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.

Handgun In Plain View? Prove it!

Jarrell Williams was convicted of second-degree unlawful possession of a weapon (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5b) after an officer allegedly saw a handgun in plain view on the floor of his vehicle during a motor vehicle stop. At all times during the proceedings, Williams maintained that he was unaware that the vehicle, recently purchased by his mother, contained a handgun. Williams also maintained that the gun was not in plain view on the floor of the vehicle near the driver’s seat. The facts collectively presented at trial in State v. Williams are that 4 men, including the defendant, entered the vehicle and smoked marijuana then the defendant pulled the vehicle out of the driveway just as two plain clothed police officers came down the street at which point Williams immediately pulled over and turned off the vehicle. The officers claimed that the location and actions of the defendant and the vehicles’ other occupants gave rise to suspicion and the officers turned around. Seeing the officers’ vehicle turn around, all 4 occupants exited the vehicle before the officers engaged them in conversation. Conflicting accounts of the vehicle’s ownership were offered by occupants and Officer Brown approached the vehicle, with its doors open, to verify the registration. The officer’s testimony was that he observed a marijuana cigarette and plastic bag and, upon going to retrieve same, noticed the pistol on the floor in front of the driver’s seat. The 6th Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1 of the New Jersey Constitution establish and protect a defendant’s right to present a complete defense including confrontation of witnesses. Several cases including State v. Garron, 177 N.J. 147 (2003), State v. Budis, 125 N.J. 519 (1991), State v. Sugar, 100 N.J. 214 (1985), State v. Crudup, 176 N.J. Super. 215 (App. Div. 1980) and State v. Guenther, 181 N.J. 129 (2004) have upheld this right but within the constraints of N.J.R.E. 611(a) and N.J.R.E. 401 which afford the court discretion of control over the trial. The N.J. Appellate Division ultimately decided that the jury should not be placed in the position of determining the constitutionality of a search and seizure but that Defense counsel’s line of questioning was not in danger of placing them in that position and was instead intended to determine whether the officer had a predetermined purpose in offering the statements he had made and was an attempt to introduce motive on the part of the officer to testify in a certain manner. The NJ Appellate Division determined that the defendant’s right to cross-examine the officer was violated and that, due to the possible influence this may have had on the decision of the jury, the matter was remanded for a new trial. Weapons offenses are subject to severe punishment including incarceration for 5-10 years for many such offenses. If you are charged with unlawful possession of a weapon, it is critical that you obtain experienced criminal defense counsel to represent you. For more information about possession of a handgun without a permit, unlawful possession of a weapon, possession of a weapon while on parole or probation, possession of a weapon during a drug related offense or other serious weapons charges visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of counsel.

NJ Handgun Permit Guidelines To Be Updated

Handgun permit processing in New Jersey is undergoing updates. On April 8, 2016, Acting Attorney General Robert Loughy issued new directives regarding uniformity in processing designed to limit instances of extreme delay and other problems. N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3 sets forth the application procedures and forms which are to be utilized by permit issuing bodies and no deviation is permitted. Agencies are prohibited from applying personal views regarding civilian firearms regulation, requiring additional forms, requiring additional information from applicants or otherwise deviating from the standards set forth. Gun permit issuing agencies have a 30 day time period to review applications under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(f), unless the applicant's life is in specific danger in which case the gun permit application review period is decreased to 14 days. Disqualification occurs upon conviction of an indictable crime or a disorderly persons domestic violence offense. Interestingly, in spite of these steps toward uniformity, there is also a very broad category for disqualification which allows issuing bodies discretion to deny a handgun permit or firearms purchaser identification card if the "issuance would not be in the interest of the public health, safety or welfare." N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5). The New Jersey State Police are charged with the drafting of uniform investigation standards. In addition, there are to be updates to Firearms Transport Guidelines. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6, transport of a firearm that is unloaded and secured in a fastened case or gun box or inside of a locked trunk is permitted directly between a home and business, place of purchase and home or business, directly from a home or business to a range or place of hunting, between a home or business and a gun repair shop or licensed gun dealer and between residences when moving. There are also undefined "reasonably necessary" deviations permitted in the route of transportation including the purchase of fuel, food, beverages, medication and other supplies; use of a restroom, pickup or discharge of passengers, emergencies, detours and other reasons. The reasonability of the deviation and lawfulness of transport is subject to the judgment of the officer encountering an individual undertaking transport. If you have been denied the right to a carry permit after meeting all criteria to obtain one you should seek an experienced attorney to assist you in your matter. 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 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.

DUI Matter Changes Warrantless Search Standard In NJ

State v. William L. Witt, (A-9-14)(074468), 435 N.J. Super. 608, 610-11 (App. Div. 2014), 219 N.J. 624 (2014), began as a possible driving under the influence (DUI) (N.J.S.A. 39:4-50) case but, due to the warrantless search of Witt's vehicle, led to an indictment for second-degree unlawful possession of a firearm (N.J.S.A. 2C:39- 5(b)) and second-degree possession of a weapon by a convicted person (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b)). Following a trial and appeals in this matter the result was the overturning of State v. Pena-Flores, 198 N.J. 6 (2009), which has been the standard for automobile searches in New Jersey. After being pulled over and removed from the vehicle for field sobriety tests, which police claim he failed. After arresting Witt, the police searched the vehicle for "intoxicants" and discovered a handgun in the center console. The trial court followed Pena-Flores in holding that the warrantless search of the vehicle, beyond a plain view search for open containers of alcohol, was in violation of Witt's rights and suppressed the handgun. The N.J. Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's decision to suppress the gun finding that there were no circumstances involved in this matter which could give rise to justification of the warrantless search. The N.J. Supreme Court held, days ago, that there should be a return to the standard of State v. Alston, 88 N.J. 211 (1981), wherein the automobile exception to the warrant requirement allows police with probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime to search a vehicle when unforseeable circumstances arise during a motor vehicle stop. State v. Cooke, 163 N.J. 657 (2000), added the need for exigent circumstances to the standard set in Alston and Pena-Flores reaffirmed Cooke adding a preference for the use of available technology to obtain warrants in if at all practicable. The State argued that the Pena-Flores standard was overly subjective, lacked uniform application, placed police officers in harm's way, motorists were ultimately consenting rather than the police applying for warrants, and where vehicles were impounded the intrusion was greater than that involved in a roadside search. The NJ Supreme Court considered the standard established by the United States Supreme Court, which requires only that the vehicle is easily moveable, including even mobile homes, and the officer has probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of an offense. The NJ Supreme Court further considered the difficulty caused to officers by upholding the standards in Pena-Flores against the Constitutional protections it provides. The Court opted for a return to the standard established in Alston, which offers police much broader authority to avoid obtaining a search warrant than under Pena-Flores. If you are facing charges of DUI, refusal or other criminal charges as a result of an included search of your vehicle, you should obtain experienced criminal defense counsel immediately. For more information about DUI, controlled dangerous substances (CDS) in a motor vehicle, illegal possession of a firearm, other weapons offenses or other serious motor vehicle charges in NJ visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Denial Of Motion To Suppress Marijuana And Handgun Upheld

Kenneth L. Hawes was indicted for third-degree possession of marijuana with intent to distribute (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) and 2C:35-5(b)(11)); second-degree possession of marijuana with intent to distribute within 500 feet of public property (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7.1); second-degree possession of a firearm while in the course of committing a crime (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5 and 2C:39-4.1(a)); second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)); and second-degree certain persons not to have weapons (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b)). An anonymous caller informed Franklin Township police that a black male was selling what may be narcotics from an SUV in a parking lot. Upon investigating, officers in plain clothes saw the man, who had been brought to their attention previously, selling hats, CDS, DVDs and other merchandise from a GMC Envoy and, upon approaching, smelled a strong odor of raw marijuana emanating from Hawes and the SUV. Hawes moved away from the officers but was seized by the arm and subjected to a pat-down search by the officers for their personal safety in which a small pouch with marijuana was discovered on Hawes person and he was placed under arrest. Hawes then asked if he could return the merchandise to his vehicle before being removed and upon returning the merchandise to the vehicle for him, the officers discovered a handgun in partial plain view. Officer Hernandez removed the gun then proceeded to search the vehicle for other weapons, discovering an additional 70 bags of marijuana in the vehicle. At the suppression hearing, in State v. Hawes, the defendant testified that he never asked the officers to return anything to the vehicle and that the weapon was not in plain view. The motion judge found the defendant and his 4 witnesses to lack credibility and denied the motion to suppress. Following the denial of his suppression motion, Hawes entered a retraxit plea of guilty to both indictments in exchange for the State's recommendation of a maximum 10 year sentence with a 5 year period of parole ineligibility. The Somerset County Superior Court Judge sentenced Hawes according to the plea agreement but did not separately impose sentences on the charges. Hawes challenged the validity of the scope of the pat-down search, pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968), in which under claim of a protective search officers opened the coin pouch discovered in his pocket. Hawes further challenged the ensuing search of his vehicle, including discovery of the handgun and bags of marijuana, as fruit of the poisonous tree under Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487-88, 83 S. Ct. 407, 417-18, 9 L. Ed. 2d 441, 454-56 (1963). The NJ Appellate Division followed State v. O'Neal, 190 N.J. 601 (2007); State v. Maryland, 167 N.J. 471 (2001); State v. Citarella, 154 N.J. 272 (1998); and State v. Pineiro, 181 N.J. 13 (2004) in properly placing the burden of proof on the State to prove the warrantless search and seizure was soundly within one of the well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement. The Appellate Court held that, based on the circumstances at the time of the search under State v. Pena-Flores, 198 N.J. 6 (2009), police had probable cause to arrest Hawes and, therefore, the search and seizure were valid under Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969); State v. Dangerfield, 171 N.J. 446 (2002); State v. McKenna, 228 N.J. Super. 468 (App. Div. 1988); and State v. Burnett, 42 N.J. 377 (1964). Further, the Appellate Division held that defendant's request to return the merchandise to his vehicle gave police opportunity to view the handgun, in plain view, in the defendant's vehicle which, once discovered, made it valid for the police to search the remainder of the vehicle for further weapons without first obtaining a warrant pursuant to U.S. v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 102 S. Ct. 2157, 72 L. Ed. 2d 572 (1968). Although the denial of the suppression motion was upheld on appeal, the matter was remanded for re-sentencing due to the court's failure to impose individual sentences for each offense as required under State v. Rodriguez, 97 N.J. 263 (1984). 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 DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of counsel.

Handgun Discovered In Search Will Not Be Suppressed

James J. Scarborough pled guilty to second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)) after police found a handgun under his seat in a vehicle during an investigatory search based on the odor of burnt marijuana coming from the vehicle's interior. He was sentenced to 5 years incarceration, subject to a 3 year period of parole ineligibility under the Graves Act (N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6c). Police received an anonymous call about a vehicle parked in the rear lot of a closed facility and, upon responding, discovered 2 males in the vehicle involved in what the officer suspected to be drug activity. Upon encountering the driver the officer perceived an odor of burnt marijuana. Ultimately, the driver signed a consent to search form and a handgun was discovered under the passenger seat where Scarborough was sitting along with a magazine and ammunition between the passenger seat and door. Scarborough told police he found the gun in the woods earlier in the day and did not know what to do with it. Scarborough filed a motion to suppress the evidence and his statement, both of which were denied and he then entered into the guilty plea. In State v. Scarborough the defendant appealed and the NJ Appellate Division upheld the denial of the suppression motion finding that a field inquiry under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed.2d 889 (1968) was permissible based on the anonymous call regarding the vehicle. The odor of burnt marijuana then gave probable cause to believe a crime was committed under State v. Vanderveer, 285 N.J. Super. 475 (App. Div. 1995) and State v. Nishina, 175 N.J. 502 (2003). Once the officer had probable cause to believe criminal activity was afoot he was justified, under State v. Carty, 170 N.J. 632 (2002), in seeking consent to search the vehicle. Finally the NJ Appellate Division found no abuse of discretion by the trial judge in determining the Scarborough's statement was not coerced. The matter was, however, remanded as to sentencing factors only. Second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun in NJ carries up to 10 years in prison with a mandatory period of parole ineligibility under the Graves Act. If you are charged with a weapons offense you need experienced criminal defense counsel. For more information about weapons possession, possession of a weapon without a permit, use or possession of a weapon in the commission of a crime, illegal weapons or other weapon 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.

Man Is Charged With Possession Of A Firearm After Calling 9-1-1 To Aid Another

Donald Peterson was charged with second-degree possession of a firearm (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b)) and fourth-degree possession of a machete (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(a)) as a result of being a good samaritan. Peterson called the Hillsborough Police to report an unconscious male in front of his residence. Ultimately a murder investigation ensued with regard to the man discovered, based on the suspicious death of the 16 year old male. The Somerset County Prosecutor’s Office obtained a warrant to search the residence of Peterson for evidence that the victim had been in Peterson’s residence including “hair, fibers, fingerprints, bodily fluids, DNA, and other microscopic/forensic evidence. During multiple interviews with police officers, after Miranda warnings, Peterson admitted to having a criminal history as well as possessing weapons. While searching Peterson’s residence, the police discovered a Winchester rifle and a machete which Peterson was prohibited from possessing under N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7 as a certain person prohibited from possessing weapons due to his prior criminal history. Although no evidence was discovered liking Peterson to the death of the man he discovered on his sidewalk, he was indicted for the weapons possessions charges. In State v. Peterson, the defendant sought to suppress the discovery of the weapons in light of the fact that, although discovered in plain view during the search, discovery was not inadvertent given his prior notice to officers of his possession of same. Over the State’s objection, the NJ Superior Court, Law Division- Criminal Part, Somerset County suppressed the weapons in reliance on State v. Bruzzese, 94 N.J. 210, 236 (1983) holding inadvertent discovery to be an essential element for application of the ‘plain view’ exception to the search warrant requirement. The NJ Appellate Division reviewed the matter and found the inevitable discovery doctrine to apply in this case involving a search warrant for evidence establishing the victim’s pre-mortem presence in Peterson’s residence. Pursuant to State v. Marshall, 199 N.J. 602, 611 (2009), a lawful search should be limited to the areas likely to lead to discovery of the intended object of the search. In State v. Sheehan, 217 N.J. Super. 20 (1987), the court determined that when a search warrant applies to the entire premises, any item discovered therein is lawful as within the scope of the warrant. The court determined that State v. Gamble, 218 N.J. 412, 412 (2014) provided the N.J. Supreme Court with the opportunity to strike down or limit inadvertent discovery doctrine yet the justices did not seize upon said opportunity. The court turned to State v. Sugar, 108 N.J. 151, 156-157 (1987) establishing proof required by the State to invoke the inevitable discovery doctrine as follows: “(1) proper, normal and specific investigatory procedures would have been pursued in order to complete the investigation of the case; (2) under all of the surrounding relevant circumstances the pursuit of those procedures would have inevitably resulted in the discovery of the evidence; and (3) the discovery of the evidence through the use of such procedures would have occurred wholly independently of the discovery of such evidence by unlawful means.” Based on Peterson’s statements to police regarding his criminal history and his possession of the rifle, a warrant would have properly issued for a search for the weapon wholly independent of the warrant related to whether the victim had been present in Peterson’s residence pre-mortem. The NJ Appellate Division found the inevitable discovery doctrine to apply in this matter and reversed the trial court’s suppression of the rifle. If you are facing weapons charges, you should seek experienced criminal defense counsel immediately to protect your rights. 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, certain persons not to possess weapons or weapons charges in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Handgun Located By Casino Valet Not Suppressed

Phillip King was charged with second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)). King left his car with a casino valet at Trump Plaza and, upon entering the vehicle the valet noticed the center console to be partially open. The valet then attempted to close the console and could not. Upon opening the console to attempt to move the obstruction, the valet saw the obstruction was the butt of a handgun. The valet returned the console lid to its partially opened position and notified local police. Upon arrival, the police found the vehicle’s center console cover to be in the partially opened position and, without first obtaining a search warrant, opened the console to look inside and removed the handgun from the center console. The vehicle had Pennsylvania license plates, King had a valid Pennsylvania driver’s license and a valid Pennsylvania gun carry permit and claimed he was unaware that he could not legally transport the firearm in his vehicle in New Jersey. King sought to suppress the handgun over the State’s argument that warrantless search was valid under the community caretaking exception, the automobile exception and the third-party exception. The court held that the State had ample time to secure a warrant as the vehicle was parked in the casino’s garage and officers present at the scene could insure the vehicle was not moved. The court further held that the officer’s search exceeded the scope of the valet’s private search and therefore the third-party exception to the warrant requirement was invalidated. The State appealed with regard to the third-party intervention exception to the warrant only. The exemption assumes that a private party discovered the item or information and turned it over to police and therefore there was no violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465, 41 S. Ct. 574, 65 L. Ed. 1048 (1921). The court considered State v. King to be very similar to United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 104 S. Ct. 1652, 80 L. Ed.2d 85 (1984) wherein a private party initially searched and notified authorities of the discovery then police went further in their search than the private party had. In Jacobsen the Supreme Court held that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the cocaine discovered by the mail carrier. The court also reviewed State v. Marshall, 123 N.J. 1 (1991), State v. Minitee, 210 N.J. 307 (2012), State v. Saez, 268 N.J. Super. 250 (Ap. Div. 1993) and State v. Wright, 431 N.J. Super. 558 (App. Div. 2013), where in each case warrantless searches extended after third-party initiation were upheld by New Jersey courts. After considering the areas searched in the above mentioned matters and the expectation of privacy one could reasonably hope to have in a vehicle willingly turned over with keys to a valet, the court found that the officers actions beyond the scope of the valet in State v. King were minimal and therefore upheld the search and reversed the suppression of the handgun. 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 HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

No Suppression Of Handguns Shown In Video

Ronald Payne was convicted in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County for two counts of 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) and third-degree resisting arrest (N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2a(3)(a)) after police received a report of a man in possession with a gun in Belleville, NJ. Upon arriving in the area, police saw the defendant run to a car which sped away as soon as the defendant got in. As police chased the vehicle, Payne pointed a gun at the officers and his actions were recorded by the cruiser's dash camera. Police ultimately stopped the vehicle and, upon removing the defendant, saw two handguns in plain view on the vehicle's back seat. In State v. Payne, the defendant sought suppression of the weapons discovered, however, the Superior Court judge viewed the patrol car's video and declined to hold a suppression hearing. The defendant pled guilty and was sentenced to 5 years in prison with a 3 year parole ineligibility period under the Graves Act (N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(c)). The defendant appealed the denial of his suppression motion without an evidentiary hearing and the court's failure to award him appropriate jail credits at sentencing as a result of a parole violation. The NJ Appellate Division found that the defendant's appeal of the suppression motion was without significant merit as the video showed enough to see the handguns in plain view and leave no material facts in dispute, under State v. Hewins, 166 N.J. Super. 210 (1979), with regard to the handguns. The Appellate Division did remand the matter to the trial court to determine whether the 720 jail credit awarded to the defendant was appropriate or whether he was entitled to additional jail credits. 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. 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 serious charges in NJ visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Conviction For Attempted Murder of Newark Police Officer Upheld On Appeal

Omar Bridges and two co-conspirators were charged, by an Essex County grand jury, with three counts of first-degree attempted murder (N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3 and 2C:5-1); three counts of second-degree aggravated assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(1)); third-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, a handgun (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)); second-degree possession of a weapon, a handgun, for an unlawful purpose (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a)); second-degree unlawful possession of an assault firearm (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(f)); third-degree receiving stolen property (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7); second-degree eluding (N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(b)); and first-degree conspiracy to attempt to murder the occupants of a vehicle (N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 and 2C:11-3). Bridges was ultimately convicted of the attempted murder of Newark Police Officer Patinho, aggravated assault on Officer Patinho, unlawful possession of a weapon, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, unlawful possession of an assault weapon, receiving stolen property and certain persons not to have weapons. For his participation in stealing a Jaguar, engaging in a shoot-out with occupants of another vehicle and the shooting of a police officer in the chase thereafter, Omar Bridges was sentenced to an aggregate 40-year prison term. Officer Pathino's testimony at trial was that he saw the shoot-out while on patrol and, upon turning on the squad car's lights, a Jaguar and Subaru fled in different directions with Pathino chasing the Jaguar. The chase through Newark lasted approximately two minutes at 90 to 100 miles per hour until the Jaguar went airborne crossing railroad tracks and sustained heavy damage. When the Jaguar came to rest, Officer Pathino exited the squad car and ordered the Jaguar's passengers to show their hands at which time the passenger shot Officer Pathino. Officer Gasavage exchanged fire and the vehicle's occupants fled on foot. On appeal in State v. Bridges, the Defendant claimed the trial court erred in denying his request for a Wade hearing with regard to Officer Pathino's photo identification of the Defendant. Although New Jersey took a more broad approach to pre-trial identification in State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208 (2011), the Appellate Division determined that, under the circumstances of the case, United States v. Wade, 388, U.S. 218 (1967) did not serve to extend exclusionary principles of pre-trial identification procedures to in-court trial identifications in Defendant's case. The Defendant next raised the point that the sentencing court did not perform an appropriate analysis under State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627 (1985) which requires the court to consider six specific criteria in sentencing. The NJ Appellate Division agreed with the Defendant and remanded the matter to the sentencing court for a full statement of its reasons for imposing consecutive sentences as required under State v. Carey, 168 N.J. 413 (2001). If you are facing murder or other serious charges, you are facing a prison sentence which may last your entire life. You require an experienced criminal defense attorney to protect your rights and ensure that your are provided with the best possible defense. For more information about murder, weapons offenses, theft and other serious criminal offenses in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Attempted Assault Plea Reversed For Lack of Factual Basis

Lee Travers pled guilty to second-degree aggravated assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(1)) and second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)). Travers appealed his convictions and his sentence of 8 years subject to an 85 percent parole disqualifier under the No Early Release Act (NERA)(N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2). Police discovered a loaded gun in Travers car after receiving a call that he pointed a gun at his wife in front of their children, threatened to kill her and then pulled the trigger multiple times while Travers was under the influence. Although the gun found in Traver's car was older and had problems it did fire when examined by the State's expert and the defense expert never had opportunity to examine the gun as it had been mistakenly destroyed by the State. In State v. Travers, the NJ Appellate Court heard Defendant's appeal based on his provision of a factual basis which maintained that he did not have the intent to cause serious bodily injury to his wife and merely said what he was told to say in order to enter into the plea. The plea transcript included Travers' statement "[w]hen she said don't kill me, I pulled it out and I showed it that it didn't work and wasn't real." After reading the transcript of the factual basis, the NJ Appellate Division did find the factual basis insufficient to establish the specific intent necessary to obtain a conviction for attempted aggravated assault as it was not clear whether Travers believed the gun to be operable at the time of the incident. Pursuant to State v. Sainz, 107 N.J. 283, 293 (1987), a Defendant must set forth sufficient facts constituting the essential elements of the crime. Attempted aggravated assault requires the purposeful attempt to cause serious bodily injury (N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1(a)(1)). The Appellate Division also quoted State v. McAllister, 211 N.J. Super. 355, 362 (App. Div. 1986), "one cannot logically attempt to cause a particular result unless causing that result is one's 'conscious object'. The Appellate Division took no position as to Travers' belief that the gun was operable but only as to the insufficient factual basis when it reversed and remanded the matter. Assault and attempted assault charges are very serious and bear severe consequences. 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.

After Gun Is Discharged A Warrantless Search Is Upheld Over Objection of Resident

Michael Lamb fired a handgun at others on a public street. Sometime later police found his vehicle in front of the trailer home in which he resided with his family. In State v. Lamb, the NJ Supreme Court recently decided whether a warrantless search could be upheld when one party at the scene consents after another strongly objecting party has been removed from the scene by police. Upon seeing the police, Lamb's step-father, Steven Marcus, immediately advised them they were not permitted upon his property. Police then proceeded to remove Lamb's step-father from the scene. Thereafter, they were able to coax Lamb from the residence and he was arrested. Police then sought consent to enter the trailer home and Lamb's mother agreed. Within Lamb's bedroom a box containing a handgun was located and used against him at trial. The court looked at multiple factors in upholding the warrantless search over the initial objections of Lamb's step-father. Factors included the proximity in time to the shots fired, the fact that the individual refusing consent was no longer present and the eventual consent of Lamb's mother. Countervailing factors including the initial objection of Marcus, the fact that Lamb's removal from the residence also removed the likelihood of danger from further shots fired and the ability of police to obtain a warrant did not serve to render the search invalid. In another case decided at the same time, the NJ Supreme Court held a warrantless search valid when consent was obtained from a homeowner to search the locked room of a relative who resided in the home but was being detained nearby. In State v. Coles, the fact that the police had detained Byseem Coles nearby was a substantial factor in holding the search to be invalid although his aunt had granted consent to search his room. In spite of the ruling in Coles, where the defendant was being detained nearby while permission was sought from Coles' aunt, the court upheld the search in Lamb even though Marcus, who plainly and vehemently objected to the search, was removed from the scene by police. If you are facing charges for weapons offenses or believe that evidence against you was obtained illegally, you should obtain experienced criminal defense counsel immediately. For more information about use or possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, possession of a handgun without a permit, unlawful possession of a weapon, use or possession of a weapon in the commission in the commission of a crime or other criminal charges in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Attack On NJ Gun Law Will Not Be Heard By US Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court will not hear an NRA backed Second Amendment challenge to NJ's "justifiable need" requirement to carry a handgun outside of a personal residence. New Jersey's Handgun Permit Law (N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4) affords substantial discretion to judges and law enforcement personnel in determining who may carry handguns in public. On the heels of District of Columbia v. Heller, 544 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), there have been numerous challenges to gun restrictions within various states. Heller struck down the outright ban on handgun ownership in Washington D.C. and McDonald held that the Second Amendment protection used to strike down the D.C. ban in Heller applies to the various states. The NJ challengers were 4 individuals denied carry permits and 2 gun rights groups with several amici, including the NRA, on either side of the issue. The plaintiffs contended that the Second Amendment right to bear arms includes the right to protect oneself outside, not only inside, one's residence. Further they argued that the law's "justifiable need" standard of deciding who is fit to carry a gun and who is not affords broad discretion in law enforcement and judges to select which individuals will and will not be able to exercise their Constitutional rights. The "justifiable need" standard under the NJ Handgun Permit Law requires an applicant for a carry permit to obtain positive character references from 3 individuals of good reputation who have known the applicant for at least 3 years and then obtain approval from their local police chief. Once the application is complete, individuals seeking a carry permit must undergo background checks regarding criminal and mental history and fingerprinting. Next they must demonstrate their ability to safely handle a handgun and lastly is the highly ambiguous showing of "justifiable need" to carry a handgun. This information is all complied and a permit is issued by a Superior Court Judge only if all criteria are satisfactorily met. Without a doubt there will be further challenges to the NJ Handgun Permit Law as some argue that citizens need guns for protection while others argue that if no one has guns they cannot be used for violence. If you have a justifiable need to carry a handgun and have been denied the right to a carry permit after meeting all criteria to obtain one you should seek an experienced attorney to assist you in your matter. 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 and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Justifiable Need For Handgun Carry Permit

Jonathan Wheeler and George Daudelin were defeated in both the Essex County Superior Court and the NJ Appellate division in their Second Amendment challenges to state regulations relating to permits to carry handguns. New Jersey requires a clear showing of "justifiable need", pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4d, in order to obtain a permit to carry a handgun outside of one's personal residence. The "justifiable need" standard has been in existence since 1924 and the judges saw no reason to overturn it in this case. In order to meet the "justifiable need" standard, the applicants needed to show "an urgent necessity…for self-protection stemming from specific threats or previous attacks demonstrating a special danger to the applicant's life that cannot be avoided by other means." In re Preis, 118 N.J. 564, 571 (1990) Although retired police officers are permitted to carry handguns under N.J.S.A. 2C:39-61(1)-(4).1, these retired Newark Fire Department Arson Investigation officers were not permitted to do so and brought a challenge in court. Judge Joseph Cassini III refused to grant permission to the applicants. The Appeals Court held that the presence of handguns in the hands of the public in such a densely populated state bears a risk which far outweighs most rewards. The court considered the balance between the need to protect those with a specific need and the need to protect the general public. Critics of the law believe it is simply intended to appease as it is nearly impossible to meet the criteria for a permit. If you are seeking a carry permit or facing charges stemming from illegal possession of a handgun, it is critical you not undertake these matters without experienced counsel. For more information about handgun carry permits, illegal weapons, possession of a weapon for unlawful purposes or other serious weapons offenses visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.