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.

Distracted Driving In NJ

Although most thing of the New Jersey Cell Phone law (N.J.S.A. 39:4-97.3) when thinking of distracted driving in New Jersey. Although texting and driving is a frequent cause of serious motor vehicle accidents, there are other classifications of "distracted driving" which can lead to police pulling you over and issuing you a summons resulting in $200-$400 plus court costs for a first offense, $400-600 plus court costs for a second offense and $600-800, 3 points and up to 90 day loss of license for a third or subsequent offense. In addition to texting or talking on a cell phone, programming or using an electronic device to find your destination can also lead to a summons. Although many see people applying make-up or shaving while driving and shaken our heads in disbelief, routine activities many are guilty of including eating or drinking, adjusting your radio, looking at a map, and even talking to your passengers can be reasons for police to stop you and issue a summons. With newly relaxed search warrant rules established in State v. Witt, (A-9-14)(074468), 435 N.J. Super. 608, 610-11 (App. Div. 2014), 219 N.J. 624 (2014), this can ultimately lead to a search of your vehicle, arrest and other serious charges. If you are charged with distracted driving, you should consult an experienced traffic attorney immediately. For more information about using a cell phone while driving, warrantless vehicle searches, distracted driving and other motor vehicle charges visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

S385/A1368 And DUI In NJ

Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (N.J.S.A. 39:4-50) can have devastating consequences to both victims and drivers alike. New Jersey legislation, S385/A1368, has been proposed as a means of preventing would-be repeat offenders from getting behind the wheel while allowing individuals who made an innocent but costly mistake a chance to continue to drive by installing an Ignition Interlock Device on their primary vehicle or vehicles. The proposed legislation includes only 10 day license suspensions upon conviction for the purpose of installing the device on the vehicle. Once installed, the driver must blow into the device, which detects alcohol on the breath, in order to start the vehicle. If the ignition interlock device detects that the driver's blood alcohol content (BAC) is elevated over .05%, the ignition will be disabled. Additionally, once the vehicle is in operation, the ignition interlock device requires the driver to blow into the mouthpiece at certain intervals to better insure the individual driving the vehicle remains sober and the individual who initially blew into the device is in fact the driver. NJ S385/A1368 would permit first-offenders with a BAC of between .08 and .10% to avoid long-term license suspension by installing in ignition interlock device for 3 to 6 months, unless aggravating circumstances exist which indicate a long-term license suspension is appropriate. First-time offenders with a BAC of .10% or greater would be required to install the device for 7 to 12 months. Additionally, there are additional penalties for those who circumvent the ignition interlock device or drive a vehicle without an interlock device during their required installation period. Those who in any way facilitate another in circumventing an ignition interlock device, by blowing into the device, disabling it or providing another vehicle to the suspended driver also face criminal charges which can result in up to 6 months in jail. Second-offenders would be required to install the device for a period of 2 to 4 years. Persistent offenders would continue to face long-term suspension and jail terms. The ignition interlock device bears an installation cost as well as a monthly service fee and drivers still face increased insurance costs and other motor vehicle fees in the event of a DUI conviction. If you are facing DUI charges, the consequences can include large fines, loss of a job due to inability to commute or loss of certain professional licenses as a result of the DUI, jail and the social stigma associated with DUI. If you have been charged with driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you need experienced defense counsel in your corner. For more information about DUI, DUID, controlled dangerous substances (CDS) in a motor vehicle, reckless driving or other motor vehicle charges 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.

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.

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.