The Latest In NJ Law:
May 24th, 2017 – An Update on Search & Seizure of a Home
On January 12th, 2017, the Supreme Court of New Jersey Justice Fernandez-Vina handed down an opinion, joined by Chief Justice Rabner, and Justices LaVecchia, Albin, Patterson, and Timpone, held that two very established exceptions, Chrisman and Bruzzese, to the prohibition on warrantless entry to a home did not apply in the case at hand.
In the State of New Jersey v. James L. Legette, the court considered the two very established exceptions including (1) Washington v. Chrisman, 455 U.S. 1, 102 S. Ct. 812, 70 L. Ed. 2d 778 (1982) and (2) State v. Bruzzese, 94 N.J. 210 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1030, 104 S. Ct. 1295, 79 L. Ed. 2d 695 (1984) which both concluded it was reasonable for police officers to follow arrestees into their home.
In the case at hand, the Court refused to extend the exception to a warrantless search of a home to detainees during an investigatory stop. For more information on the case, click here.
May 24th, 2017 – An Update on the School Zone Maps in regards to Criminal Cases
As I do often encounter, the State of New Jersey Criminal Laws include an escalation in penalties for crimes committed within 500ft. to 1,000ft. of a Public Park, Public Housing Facility, Public Building, Any School Property Used for School Purposes (Owned/Leased to Elementary/Secondary School or School Board), or on a School Bus. (Prescribed under Certain Laws like N.J.S.A. 2C: 35-7 and 35-7.1). In a most recent case published, State of New Jersey v. DeShaun P. Wilson, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that School Zone Maps are not admissible if not properly authenticated. Though the holding was very case specific to what qualified as properly authenticated, the Union County Engineer, Union County Board of Chosen Freeholders, and the Union County Prosecutor’s Office worked together to produce maps for the purposes of the statutes listed above. However, in this case, the Maps were not introduced properly into evidence and authenticated properly. For more information about the case, click here.
May 16th, 2017 – An Update on the Bail Reform Act
On Tuesday, the New Jersey Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the matter of State of New Jersey v. Amed Ingram, whom was charged with possession of a firearm. In the original pretrial detention hearing in Camden County Superior Court, Judge Edward McBride denied the Defense request to call the arresting officer as a witness to conduct cross-examination and instead relied on documents provided by the Prosecutor’s Office.
In argument for the Ingram, New Jersey Public Defender Joseph Krakora stated, “We’re asking the State to present a witness, someone with firsthand knowledge,” and “if you allow a mere proffer, a witness will proffer; witnesses will never be called.” ACLU of NJ Senior Staff Attorney, as amicus, argued that the court needs to find the “sweet spot” between proffer and the need to cross-examine witnesses.
In argument for the State, the Prosecutor’s Office feared that pretrial detention hearings would turn into “mini-trials.” Deputy Attorney General Claudia Joy Demitro argued that there is most certainly no automatic right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, especially as they will become available as the process moves toward trial. The County Prosecutors Association Sr. Assistant Morris County Prosecutor John McNamara, argued that the proffer provides the judge with enough information to make an informed decision about bail or detention.
We will anxiously await the opinion on this matter as the Bail Reform Act controversies continue to come rolling in. For more information, click here.
May 16th, 2017 – An Update on Double Jeopardy Law
New Jersey now joins the majority of jurisdictions, 24 States, in returning to the Blockburger same-elements test as the only test for determining what constitutes the “same offense” for the purposes of double jeopardy. In a decision by Hon. Walter Timpone of the Supreme Court of New Jersey in the State of New Jersey v. Rodney S. Miles, Judge Timpone stated that some defendants are getting, “needless and dangerous ‘get out of jail free cards’ under the previous same-evidence test. For more information, click here.
May 16th, 2017 – Update on Cannabis Decriminalization in the State of New Jersey
The Majority of States and the District of Columbia in the United States of America currently have legislation legalizing marijuana in some form or fashion.
In the follow Thirty-One (31) states, they have legalized Medical Usage of Marijuana, including: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. It should be noted that Each State varies as to the Possession, Sale, Transportation, and Cultivation and it’s status as legalized.
In the following Eight (8) States, they have legalized Recreational AND Medical Usage of Marijuana, including: Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. The District of Columbia has also done so, however, as you are aware, it technically is not a State.
In my home state New Jersey, one legislator, State Senator Nicholas Scutari (D) introduced legislation Monday that would allow for Recreational usage of Marijuana in Small Amounts for Adults 21 years old and above. Senator Scutari’s legislation proposal comes following a fact-finding trip to Colorado where he saw the programs working well, creating jobs, generating tax revenue, and living in harmony. Senator Scutari based his legislation on his understanding of ineffective and wasteful marijuana enforcement policies and in an effort to find a “responsible way of treating this drug and a more humane way of treating our residents.” The legislation provides for, among many other things, the following: licensure of marijuana cultivation, manufacturing, wholesale, and retail facilities; establishment of the Division of Marijuana Enforcement within the Dept. of Law and Public Safety; establish new tax rates on the recreational and removing it from medical; strict security / labeling requirements, and tracking systems.
The legislation is considered unlikely to be considered until after Republican Governor Christopher Christie leaves office in January as he has been a very vocal opposition to legislation of the sort while citing it would create a slippery slope for legalization of other controlled dangerous substances. For more information, click here.
May 10th, 2017 – An Update on the Bail Reform Act
As the State of New Jersey Criminal Justice System continues its adjustment to the new Bail Reform Act (N.J.S.A. 2A:162-15 to 26) enacted on January 1, 2017, the Court continues to hear matters challenging the functionality of the new bail processes.
In the State of New Jersey v. Habeeb Robinson, the Superior Court of New Jersey’s Appellate Division before Judges Reisner, Koblitz, and Rothstadt, ruled upon the interpretation of NJ Court Rule 3:4-2(c)(1)(B) which requires the Prosecutor to produce “all statements or reports in its possession relating to the pretrial detention application.”
The Court held that the rule, despite the Prosecutor’s contention that the discovery obligation only required the probable cause affidavit and preliminary law enforcement information report, that the rule obligates the Prosecutor to provide a defendant with those materials in the State’s possession that relate to the facts on which the State bases its pretrial detention application upon. In this case it required an eyewitness identification of the defendant, two eyewitness statements, photo arrays, a surveillance video, and the initial police reports. For more information, click here.
May 5th, 2017 – An Update on Federal ICE Enforcement in New Jersey Courts
In stunning defiance to the State of New Jersey Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, the Drumpf Administration officials have authorized Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to continue conducting arrests in Courthouses.Rabner had pleaded with Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly to have courthouses added to the list of “sensitive locations” that ICE avoids. The implication of these ICE courthouse arrests is that it has serious consequences resulting in immigrants fear to come to court whether as a plaintiff, defendant, victim, or witness.
Last week, plainclothes officers arrested an undocumented immigrant at the Middlesex County Courthouse following him accepting probation as a result of criminal charges stemming from a road rage accident in 2015.
Stay tuned as I’m sure we have not heard the last of this situation. For more information, click here.
