Unconstitutional Traffic Stop Leads To Suppression Of Weapons Evidence

Al-Sharif Scriven was charged with second-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)); third-degree receiving stolen property (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7); fourth-degree possession of hollow-point bullets (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(f)); and fourth-degree possession of a large-capacity magazine (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(j)). The Honorable Martin G. Cronin, for the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County granted Al-Sharif Scriven’s motion to suppress evidence seized during the warrantless search following the stop of a vehicle in which Scriven was a passenger. The vehicle was stopped by an Essex County Sheriff’s Officer for violating N.J.S.A. 39:3-60, driving with high beams on. The State of New Jersey appealed the court’s grant of the suppression motion. The facts adduced at trial were that Scriven was a passenger in a car which was traveling through Newark, NJ in an entirely lawful manner, with the exception of the fact that the vehicle was traveling with its high beams on. An Essex County Sheriff’s Officer observed the vehicle and flagged it down when it came to a stop at an intersection he was near. When the officer approached the driver to advise her that her high beams were on he requested her credentials. While speaking to the driver, the officer detected an odor of burnt marijuana emanating from inside the vehicle which the officer indicated was stronger on the passenger side of the vehicle. The officer asked Scriven to exit the vehicle and Scriven first notified the officer that there was a handgun under his coat. The officer retrieved the gun from Scriven’s person and arrested him. Judge Cronin relied on State v. Witt, 435 N.J. Super. 608 (App. Div. 2014), 219 N.J. 624 (2014), which was directly on point and held that the initial stop of a vehicle is inappropriate when there is no actual violation. In Scriven, there was no oncoming vehicle within 500 feet traveling in the opposite direction as is required in order for a violation of N.J.S.A. 39:3-60 to occur. On appeal, in State v. Scriven, the court looked to State v. Puzio, 379 N.J. Super. 378 (App. Div. 2005), which held that when an officer makes a mistake in the belief that a violation exists the mistake does not thereby create a reasonable basis for a stop. The State also argued, under the community caretaking doctrine, the officer was acting appropriately in stopping the vehicle briefly to notify the driver that her high beams were in use. In certain cases, including State v. Martinez, 260 N.J. Super. 75 (App. Div. 1992), wherein a vehicle was traveling less than one-half the posted speed limit at 2:00 a.m., an officer would be justified in stopping the vehicle to insure there was nothing amiss. The N.J. Appellate Division upheld Judge Cronin’s decision and the State again appealed. On Wednesday, July 20, 2016, the N.J. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court below suppressing the weapon found on Al-Sharif Scriven as the fruits of an unreasonable search. Second-degree unlawful possession of a firearm or handgun carries up to 10 years in prison with a mandatory parole ineligibility period under the Graves Act (N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(c)). If you are facing weapons charges you should seek experienced criminal defense counsel immediately. For more information about weapons possession, use or possession of a gun in the commission of a crime, possession of a handgun without a permit, weapons possession while on probation or parole, illegal weapons or other weapons related charges in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Concealed Weapons Carry Permits for NJ Citizens "In Need"?

Governor Christie is in a battle with the Democrats controlling both houses of the NJ Legislature over concealed weapons carry permits in New Jersey. While Christie has determined that the restrictions requiring the showing of a “justifiable need” for a carry permit are too restrictive, the Legislature claims that Christie’s criteria requiring a showing of “serious threats” against one’s life is violative of the Legislative intent in the creation of the existing gun control laws in NJ. In addition to complaints by gun rights advocates indicating the permitting process was inefficient and overly restrictive, Chistie indicated that changes were a response to the murder of Carol Browne by her ex-boyfriend, against whom she had a restraining order, while Ms. Brown awaited approval of her gun permit. A3689 and SCR101 were immediately sponsored by the Assembly and Senate respectively in a response seeking to codify regulatory language relating to handgun carry permits. Democrats in control of the Senate and Assembly argued that the new standards could serve to substantially increase the number of carry permits in NJ and allow an overly broad spectrum of individuals to obtain permits. The Attorney General’s office replied that all other statutory requirements would continue to apply and a Superior Court judge would have to sign off on the permit so that the only change would be from the showing of an “actual need” to a showing of a specific “serious threat” against the person seeking the permit. The fate of this legislation is still pending. If you are caught illegally carrying firearms the penalties can be severe making it well worth the effort to seek a permit to carry legally. For more information about gun or weapon possession, possession of weapons during a drug related offense, armed robbery, possession of a handgun without a permit, use or possession of a gun in the commission of a crime, illegal weapons, unlawful possession of a weapon or possession of a weapon while on parole or probation visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

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.

Gun Permit Bill Veto By Governor Christie Is Overridden

Governor Chris Christie's veto of a bill addressing gun permits in New Jersey, S-2360, was overridden by the NJ Senate. The bill would require notification to the courts when an individual sought to have mental health records expunged for the purpose of obtaining a firearms purchaser identification card. Christie called the bill a 'half-measure' which failed to address mental health issues and gun violence comprehensively. Under S-2360, individuals would have to notify New Jersey State Police, their county prosecutor and local police department when seeking expungement of their mental health records for the purpose of obtaining a gun permit. Presently, those with mental health histories are unable to obtain a gun permit under most circumstances. While proponents of the bill believe it will close loopholes which currently allow those with a history of mental illness to purchase guns legally, Christie believes the public would be better served by requiring those previously mandated to mental health treatment to prove they had been successfully treated and in order to obtain a gun permit. For more information about gun laws in New Jersey including obtaining a gun permit, possession of illegal weapons, unlawful possession of a weapon, regulations on BB guns and paintball guns and other weapons offenses visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

State v. Witt, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-2.4 and Guns

Under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-2.4, police may impound your vehicle in the event that a weapon contained therein is possessed for an unlawful purpose (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4); an individual is in unlawful possession of a weapon therein (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5); a motor vehicle with an occupant unlawfully possessing a weapon is used in another crime; the motor vehicle is used to further prostitution (N.J.S.A. 2C:34-1); and either controlled dangerous substances (CDS) are contained within the vehicle (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10) or the vehicle is being used for drug trafficking (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5). If you are stopped for a simple traffic violation and the police find cause within the newly prescribed limits of State v. William Witt, 219 N.J. 624 (2014), wherein the New Jersey Court overturned its prior ruling in Pena-Flores, 198 N.J. 6 (2009), relaxing the requirements for police to obtain a warrant to search your vehicle, you may find yourself facing weapons charges and without the reasonable transportation you need to obtain suitable defense counsel. Second-degree unlawful possession of a firearm or handgun carries up to 10 years in prison with a mandatory parole ineligibility period under the Graves Act (N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(c)). If you find yourself facing weapons charges or the impoundment of your vehicle as a result of a warrantless search or search with inadequate probable cause, you should immediately seek the assistance of a seasoned criminal defense attorney to protect your rights. For more information about possession of a controlled dangerous substance, CDS in a motor vehicle (N.J.S.A. 39:4-49.1), distribution of CDS, weapons possession, use or possession of a gun in the commission of a crime, possession of a handgun without a permit, weapons possession while on probation or parole, illegal weapons or other weapons related charges in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Assault Conviction For Off-Duty Police Officer

Newark police officer, Hugo Fierro, was indicted for second-degree official misconduct (N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2), third-degree aggravated assault causing bodily injury (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(7)), third-degree aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(2)); fourth-degree aggravated assault by pointing a handgun at another person (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(4)) and second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a)) after a an off-duty altercation outside an Essex County bar while out with his wife. He was convicted by a jury of simple and aggravated assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1) and official misconduct and sentenced to 5 years in prison without parole, the minimum for official misconduct under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.5.1. Evidence offered at trial indicated that Fierro, while off duty and walking with his wife in the Ironbound section of Newark after dinner and dancing, encountered a group of men drinking on the street and went out of his way to order them to disperse. He next identified himself as a police officer to another intoxicated man and guided him by the arm toward a street to help him obtain a cab. At this time, the victim claimed he approached and Fierro yelled "what's your problem? What's your problem?" and tried to grab the victim. Upon finding himself unable to catch the victim, Fierro withdrew a gun from his side, stated he was a police officer, pursued the retreating victim and hit him in the face with the barrel of the handgun at which time the victim fled. The following day the victim reported the incident and selected Fierro's photo out of a photo array. An outdoor camera had recorded the incident and Fierro was positively identified. However, Fierro testified that, while he was trying to assist an intoxicated man to a cab, the victim approached, would not go away when Fierro asked, twice slapped Fierro's hand when he attempted to create space between them and was acting in a manner which caused Fierro to believe the victim may attack. Fierro claimed that he did not strike the man but did push him away by placing his hands on the victim's chest and pushing him back while holding his gun as he believed the victim may have possessed a weapon. Additionally, an officer who took the victim's report testified that there was no visible damage to the victim's face at the time the report was made. On appeal, in State v. Fierro, the defendant argued that the jury's split verdict demonstrated the juror's lack of understanding of the elements of the charges. The NJ Appellate Division considered Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390, 52 S. Ct. 189, 76 L. Ed. 356 (1932), United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 105 S. Ct. 471, 83 L. Ed. 461 (1984), State v. Banko, 182 N.J. 44 (2004), State v. Muhammad, 182 N.J. 551 (2005) and others in holding that a split verdict does not definitively indicate that the jury did not fully understand and properly execute its function. The conviction was affirmed on appeal. Assault and attempted assault charges are very serious and bear severe consequences. If you are a police officer or other official, the consequences are even more severe. If you are facing assault charges, you should obtain experienced criminal defense counsel immediately to insure your rights are protected. For more information about assault, illegal possession of a handgun, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purposed or other serious criminal charges in New Jersey, visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

S2003/A4229 Promotes Rehabilitation Of Juvenile Offenders

In a move to promote rehabilitation of juvenile offenders, juveniles may receive additional protection from facing trial as adults if S2003, a Senate bill, the same as A4229 in the Assembly, is passed. The bill pertains to how juveniles facing criminal offenses may be tried, held before and after trial, and represented. Presently, juveniles age 14 and over may be tried as adults. S2003 would make 15 the minimum age at which a juvenile could be tried as an adult. S2003 would permit juveniles to be tried as adults only for Criminal homicide other than death by auto, strict liability for drug induced deaths, first-degree robbery, carjacking, aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, second-degree aggravated assault, kidnapping, aggravated arson, certain gang criminality; or when the juvenile had previously been adjudicated delinquent, or convicted, on the basis of certain offenses enumerated; or when the juvenile had previously been sentenced and confined in an adult penal institution; or offense against a person committed in an aggressive, violent and willful manner; or the unlawful possession of a firearm, destructive device or other prohibited weapon, arson or death by auto while under the influence of an intoxicating liquor, narcotic, hallucinogenic or habit producing drug; or a violation of N.J.S.2C:35-3, N.J.S.2C:35-4, or N.J.S.2C:35-5; or a conspiracy; certain forms of attempt or conspiracy; or theft of an automobile pursuant to chapter 20 of Title 2C of the New Jersey Statutes; or possession of a firearm with a purpose to use it unlawfully against the person of another or the crime of aggravated assault, aggravated criminal sexual contact, burglary or escape if, while in the course of committing or attempting to commit the crime including the immediate flight therefrom, the juvenile possessed a firearm; or computer criminal activity which would be a crime of the first or second degree; and other specific crimes involving controlled dangerous substances. Juveniles age 14 and over may now be housed with adults but S2003 would prohibit juveniles under 18 from being incarcerated in adult jails or prisons rather than the current limit of 16 years old. In certain cases juveniles could remain in youth facilities until age 21 even if they are convicted as adults. At present, juveniles may be placed in solitary confinement for not more than ten days per month. As the concept behind S2003 is rehabilitation first and foremost, solitary confinement of juveniles would be a measure of last resort and heavily restricted. If all other avenues are exhausted and the juvenile remains a threat to facility security or others solitary confinement may be utilized for no more than two consecutive days for juveniles who are 15 years of age, three consecutive days for juveniles ages 16 and 17 and up to a maximum of five days for juveniles age 18 and over. Juvenile cases are typically heard in Family Court and, under S2003, they would be entitled to counsel, either private or appointed, during all hearings relating to the transfer of their individual case from the Family Part to the Criminal Part. A prosecutor seeking to move a juvenile matter to the Criminal Part would be required to provide written notice to the Family Part judge setting forth the reasons the transfer is being sought. Additionally, the Family Part judge would be required to undertake their own analysis and then accept or reject the prosecutor’s motion. The bill was passed by both the Senate and Assembly and now will move before Governor Chris Christie for consideration. If you or your child have been charged as a juvenile offender, it is critical that you seek an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately to protect your rights and your future. Do not compound one mistake by choosing the wrong criminal defense attorney. For more information about juvenile offenses, gang crimes, and various criminal offenses in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Murder Conviction Cannot Stand on Cumulative Trial Errors

Jahnell Weaver and Khalil Bryant were in attendance at a graduation party in Camden, NJ where someone pulled a gun and fired 5 shots killing Edward Williams and wounding Amyr Hill. Although only one individual could have fired the gun, both Hill and Weaver were implicated by others at the party. Jahnell Weaver and Khalil Bryant were juveniles but both were charged as adults with first-degree murder (N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1)(2)); first-degree attempted murder (N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1 and 2C:11-3); second-degree aggravated assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(1)); third-degree assault with a deadly weapon (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(2)); second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a)); third-degree unlawful possession of a weapon (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)); and third-degree endangering an injured victim (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1.2). At trial, the only significant dispute was weather Weaver or Bryant was the shooter. Both Weaver and Bryant were seen with guns at the party. Hill identified Bryant as the shooter then changed his testimony while other witnesses offered conflicting testimony. Weaver offered that Bryant later used the same weapon in a shooting as a defense and Weaver moved for a separate trial. The court denied Weaver’s application to admit other crimes evidence regarding Bryant’s shooting of another individual shortly after the incident in question due to the substantial prejudice it would cause against Bryant as well as denying Weaver’s request for a separate trial. The State was able to admit Bryant’s statement that he received the gun immediately after the shooting in question. However, because Bryant did not testify, Weaver did not have the opportunity to cross-examine him with regard to the statement. Lamike Goffney, an eyewitness, saw one of the men fleeing the scene hand the gun to another man fleeing the scene and other evidence in the trial led the jury to the conclusion that Bryant then received the weapon from Weaver. Weaver was ultimately convicted and appealed. After the NJ Appellate Division upheld the decision of the trial court, State v. Weaver was heard by the NJ Supreme Court. The NJ Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Appellate Division and remanded the matter for a new trial based on the potential prejudice to Weaver as a result of the cumulative errors in denying his request for a separate trial, refusing to allow other crimes evidence and allowing Bryant’s statement to enter without cross-examination. The penalty for murder is severe including 30 years to life in prison. If you are facing homicide charges, you need experienced criminal defense counsel to protect your rights. For more information about murder, homicide, unlawful possession of a weapon, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, assault, assault with a deadly weapon or other serious crimes in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Gun And Drugs Discovered Due To Defendant's Suspicious Behavior

Ramier Dunbar was indicted for second degree possession of a weapon (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)); second degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a)); fourth degree possession of a hollow-point bullet (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(f)); third degree resisting arrest (N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(a)); and fourth degree obstruction of the administration of law (N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1). State v. Dunbar arose from a custodial stop for which the police claimed to have probable cause. In Jersey City officers were dispatched to a report of gunshots fired. Responding officers arrived within seconds to find a group of approximately 30 individuals. They immediately noticed one individual they claimed to appear overly nervous within the screaming crowd. While maintaining constant visual contact with a marked patrol car, Dunbar disappeared down an alley momentarily then re-emerged and began walking away from the scene. Officers followed him in the patrol car and attempted to question him about the shots fired but the defendant ignored officers and, by their account, appeared more nervous. Officers ordered the Defendant to stop at which point he began to run. While running from the police, the Defendant pulled a handgun from his waistband and threw it. Officers apprehended the Defendant shortly and also discovered a bag of marijuana on his person. At trial, the judge granted Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized during his arrest. The NJ Appellate Division reversed the trial court. In rendering the decision, the Appellate Division differentiated Dunbar from State v. Williams, 410 N.J. Super. 549 (App. Div. 2009) wherein police involved in community policing stopped an individual who fled the area upon sight of the police, ignored their commands to stop, discarded contraband upon apprehension and the evidence was suppressed as the officers actions were not founded on reasonable suspicion in the eyes of the court. In State v. DeLorenzo, 166 N.J. Super. 483 (App. Div. 1979) the court held that an investigatory stop is not reasonable based on simple nervousness. Unlike Williams, the prosecution in Dunbar argued that, based on the facts, the officers formed reasonable and articulable suspicion that Defendant had committed a crime, the gun was abandoned property lawfully recovered after the Defendant discarded it and the marijuana was seized incident to arrest. Also, unlike DeLorenzo, Dunbar’s nervousness was accompanied by flight while constantly observing police and in the midst of an excited crowd immediately after gun shots were reported. The Appellate Division found the stop and seizure to fall within Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) as an exception to the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution wherein a warrant is required in matters of search and seizure. The totality of “shots fired”, a “chaotic scene” and the defendant’s behavior were enough to enable the Appellate Judges to find the officers had a reasonable basis for their actions. If you are facing weapons charges or drug charges you are subject to harsh penalties including lengthy incarceration and substantial fines. You should seek the assistance of an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately to protect your rights. For more information regarding weapons possession, use of a weapon for an improper purpose, illegal weapons, robbery, possession of controlled dangerous substances (CDS) or other serious criminal offenses visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Dilapidated Does Not Mean Abandoned In Warrantless Search

The NJ Supreme Court recently decided State v. Brown, a case in which a warrantless search undertaken by police uncovered a gun, drugs and drug paraphernalia within a residence. After receiving information from two confidential witnesses and a concerned citizen, police conducted surveillance on two non-consecutive days at a run-down residence with the electric meter removed, broken windows, a padlock on the front door, the rear door off the hinges but propped close from the inside and the inside littered with trash. Trooper Kurt Kennedy received information that one of the defendants had a sawed-off shotgun in the residence, was stashing controlled dangerous substances (CDS) inside for distribution and possessed a key he utilized to enter. Kennedy observed, on four separate occasions during one day, individuals approach one of the defendants and provide him with cash and then watched him walk up to the residence, unlock the door, enter and quickly exit the residence and provide the purchasers with suspected CDS. On a second day, Trooper Kennedy observed 14 such transactions. NJ State Troopers arrested four defendants after observing what they considered to be drug activity within an abandoned house within which the defendants were trespassing. Kennedy and the other Troopers made conclusions based on the area being known for crime and general knowledge obtained from being assigned to the area. There were no exigent circumstances apparent, the troopers did not take the time to review the property's deed, tax records, utility records and the like. However, Kennedy did look up Strong, the defendant with the key, and found him listed as residing nearby. Strong also had prior drug convictions. The Troopers also observed similar activity at another residence nearby but did not undertake a warrantless entry of that home as they recognized it to be occupied. Upon obtaining evidence from the warrantless search of the first residence, the police used the "fruit of the poisonous tree" to secure a warrant for the residence they recognized as inhabited. The NJ Supreme Court, in State v. Brown, set forth the presumptiveness against warrantless searches as the backdrop for their review. State v. Johnson, 193 N.J. 528 (2008), State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224 (2007). The state bears the burden of proving a warrantless search falls within one of several well delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement. State v. Pineiro, 181 N.J. 13 (2004). If the property was truly abandoned, the defendant could not have a possessory interest and therefore no expectation of privacy in the property. The fact that police obtained a key, from one of the defendants, to the padlock on the front door prior to conducting the warrantless search should have indicated that the defendants were exercising control over the property to some degree and alerted them that a warrant was required prior to entry. Under State v. Linton, 356 N.J. Super. 255 (App. Div. 2002) the state would have to show a reasonable belief the house was abandoned and no expectation of privacy could have existed in order to justify the warrantless entry. Before holding the that the state failed to meet its burden of proof due to the NJ State Police failure to determine the property was abandoned or the defendants were trespassers, the court also stated the contrary premise that the police do not need a warrant when observing a stranger inside a structure with a broken front door lock and a door wide open. Clearly the warrant requirement is subject to broad interpretation as it would be difficult to know who is a stranger or an owner in every house in every community and, from the court's example, there is a distinction between doors off hinges and doors wide open with broken locks. The difference between having a search upheld or suppressing evidence obtained from a search rests on small legal distinctions. If the police obtained evidence against you in what you believed to be an illegal search, it is critical that you obtain experienced criminal defense counsel to defend you against the prosecution. For more information about warrantless search, search and seizure, drugs, weapons or other criminal issues in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of counsel.

NJ Governor Signs In New Gun Control Laws

Last Thursday New Jersey Governor Chris Christie signed ten bills looking to strengthen gun control and upgrade penalties for those who are arrested for unlawful gun possession throughout the state. These gun control measures were introduced in the state senate after the tragic shooting that took place December 14th, 2012 at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The series of newly signed bills is designed to create a safer and more well monitored system for the purchase and sales of all firearms throughout the state. Along with making the system more safe these bills are also going to make punishment crimes involving guns more harsh. One of the significant bills signed by the governor was the Anti-Gun Trafficking Act of 2013. This act focuses on the illegal transfer and sale of firearms across state lines. Many believe one of the most significant ways to cut down on illegal gun possession is to stop it at its source, which is by way of illegal sales from sources outside of New Jersey. For those who are convicted of transporting guns into New Jersey for illegal purposes under the Anti-Gun Trafficking Act of 2013, the crime is considered one of the second degree, meaning that there is a minimum of five years incarceration, which is not within the discretion of the sentencing judge. For those who presently own an illegal weapon there is a grace period of six months to dispose of the firearms before being convicted or punished. Unlawful possession of a firearm in NJ will have a serious impact on your life and can have significant implications in related matters such as later personal injury or other criminal charges. Given the serious implications of weapons charges it is critical that, if you are charged with illegal gun possession or trafficking in NJ, whether knowingly or unknowingly, you should seek an experienced attorney who can immediately begin preparing your defense. For more information about robbery, gun possession without a permit, possession of weapons for an unlawful purpose, illegal weapons or other serious matters stemming from gun use or possession in NJ visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney in your matter.

Can NJ Police Legally Listen to Phone Conversations In Other States?

A Florida man was charged with the crimes of 1st degree murder, 1st degree felony murder, 2nd degree burglary, 2nd degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, 3rd degree possession of a firearm without a permit; 3rd degree conspiracy to hinder apprehension, 4th degree obstruction of justice and 3rd degree witness tampering as a result of a wiretap initiated by NJ law enforcement. In State v. Ates, 46 A. 3d 550 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2012) the defendant's former son in law, Paul Duncsak was on the phone with his fiancee who testified to hearing him shout "no, oh no" then she heard a loud thud. When police arrived they found Dunscak's lock had been picked and he had been shot multiple times at close range. Based on other evidence uncovered during the investigation, Passaic County Superior Court Judge Marilyn Clark issues orders permitting wiretaps for electronic communications between Ates and others. The wiretaps provided police with hundreds of recorded calls, with the inclusion of many calls between Ates and his defense attorney. Ates' defense counsel unsuccessfully filed a motion to dismiss based on the wiretaps of conversations between the two. Bergen County Superior Court Judge Harry Carroll ordered the conversations between Ates and his lawyer suppressed but refused to dismiss the matter. Defendant was convicted of all charges and is now serving a life sentence. The NJ Appellate Division found that the New Jersey Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-3 and 4(d), constitutionally permits wiretaps of calls in other states as the law enforcement agency listening to the conversations is located in New Jersey. The defense challenge centered on the argument that a wiretap warrant should also have been required in Florida, the state in which defendant resided. The matter is to be heard by the New Jersey Supreme Court. If the N.J. Supreme Court determines the wiretaps in Ates were constitutional, it will greatly expand permissible listening powers by NJ law enforcement officials. If you believe police may have illegally obtained evidence against you and you are now being charged with a crime in NJ, you should immediately obtain an experienced criminal defense attorney to protect your rights. For more information regarding wiretaps, burglary, weapons offenses, drug offenses or other criminal law issues in NJ visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and is not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.