N.J. Drunk Driving Defense: How to Beat A Driving While Intoxicated Charge in New Jersey.

New Jersey has some of the toughest drunk driving laws in the country.  Unlike most states, provisional licenses or work permit licenses are not permitted for individuals convicted of driving while intoxicated or driving while impaired.  Unlike most states, most of the defenses that are available in other states have been eviscerated in New Jersey.  Be honest, wining a drunk driving charge in New Jersey is very difficult, and an honest lawyer, even one you only specializes in these types of cases will admit such. 

However, after trying drunk driving cases in New Jersey for over twenty-one years I have won my share of DWI cases. To win these types of cases the attorney must be bold and creative and be tenacious leaving no stone unturned.

Just recently, on October 14, 2011, in a Monmouth County town I was able to obtain the ultimate victor.  In this case the defendant was driving on the revoked list from a previous DWI suspension.  He was stopped on a major highway and his Alcotest reading was three times the limit.  The case was dismissed on a motion to suppress, that being, there was no probable cause for the automobile stop.  In this case the municipal police officer had been targeting a local go-go bar, by monitoring the vehicles in the parking lot and checking license plates for vehicles registered to motorist with expired or revoked licenses.  In this case the officer attempted to hide this targeted profiling by claiming that he was involved in the investigation of another gas station robbery a few hours before which involved a black SUV, the same type of vehicle my client was driving.  The officer then claimed that some time later he observed this car pass him on the highway, which prompted the automobile stop. 

The fact presented in this case presented a treasure trove of investigation of facts to be uncovered with pretrial discovery motions.  Accordingly, in this case I requested all the dispatcher tapes, and CAD reports of the gas station robbery to determine the time that the officer began his investigation of that incident.  I also requested the Mobile Data Terminal entry, specifically, the time and date that the request for the license check was made at the go-go bar.  Because the prosecutor, who was extremely honest, agreed that this information was essential to my motion to suppress, I prepared a consent order for the discovery requested, which the Court signed.

These discovery requests were made to confirm my suspicion that the officer had been lying.  The hutch was correct, the police officer did lie and his police report was bogus, because the prosecutor was stonewalled by the police department, and never provided the discovery to confirm the officer’s story. 

The municipal court judge had no alternative but to dismiss the case in its entirety when after almost eight months the discovery requested was never supplied.

For more information on how to win your drunk driving case go to CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

Elizabeth, New Jersey

October 20, 2011

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

Elizabeth New Jersey Municipal Court Defense; What Should You Know, and How To Win Your Case.

The Elizabeth Municipal Court (Union County, New Jersey) is listed in the top ten municipal courts in the State of New Jersey in the volume of cases it handles every year.

The physical locations of the Court are at two separate locations, One Police Plaza and 208 Commerce Place.  It is important that anyone appearing before the Court to check their notice to see which location to appear. http://www.elizabethnj.org

The Court has four part-time and full-time municipal court Judges, Montes (Chief Judge), Russell, Marshall and Obuch.  The court has both day and evening sessions, with most evening sessions held at the 208 Commerce Street site.  The Court also employs 9 part-time municipal prosecutors.

If you are summoned to the Elizabeth Municipal Court for any traffic, criminal or ordinance violation, it is important that you select an attorney who is familiar with the Elizabeth Municipal Court.  Like most towns and cities in the State of New Jersey, this Court has its own customs, norms and procedures which set’s it apart from other towns and cities in the State.

During the last 21 years of criminal practice in Elizabeth New Jersey, attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., has successfully represented hundreds of individuals in the Elizabeth Municipal Court. 

If you are charged with an offense in this Court or any other municipal court, it is important that you select an experienced professional who understands the particular Court so that you can obtain the best possible results for your individual case and circumstances.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

Tel. No. (908) 354-7006

Criminal Defense Lawyer, Elizabeth Municipal Court Attorney, Municipal Court Lawyer Elizabeth NJ, NJ Criminal Attorneys

Prosecutors in the Casey Anthony Trial Caught Failing To Disclose Exculpatory Evidence to the Defense

Although Casey Anthony was acquitted of killing her daughter and could never be re-tried again in Florida (under the doctrine of double jeopardy) for charges in which she was acquitted of, it has now been revealed by one of the prosecutions witnesses that even if she had been convicted the conviction would have been overturned on appeal.

During the trial the prosecution proffered the expert testimony of their computer expert from the Orange County Sheriff’s Office, Sgt. Kevin Stenger, whom testified that Ms. Anthony’s computer searched for the word “chloroform”, 84 times, and that he determined this by using the forensic software called, “CacheBack.”

However, back in late June of 2011, the developer of the software John Bradley notified the prosecutors that their findings were wrong because of a flaw in his software which he later discovered and corrected.  Upon correction Mr. Bradley learned that the Anthony computer only searched for the word “chloroform” once.

Upon discovering the error, Mr. Bradley the developer of the software called “cacheback”, which is commonly used in law enforcement to discover computer search history, offered at his own expense to fly to Orlando and testify to his findings.  Mr. Bradley is the chief executive officer of Siquest a Canadian company which manufactures the software.

In violation of Brady v. Maryland, the prosecutors never disclosed Mr. Bradley’s findings to the defense, and it is without doubt that even if she was convicted with this type of blatant misconduct by the prosecution her conviction would have been overturned on appeal.

I wonder whether there was additional misconduct committed by the prosecution in this case, and I applaud the jury for doing the right thing in this case and following the law of reasonable doubt.   

It is yet too been seen if Sgt. Stenger and the prosecutors in the Casey Anthony will be investigated for their misconduct and unethical conduct.  Unfortunately, I suspect not.

By: Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

Dated: July 28, 2011

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

(908) 354-7006

NJ criminal attorneys, NJ criminal lawyers, NJ criminal defense lawyers, NJ criminal defense attorneys, Newark criminal lawyers, Elizabeth nj criminal attorneys, Elizabeth criminal defense lawyers.  Union county nj criminal lawyers. Newark criminal lawyers, Hudson County Criminal Lawyers.

Cross-Racial Identification, Conditional Discharge Bar to PTI, and Consent to Enter Apartment Does Not Mean Consent to Search

Defendant Discharged from the Municipal “Conditional Discharge Program” cannot Be Admitted into

Pretrial Intervention Program.

In State v. O’Brien the Appellate Division held that a defendant who was admitted and successfully discharged from the conditional discharge program pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:36A-1 cannot be admitted over the prosecutor’s objections to the Pretrial Intervention Program pursuant to Rule 3:28.

Defendant Entitled to Cross-Racial Identification

Jury Instructions where Identification is a

Critical Issue and No Independent Corroboration of

Victim’s Identification.

In State v. Walker the Appellate Division held that when identification is a critical issue in cross-racial identification, and there is no independent cooperation of the suspect’s identity, the Court must give the jury the cross-racial identification charge.

This case reaffirms the New Jersey Supreme Court’s seminal case, State v. Cromedy which held that eye-witnesses experience a “cross-racial impairment” when identifying members of another race, with “decreased accuracy in the recognition of other-race faces that is not within the observer’s conscious control.

Police Officers Who Gain Entry into an off-Campus College Apartment by Consent, Investigating a Noise

Complaint, do Not Have a Right to Prance Around

the Apartment looking for Contraband.

In State v. Kaltner, the Appellate Division held that warrantless searches of homes are presumptively unreasonable, and accordingly, held that ecstasy pills found in plain view of an off-campus college apartment at Monmouth University, must be suppressed.  In this case although the police officers had consent to enter the apartment, they did not have consent to search the apartment without a warrant.  This holding was based on the additional fact that there was no apparent emergency which permitted the officers to fan out into the various rooms once inside the apartment.  The community-caretaker exception was not applicable in this case and could not justify the search.

By: Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

Dated: July 28, 2011

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

(908) 354-7006

NJ criminal attorneys, NJ criminal lawyers, NJ criminal defense lawyers, NJ criminal defense attorneys, Newark criminal lawyers, Elizabeth nj criminal attorneys, Elizabeth criminal defense lawyers.  Union county nj criminal lawyers.

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.