Running from the Police is Not Sufficient Probable Cause to Arrest Suspect; Weapons Found in Apartment Suppressed.

The federal Third Circuit appellate panel held that the federal District Court erred by not suppressing weapons found in Mr. Navedo’s apartment after Newark police detectives after him arresting him as he was entering his apartment.

In the United States v. Navedo two Newark police detectives were conducting an undercover operation when they saw an individual (Pozo) walk over to Mr. Navedo open a book bag, pulled an object which appeared to them as a handgun.  The detective seeing this ran after Pozo and Navedo catching and tackling Navedo as he was attempting to enter his apartment.  The detectives claim that the apartment was open and that they tackled him inside the apartment (you really believe this).  Navedo was immediately cuffed and inside the apartment were numerous handguns and rifles which the detectives claim were in plain view (sure).

A motion to suppress was filed, and denied by the District Court, and Navedo appealed to the Third Circuit that the detectives did not have probable cause to arrest him because mere flight is sufficient to arrest a suspect without probable cause.  The court agreed with Navedo holding that under the totality of the circumstances there was no evidence that Navedo was engaged in any criminal activity.  Specifically, Navedo did not hold the gun, did not initiate the encounter with Pozo, and did not appear to making a purchase of the handgun, that the police had no right to arrest him, even if Navedo ran.  In short, the appeals panel held that the detectives were in essence attempting to transfer the reasonable suspension which they had for Pozo on Navedo.  The court further relied on Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000), which held that flight from the police is not an automatic reason or reasonable suspicion for a brief “Terry Type” detention, because there are many reasons why someone might want to get away from a police officers.  In any event, they held that even if they had reasonable suspicion to stop Navedo they certainly did not have probable cause to arrest him under these facts.

This is a good case for the defense because it encompasses many facts which regularly play out with strike force arrests in the Essex, Hudson, Union, Passaic, and Middlesex County strike forces which typically detain and arrest suspects without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

If you are charged with a federal or state crime or disorderly person’s offense it is highly recommended that you seek the legal advice of an experienced New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney, the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth (Union County), New Jersey 07207

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Office Phone No. (908) 354-7006

Cell Phone No.   (201) 240-5716

NJ Federal Criminal Lawyers, NJ State Criminal Lawyers, New Jersey Criminal Attorneys, NJ Criminal Lawyers, NJ Criminal Defense Attorneys, N.J. Best Criminal Defense Attorneys, NJ Best Criminal Defense Lawyers, Elizabeth NJ criminal lawyers, Union County Criminal Lawyers, New Jersey federal trial lawyer, federal criminal trial attorney, NJ criminal attorney, Federal Criminal NJ lawyer, Union County criminal lawyer, Best Essex County Criminal Lawyers, Best Hudson Criminal Lawyers

Dated: October 4, 2012

How to Win Your Criminal Case; Use of Cell Phone Tower Records.

In the State of New Jersey the prosecutor has the burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the defendant need not produce any evidence of his innocence’s However, in reality, as any criminal defense attorney will tell you who is being honest with himself will say that in most criminal cases if you want the jury to acquit your client the defendant must actually present sufficient evidence to prove he or she is innocent and did not commit the crime.  That unfortunately is the reality of the criminal justice system in this country.  Having said that an important tool that a criminal defendant can use to prove his innocence’s is the cell phone tower record subpoena.

In some cases it is relevant to prove that the defendant was not at the scene or within the closest tower range of a crime or incident.  In that case do not expect the investigating authorites to subpoena these records and prove that your client was not at the scene of the crime.  In reality and truth they have zero interest in obtaining any evidence to prove that your client is innocent.  At every crime scene there is usually some mobile device which will reveal which parties were within a specific tower range.

In law enforcement terminology this is referred to as a cell tower “dump”, which specifically means to the carriers that you are seeking data on all subscribers who were near a tower during a certain period of time.  Usually such requests will produce hundreds if not thousands of names and phone numbers depending on the time period and length of time requested.  

Therefore, when location of your client is an issue the defense attorney must exercise his subpoena power to

Pursuant to a subpoena defense counsel can subpoena the tower records from the defendant’s mobile cell phone service provider to obtain the names and numbers of all subscribers who were receiving and transmitting phone messages on a certain date and time.  With all mobile phones there is a GPS system imbedded into the phone which reveals were the phone is transmitting from.  The carriers usually charge between $50.00 to $75.00 per hour for this service but in the right case can mean the difference between the defendant being convicted and going to jail and exoneration.

In addition to exonerating the defendant the cell phone tower records can be used for impeachment purposes against a co-defendant, cooperating witness, or others, who perjury themselves by stating that they were nowhere near the scene of the alleged crime or incident.

In the final analysis the cell phone tower “dump” subpoena is an important defense tool that must be pursued in the right case.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

Tel. No. (908) 354-7006

Dated: July 19, 2012

Use of cell phone records in criminal cases, NJ Criminal Defense Attorneys, NJ Criminal Attorneys, NJ Criminal Lawyers, NJ Best Criminal Lawyers, NJ Best Criminal Defense Attorneys, How to win your criminal jury trial, Elizabeth criminal defense attorney, Newark Criminal Lawyers, Essex County Criminal lawyers, Best Ocean County Criminal lawyers, Monmouth County Criminal Lawyers, Best Union County Criminal Attorneys

The Real Villain in the Slaying of Trayvon Martin

The hoopla has started and the people are taking sides as to whether George Zimmerman is a killer or proud defender of Florida’s stand your ground law, and therefore, acted in self-defense, as this crazy law apparently allows.

The real villains, however, is the crazy Florida politicians and right-wing gun fanatics who have been bought and sold by the National Rifle Associations and their money lobbyist the gun manufactures. 

Because of this insane law in Florida, (and other states), Mr. Zimmerman was allowed to walk around in his gated community playing cop, with a concealed firearm which he was not properly trained to use.  It was a tragedy waiting to explode.  It is hard enough for us to keep our supposedly trained law enforcement officers from killing innocent people let alone a small frail untrained civilian, with no back-up. 

There is no doubt that in the course of this trial it will be alleged by Mr. Zimmerman, and maybe rightfully so, that after he confronted Trayvon Martin as to why he was walking in his patrolled area, he was brutally attacked by Trayvon.  I would further assume that he will further testify that while the two struggled, Trayvon was the aggressor, and in fact was the better fighter, and attempted to take Mr. Zimmerman’s weapon during the struggle.  Under normal circumstances, if Mr. Zimmerman was not armed with a handgun, Mr. Zimmerman would have received the short end of that encounter.  These types of confrontations occur, unfortunately, thousands of time a day in the United States.  But what changed this equation was that Mr. Zimmerman was armed with a deadly weapon, and he used it.  The fact remains that he should not have been allowed to carry a concealed handgun, especially while playing neighborhood cop. 

In the final analysis I am convinced that Mr. Zimmerman will be acquitted of the most serious charge, and if anything, be convicted of a lesser charge which will require no or little jail time.  Florida and other states which allow these types of laws are the villains, and it is time that they stop marching to the beat of their money friends (NRA and gun lobby) who keep them elected.

All human life is scared and certainly Trayvon’s is no exception.  Maybe Trayvon’s death and the trial of Mr. Zimmerman will become more than entertainment and a sideshow for the American people and the medial, but rather a real call by the people and media to change the law which gave rise to Trayvon’s death.

“If you want peace work for Justice.” Pope John Paul, I

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

April 12, 2012

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

Tel. No. (908) 354-7006

Newark Criminal Defense Lawyers, Newark Criminal Attorneys, Essex County Best Criminal Lawyers, Hudson County Best Criminal Lawyers, Best NJ Trial Attorneys, Union County Defense Lawyers, Best Union County Criminal Lawyers, Bayonne Criminal Attorneys, Elizabeth Criminal Lawyers, Hackensack Criminal Attorneys, Best Bergen County Criminal Lawyers, NJ Super Criminal Defense Lawyers, NJ Super Criminal Lawyers, Hudson County Criminal Lawyers

Hero Catholic Priest James Manship Exposes Corruption and Abuses Committed by East Haven Connecticut Police Department, Leading to Federal Indictment Of Four East Haven Police Officers.

In 2009 Father James a Catholic Priest assigned to St. Rose of Lima Roman Catholic Church started to investigate abuses and harassment committed against his Hispanic parishioners by police officers of the East Haven Police Department.  To document the abuses Father James would videotape the actions of the East Haven Police Department.  In retaliation the East Haven Police Department arrested  Father James for disorderly conduct when Father James attempted to videotape the police caught engaging in harassment and other illegal conduct against his Hispanic residence. However, a courageous and honorable local prosecutor dropped all the charges against Father James.  However, not deterred, according to the federal indictment, (“Co-Conspirator No. 1”), which is believed to be Police Chief Leonard Gallo, attempted to have Father James transferred and removed from St. Lima’s to another parish outside of East Haven by calling Father James supervisors, and complaining about his actions.

The courageous actions of Father James led to a federal 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 law suit against the East Haven Police Department by the Yale Law School’s Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic.  

As the direct result of Father James and Yale Law School actions the matter got the attention of the FBI and the United States Department of Justice. As a result the Justice Department this week announced the indictments against police officers, Spaulding, Cari, Zullo and Miller.

Similar to standard operating procedures in most towns and cities in New Jersey, abuses committed against people by the police stems from the failure of police departments to investigate and remand errant police officers engaged in illegal conduct. Over and over again it has been shown and proven that police departments cannot police themselves, and that only through outside investigation, including civil review broads, will such flagrant abuses be decreased. 

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

New Jersey and Criminal Defense and Civil Rights Attorney

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

Tel. No. (908) 354-7006

Dated: January 29, 2012

“If you want Peace Work for Justice.” Pope John Paul, I

Elizabeth Criminal Defense Attorney, Elizabeth NJ Criminal Attorney