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

The Iler Law Firm was recently featured in an Asbury Park Press article concerning Megan's Law and a statutory provision which allows certain offenders to file a Motion to be removed from Megan's Law registration requirements after fifteen (15) years. For the full text of the article, see "Some sex offenders freed from Megan's Law monitoring".

Here are a few important things to keep in mind concerning Megan's Law and these motions. First, Megan's Law governs all those who have been convicted or plead guilty to a "sex offense" in New Jersey or another State. There are a wide range of sex offenses that put a defendant into this category. Now, the legislature, when enacting Megan's Law, saw fit to create an "out clause" which allows certain offenders to apply for removal from Megan's Law registration requirements if they meet certain criteria. The statute which governs this Motion is N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(f) which provides:

f. Except as provided in subsection g. of this section, a person required to register under this act may make application to the Superior Court of this State to terminate the obligation upon proof that the person has not committed an offense within 15 years following conviction or release from a correctional facility for any term of imprisonment imposed, whichever is later, and is not likely to pose a threat to the safety of others.

Subsection (g) provides:

g. A person required to register under this section who has been convicted of, adjudicated delinquent, or acquitted by reason of insanity for more than one sex offense as defined in subsection b. of this section or who has been convicted of, adjudicated delinquent, or acquitted by reason of insanity for aggravated sexual assault pursuant to subsection a. of N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2 or sexual assault pursuant to paragraph (1) of subsection c. of N.J.S.A 2C:14-2 is not eligible under subsection f. of this section to make application to the Superior Court of this State to terminate the registration obligation.

Moreover, if the defendant was convicted of a serious sex crime such as rape or most offenses involving children, the individual is not eligible to be removed from Megan's Law EVER. Furthermore, if the individual meets these initial requirements, a comprehensive psychological evaluation is conducted and a report is generated for the Court concerning the defendant and risk that the defendant poses to society. Testimony of the psychologist may also be required by the Judge. Finally, if the registrant meets all of these requirements then the Assignment Judge in the County in which the registrant resides determines if the candidate is suitable for removal. The State also typically submits a brief and is heard on oral argument if they oppose the removal of the individual from the registration requirements.

As a result, it is important to remember that the worst offenders will never be eligible to be removed from Megan's law. Further, individuals who have committed more than one sex offense will never be eligible to be removed. In conclusion, those who are eligible have not committed any offenses whatsoever in fifteen (15) years and have been law abiding members of society. Therefore, the legislature provided them with a removal clause which has significant safeguards.

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

I recently represented two co-defendants charged with marijuana possession under 50 grams and possession of drug paraphernalia in Ocean City Municipal Court. These two young men had no prior criminal record and waived any conflict of interest in the firm representing both co-defendants.

Upon receipt of the discovery package it became very clear that there was an issue with the search. The police report narrative stated that the officer was on traffic patrol when he saw the driver go into the Sunoco station and leave very quickly without buying anything and then when the driver came out of the store he was looking around like he was looking for someone when he observed the officer across the street. At this point, the driver returned to his vehicle and began driving toward the exit of the city. The officer then stated that he noticed the driver was not wearing his seatbelt which was the probable cause to pull the vehicle over. Once the stop was initiated, the officer smelled marijuana inside the vehicle and the driver consented to a search of the vehicle which led to the seiizure of marijuana and possession charges.

However, the probable cause for the stop was questionable at best. If there was no reason for the officer to pull the vehicle over then any subsequent search or violation must be suppressed based on the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Moreover, although the probable cause for the stop was the alleged seatbelt violation, the officer failed to issue the driver a summons for this violation. As a result, after a conference with the municipal prosecutor and a potential motion to suppress the illegally seized evidence on the table, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the charges based on the questionable nature of the search and the lack of probable cause for the initial stop.

This was a great success for the clients who were able to avoid a criminal charge on their record along with the six (6) month driver's license suspension that accompanies these charges.

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

I represented a client this week charged with aggravated assault in Burlington County Superior Court. The defendant allegedly recklessly discharged his firearm in his home which led to his roommate being shot in the forearm. My client is an active member of the United States Air Force and lawfully possessed the weapon. However, he was charged with aggravated assault under N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(3) for recklessly causing an injury to another. This is a fourth degree charge and the plea offer was eighteen (18) months in prison without parole.

After an initial investigation, it became very clear that my client did not shoot the alleged victim in the arm but rather the alleged victim shot himself in the forearm. This was an alcohol related incident and the alleged victim told the police that the defendant shot him in the arm accidentally when he was cleaning the gun because the alleged victim assumed my client would not be prosecuted and the alleged victim was concerned that he would get into trouble based on the fact that he did not have a permit for this firearm and it was not his gun. Based on this investigation and the alleged victim changing his story, I was able to negotiate a significant downgrade of the charge to a petty disorderly persons offense of creating a hazardous condition. My client paid a fine and the case is now resolved. This was a tremendous result for the client who was facing eighteen (18) months in prison and who was able to avoid a felony charge on his record.

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