critical nature of verbal testimony at trial, there are written rules of evidence relating to how evidence may be presented. When a prosecutor or defense attorney questions a witness, they are asking carefully contemplated questions in an effort to have the witness state certain facts to the jury in a way that proves their own client's case. If the questions are out of line in some way, the attorney for the other party will object to the question. Similarly, there are written rules regarding what certain witnesses may testify to. Witnesses may be presented as qualified experts regarding certain issues in a case which allow them to offer "expert testimony" as to those particular issues. Most often, prosecutors use police and victims to make a case against the defendant. This is where an experienced and skilled defense attorney can make a big difference in the outcome of the defendant's case. Police may testify about the facts of an event but may not give opinion testimony unless they are qualified as experts to give such testimony. In a recent case, a defendant was charged with possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) with intent to distribute, possession of CDS with intent to distribute within a school zone, employing a juvenile in a drug-distribution scheme and conspiracy to distribute CDS. The New Jersey court held that testimony offered by police of their beliefs regarding the occurrence of a crime, the involvement of a juvenile in the alleged crime and the character of the neighborhood in which the alleged crime occurred was opinion testimony inadmissible at trial. The court held the opinion testimony of the police to be so prejudicial to the defendant that a new trial was ordered in the matter. 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 you should consult an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on criminal law matters, including municipal court matters, in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com.

Confession of a Juvenile Sex Offender Without Parents is Admissible in NJ

The Union County Prosecutor's Office contacted a juvenile's parents regarding an alleged sexual assault committed by the 13 year old boy, A.W. The child's father, whose first language is Spanish, voluntarily brought A.W. to the Union County Child Advocacy Center for an interview. The standard for confessions of a juvenile under 14 is that they are presumed inadmissible unless a parent or guardian was unwilling or unable to be present. This interview began in the presence of the father and discussion was in Spanish because the father speaks very little English. As the interview continued, A.W. offered his denials of any sexual conduct with the victim in Spanish but began to provide the detective conducting the investigation information in English. The detective then advised that even if the allegations were true, A.W. would likely receive therapy but not face juvenile detention or jail. The detective next began making reference to the domineering size of the boy's father and the fact that the father's presence may render A.W. fearful of consequences. In English, A.W. offered to speak candidly with the detective if his father was not there. The detective explained to the father, in Spanish, that A.W. wished to speak with her without his father's presence and presented the father with a waiver of his right to be present upon which she required his signature before he left the room. Once alone with the detective, A.W. admitted to touching the victim's vagina. The confession resulted in a charge of aggravated sexual assault as a juvenile, a conviction, 3 years of probation and Megan's Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1 to 11 and 19. A.W.'s motion to suppress the videotape of the interview was upheld by the N.J. Supreme Court on the grounds that the father willingly and voluntarily left the room. If a juvenile is charged with a crime, the disposition of the charges can change his or her future by prohibiting them from entering certain schools, fields of employment and, in the case of Megan's Law offenses, certain residences or neighborhoods. It is critical for any juvenile charged with a criminal offense to seek an experienced juvenile defense attorney immediately to begin protecting their rights and their future. For more information on juvenile offenses, sex-offenses, Megan's Law provisions or other criminal charges in NJ, visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter.

Hearing Requirements for Transfer of Juvenile to Adult Corrections Facility in NJ

The Appellate Division ordered the Juvenile Justice Commission to rewrite its regulations to afford juveniles prior written notice, a hearing before an impartial trier of fact, written findings of fact and some form of representation prior to their transfer to an adult facility. The transfer of a juvenile 16 years or older from the Juvenile Justice Commission to the Department of Corrections is acceptable when the juvenile's presence in the juvenile facility threatens the safety of other juveniles in the facility, operations of the facility of the public safety. Previously, the regulations did not include any notice, opportunity to be heard or any form of representation. The new ruling provides juveniles with these due process rights previously denied them. The Court specifically held that there is great importance for juveniles to have access to attorneys once they are involved with the criminal justice system. In its decision, the Court did not go so far as to require the appointment of counsel to those who could not afford representation. Additionally, there is no need for the Family Part Judge who rendered the decision to incarcerate the juvenile to become involved in adjudication of any transfer decision. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter. The consequences of being accused of a crime can affect juveniles for the rest of their lives, even if they reach a plea agreement that may seem favorable at first glance. Any juveniles charged with a crime should consult an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on juvenile matters and other criminal law matters, including municipal court 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.

Increased Penalties For Burglary Are Pending in NJ

Pending legislation upgrades second degree burglary of a residence to first degree if the actor is armed. Due to the danger to human life which is always present during a home invasion, the NJ Assembly passed A-1035 on March 15, 2012. This bill is now on the desk of Governor Christie. The bill is sponsored by Assemblymen Anthony Bucco of Morris and Somerset, Ralph Caputo of Essex, Michael Patrick Carroll of Morris and Somerset and Jon Bramnick of Morris, Somerset and Union. Burglary is defined in the bill as entering or surreptitiously remaining in a dwelling or structure adapted for overnight accommodation of persons. The text of the bill includes that no one need be present when the burglary occurs. To be considered armed under the bill, the actor may display "what appears to be" explosives or a "deadly weapon." In the situation of a burglary, the actor and the victims are often surprised to encounter each other within the residence. The results are frequently deadly and the actions the parties may be confusing to each other. An actor encountered by a homeowner may be perceived as armed by virtue of an object the actor is holding with no intent to use the object as a weapon. The terms of this statute will greatly increase the penalties for such an actor to up to 10-20 years in prison and $200,000 in fines. 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 a defendant in a burglary matter, you should consult an experienced criminal law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on burglary, robbery, theft, shoplifting or other criminal law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com.