NJ Criminal Defense Blog, The Art and Skill of Criminal Defense.
October 22, 2013
The Appellate Division affirms trial court in State v. Granskie that Expert Can testifies regarding Heroin addiction can Lead to a False Confession
The Appellate Division in State v. Granskie held that the defendant was entitled to have his expert psychiatrics witness testify at his Miranda Hearing that he gave a false confession based on the fact that at the time of the interrogation he was suffering from Heroin withdrawal and addiction which made his custodial interrogation unreliable.
This case is consistent with the New Jersey Supreme court case, State v. King which previously held that a defendant who had a long history of mental history was permitted to present expert testimony explaining to the jury why someone suffering from this type of mental illness was more likely, and more vulnerable, to give a false confession. The King case was the first case in New Jersey to follow Crane v. Kentucky which held that a defendant had the constitutional right to present evidence concerning the “physical and psychological environment in which the confession was obtained.” Therefore, any evidence that would assist the jury to make the prudential judgment as to whether the confession is reliable is therefore admissible.
In New Jersey like many states, false and unreliable confession are more common than the courts will admit because defendants are often lied to by the police prior to the custodial interrogations. Such tactics include, but not limited to, such things as threatening to have DYFS take their children, threatened with more serious and unfounded charges, if they do not cooperate, and tell the police what they want to hear, promises that charges will not be brought, or that he or she will be given a reduced charge, promises of bail, promises that the suspect will not be deported, or promises of leniency.
NJ criminal defense attorney Sanzone has obtained not guilty verdicts in false confession cases and his experienced in defending people who have been tricked into giving a false confession. If you have such a case call Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr
October 17, 2013 What to Do, and Not Do, When Trying the Intent to Distribute Case in New Jersey
Every now and than, an unpublished opinion comes down the pike from the appellate division which although is not presidential nonetheless is a great training tool for criminal law practitioners. Such as case was recently decided on October 7, 2013, State v. Goldsmith.
In this case the defendant’s conviction was reversed by the appellate division on two separate grounds. The first one being that the testifying detectives, gave testimony as expert witnesses without being called as expert witnesses, and gave testimony which invaded the province of the jury, and gave an ultimate opinion as to the guilt of the accused.
In this case two Newark narcotics detectives testified that they witnessed an illegal hand-to-hand drug transaction between the defendant and a third-party. Although no objection was made by the trial attorney, the appellate division held that such testimony is always prohibited since under well established case law no witness is permitted to give an ultimate opinion about someone’s guilty, to wit, that they saw an illegal drug transaction. That of course is for the jury to decide after hearing all the facts and evidence adduced at trial. See State v. Sowell, 213 N.J. 89, 99-100 (2013)
In addition to addressing this issue the court give a good overview of Fourth Amendment suppress law in New Jersey, in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress arguments. Also, because the defendant sought the personnel files of the officer to show bias there is also a good overview of that case law in New Jersey.
Lastly, the court reversed the conviction on the basis that the prosecutor baited the defendant to reveal that he had a prior conviction for possession with intent to distribute. This came out in cross-examination of the defendant himself when the defendant was asked what was the degree of the crime he was convicted of in 1998. When the defendant said possession, the prosecutor claimed that the defendant had opened up the door for him to ask was it possession with intent to distribute. Relying on State v. Buffa, 51 N.J. Super. 218, 227 (App. Div. 1958) The appellate court held that the trial court failed to act as gate-keeper in keeping that harmful evidence from the jury. In fact, in this case the court had sanitized the prior conviction so that the jury was only to learn the date of conviction and the degree of the crime. Based on that issue as well the court reversed the conviction.
Also, in a parting blow the court reminded prosecutors, and the prosecutor in this case, that they “have a duty to refrain from employing improper methods calculated to produce wrongful convictions.” State v. Wakefield, 190 N.J. 397, 436 (2007); Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935)
October 7, 2013
The Rape of the United States Economy and its People By Wall Street and its Executives, and Not one is Criminal Prosecuted by the Government.
Mortgage fraud by the Wall Street investment banks almost completely destroyed our economy, and if it wasn’t for the tax payer bailout to keep these investment banks afloat our way of life as we known it would be a thing of the past. In fact, there is no dispute among anyone familiar with the massive fraud that most of these top executives should have been criminally prosecuted and sent to jail. Why has the Justice Department given these executives a pass? What message does that send to the honest hardworking people who earn an honest livelihood? Does crime pay if you are rich and powerful? Is it because President Barack Obama has received more money from Wall Street than any other politician over the past 20-years, including former President George W. Bush? The government’s failure to prosecute these wealthy crooks will go down in history as an American tragedy in the history of criminal justice. For a great Frontline investigation on this American tragedy see PBS special called the “The Untouchables” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/untouchables/
New Jersey Supreme Court Overrules Bifurcated Trials For Insanity and Other Affirmative Defenses.
In State v. Handy (2012) the New Jersey Supreme Court overruled the appellate division case State v. Khan, 175 N.J. 72 (App. Div. 1980), which held that when the defendant raises the insanity defense as well as other affirmative defenses such as self-defense, etc., that the defendant was entitled to two separate trials to determine the two separate defenses. In State v. Handy the Supreme Court held that this is no longer practical and ordered that in all future cases that both defenses must be raised and argued in one jury trial, and that the jury must sort out each defense on its own.
In Handy the defense counsel argued that Mr. Handy was both insane and acted in self-defense. After the trial court ruled that Handy was incompetent to stand trial the trial court ordered him to be committed to a mental institution, and therefore, he was never allowed to present his self-defense argument, because the second trial never took place because the trial court ruled he was incompetent.
Interesting note: How could one act in self-defense but not know what he was doing? Anyway, these types of multiple conflicting defenses are rare, and not recommended, since a jury would have a hard time reconciling this apparent conflict.
September 18, 2013
New Jersey Supreme Court Has Adopted New Evidence Rule on Prior Convictions.
Effective July 1, 2014, a defendant who takes the stand on his own behalf in a criminal trial can only be impeached with his prior criminal record, if he has one, with the date of the conviction, the degree of crime, and the sentence imposed. Of course, the defendant is free to waive these admissions and ask the court to inform the jury what specific crime he has been convicted of. Under the new rule when a defendant is being charged with a crime similar to a crime that he was previously convicted of there will not be the need for a Brunson (State v. Brunson, 132 N.J. 377 (1993) and Sands hearing since the sanitization of the prior conviction will be automatic. In Brunson prior convictions must be sanitized if the prior conviction is similar to the current charges which the defendant is on trial for. In those cases the prosecutor is only allowed to introduce the date of the crime, degree of crime and sentence) Also, the new rule will require that any conviction over 10-years old is presumed admissible unless the prosecutor can convince the court that it should come in for some legitimate purpose. That is to say its probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial value. In making this decision the court must consider whether there were intervening convictions, their number, nature and seriousness, and whether they involve fraud or deceit. The time periods are measured from the start of the trial retroactive back to conviction date or the release from incarceration, whichever is later. CriminalDefenseNJ.com
These revisions are incorporated into N.J.E.R. 609
Destruction of Handwritten Notes During Interview of Suspect Causes Retrial
and Adverse Jury Instruction
August 12, 2013
Again the New Jersey Supreme Court holds the Middlesex county prosecutor’s office and its detectives to the requirement that handwritten notes cannot be destroyed by a detective investigating a crime and interviewing witnesses.
In State v. Dabas a murder conviction was reversed when the detective interviewing the defendant destroyed his handwritten notes prior to memorializing the notes into his final report.
Justice Albin writing for the court not only reversed the conviction but held that the defendant on retrial is entitled to an adverse-inference charge to the jury. In this case the detective conducted a two-hour pre-interview of the suspect in which the suspect was asked open-ended questions in which the defendant responded and the detective handwrote his answers. Using his handwritten notes the detective than conducted a tape-recorded interrogation in which he asked leading questions in which the defendant responded by saying yes.
The Supreme Court held that such techniques are a violation of the discovery rules since all handwritten notes cannot be destroyed, especially, in a case in which the only memoralization of what the defendant said during the pre-recorded interview were the notes of the detective. CriminalDefenseNJ.com
New Jersey Supreme Court Holds that Law Enforcement Cannot Obtain Ping Tower Location Information Without a Warrant.
July 23, 2013
The New Jersey Supreme Court again is on the cutting edge of protecting the constitutional rights of New Jersey residents by prohibiting law enforcement officials from obtaing cell phone tower records, (or cell phone tower pings), from cell phone carrier towers to obtain the location of its subscribers, or to monitor or track a suspect without first obtaining a warrant from a judge. In State v. Earls, our highest court held that Mr. Earls has an expection of privacy and his federal constitutional fourth amendment and rights under the New Jersey constitution were violated by the police when they obtained his T-Mobile ping cell phone tower records without first obtaining a judicial warrant. The court held that when people purchae a cell phone they do not give up their rights to privacy in their personal data, nor consent to a personal tracking device upon their persons. Another great progressive decision by our New Jersey Supreme Court.
Criminal Law and Immigration Consequences
June 6, 2013
The United States Supreme Court recently ruled in Moncrieffe v. Holder (April 2013) term that non-citizens can avoid deportation, and have not committed an “aggravated felony” if they are convicted of possession of small amounts of marijuana for distribution, if that distribution, and only if, did not result in the passing of any consideration between the buyer and seller. In other words, distribution (or sharing), between friends or family. In this case Mr. Moncrieffe was caught having in his automobile approximately 1.3 grams of marijuana, which was equivalent to three-marijuana cigarettes. He plead guilty and was sentenced to five years probation.
Under current harsh INS laws anyone convicted of an aggravated felony is not entitled to discretionary review of their immigration case. The Immigration Act provides that any alien “who is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission is deportable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a) (2) (A) (iii). Additionally, any and all state law crime drug offenses which are equivalent to the federal Control Substance Act is an aggravated felony. Such as possession of CDS with intent to distribute, distribution, manufacturing, etc.
The court noted that any marijuana distribution offense, including distribution with no remuneration, will tiger removal, however, at least the non-citizen had the right to seek relief from removal on grounds such as asylum or cancellation of removal assuming that he or she satisfies the other eligibility criteria since the offense is not an automatic “aggravated felony.” However, the Attorney General in its discretion may deny such relief.
It should be noted, but not addressed in this decision that a non-citizen can also be deported for being convicted of a crime of moral turpitude. CriminalDefenseNJ.com
Arrest of Edison Police Officer Michael Dotro For Arson
May 24, 2013
Another arrest of a criminal cop prancing and dancing around as a law abiding crime fighter is not surprising. What is more troubling is the continued white-wash by local police departments in their supervision, investigation and discipline of rogue cops. Edison like almost every local police department in New Jersey has an unwritten policy of non-investigation of police officers whom have civilian grievances filed against them. Like every other town or city in New Jersey if a citizen files a complaint against a police officer the complaint is never investigated and in 99.9% of the time the police officer is found to have done nothing wrong. This being so when there is often overwhelming evidence against the officer, and/or the officers is accused of the same crime or abuse over and over again by different people. The city of Edison, N.J. police officer, Michael Dotro is the perfect poster boy for such shabby investigation. Mr. Dotro had a history of civilian complaints against him according to the today’s article in the Star Ledger in which he used his badge and gun to abuse people’s constitutional and civil rights. What is remarkable was his total disregard for the law and the fact he got away with his misconduct for 10-years while wearing a badge.
The Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office also shares in the blame because under state law they have an obligation to oversee and monitor civilian complaints against local police officers in Middlesex County.
Whether or not Dotro is ultimately found guilty of the crime of attempting to set a fire against his supervisor home is yet to been seen. However, from statements from one of Dotro neighbors Dotro did the exact same thing to neighbor a few years ago during a dispute with him. If the Middlesex County Prosecutor Office is really serious about law enforcement and crime stopping they must first insure that the local police departments in Middlesex County understand that they have a zero tolerance for crooked and rogue police officers in their county and that they will seriously monitor the internal affairs units for every municipality under their jurisdiction.
It is clear from the Dotro example, and others, which we read about everyday, that the local police departments in Middlesex County will continue to allow rogue cops to prance around as crime fighters, ultimately creating more fake crimes, charging people unjustly, beating people up without cause of justification,, and violating the rights of citizens they are sworn to serve and protect.
It is an honor for a law enforcement officer to swear to uphold the United States and New Jersey constitutions and to enforce the laws honestly and justly, for the one’s who do, they are to be thanked for doing a job which they are required to do under the law. For the one’s who do not they have no place in law enforcement and are a danger to the people New Jersey, and must be weeded out. Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., criminaldefenseNJ.com
Admitting Gang Affiliation in Murder Case: Reversal
May 10, 2013
A defendant convicted of murder had his conviction overturned when the trial court improperly admitted testimony of the defendant's gang affiliation. In State v. Holmes, the appellate division held that alluding to the fact that the defendant was a member of the "Bloods" street gang, without assessing properly the probative value, if any, along with failure to give a limited jury instructions as to the admissibility, required a reversal of the defendant's conviction.
The Plea Bargaining Process
January 17, 2013
The reality of the criminal justice system in the United States is that the majority of criminal cases are resolved through the plea negotiation process. Being an experienced New Jersey criminal defense attorney is not only knowing how to try a case before a jury, but also knowing how to get the best possible plea bargain for your client.
Not every criminal client is innocent of the charges, sometimes; law enforcement does get the right man or woman. This does not mean that once an arrest or indictment is made that the accused must give up because he or she is guilty. Instead, in these types of cases it is just as important to retain the right attorney to handle your case. First, if the attorney who is retained has repudiation as being an experienced and hard working attorney the prosecutor is more likely to give you a more favorable plea offer than an inexperienced or unethical attorney who takes on many cases with the intent to simply pleading them out to the first offer made by the prosecutor. (These attorneys are easily recognized in court because they will answer the calendar call for many clients)
Good pleas like anything else comes with hard work and experience. An attorney who meets the prosecutor for the first time during the initial pre-disposition conference, and simply begs for a better deal without knowing the case or possible defenses, will usually get nothing but a take it or leave it plea offer.
Also, knowing when to take a plea is important and comes only with experience. There is an old saying, “only pigs get slaughtered.” The attorney must have good communications with his or her client, and the client must be able to trust his or her attorney that the plea offer made is a favorable one, or a one which will not get any better. Often if the plea is not taken early on in the case, the offers for jail time will increase. Once refused, the client will not receive that offer again. Therefore, it is important that the attorney understand the dynamitic of the plea offer process, and convey his opinion as to whether the offer is fair. Of course it is the client’s final choice. Further, the client must be told and properly advised to the consequences of not taking the plea and the ultimate risk of going to trial. No criminal defense attorney wants a client to pass-up a favorable plea deal, only to lose at trial and be sentenced to many more years of State prison time.
Attempting to Retract Your Guilty Pleas
January 17, 2013
Once a plea is entered before a judge it is very difficult for the court to reject or take back that plea. The reason simply is that before a plea is taken you must give a factual basis as why you are guilty of the charge that you are pleading guilty to. Therefore, before a plea can be taken by the judge you need to admit to all the elements of the crime or disorderly person’s offense. In addition, you must admit to the crime under oath. Therefore, if under oath you admit to the crime, how can you go back to that same judge and deny what you have already admitted?
One of the elements (Slater Factors) that you must satisfy before you can retract your plea is to show the judge that you are innocent of the crime or offense. Therefore, simply, it is unlikely that the judge will believe you when you tell him you are innocent when you previously told him you were guilty.
Therefore, before you enter any plea you must be sure that this is what you what to do, know the consequences of your plea, and understand your sentencing exposure or plea agreement.
In a recent case decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court, State v. McDonald, Mr. McDonald attempted to retract his plea. The court rejected his attempted holding that Mr. McDonald did not present a colorable claim of being innocent of the crime, nor could he present any evidence as to why he did not present any defense to the charge prior to the plea.
Criminal Statute of Limitations in New Jersey What You Might Not Know.
January 25, 2013
The statute of limitations on all criminal cases are found in 2C:1-6a(1). The State must begin prosecution for all criminal offenses within five years of the commission of the crime. However, in cases of murder or sexual assault there is no statute of limitations and the offenses can be prosecuted at anytime.
Further, in regards to the offenses of 2C:14-3 (criminal sexual contact of a minor), the prosecution must commence within five-years of the alleged victims 18th birthday. This also applies to 2C:24-4(endangering the welfare of a child).
Further, the statute of limitations our completely thrown out if the defendant leaves fingerprints or DNA at the scene of the crime. Therefore, the statute of limitations never runs out if DNA and/or fingerprint evidence is discovered, no matter how long it takes. So in essence, and by way of example, a burglary prosecution can commence 40-years after the crime, if the DNA is discovered 40-years later. Sounds crazy, it is true.
The definition for when prosecution begins is when the complaint or warrant is served on the defendant, or indictment is found. In all other nonindictable offenses it is when the warrant or other process is issued.
Notwithstanding the foregoing under the United States Supreme Court case, Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003), if the statute of limitations has already run on a crime, it cannot be extended based on the new statute of limitations laws which were enacted in New Jersey in the year 2001.
Prosecutorial Misconduct: Improper Jury Comments
In almost every case of importance the prosecutor will attempt to introduce expert testimony from a non-factual witness who in essence will give the jury his or her opinion as to why the defendant is guilty of the crime.
Often this comes into play with the so-called intent expert in a drug case who will be given a hypothetical question based on the facts of the defendant’s case, without giving his name, to opine that the defendant possessed the drugs with intent to distribute. This is unfair and prejudicial to the defendant, but the courts allow it.
Also, to a lesser extent experts are called by the prosecutor for various other expert opinions, such as fingerprint analysis, DNA analysis, bite mark comparisons, shoe comparisons, handwriting analysis, forensic chemistry, just to name a few.
However, in some cases the defense needs to call an expert and that expert can be a valuable piece of exculpatory evidence to show a flaw in the State’s case, or to contradict an expert for the State.
However, the New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney representing the defendant must be aware that sometimes the prosecutor will attempt to discredit the defense expert not by effective cross-examination but by inferring to the jury that because it is an expert paid for by the defense, the expert, must have “shaded” his testimony.
In one case in particular, State v. Smith our New Jersey Supreme Court in 2001 reversed the defendant’s conviction when the prosecutor argued to the Jury during his summations that the paid defense expert might have shaded his testimony for the purpose of future employment with the defense attorney, or the defense bar in general.
This is a public service blog provided to the people from the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq. Tel. No. (908) 354-7006 Elizabeth, NJ
Union County Criminal Lawyers, New Jersey Best Criminal Defense Attorney, New Jersey Criminal Attorneys, New Jersey Criminal Lawyers, NJ criminal defense lawyers, NJ criminal attorney, Hudson County Lawyers, Union County criminal attorneys, Essex County criminal lawyers, Best criminal trial lawyer nj, best union county nj criminal attorneys
Defendant Cannot Be Compelled to Turnover Incriminating Evidence
February 19, 2013
The Appellate Division in State v. Kelsey a case decided February 13, 2013 held that a Trenton Police Officer does not have to turnover a flashlight that was allegedly used as a weapon. In this case it was alleged that the off-duty police officer was involved in a brawl outside a bar in which some was seriously injured when struck on the head with a flashlight.
The court held that the Fifth Amendment protects a defendant from testifying against himself, and this right extends to physical evidence that could inculpate the defendant in a crime. The court citing, In re Addonizio, decided 45 years ago, which held a defendant has the right against self-incrimination and protects a defendant from being "subpoenaed to produce the gun or the loot, no matter how probable the cause, for the Fifth [Amendment] protects the individual from coercion upon him to come forward with anything that can incriminate him." CriminalDefenseNJ.com
Criminal Jury Selections: Prosecutor Removing One Minority Juror From in Jury Selections with a Minority Defendant Can Be Grounds for Triggering State v. Osorio Discriminatory Challenge by the Defense
April 24, 2013
In another good appellate division case the appellate division reversed a conviction obtained by the Cape May Prosecutor who used a preemptory challenge to remove the only African-American juror from the jury.
Reversing, the Appellate Division found that trial judge Batten applied too stringent a standard, since State v. Osorio, 199 N.J. 486 (2009), relaxed the "substantial likelihood" test.
The appellate division panel held that removing a single member of a "cognizable group" — one based on race, religion, color, ancestry, national origin or sex — to which the defendant also belongs, is sufficient to raise the inference needed to require the prosecutor to provide a non-discriminatory reason.
"We ... conclude that whenever a prosecutor uses a peremptory challenge to excuse the only qualified member of a cognizable group in the jury panel, where the defendant or the victim is also a member of that same group, and where the other Osorio factors are met, the trial judge should, upon timely objection by the defense, require the prosecutor to explain his or her non-discriminatory reason for the challenge," writing for the majority Judge Michael Haas, a Superior Court judge temporarily assigned to the Appellate Division.
"Requiring the prosecutor to provide such an explanation imposes no unreasonable burden upon the State and serves the interests of justice by ensuring that no juror is excused from service for unconstitutional reasons," he wrote. "Were we to hold otherwise, discriminatory challenges could escape judicial review whenever the representation of cognizable groups in a jury panel was particularly low."
Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone who has 23-years experience in trying criminal jury trials believes that the jury selection process is one of the most critical stages of the trial process and that picking the right jury can mean the difference between conviction and acquital.
New Jersey Supreme Court Ruled in State v. Vargasthat the Police with Landlord's Permission, and Request, Cannot Enter the Home Without Warrant.
New Jersey's highest court again scores another victor for constitutional rights by curbing the power of police to enter and search a home on the pretext of concern for the health and safety of its occupant.
The Supreme Court held, 6-1, that the "community caretaking" doctrine, which permits a warrantless search of vehicles in limited circumstances, cannot be used to justify a home search, with the consent and request of the landlord, absent “some form of an objectively reasonable emergency."
The ruling, in State v. Vargas, A-56-11, reinstated a trial judge's suppression of narcotics and weapons seized in the apartment of Cesar Vargas, who resided in the City of Vineland, by police responding to a landlord's report that he had not been seen for several weeks nor had received rent that was due.
After the officers knocked on the door to Vargas' apartment with no response, the landlord, Henry Olaya, used his keys to open the back door and entered the apartment with the officers. In the living room, the officers observed a glass jar about six to eight inches high with green vegetation inside that appeared to be marijuana. Olaya, on his own, opened one a kitchen drawer and found two canning jars full of marijuana.
After the officers made this discovery they left and obtained a search warrant. The search resulted in the seizure of $47,001 in U.S. currency, a shotgun, a rifle, ammunition, two ballistic vests, a clear plastic bag containing white powder, eight mason jars with pot, two digital scales, and measuring cups and pots with white powder residue (in other words a "jackpot" for the police).
Eventually the police learned that Mr. Vargas had been in custody for 10 days after being arrested by the State Police in connection with another investigation.
Cumberland County Superior Court Judge Benjamin Telsey ordered the suppression of the contraband.However, the Appellate Division reversed, saying the conduct was based a legitimate concern for Vargas' welfare and was not part of any criminal investigation.
Justice Barry Albin, writing for the majority said Olaya knew nothing of Vargas' personal or work life, his comings and goings, his vacation habits or whether he often left to visit family. There was no reason, he said, why the police could not attempt to obtain a warrant before entering his apartment.
The community-caretaking doctrine has its origins in the seminal U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973).In that case the court upheld the search of a motor vehicle of a suspected drunken driver after it had been towed to a private garage. Judge Albin held, however, that the Supreme Court "never suggested that community-caretaking responsibilities constituted a wholly new exception to the warrant requirement that would justify the warrantless search of a home.”
Additionally, distinguishing State v. Bogan, 200 N.J. 61 (2009), that the community-caretaking doctrine could apply in the case of police taking "de minimis" steps to ensure the safety of a child in an apartment building where there had been a recent rape, Albin said.
Again citing its ruling in State v. Edmonds, 211 N.J. 117 (2012), Justice Albin stated that there must generally be exigent circumstances to search a home without a warrant, and even then the exception is "not a roving commission to conduct a nonconsensual search of a home…"
In every criminal case you must consult with an experienced New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney to determine whether you have a viable motion to suppress.
Finally, the Court held, "[W]e now expressly disapprove of language suggesting that the community-caretaking doctrine permits the warrantless entry into or search of a home in the absence of some form of exigent circumstances ... We reject the State's position that the community-caretaking doctrine, standing alone and in the absence of some form of exigent circumstances, allows the police to conduct warrantless searches of homes.”
"To accept the State's argument would render the emergency-aid doctrine obsolete and undermine the heightened protections afforded to the home under our Federal and State Constitutions," Albin said.
If you have been charged with possession with intent to distribute CDS, controlled dangerous substance such asHeroin, Cocaine, and Marijuana and other prescription narcotics or charged with a weapons offense such as unlicensed handgun or other firearm, you should consult with Attorney Sanzone who has achieved successful results in filing motions to suppress and suppressing CDS in Union, Essex, Hudson, Somerset, Bergen, Monmouth, Ocean, Middlesex, Mercer counties.
Best Newark NJ Criminal Lawyers, Essex County Criminal NJ Criminal Defense Attorneys, Essex County criminal attorneys, N.J. Best Criminal Defense Attorneys, NJ Best Criminal Defense Lawyers, Elizabeth NJ criminal lawyers, Union County Criminal Lawyers, New Jersey federal trial lawyer, federal criminal trial attorney, NJ criminal attorney, Federal Criminal NJ lawyer, Union County criminal lawyer, Best Hudson Criminal Lawyers