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

Recent Miranda Developments in New Jersey: No When to Shut Your Mouth.

When Questioned by Police Request the Assistants of

an Attorney and Not Your Mother: Recent Cases

on Defendant’s Miranda Rights.

On January 12, 2012, the Supreme Court of New Jersey flatly rejected a suppression of a custodial interrogation which was granted by the Appellate Division.

In State v. Demetrius Diaz-Bridges, the issue was simply whether a defendant who requested to speak to his mother during a custodial interrogation was asserting his right to remain silent, thus requiring the police to cease all questioning.

The Supreme Court rejected this argument holding that asking to speak to your mom instead of a lawyer affords the defendant no protection from further questions and the admission of the confession as evidence of guilt at time of trial.

Appellate Division Throws-Out Confession Based

On Promises Made To Defendant For Leniency.

On January 10, 2012, the Appellate Division in State v. Carl Hreha threw-out a confession taken by State Police Detectives reversing the trial court’s denial of defendant’s Miranda Motion to suppress his confession. 

In this case Mr. Hreha a computer technician with the Office of the Attorney sent racist literature to all the OAG printers at the Hughes Justice Center.  As a result Mr. Hreha was charged with various second degree computer offenses.

In this case the State Police detectives whom testified at the Miranda Hearing did not remember whether they made any promises of leniency to the defendant, including that if the cooperated that he would not be taken out of his place of employment (Office of the Attorney General), in handcuffs, would go home later that day, and would probably be admitted into the Pretrial Intervention Program in which after one-year the charges would be dismissed.  The Appellate Division held that such promises made by the detectives as testified by the defendant were promises likely to strip the defendant of his capacity for self-determination, citing the seminal cases State v. Fletcher, 380 N.J. Super. 80, 89 (App. Div. 2005) and State v. Pillar, 359 N.J. Super. 249, 272-73 (App. Div. 2003).

Defendant’s charged with a crime must be aware that even when a confession is made it is sometimes possible to have the confession thrown-out in certain circumstances.

Because there was a dissenting Judge in this decision this case will automatically be heard by the New Jersey Supreme Court.  Let’s hope that the decision is not disturbed by the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Sanzone Firm

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

(908) 354-7006

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Dated: January 19, 2012

A New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney locating in Elizabeth, New Jersey who will provide competent legal defense for people accused of serious crimes and disorderly person’s offenses in Union, Essex, Bergen, Hudson, Somerset, Middlesex, Morris, Passaic, Monmouth, Ocean, Atlantic, Hunterdon, Warren, and Cape May Counties,

How to Win Your Criminal or Traffic Case In New Jersey Municipal Court.

In practicing criminal law in New Jersey for the last 21 years in federal, state and municipal court it is without any doubt that the best way to win your case outright, or get the best possible results for your client, especially in municipal court practice is the necessity with virtually ever case that pretrial motions be filed and that these motions be filed with the first appearance letter to the court.

In almost every criminal case in municipal court whether  it be a driving while intoxicated case or controlled dangerous substance case in an automobile it is essential that the attorney file a number of pretrial motions.  In almost ever case I file the following motions.

First, and foremost, is the motion to suppress evidence based on the officer’s unlawful stop of the automobile or unlawful search.  In most cases local police officers after they have stopped a motor vehicle take it upon themselves to search the vehicle, and do so without probable cause.  Of course such behavior runs contrary to law.  They do this   because they are ignorant of the law or simply are too lazy to obtain a judicial warrant.  In addition, often the reason for the stop is pretexual and the motion should be filed on that basis as well.  If the prosecutor is honest and understand the law he or she will often dismiss the matter even before the matter reaches the judge. 

The second motion is for a speedy trial.  This motion is filed to put the court and prosecutor on notice that the defendant is requesting a speedy trial and object to the constant adjournments by the court and police who fail to appear for trial time and time again.  In most cases if the officer knows that he has failed to follow the law or engaged in other type of police misconduct he will continually fail to show-up for trial, hoping that the defendant and his or her attorney will give up because of the high costs of coming to court over and over again.  Also, this motion will allow defense counsel to ask the judge that the case be set down for a trial or dismissal after the first or second no-show of the cop, or adjournment request by the prosecutor.

The third motion is to compel the State to supply all discovery by a date certain as to unable the defendant to have his or her speedy trial.  Of course the defendant cannot proceed to trial unless defense counsel first obtains the police discovery.

The fourth motion would be exclude any alleged confessions, admissions, or statements made by the defendant which is not set forth in the police reports.  Often police officers who are trapped on cross-examination will blurt out during testimony (never in the police report) that the defendant admitted to possessing the drugs, or some other type of false admission.  Of course, the admission is never in the police report but the police officer will attempt to get it in when he knows his testimony and case is going down the drain.

Of course there are many more motions that can be filed depending on the case and evidence and it is important that anyone charged with an offense in municipal court seek and consult an experienced criminal defense attorney regarding all the possible motions and defenses which might be available for his or her case.

Attorney Sanzone a Union County criminal defense attorney, has successfully represented hundreds of defendants in Newark, Elizabeth, Jersey City, New Brunswick, Irvington, East Orange, Orange, West Orange, Linden, Rahway, Bayonne, Passaic, Brick, Toms River, and almost every other town in the State of New Jersey

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, N.J.

Tel. No. (908) 354-7006

Dated: September 24, 2011

Forsensic Lab Report Hearsay Without Testimony of Chemists

Bullcoming v. New Mexico, decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 23, 2011, reaffirmed the right to confront witnesses proffered by prosecution witnesses who testify as to the contents of lab reports in criminal cases.

The narrow question presented to the court was whether the confrontation clause permits the prosecution to admit a forensic laboratory report containing testimonial information from a witness who did not prepare, or sign the certification concerning the lab reports contents?

Again following the Supreme Court Crawford and Melendez-Diaz decisions the court held that such “surrogate testimony” does not meet the constitutional requirements of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and hence, the report is not admissible into evidence without the testimony of the actual chemists who prepared the report.

This decision does not change the well established decisional law in New Jersey which always required the testimony of the forensic chemists who preformed the tests.  In every criminal case it is essential that defense counsel object to any attempt by the prosecution to introduce hearsay evidence through lab reports without the testimony of the forensic chemists.

Law Office Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey, Union County

NJ Criminal Attorneys, NJ Criminal Defense Attorneys, NJ Criminal Trial Attorney, Union County Criminal Defense Lawyers, NJ Federal Criminal Trial Attorneys, Criminal Lawyers NJ

Dated: June 24, 2011

The State’s Proffer Without the Supporting Documents to Support Forensic Examination Insufficient to Trigger Defense Counsel’s Period to Object

May 17, 2011, the Appellate Division in State v. Heisler held that the period in which defense counsel must object to a laboratory certificate is tolled until such time as defense counsel receives all supporting documents in connection with the lab certificate.

The Comprehensive Drug Reform Act, as found in N.J.S.A. 2C:35-19 requires that the State provide a lab certificate along with all supporting documents before said certificate can be admitted into evidence without objection. If defense counsel objects within 10 dates of receipt of the certificate and the reasons for said objection, the State must produce the testimony of the lab technician who performed the specific forensic tests. However, the 10 day period does not begin to run until the defense receives not only the lab certificate but the supporting test documents, which includes but not limited to, all the reports relating to the analysis.

The Court correctly ruled that it is impossible for defense counsel to competently decide whether to object to the certificate until such time as the underlying accompanying data is received by defense counsel.

If the data is not disclosed, defense counsel’s obligation to object is never triggered, and hence, the report does not come into evidence. This case seems to hold that even if no objection is made by defense counsel the lab report does not come into evidence until the State satisfies all the requirements of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-19.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq. CriminalDefenseNJ.com 277 N. Broad Street, Elizabeth, NJ, (908) 354-7006

Dated: May 23, 2011

The Need to Move for Expungement of Arrests and Convictions in New Jersey: “Convicts Need Not Apply.”

A study conducted by the Society for Human Resources Management in 2010 found that 90 percent of large companies in the United States who participated in the survey stated that for all job applicants a criminal background check was a prerequisite for an offer of employment.

Unfortunately many employers even disqualify applicants who have been arrested, notwithstanding that the arrest did not lead to a conviction or was dismissed.

In New Jersey it is now possible to expunge most crimes after a five year waiting period, at the discretion of the judge. Previously the law in New Jersey was that the applicant needed to wait 10 years. Although a handful of crimes are not eligible to be expunged such as drug distribution crimes, intent to distribute, or sexual offenses, most crimes are eligible to be expunged.

Because of the extremely tight job market many employers are eliminating any job applicant with any criminal history, including the mere arrest. According to the National Employment Law Project approximately 65 million Americans have some type of criminal record or arrest record.

In fact, even more frightening is the fact that after a job applicant is rejecting by an employer based on a criminal background check that the rejection for that reason be listed on the applicant’s credit report.

Accordingly, that is why it is very important that every individual who intents on seeking employment must move to expunge an arrest even if such arrest never resulted in a conviction.

For more information regarding whether you qualify to expunge an arrest or conviction it is suggested that you seek the legal assistant of the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., in this area of law who has successfully guided many individuals through the Expungement of their criminal history.

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

Tel: (908) 354-7006

Cell: (201) 240-5716