New Jersey Criminal Defense Journal : New Jersey Criminal Defense Lawyer & Attorney : Alexander M. Iler Law Firm : Monmouth County NJ DWI & Drunk Driving Defense

Ocean Township police broke up two underage drinking parties this past weekend. Saturday night, three Monmouth University students were having a party and police were called due to the noise. The students were charged with providing alcohol to minors and with a township noise ordinance. Seven other partygoers were given a violation of a township ordinance which prohibits underage drinking on private property. For more information, see the Asbury Park Press article.

The New Jersey statute which governs underage drinking charges is N.J.S.A. 2C:33-15 which provides in pertinent part:

§ 2C:33-15. Possession, consumption of alcoholic beverages by persons under legal age; penalty

   a. Any person under the legal age to purchase alcoholic beverages who knowingly possesses without legal authority or who knowingly consumes any alcoholic beverage in any school, public conveyance, public place, or place of public assembly, or motor vehicle, is guilty of a disorderly persons offense, and shall be fined not less than $ 500.00.

b. Whenever this offense is committed in a motor vehicle, the court shall, in addition to the sentence authorized for the offense, suspend or postpone for six months the driving privilege of the defendant. Upon the conviction of any person under this section, the court shall forward a report to the Division of Motor Vehicles stating the first and last day of the suspension or postponement period imposed by the court pursuant to this section. If a person at the time of the imposition of a sentence is less than 17 years of age, the period of license postponement, including a suspension or postponement of the privilege of operating a motorized bicycle, shall commence on the day the sentence is imposed and shall run for a period of six months after the person reaches the age of 17 years.

As you can see, underage possession or consumption of alcohol is a disorderly persons offense in New Jersey. The maximum penalty for a DP is six (6) months in prison. Moreover, if convicted, this results in a permanent criminal charge on your record. However, it appears the police gave the partygoers a break in this case by writing them up for a violation of a municipal ordinance (which results in a fine and is not a permanent criminal charge) rather than a 2C violation. Many times underage consumption of alcohol charges are accompanied by underage DWI or adult DWI depending on the breathalyzer readings.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I recently wrote an article about the felony murder trial of Andre Dennis in Monmouth County Superior Court. Here is an update on the case. Dennis was convicted this past week for conspiracy to commit armed robbery, armed robbery, felony murder, unlawful possession of a handgun, and possession of a handgun for an unlawful purpose. The jury took merely an hour and a half to convict Dennis of these charges. It appears that the jury had no doubt of the defendant's guilty. The defendant's attorney attempted to argue that Dennis was merely "along for the ride" that night with his older brother and that Dennis should not be responsible for what someone else did. Under the felony murder doctrine, Dennis was found responsible for just that.

For additional information, see "Another conviction in execution-style death of Asbury Park man".

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A routine traffic stop on Monday led to a major cocaine and heroin bust as well as $425,000 in drug money. Two Asbury Park residents were arrested earlier this week on numerous drug charges including drug possession, money laundering, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Police conducted a routine traffic stop based on a motor vehicle violation and observed what they believed to be heroin in the vehicle.  As a result, police conducted a search and seized 40 bricks of heroin from the vehicle with a street value of approximately $12,000. Then, police obtained a search warrant to search the suspect's residence and seized a significant amount of cocaine, heroin, and drug money. Both suspects are being held at the Monmouth County Jail with significant bail amounts. For additional information, see "Traffic stop leads to seizure of drugs".

It will be interesting to see what the probable cause for the initial traffic stop was. The article merely says "a violation of a motor vehicle regulation." Further, the police also were only allowed to search the vehicle if the drugs were in fact in "plain view". Otherwise, they were not permitted to search the vehicle based on an ordinary motor vehicle stop. It does not appear that the individual was under arrest based on the initial stop so the police could not conduct a search incident to arrest or impound the vehicle based on the arrest of the driver.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A Brick man was arrested Wednesday and charged with criminal sexual contact and endangering the welfare of a child. The defendant is a teacher at Freehold Borough High School and the alleged victim is a female student. Assistant Prosecutor Peter E. Warshaw Jr. said that the charges were based on a continuing course of improper conduct which began in late 2008 and took place in the classroom after school. The defendant has been released on $50,000 bail and is to have no contact with the school or the victim. For additional information, see the Asbury Park Press article.

A charge for criminal sexual contact in New Jersey is governed by N.J.S.A. 2C:14-3 which states:

§ 2C:14-3. Aggravated criminal sexual contact; criminal sexual contact

   a. An actor is guilty of aggravated criminal sexual contact if he commits an act of sexual contact with the victim under any of the circumstances set forth in 2C:14-2 a.(2) through (7).

Aggravated criminal sexual contact is a crime of the third degree.

b. An actor is guilty of criminal sexual contact if he commits an act of sexual contact with the victim under any of the circumstances set forth in section 2C:14-2 c.(1) through (4).

Criminal sexual contact is a crime of the fourth degree.

Here, the teacher is charged under section (b) of the statute which is a crime of the fourth degree. If convicted, he is facing up to eighteen (18) months in prison. The State must show one of the following circumstances to sustain a charge for criminal sexual contact:

(1) The actor uses physical force or coercion, but the victim does not sustain severe personal injury;

(2) The victim is on probation or parole, or is detained in a hospital, prison or other institution and the actor has supervisory or disciplinary power over the victim by virtue of the actor's legal, professional or occupational status;

(3) The victim is at least 16 but less than 18 years old and:

(a) The actor is related to the victim by blood or affinity to the third degree; or

(b) The actor has supervisory or disciplinary power of any nature or in any capacity over the victim; or

(c) The actor is a resource family parent, a guardian, or stands in loco parentis within the household;

(4) The victim is at least 13 but less than 16 years old and the actor is at least four years older than the victim.

In this case, it looks like the State will attempt to show section (3) of the statute because the victim, a female high school student, is between 16 and 18 years of age and the defendant has supervisory power (as a teacher) over the alleged victim. We'll see how this case turns out.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I recently represented a client in Fair Haven Municipal Court charged with impersonating a law enforcement officer in New Jersey. The statute which governs this offense is N.J.S.A. 2C:28-8 which provides in pertinent part:

§ 2C:28-8. Impersonating a public servant or law enforcement officer

   a. Except as provided in subsection b. of this section, a person commits a disorderly persons offense if he falsely pretends to hold a position in the public service with purpose to induce another to submit to such pretended official authority or otherwise to act in reliance upon that pretense.

b. A person commits a crime of the fourth degree if he falsely pretends to hold a position as an officer or member or employee or agent of any organization or association of law enforcement officers with purpose to induce another to submit to such pretended official authority or otherwise to act in reliance upon that pretense.

In this case, my client was a former juvenile custody officer who was terminated a couple years ago but retained his badge and kept his badge in his wallet. When my client was pulled over for a traffic violation and opened his wallet to get his license, the arresting officer observed the badge and inquired further. As a result, my client was charged with a criminal offense of impersonating a law enforcement officer. My client was charged under section (a) of the statute which is a disorderly persons offense in New Jersey. If convicted, my client was facing up to six (6) months in prison and he would also have a permanent criminal charge on his record. I was able to negotiate a plea to a downgraded charge (a municipal ordinance) which resulted in a fine and no criminal record for my client. This was a great result considering the circumstances of the case.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There are certain enumerated rights under the United States Constitution and the New Jersey Constitution which are guaranteed to each and every defendant in a criminal case in New Jersey. These rights include:

The right to address the court at sentencing (Article I, Paragraph 2)

The right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures (Article 1, Paragraph 7); In this area, the protections in New Jersey are actually greater than Federal law.

The right to have felony cases presented to a grand jury (Article 1, Paragraph 8)

The right to a speedy trial (Article 1, Paragraph 8)

The right to a public trial (Article 1, Paragraph 10)

The right to be informed of the nature of the accusations against you (Article 1, Paragraph 10)

The right to cross examine adverse witnesses (Article 1, Paragraph 10)

The right to compel a witness to testify (Article 1, Paragraph 10)

The right to assistance of counsel (Article 1, Paragraph 10)

The right to protection against double jeapordy (Article 1, Paragraph 11)

The right against cruel and unusual punishment (Article 1, Paragraph 12)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Sometimes the State should just stay out of private matters. A New Jersey attorney who is in the midst of a divorce from a New York radio personality has been charged with violating a restraining order and harassing his former wife by allegedly posting a video of her on a MySpace Web page. The attorney, who resides in Brick, was arrested at his home at 11:30 p.m. Sunday by police. He posted $5,000 bail and was released.

The videotape, which the attorney allegedly posted to a myspace page, was a deposition that his former wife gave during their divorce proceedings. The criminal complaint for harassment states that the video which appeared on MySpace consisted of "the most emotional, personal and embarrassing portions" of testimony given by his former wife. The criminal charge also said the posting of the video was done with a purpose to annoy or alarm the victim. For additional information on this story, read the Asbury Park Press article entitled "Brick man charged over MySpace 'meltdown' video".

I don't know the background of this situation and I understand that there is a previous restraining order involved but based on these facts alone I think that a criminal charge for harassment is completely inappropriate in this case. To sustain a charge for harassment in New Jersey under N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4, the State must show that, with the purpose to harass another, the defendant made a communication likely to cause annoyance or alarm. In this case, I think the State is clearfly infringing on the attorney's right of free speech. The posting of a video on a MySpace page is not necessarily a communication under the statute. Moreover, it seems like the State will have extreme difficulty proving that he posted this video with the purpose of harassing her. Did the defendant even know that his ex-wife had access to his MySpace page to view the video? I do not believe his actions are sufficient in this factual scenario to sustain a charge for harassment in New Jersey.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A Plainfield police officer plead guilty on April 17 to third degree assault by auto, driving while intoxicated (DWI), and failure to exhibit a driver's license relating to a 2007 car crash in which the officer's blood alcohol content was nearly three times the legal limit at .23%. The accident occurred on Route 22 in North Plainfield on the night of July 31, 2007. As part of the plea agreement, the officer has given up his job, faces probation with sixty (60) days in the Somerset County jail, the loss of his driver's license for two years, thirty (30) days of community service, and fourty-eight (48) hours in the Intoxicated Driver's Resource Center along with fines and court costs. For additional info, please read "Plainfield Police Officer Accused of Driving Drunk, Causing Crash Forfeits Job".

This is a very tragic story that could have turned out a lot worse for the officer. This story is eerily similar to another post I made recently regarding a 23 year old man who was sentenced to six years in prison for second degree aggravated assault arising from a drunk driving accident. In this case, the police officer was extremely lucky that the other individuals involved in the accident were not severely injured. Otherwise, he too would have been facing a substantial prison sentence or even vehicular homicide if one of the other drivers or passengers died during the drunk driving accident.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Residents of Marlboro returned home Saturday morning around 9:45 a.m. to find two men fleeing in a vehicle. The residents called the police and the two men were apprehended a half-hour later. Both men were charged with burglary and conspiracy. The defendants are being held at Monmouth County jail with bails of $100,000 and $50,000 respectively. For more information, please see "Two Charged with Breaking Into Marlboro Home".

This is an interesting case. Burglary is governed in New Jersey by N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2. One of the required elements of a burglary charge is that the defendant entered the structure "with the purpose of committing a crime therein". As a result, the perpetrator must have entered the structure or facility with the purpose of committing another crime. Also, notice that "breaking into" the house or facility is not a necessary element under the statute. The important issue is whether or not the individual had a license or right to be in the structure or facility.

In this case, it doesn't look like anything was stolen from the house. However, if the defendants entered the house with the purpose of stealing something then a burglary charge may be valid. On the other hand, it will be difficult for the State to prove that the individuals intended to commit a crime if they didn't actually steal anything. It will be interesting to see how this case turns out.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

An inmate has been charged with three counts of aggravated assault stemming from the alleged assault of a corrections officer at the Monmouth County Jail in November. Anthony Montgomery, 37, is alleged to have jumped a corrections officer as the officer passed by his cell during the jail's recreation hour. The officer suffered a fractured cheek bone and separated shoulder as a result of the assault. The officer has yet to return to work since the assault in November 2008. It took two other corrections officers to finally subdue the inmate. For additional information on this story, please see "Man, 37, Indicted in Jail Guard Assault".

This story is fairly disturbing to me. First, what were the man's motives for viciously attacking a corrections officer? Maybe the two men had words or a prior issue that led to this assault. Further, as a criminal defense lawyer I frequently visit the Monmouth County Jail to meet with clients who are incarcerated. The Monmouth County Jail is unique in that the inmates are also walking around the same hallways that the attorneys are. There are corrections officers everywhere but it does slightly concern me because an inmate could attack me the same way that this inmate attacked a corrections officer.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Andre Dennis, 24, is currently on trial for murder in Monmouth County Superior Court. Dennis is on trial for the alleged shooting of an Asbury Park man on New Year's Eve 2005. A co-conspirator, Angela Pizzarelli, a 27-year-old Hazlet woman, was already tried and convicted of felony murder, aggravated manslaughter, armed robbery, conspiracy, and weapons offenses for this 2005 incident. However, Dennis can also be legally responsible for the killing under the legal doctrine of felony murder. For additional information on this murder trial, see "Felony Murder Trial in Monmouth County Superior Court".

Felony murder is a legal doctrine which holds all perpetrators responsible for any deaths caused during the commission of the felony. The typical predicate or underlying felonies which lead to felony murder charges if someone is killed are: burglary, arson, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and sodomy. However, if a co-felon or co-conspirator dies during the commission of a felony, the defendant may not necessarily be charged with felony murder.

In this case, Andre Dennis was allegedly a co-conspirator in an armed robbery in which one of the victims was killed during the commission of the robbery. Therefore, even if Dennis did not pull the trigger himself and even if Dennis did not intend or want anyone to die, he is guilty of murder based on the felony murder doctrine.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I attended a seminar last week on Drug Court given by the Honorable Thomas Scully, J.S.C. at the Monmouth County Superior Court in Freehold, New Jersey. This seminar was extremely helpful and informative to me as a criminal defense attorney and Drug Court is an important avenue to understand when trying to achieve the best possible resolution for a client charged with a drug offense in New Jersey.

Drug Court is essentially a non-adversarial process whereby the State and the defense attorney work together to provide assistance to a non-violent drug addicted offender.A defendant may be eligible for drug court under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 (Special Probation for prison-bound offenders) or N.J.S.A. 2C:45-1 (Ordinary Probation) according to the guidelines of the Drug Court Manual. The Drug Court probationary period requires intensive probation supervision, including frequent and random urine testing, along with employment and other counseling and drug treatment programs.

According to the statistics I received at the seminar, of the one hundred and one (101) Monmouth County Drug Court graduates prior to January 29, 2009, only 1 was sent to State prison for a new offense after completing the program. Thirty four (34) were employed when they entered the drug court program and ninety five (95) were employed by the end of the program. Only 12% of the offenders had medical benefits when they started the drug program while 70% had benefits upon completion. Further, only 9% of the offenders had a valid driver's license upon entering the program. Upon graduation from the program, 70% had received a license or restored their driving privileges.

As you can see, Drug Court is extremely successful in rehabilitating these non-violent drug addicted offenders. This helps turn the lives around of these defendants. Moreover, this program is helpful to the State by creating productive members of society while also alleviating some of the drug problems in New Jersey. Further, incarceration of one (1) adult defendant for a period of one year costs the state $37,000. The first year of drug court, on the other hand, costs the State between $5,400 and $19,500 depending on the type of treatment. As a result, this program is beneficial to all involved and is a positive result for clients with drug addiction issues.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A Trenton man was sentenced yesterday to ten (10) years in federal prison for his role in a cocaine distribution ring. He was the middleman in a drug distribution scheme which sold large quantities of cocaine in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. As part of his plea agreement, he was also ordered to forfeit $270,000 of drug money to the government. For additional info, please see "Cocaine Distribution Charges for Trenton Man".

His guilty plea was actually to charges for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and to a weapons charge. In New Jersey, charges for cocaine distribution are governed by N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5, which provides for different penalties for cocaine charges depending on the weight of the drug in the defendant's possession. If you are in possession of five (5) ounces or more of cocaine, this is a first degree crime in New Jersey which provides for ten (10) to twenty (20) years in prison if convicted. If you are caught with less than five ounces but more than one-half ounce of cocaine, you will be charged with second degree cocaine possession with intent to distrbute which includes five (5) to ten (10) years in prison. If you are apprehended with less than one-half ounce of cocaine in your possession, you may be charged with third degree cocaine possession with intent to distribute. Third degree offenses in New Jersey generally include one (1) to five (5) years in prison.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The New Jersey State Legislature is considering a bill that would require drivers involved in a motor vehicle accident, which results in injury or death to another, to submit to mandatory sobriety tests to determine if they are driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Currently, police can only conduct sobriety tests when there is evidence or suspicion that the driver is intoxicated. This reasonable suspicion allows police to conduct sobriety tests on the driver to determine if the driver is in fact under the influence. However, the fact that the driver was in an accident does not alone create the reasonable suspicion necessary to require field sobriety testing.

The bill is proposed in response to a tragic accident in 2007 when a 17-year-old high school senior was killed as a passenger in a vehicle which ran into a tree. The 17-year-old driver was charged with careless driving and paid a $200 fine as a result of the accident. However, the driver was never tested for alcohol and drugs. On the other hand, the victim's body was tested for alcohol and drugs.

This bill could have a significant impact on the DWI landscape in New Jersey. If every driver is required to perform field sobriety tests when they are involved in a motor vehicle accident which results in death or injury, there will be a significant number of these drivers who will in fact be charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI) who otherwise would not have. This would increase the number of DWI offenses in the State and would provide some justice for the victims of these accidents. For additional information on this bill, please see "Sobriety test may be mandatory if a crash results in death, injury."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There is currently a murder case being litigated before the Honorable Ira E. Kreizman in the Monmouth County Superior Court. The Defendant, Alan J. Stoedter, is charged with murdering his wife, Donna Stoedter, on December 14, 2005.

Judge Kreizman has yet to rule on whether a videotaped statement made by the Defendant on the day of the murder is admissible in his upcoming murder trial. Ordinarily these statements would be admissible under one of the exceptions to the hearsay doctrine known as statements against interest or admissions of the Defendant. Essentially, the Defendant makes statements on the tape which give him a motive for killing his wife. He made statements such as "[i]f I was 17 years older than my wife, and she lost 100 pounds, and she's training with some guy, I'd be worried,'' and "[t]o say that I never had a concern would be a lie, but to say I got to the point where I was jealous or thought about following her around... that occurred a couple of times." If the judge allows the video into evidence, it will be shown to the jury at trial.

However, the defense is moving to suppress the video because the video quality is not good and and some of the statements on the tape are inaudible. Further, the tape is filled with static from radio transmissions at Wall Police Headquarters. For additional information, please see "No Ruling Yet on Video Statement in Manasquan Murder Trial".

It will be interesting to see how Judge Kreizman rules on this issue. I have not seen or heard the tape but my gut instinct tells me that the tape will be allowed and the jury will see it. This is essential to the State's case in order to show motive for the murder.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I recently represented a client in Middlesex County Superior Court charged with possession of heroin and possession of heroin with intent to distribute (both third degree offenses). He was also charged with 4th degree unlawful possession of prescription drugs.

After examining the discovery evidence provided by the State, I determined that the Defendant did not have any valid defenses and/or triable issues whereby we could beat the charges at trial. Essentially, my client was found with the heroin in his possession and the probable cause for the search was sound. Thus, the goal was to keep my client out of jail and to avoid a criminal record if possible.

I was able to negotiate an extremely favorable result for my client. He applied and was accepted into New Jersey's Pre-Trial Intervention program whereby, if he successfully completes the two (2) year supervisory period, the charges against him will be dismissed and he will avoid both jail and a criminal record altogether. He is required to obtain treatment for his drug addiction and counseling under the PTI Supervision program. This was a beneficial result for both my client and the State.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

After a two week trial before the Honorable Anthony Mellaci Jr. at the Monmouth County Superior Court, two Red Bank men were convicted of armed robbery, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, and unlawful possession of a weapon.

On July 18, 2007, the men went to the Little Diamond jewelry store on Shrewsbury Avenue in Red Bank, posing as customers. They robbed the store owner at gunpoint and fled the scene when another customer entered the store. Police obtained fingerprints from the scene and the victims identified both perpetrators. The defendants are facing up to twenty (20) years in prison based on these convictions. Sentencing has been scheduled for May 29, 2009.

Robbery charges in New Jersey are governed by N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1 which provides:

§ 2C:15-1. Robbery

a. Robbery defined. A person is guilty of robbery if, in the course of committing a theft, he:

(1) Inflicts bodily injury or uses force upon another; or

(2) Threatens another with or purposely puts him in fear of immediate bodily injury; or

(3) Commits or threatens immediately to commit any crime of the first or second degree.

An act shall be deemed to be included in the phrase "in the course of committing a theft" if it occurs in an attempt to commit theft or in immediate flight after the attempt or commission.

b. Grading. Robbery is a crime of the second degree, except that it is a crime of the first degree if in the course of committing the theft the actor attempts to kill anyone, or purposely inflicts or attempts to inflict serious bodily injury, or is armed with, or uses or threatens the immediate use of a deadly weapon.

As you can see, the Defendants in this case were facing 1st degree robbery charges based on the use of a gun in the commission of the robbery. For additional information see "Two Convicted of Robbing Red Bank Jewelry Store at Gunpoint".

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A heroin supply ring which allegedly brought in $750,000 a week was busted this past week by federal, state, local, and county police in New Jersey. According to the article in the Asbury Park Press, a Newark man bought heroin in bulk and used his grocery store and other homes in Essex County to dilute and package the drugs. He then sold the heroin to mid level dealers who in turn distributed it to the street dealers throughout New Jersey. The bust led to fifty arrests. "Federal DEA agents, members of the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office, and local police seized drugs with a street value of almost $1 million dollars, including 30,700 packets of heroin that weighed more than 61/2 pounds and was worth about $460,500." The operation known as "Operation Life," was one in which members of various gangs such as the Bloods, Crips and Five Percenters worked together because they had a common interest of earning drug money off the street. In my experience as a criminal defense attorney, this is extremely rare to see rival gangs working together for any purpose.

Most of the arrests were made last Tuesday and they were announced Wednesday morning at a news conference in Freehold, attended by state Attorney General Anne Milgram, Monmouth County Prosecutor Luis A. Valentin, representatives from local police departments, the New Jersey State Police, the FBI, the Essex County Prosecutor's Office, and the Monmouth County Sheriff's Office. This was obviously a huge team effort for all aspects of law enforcement in New Jersey to bring down this large heroin trafficking ring.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I was in Middlesex County Superior Court on Friday negotiating a plea agreement on behalf of a client. While in court, I saw a sentencing before the Honorable Joseph L. Rea which really affected me. As a criminal defense lawyer, I have seen a lot of difficult cases and terrible things but something about this case really made me think about life, the decisions we make, and the consequences of our actions.

The case was a drunk driving incident which turned into two counts of second degree aggravated assault. The Defendant was a 23 year old man with no significant criminal history to speak of. He had one conditional discharge for a marijuana offense. However, in this case, he was charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI) and two counts of second degree aggravated assault arising from a traffic accident which occurred while he was driving under the influence. His blood alcohol content was two and a half times the legal limit at .20. He crossed over a double yellow line and hit a vehicle head on. The two individuals in the vehicle were severely injured and almost died. The driver, a man, was in the hospital for four months and had injuries including a broken leg, broken ankle, and lascerated liver. The woman, his girlfriend, was in the hospital for a month and a half and also suffered significant injuries. Both individuals recovered from these injuries and were present in court for the sentencing.

The Defendant pled guilty to second degree aggravated assault as a result of this accident. His plea agreement was contingent upon the prosecutor recommending six (6) years in prison. He was looking at five (5) to ten (10) years in prison for each count of second degree aggravated assault. One of the victims spoke at the sentencing. He said that he didn't hate the defendant and he didn't want him to spend the rest of his life in prison but also that the defendant needed to be taught a lesson. The defendant's family also spoke and begged for mercy for their son, brother, and boyfriend. He is a young kid and feels significant remorse for what he has done. Obviously, he never intended for anyone to get hurt but his conduct rises to the level of recklessness which allows him to be charged with second degree assault.

In the end, the judge sentenced the defendant to six (6) years in prison. I believe this was a just sentence. On the one hand, you feel bad for this young man who got behind the wheel when he shouldn't have and got into a severe car accident.  So many people have done the same thing but because their conduct did not result in an accident or because the injuries from an accident are not severe, they are not looking at jail time. However, he is facing jail time based on the serious injuries his reckless conduct inflicted. He was very close to facing vehicular manslaughter charges if the driver of the vehicle died from the accident. This young man is going into prison at 23 and he won't be eligible for release until he has served at least 4.5 years under the No Early Release Act in New Jersey. He must serve 85% of his sentence.

On the other hand, I believe the sentence is just because the court must deter other individuals from engaging in this type of conduct. For example, ff the judge showed mercy in this case, others would believe that they could get behind the wheel and, if they were in an accident which resulted in serious injuries, they also could receive leniency from the court. It was just a very unfortunate situation all around.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

There will be a driving while intoxicated (DWI) checkpoint in Shrewsbury, New Jersey this weekend. The checkpoint will be conducted by the Monmouth County DWI Task Force. The checkpoint will be held from 11 p.m. tonight until 3 a.m. tomorrow morning on Route 35 South. The Shrewsbury Police Department will pull drivers from the southbound lanes of Route 35 into the Shrewspury Plaza parking lot to conduct sobriety testing.

In New Jersey, courts have held that DWI roadblocks (also known as sobriety checkpoints) are valid if certain procedures are followed. The location of the checkpoint must be appropriate based on historical arrests at that location (i.e. this is an area where the police have found significant drinking and driving). Next, public safety and awareness will be increased by the use of the checkpoint. This checkpoint also must be closely supervised and notice of the checkpoint must be published in advance. In this case, police placed an article in the Asbury Park Press advising residents of the checkpoint. As a result, when these procedures are followed the roadblock is constitutional and is considered valid as a traffic stop for DWI charges.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In February, I posted a blog article called "Get your headlights fixed". Here is a perfect example why. Police stopped a car this past week in Keyport, NJ for a broken taillight. As the officer approached the vehicle he smelled the odor of marijuana emanating from the car. As a result, the officer utilized a police dog to find the drugs. The dog alerted the officer to the area near the gas tank door. The police found nine (9) bags of marijuana hidden under the fuel tank door. The police also found $750 cash. The defendants are charged with possession of marijuana, possession with intent to distribute, possession with intent to distribute in a school zone, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Both men are being held at the Monmouth County Jail in Freehold, New Jersey on $30,000 bail.

If you are driving a vehicle with a headlight or taillight out, this is a violation of New Jersey Motor Vehicle Laws and gives law enforcement a valid reason to pull you over. Thus, there will be no way for a defense attorney to challenge the initial stop. However, police are not allowed to search your vehicle just based on this traffic stop. On the other hand, if police see drugs or other contraband in "plain view", detect the odor of marijuana, or smell alcohol in the vehicle or on the breath of the driver, this can lead to other, much more serious charges such as drug possession or drunk driving. As a result, it is important to keep all your car lights in working order at all times.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A Rumson, New Jersey doctor was sentenced to 41 months in prison this past week for unlawfully prescribing oxycodone and for conspiracy to launder money derived from illegal drug distribution. U.S. District Court Judge Anne E. Thompson also ordered that the defendant be subject to three (3) years supervision and pay fines of $9,000. His plea agreement also included a loss of his medical license, payment of $302,000 in taxes, interest, and penalties, and forfeiture of another $120,000 to the government.

An undercover officer stated that the waiting room of this doctor's facility was worse than most drug dens. According to an assistant United States attorney on the case, this doctor wrote more prescriptions of one particular type and dosage unit of pain pill than any physician in the country. According to the article I read in the APP called "Pill Mill Doctor gets 41 months", "[o]ne patient was prescribed 2,700 powerful pain pills in just six weeks. Assuming that woman stayed awake 24 hours a day, for six weeks, she would have had to take 2.68 pills every hour of every day for six weeks to finish that prescription." The prosecutor also said that the doctor knew that patients were selling half of their prescriptions for cash on the black market and keeping the rest for themselves.

Prescription drug charges and prescription fraud cases are becoming more and more prevalent in this area. Our office handles these cases all the time. Prescription drug addiction, especially to painkillers like oxycodone, is a real problem in New Jersey and must be recognized and treated to avoid legal problems like these.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link