The Motion to Suppress Evidence and Driving While Intoxicated Charge

In New Jersey most of the defenses that are available in other States have long been eviscerated by our courts in the Garden State. Accordingly, because of this trend and the difficulty of beating a DWI charge, it is more important that the defense attorney handing these types of cases be aware of every driver of a motor vehicle in this State from being pulled over for reasons which our courts have ruled impermissible.

Specifically, in New Jersey a driving motorist can only be pulled over if a police officer has reasonable suspicion that the driver has been engaged in a violation of law, or if a motor vehicle infraction by the driver is witnessed by the police officer. In addition to those circumstances, our courts have allowed police officers to investigate and/or stop motor vehicles under what is called the “community caretaking” exception.

On May 5, 2011 the Appellate Division in an unpublished opinion, State v. Brackin, ruled that a motorist who paused at a green light for approximately 10 seconds before proceeding through the intersection was not long enough to trigger the police officer to effectuating a motor vehicle stop of the motor vehicle under the community caretaking exception. Both the Municipal Court and Law Division judges denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the automobile stop. However, the Appellate Division reversed the DWI conviction holding that the 10 second delay was not sufficient to trigger the stop.

In ever DWI case the first line of defense, and often the only line of defense is the motion to suppress evidence.

Attorney Sanzone has been successful in many of his cases in which this was a viable issue, and has had many cases dismissed because of the suppression of evidence and various types of contraband.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

Tel. No. (908) 354-7006; Email, yourcivilrights@gmail.com

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

April 28, 2011 the New Jersey Supreme Court Gave New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorneys a Big Tool in Cross-Examination of Law Enforcement Officers.

In State v. W.B., the New Jersey Supreme Court has finally put law enforcement on notice that they now have to perverse and hand over to defense attorneys their original notes.

For to long law enforcement was able to simply either intentionally or negligent change the contents of the final typed police report from the original report without defense counsel having anyway of ascertaining what changes if any were made, or whether the final typed police report was an accurate rendition of the original notes.

As stated by the Court, “the time has come to join other states that require the imposition of an ‘appropriate sanction’ whenever an officer’s written notes are not preserved.”

Now if the notes are destroyed the defendant is entitled to an adverse inference jury charge going to the credibility of the testifying police officer.

Hopefully, this small change will now aid defendants in defending themselves, and level the playing field in the defense attorney’s cross-examination of the officer.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

A New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney who will vigorously and competently fight for you in a criminal court in Union, Hudson, Essex, Bergen, Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean, Burlington, Mercer, Hunterdon, Warren, Morris, Cumberland counties.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

(908) 354-7006

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

Criminal Trial Techniques; Police Fabricated Testimony.

The Municipal Court Cop Trick; How To Put Him Back In the Bag.

A police officer testifying for the State is often trapped into a hole during cross-examination by defense counsel, and like a rodent, he decides to take the offensive and attacks, with the fabricated sentence, such as, “... and the defendant admitted that the marijuana was his.”

Wow, what a shock for defense counsel; a glaring admission by the defendant, and not one word of this “alleged confession”, stated in the police report. How many defense attorneys have been caught in this trap; only later to scratch their head in disbelief.

Well this cop trick is easy to neutralize by defense counsel sending a pretrial letter to the prosecutor requesting that any admission of the defendant be disclosed to the defense prior to trial, so that the defendant, if necessary can file a Miranda Motion or Rule 104 Hearing to determine the statements admissibility.

When the cop attempts to make the make believe admission during direct or cross, defense counsel can object citing the no prior disclosure was made to defense counsel, thus denying the defendant’s opportunity to file a Miranda Motion and/or 104 Hearing to determine its admissibility and suppress the statement.

Remarkably, even a municipal court judges, will sustain this type of objection.

Never Disregard an Expungement Order; Even on an Employment Application?

Recently a county prosecutor in Somerset County, New Jersey was charged with knowingly flouting and expungement order in a brief opposing the defendant's motion to suppress. N.J.S.A. 2C:52-30 makes it a disorderly person's offense in New Jersey for knowingly flouting an expungement order.

An order expunging the record of a past criminal conviction is a great tool to give a person a fresh start in life and obtain employment. The question arises do employers have the right to ask if an applicant ever had a conviction expunged? It appears the answer to that question is no; because first, the applicant would be flouting the expungement order, and the law; and second, the applicant has the right not to incriminate himself, which that question clearly asks the applicant to do. That is, commit a disorderly person's offense, and than admit to such offense.

These thoughts and comments contained in this blog are for educational and/or intellectual purposes only, and in no way reflect or to be construed as legal advice, legal opinion, in any pending or future civil or criminal matter by Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr. For further legal advise you are asked to consult the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq., and schedule a legal consult.

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
CriminalDefenseNJ.com
(908) 354-7006