The Latest In NJ Law:
April 18th, 2017 – An Update on Federal ICE Enforcement in New Jersey Courts
Though not ‘exactly’ new law, notable ‘news’ in the New Jersey Criminal Justice System today when Chief Justice Stuart Rabner asked the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement to declare courthouses off-limits for future Immigration arrests. In general, schools, hospitals, houses of worship, and public demonstrations are also given this designation as a “safe forum.” The arrests set a dangerous precedent for how individuals view the courthouses and affects how they make decisions on their involvement in the court system as a plaintiff, witness, victim, and/or defendant. Rabner was clear to state that his comments were not about the Immigration Policy Enforcement but rather the approach and/or path that was chosen and it’s compromise of our system of justice as he viewed it. For more information, visit here.
April 11th, 2017 – An Update on Driving Under Influence
The Supreme Court of New Jersey has appointed Special Master Joseph Lisa (Appellate Division Judge) to consider the motion of the State of New Jersey’s Attorney General to relax rules for calibrating the Alcotest 7110 MkIII Drunken Driving Tester within the State of New Jersey vs. Eileen Cassidy. This motion by the Attorney General is being fiercely opposed by Defense Lawyers and the NJSBA. The basis for the assignment of the Special Master is following the discovery that State Police Sergeant Marc Dennis failed to properly calibrate the Alcotest machine used in more than 20,000 Drunken Driving Prosecutions. As in the Supreme Court’s Decision in State of New Jersey v. Chun, the thermometer used in the Alcotest must conform to the standards of the National Institute of Science and Technology (aka “NIST”). Sgt. Dennis calibrated the Alcotest with a non-NIST thermometer. The results of improper calibration may have resulted in false positives as well as false negatives in the Drunken Driving Prosecutions. If you or someone you know has received a DUI/DWI in the past and may have been Breathalyzed by an Alcotest calibrated by Sgt. Marc Dennis, contact Schnader Harrison Segal and Lewis at 220 Lake Drive East, Ste. 200, Cherry Hill, NJ, 08002 by Phone (856) 482-5741.
March 8th, 2017 – An Update on Social Media Postings Admissibility
The Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division, in an opinion by Hon. George S. Leone, rejected the contention that Social Media Postings be held to a greater level of authentication, a ruling previously held in a Maryland case argued by the Defendant. Because the authentication need not be ‘heightened’ for lack of a better term, a Tweet on the popular Social Media website Twitter can be entered into evidence. In the matter at hand, the Defendant was charged with Simple Assault for hitting the victim in the face with a shoe. The Tweet admitted into evidence, posted by the Defendant, read “Shoe to ya face.” The Defendant’s conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Court.
March 6th, 2017 – An Update on Gun Control Administrative Regulations
Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie announced Administrative Regulations that could allow individuals to carry handguns if they can show evidence of “serious threats.” Currently, New Jersey has very restrictive gun control law. With this regulation, a Local Chief of Police or Superintendent of State Police can consider an applicant’s assertion that he or she faces a serious threat, warranting permission to carry a handgun. The rule expands upon Proposed Legislation Christie vetoed last year which offered the consideration of a “justifiable need” on a handgun application. The difficulty is “justifiable need,” was defined as “the urgent necessity for self-protection, as evidence by specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant’s life that cannot be avoided by means other than by issuance of a permit to carry.” A Democratic Legislative Challenge to the rule change is expected. For More Information, Click Here.
March 1st, 2017 – An Update on the Bail Reform Act
The Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division issued an opinion upon the State’s highly controversial Bail Reform Act, N.J.S.A. 2A: 162-15 to 162-26. As a result of the BRA, the Court holds a Detention Hearing which makes a demand upon the State/Prosecutor to produce Discovery regarding the Matter. The State most often produces the follow: (1) the Complaint-Warrant, (2) the Affidavit of Probable Cause, (3) the Preliminary Enforcement Incident Report, and (4) the Public Safety Assessment. The documents establish Probable Cause and discuss the Grounds for Detention if sought. Pretrial Services recommended Detention or Electronic Monitoring. The Defendant objected to Detention arguing that a Live Witness Cross-Examination was required upon the author of the Discovery provided. The Judge generally has the discretion to reject the adequacy of the State’s Discovery proffer and compel the Live Witness to testify. Here, however, the Court accepted it’s adequacy and affirmed the Detention Order. For More Information on the Bail Reform Act Click Here, See Also State of New Jersey v. Amed Ingram or Click Here.
February 28th, 2017 – An Update on Search & Seizure of a Motor Vehicle
The Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division issued an opinion on the matter of State of New Jersey v. Robert L. Evans via Hon. Clarkson S. Fisher, Jr. reversing the convictions of Evans after an unlawful search and seizure. The basis for the opinion was that a Strip Search is prohibited if a person is ‘detained or arrested for a commission of an offense other than a crime,’ unless a recognized exception applies. This rule is enumerated in N.J.S.A. 2A: 161A-1. In this matter, the Defendant was arrest for failing to pay a $6.50 traffic fine. As a result of the rule stated, the drugs found on the Defendant are “fruit of the poisonous tree,” and are “tainted by the unlawful search and seizure.” For More Information See State of New Jersey v. Robert L. Evans or Click Here.
February 17th, 2017 – An Update on Search & Seizure of a Fleeing Person
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, with a Three (3) Judge Panel, held the Law is not clear as to whether shooting at a suspect fleeing in a vehicle is acceptable. Despite this vagueness, the Court ruled the acts of Redstone Police Officer Norman Howard, Luzerne Township Police Officer Roy Mehalik, and Pennsylvania State Police Officer Trooper Broadwater were not excessive force and dismissed Mr. James S. Thompson’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Officers. The Opinion states, “We cannot say it was objectively unreasonable for Howard to believe that resorting to lethal force was warranted.” The acts of the Officers were in response to being, “confronted with Thompson’s dangerous, chaotic, high-speed flight.” For More Information See James S. Thompson v. Norman Howard, Roy Mehalik, and Trooper Broadwater or Click Here.
