Motion To Suppress Handgun Denied

James Legette was indicted for second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun without a permit (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5b) and second-degree possession of a weapon by a convicted person (N.J.S.A. 2C: 39-7). Legette, once in police custody entered his residence, with officers, and attempted to remove a handgun from his own person to avoid police detecting the gun in any subsequent search of his person. State v. Legette began when police responded to a noise complaint and noted the defendant coming from a building smelling of burnt marijuana and stopped him for investigatory purposes. The defendant claimed the need to enter his apartment to obtain his identification and the officer agreed and accompanied him. While walking through the premises toward the defendant's apartment, the office noticed what appeared to be a gun in the pocket of the defendant's sweatshirt. Once inside his apartment, the defendant produced his identification and removed his sweatshirt while the officer was radioing in the defendant's information. The defendant agreed to accompany the officer back outside with the officer carrying the sweatshirt defendant had removed as evidence. Once outside, a search of the sweatshirt by the officer's K-9 obviated the handgun in the pocket of the sweatshirt and the defendant was placed under arrest. In an ensuing motion to suppress the handgun, the NJ Superior Court trial judge held that James Legette was validly accompanied into his residence by police when sought to enter his own residence for the stated purpose of obtaining his identification. On appeal, the NJ Appellate Division reviewed State v. Walker, 213 N.J. 281 (2013) giving the officer the right to enter the common hallway of the building as he was called to the scene by citizens to investigate a noise complaint. Also under Walker, the odor of burnt marijuana emanating from the door the defendant opened gave the officer probable cause to believe contraband may be present. State v. Lamb, 218 N.J. 300, 314 (2014) which read the fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution to guarantee individuals the right of freedom from unreasonable search and seizure in their homes. However, under State v. Bruzzese, 94 N.J. 210, 234 (1983) when an individual under arrest chooses to enter their residence to obtain an item, it is both permissible and reasonable for officers to accompany them into the residence. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the trial judge. If you are facing charges stemming from illegal possession of a handgun, BB gun, paintball gun or other weapon it is critical you not undertake these matters without experienced counsel. For more information about unlawful possession of a weapon, illegal weapons, possession of a weapon for unlawful purposes or other serious weapons offenses visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Thanksgiving Blessings

Happy Thanksgiving from the Darling Law Firm to you all. We invite you all to remember that the origins of Thanksgiving are to thank God for blessings including military victories or the end of drought and famine. We would like to offer our thanks to the members of the military who put their lives on the line to keep us safe, to the police and firefighters who will not be home with their families today, to the doctors and nurses spending their day tending to the ill and infirm and those collecting, cooking and delivering food for those in need. Happy Thanksgiving to all!

Restraining Order Issued Based On E-Mail To Employer

J.D. v. C.C. was an appeal of a Final Restraining Order (FRO) pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to 35) granted by the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Passaic County upon the finding that C.C. committed harassment (N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(a)) against J.D. by sending e-mails to his employer alleging, among other things, that he drove his company vehicle while under the influence (N.J.S.A. 39:4-50). After a 2 year relationship, J.D. proposed marriage to C.C. who rejected him and J.D. elected to terminate their relationship. Thereafter, C.C. began to appear at J.D.'s residence at inopportune times and run into him as he went about his business. C.C. also sent text messages to J.D. indicating that she intended would cause trouble for him and intended to contact his employer. C.C. did send the e-mail and J.D. sought a restraining order. The trial judge issued the Final Restraining Order upon finding that, although no physical assault occurred, the actions of C.C. constituted harassment under N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(a) and was the behavior that the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act was designed to prevent. Pursuant to State v. Hoffman, 149 N.J. 564 (1997), the elements of harassment include (1) the defendant making or causing to be made a communication; (2) with the purposes to harass another; and (3) in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm to the intended recipient. On appeal, the N.J. Appellate Division found that the e-mail to J.D.'s employer could be designed for no other purpose than to harass J.D. The Appellate Division further held that the need to prevent further abuse, under Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112 (App. Div. 2006), was a factor in this matter and affirmed the decision of the court below. If you are charged with domestic violence or seeking a final restraining order against an abuser, there are specific burdens of proof for both parties in proving or disproving the charges making it critical that you obtain experienced criminal defense counsel to represent you in such matters. For more information regarding domestic violence, restraining orders, assault, battery and other criminal law issues in NJ visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Cyber-Harassment Laws Punish Those Using Internet For Personal Grudges

In spite of numerous educational efforts targeted to both juveniles and adults, the crime of cyber-harassment continues to be a growing issue due to the perceived degree of anonymity by those perpetrating such crimes. Cyber-harassment (N.J.S.A. 2:33-4.1) is communication with the purpose to harass another by employing a physical threat of bodily injury or the conveyance of lewd, indecent or obscene material with the purpose of causing emotional harm to the person or persons portrayed in said material. Actual harm need not be caused by the acts as long as the acts are undertaken with the intent to emotionally harm a reasonable person or place a reasonable person in fear of physical or emotional harm. Cyber-harassment charges are substantially more serious than standard harassment charges under N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4. While standard harassment charges are disorderly persons offenses, cyber-harassment charges under N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4.1 are felony charges which begin at a fourth-degree level and increase in degree if aggravating circumstances are present. Due to the serious consequences, ranging from minimal damage to a person's reputation to suicide in some extreme cases, New Jersey and other states have taken an increasingly harsh stance against those accused of perpetrating or conspiring (N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 and 2C:33-4.1) to perpetrate such crimes. The federal government has also enacted 18 U.S.C. Section 2261A, applicable to those intending to threaten or harm, physically or emotionally, those in other states by employment of the internet. If you are charged with cyber-harassment, or conspiracy to commit cyber-harassment, you should consult an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately. For more information about cyber-harassment, harassment or other serious criminal charges in NJ visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.