Domestic Violence By Police Officer Found Unfit For Duty

F.M., a police officer, fought against the domestic violence claims of G.M., his wife, and defeated her attempt to obtain a final restraining order against him. However, although the Superior Court of New Jersey, Morris County, Family Part Judge hearing the matter refused to grant the final restraining order, the State of New Jersey moved to take control of F.M.’s firearms pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5) which outlines the guidelines for the purchase of firearms in New Jersey. The Honorable Thomas J. Critchley, Jr. required F.M. to attend certain counseling and intervention programs and undergo a Fitness for Duty evaluation. Upon completion of his court ordered counseling, F.M. sought the return of his weapons in a hearing where substantial testimony with regard to prior incidents of domestic violence at the hands of F.M. was provided by G.M. Judge Critchley, after hearing the testimony of G.M. and the State’s witnesses, denied the State’s motion including in his opinion that F.M. and G.M. had a lengthy history in the Morris County Family Court to which the State’s expert psychologists were not privy yet the judges within the court were well acquainted. The N.J. Appellate Division affirmed Judge Critchley’s ruling with regard to the return of F.M.’s firearms. The N.J. Supreme Court granted certification and, In The Matter of Applications Of State of New Jersey For Forfeiture of Personal Weapons and Firearms Identification Card Belonging to F.M., concluded that the Family Part judge misinterpreted the statute as requiring the F.M. suffer from a specific disorder in order to be prohibited from possession his firearms and also misapplied the statute by requiring the State to prove “more than just a showing that some danger might exist” when the State was only required to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in showing that F.M.’s possession of firearms was against the interest of the public health, safety and welfare. The N.J. Supreme Court found that the evidence presented by G.M. with regard to prior acts of domestic violence against her by F.M. and the testimony of two licensed psychologists who both concluded that F.M., based on his lack of self-control and inability to deescalate situations with his own wife, was unfit to perform the duties of a police officer. A Fitness for Duty evaluation by one of the psychologists further concluded that F.M. was a danger to himself and others and should be stripped of his weapons. 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.

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.

What Is The Harm In Delaying A Final Restraining Order?

When a NJ Superior Court judge made the decision to issue a Final Restraining Order (FRO) in the defendant’s absence in a domestic violence case, the NJ Appellate Court reversed. Due to the substantial ramifications to an individual once an FRO is issued against them for the presumed need for protection by the victim of the alleged domestic violence, the Appellate Court determined that it was a violation of the defendant’s due process rights to prevent him from the opportunity to participate in his defense. The NJ Appellate Division judges held that, when the case was less than one month old and the alleged victim had the benefit of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), defendant had retained counsel for the hearing and counsel requested only a brief adjournment and defendant offered a valid physician’s note explaining his failure to appear at the hearing, the trial judge erred in denying defendant’s motion to vacate the FRO. The trial judge, in denying the defendant’s motion to vacate the domestic violence FRO in O.K-H. v. D.H., made a finding on the papers submitted that the defendant and his physician lacked credibility and the defendant was attempting to abuse the criminal justice system. A Final Restraining Order can have severe consequences on your future including the loss of professional licenses or opportunities, the inability to own or possess a firearm and the social stigma associated with the restraints against you. If you are facing an FRO or believe you need the benefit of an FRO against another for your protection, you should consult an experienced criminal defense attorney to ensure your rights are protected. For more information about domestic violence, restraining orders, assault, harassment or other criminal or municipal court matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney in your matter.

Domestic Violence Offenders Subject To Electronic Monitoring In NJ

A bill, A-321, awaiting the signature of NJ Governor Chris Christie will launch a pilot program in Ocean County for the monitoring of those found guilty of domestic violence. Named Lisa's Law after Letizia Zindell, a woman murdered by her former fiancé, Frank Frisco, the day after his release from jail in 2009 for violating a restraining order for her protection. The pilot program will be tested for a period of 4 years and a report will be furnished at the end of the term whereby the program may be expanded throughout the state of New Jersey if it is deemed beneficial in saving victims of domestic violence from further harm. Upon being found guilty of domestic violence offenders could, at the judges' discretion, be required to wear a monitoring bracelet and victims could be notified if their attackers come within a certain proximity. The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) opposed this bill due to the financial expense and what they perceive will be a drain on judicial resources as offenders have more frequent and lengthy hearings to oppose the imposition of monitoring bracelets. The AOC also cited lack of ability to estimate the number of defendants the system would have to process and monitor as well as lack of specificity in the legislation regarding which agency would bear responsibility for monitoring to ensure compliance with the program in voicing their opposition to the program. As drafted, offenders would be required to pay all or a portion of the expenses related to monitoring and notification, based on their ability to pay. There is no proposed method of ascertaining the defendant's ability to pay but, much like other programs involving inability to pay and the right to appointed counsel, monitoring is burdensome and frequently overlooked permitting those with ample resources to avoid payment and place a higher burden on the state's taxpayers to bear the defendant's legal fees. Removal of the bracelet would be a 3rd degree crime punishable by 3-5 years in prison. Victims would be permitted to, but not required to, consent to notification if the defendant enters within an area of close proximity. One must wonder what purpose the legislation would serve in the event a victim were to opt out of notification and the need for monitoring in such circumstances. Domestic violence is a very serious charge in New Jersey and the need to deter would be abusers has resulted in escalating penalties over time. If this bill passes, which is most likely to be the case, offenders will be subject to the prior penalties of fines, possible incarceration, inability to own firearms or obtain a firearms ID card as well as this new monitoring bracelet which could alert were the abuser to as much as unwittingly enter into the same restaurant or store as the victim and result in investigative detention and possible further punishment of the abuser following a hearing on the matter. If you are charged with domestic violence or seeking a final restraining order against an abuser, the increased stakes for a guilty finding will result in increased 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 HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Domestic Violence Statutes Protect Unborn Children

Pregnant women who have been victims of domestic violence in New Jersey can get restraining orders on behalf of their unborn children pursuant to an Ocean County Superior Court Judge's ruling in May. Generally, the laws of New Jersey do not bestow unborn fetuses with any legal rights. As New Jersey law exists, a person does not typically receive any civil rights until they are born and become a legal "person." Judge Lawrence Jones's ruling in a recent domestic violence case seems to change the status of the law with regard to the rights of unborn children. Before his ruling, a pregnant woman who was awarded a restraining order against an abuser would have to wait until her child was born to seek an additional restraining order to protect the newborn child. Judge Lawrence ruled that women who are already seeking a restraining order for themselves should not have to wait until their child is born to petition the court to grant an additional restraining order on behalf of the child. Although, in his opinion, the Judge opines that the child's restraining order begins to take effect only after birth. In his written opinion, Judge Lawrence states that the last place a victim of domestic violence would want to go upon giving birth, is to a courthouse to protect their newborn baby. The case before the Judge involved two teenagers from Ocean County. The 18 year old male was continuing to abuse his pregnant 17 year old girlfriend during her pregnancy because he disagreed with her choice to keep their baby. The Judge's ruling begins to spark the debate as to whether New Jersey courts should begin to expand the rights of unborn children and it is yet unknown how this ruling will affect the rights of the unborn. This Judge was cautious to note that the restraining order for the child only becomes effective at birth, so it seems as if his ruling has more of a procedural impact than a substantive one. Yet, it does provide victims of domestic violence with an additional safeguard in the protection of themselves and their children. If you have been charged with or are the victim of domestic violence you should consult an experienced criminal defense attorney to ensure your person and your rights are protected. For more information regarding domestic violence, assault, divorce or other criminal or family law matters in New Jersey HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Restraining Orders in Drug Cases

Under the Drug Offender Restraining Order Act of 1999 (DOROA), N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5.7, restraining orders are available to prevent defendants facing drug charges from locations known for drug activity. The NJ Supreme Court's Committee is suggesting rule changes allowing police to seek restraining orders under, via phone or other electronic means. The amendments would permit restraining orders under DOROA to be obtained by following the same procedures employed in obtaining domestic violence restraining orders. The requirements include (1) placing the person making application under oath; (2) the police officer must state the purpose of the request and basis therefore; (3) the Judge must make a record of any application; (4) the defendant must be served a written copy of the restraining order within 48 hours, which must also be filed in the court; and (5) the police officer's sworn statement will be considered an affidavit. If you have been charged with drug crimes or any other criminal offense in NJ, you should immediately obtain an experienced criminal defense attorney to protect your rights. For more information on protecting your rights if charged with possession, distribution or other crimes in NJ visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and is not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.