Motions to Suppress Evidence: Your Constitutional Right Under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In State v. Shaw the New Jersey Supreme Court suppressed two bricks of heroin.  In this case a joint fugitive warrant task force was executing a number of fugitive warrants in a multi-unit apartment complex.  In the way in the officers noticed a black male (Don Shaw) leaving the apartment.  When they asked the individual his name he refused, and on that basis they detained the individual.  Mr. Shaw was detained until a parole officer arrived on the scene to check whether Mr. Shaw was listed as a parole violator on his list.  Because Mr. Shaw was listed as a parole violator and wanted, he was arrested.  In searching Mr. Shaw (search incident to the arrest) it was discovered on Shaw  two bricks of heroin individually wrapped into smaller zip log bags.

The New Jersey Supreme Court held that it was unlawful for the task force officers to detained Mr. Shaw because of his refusal to give his name.  In fact, under our state and federal constitution no one can be detained for refusing to give his or her name when confronted by a law enforcement officer on the street.  In fact when confronted by the police in any circumstances our constitution permits complete silence in response to police questioning. 

In addition, the police did not have the requisite level of reasonable suspicion or probable cause to detain him because there was no evidence other than the color of his skin that he was wanted as a fugitive in that apartment complex.

The court further held that any field inquiry becomes an investigative stop when a reasonable person would believe that they are no longer free to leave.  An investigative stop is only permitted if it is based on a set of specific articulable facts in which a rational inference can be made that there might be a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

The court further held that the subsequent discovery that Shaw had a parole warrant was insufficient to purge the unlawful detention and that the parole warrant was not an intervening circumstances to allow the search.  Hence, any contraband seized, which in this case was two bricks of heroin was suppressed as fruits of the poisonous tree.

If you have been charged with possession with intent to distribute CDS, controlled dangerous substance such as heroin, cocaine, marijuana or any illegal drug, or other non-prescription narcotics you should consult with Attorney Sanzone who has achieved successful results in filing motions to suppress and suppressing CDS in Union, Essex, Hudson, Somerset, Bergen, Monmouth, Ocean, Middlesex, Mercer counties.

 

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

Dated: December 31, 2012

Best Newark NJ Criminal Lawyers, Essex County Criminal NJ Criminal Defense Attorneys, Essex County criminal 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 Hudson Criminal Lawyers

Cross-Examination of the Snitch; How to Win Your Criminal Case in New Jersey Superior Court

Before I begin I must first alert you to the distinction between the cooperating co-defendant, and the snitch or “rat”.  In the former you have a cooperating co-defendant who agrees to testify truthfully against the defendant because of remorse or the urge to do the right thing.  This article is not about that type of co-defendant who in practice is the rare exception in the criminal justice system.  Rather, this article will focus on the snitch or “rat”, which has been given a deal or promise for a lighter sentence or absolute immunity for a dismissal of his charges or the reduction of his sentence.  More often than not this type of cooperating co-defendant is a liar and cheat and will do or say anything to get a better deal.

The job of the New Jersey criminal defense attorney in preparing for such a witness is challenging, and more often than not be most rewarding after the “rat” is exposed for what he really is, a liar that in essence has testified for something worth more than money, is freedom.

If done correctly the cross-examination of the “rat” will turn the “rat” into a defense expert witness how the government or state prosecutor will bargain and sells testimony for the “rat’s” testimony.  

If you start with the premise that the rat is lying and find some credible evidence that the “rat” is lying or will lie to save him or herself, you must be determined to verify or disprove the facts that the “rat” will rely on at trial.  In one case in which I cross-examined the “rat” for one full day of testimony, I did not object to New Jersey Evidence Rule 404(b) evidence, or other crime evidence, about the “rat’s” assertion that a day before the armed robbery (the charge before the jury) that the “rat” and my client had attempted to burglarize that same jewelry store.  The reason that I did not object to this evidence was because through my investigation I learned that the rat’s version of how he alleged the attempted burglary took place with my client was a complete lie, and I have the physical evidence from the store owner that in fact there was no alley-way window, and no air-conditioning unit inside that window as the “rat” stated in a previous statement.

In most cases if the “rat” is lying the “rat” will be exposed and you have a very good chance in having the jury accept your argument that they cannot rely on the rat’s testimony.

In the case described above the jury on November 29, 2012 (in a case before the Superior Court, Union County) deliberated for five-hours, after which they found my client not guilty as an accomplice to the armed robbery in which the rat committed.  My client was acquitted on every count of the indictment and found not guilty to each and every charge.  My client was innocent of the charges, and the “rat” was exposed for what he was a “cutter rat.”

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

December 4, 2012

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

Tel. No. (908) 354-7006

Cell No. (201) 240-5716

Elizabeth Criminal Defense Attorney, Union County Criminal Defense Lawyers, 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