No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy for Cell Phone Tower Locations on Cell Phone

The Appellate Division in State v. Earls came down with a decision which held that tracking a suspect’s general location using cell phone towers is not unconstitutional under the State or Federal constitutions, and that a judicial warrant is not necessary for that information to be disclosed to law enforcement by the cell phone carrier, without the suspects consent or knowledge.

The decision is not shocking and is in conformity with the general rule of law that a suspect does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with anything that is open to public view.  Of course it is legal for a law enforcement officer to follow a suspect who is out in public without a warrant.  That same logical and legal reasoning holds that a someone who has in his possession a cell phone which is turned-on; can reasonably suspect that his location will be tracked through the satellite signals to and from the nearest cell phone tower nearest to his cell phone.

In one particular criminal case in Somerset County, I was able to obtain an acquittal and obtain a not guilty verdict on every count of the indictment when it was pointed out to the jury that law enforcement could have pinpointed the general location of the defendant, who was in Essex County and not in Somerset County at the time of the alleged crimes, but failed to do so.  With all advanced technology if used properly it can be a useful tool of both law enforcement and the defendant to help exonerate an innocent defendant.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

Dated: July 15, 2011

Cell Phone Tower Tracking in New Jersey, Legality of Cell Phone Tower Tracking of Suspect in New Jersey, Cell Phone Carrier Tracking of Suspects, Whether it is Legal to Cell Phone Tower Track of Cell Phones.

Prominent European international news wire service, AFP reporter Stephane Jourdain of Paris France interviews Attorney Vincent Sanzone on the Dominique Strauss-Kahn Case.

On July 5, 2011, the prominent international European news wire interviewed attorney Vincent Sanzone and his prediction that the sexual assault criminal charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn will be dropped by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office because the alleged victim has lost all credibility and the D.A. office will not risk losing another high profile case.

http://es-us.noticias.yahoo.com/cargos-eeuu-jefe-fmi-retirados-prensa-152913139.html

The Sanzone interview was also covered by the prominent European news papers, El Economista and Terra.

http://eleconomista.com.mx/internacional/2011/07/05/ven-fracaso-acusaciones-contra-strauss-kahn

http://www.terra.com.mx/articulo.aspx?articuloId=1151256

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

New Jersey Criminal Trial Lawyer, NJ. Criminal Attorney, Union Count, Essex County, Bergen County, Hudson County, Middlesex County, Monmouth County, Somerset County, Ocean County criminal lawyer.

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 Harvard Justice Project By Harvard University Professor of Political Philosophy, Michael J. Sandel.

To date approximately 15,000 students have taken the legendary “Justice” class taught by Harvard University philosophy professor, Michael J. Sandel.  

What make Professor Sandel’s class so interesting and counter-cultural is that Professor Sandel is attempting to get people to start thinking again.  He is challenging people to think about some of the great issues facing society in the post-modern era.  Topics that the main stream media could care less.  Pressing and philosophical questions as to whether torturing of alleged terrorists can ever be justified, the redistribution of wealth, the alleged and fruitless war on drugs, is it right to pay a celebrity, (some one such as David Letterman), 700 times more than a school teacher, to name a few of his posed questions to his students.

What is even more remarkable that most of his live Harvard lectures can be viewed for free by visiting the Harvard website at www.harvardjustice.org.  In these video lectures you can listen at the real debates between Professor Sandel and his Harvard students. 

For people who are tried of nonsense T.V. shows such as American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, and other worthless, and degrading reality shows, these lectures are mind inspiring and challenge us to think about what is the right thing to do in the post-modern era, for the betterment of not only the people of the United States but for the entire human race.

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Dated: June 21, 2011

State Attorney General Paula T. Dow Releases Directive No. 2011-2 to All Law Enforcement Agencies in the State Regarding Retention of Police Notes.

On May 23, 2011 the State Attorney General’s Office sent a directive to all state, county and local police departments advising them that their investigators can no longer destroy crime investigative notes, and that all notes must be preserved, effective May 27, 2011.  The directive states that all notes, whether in written or oral form, including every type of media, which memorializes the police officers observations regarding his crime investigation or his interview with any witnesses must be preserved, and handed over to defense counsel at the appropriate time.

However, pursuant to the directive the investigator need not turn over any notes regarding his investigative techniques or deliberative process which according to the directive is still privileged. 

In defining a “witness interview”, the directive held that it only applies to investigations regarding crimes of the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, and 4^th degree crimes, whether committed by a juvenile or adult offender.  However, the directive makes no mention of notes being preserved for disorderly person’s offenses or motor vehicle charges. To read the directive in full go to: http://www.state.nj.us/oag/dcj/agguide/directives/dir-2011-2-RetentionTransmittal.pdf

This directive was made by the Attorney General’s Office pursuant to the recent New Jersey Supreme Court case, State v. W.B. decided on April 27, 2011.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Union County, Elizabeth, N.J.

Dated: June 2, 2011

N.J. Criminal Lawyer

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