New Jersey Supreme Court Rules that When You Move from Your Home or Apartment Make Sure that You Remove Your Illegal Drugs

Prepared as a Public Service to the People by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

In the recent New Jersey Supreme Court case, State v. Hinton, the court ruled that when a tenant is evicted or moves permanently from their apartment that the tenant no longer has any reasonable expectation of privacy.

In this case Mr. Hinton was legally removed from his apartment based on a warrant of removal.  When the court officer arrived to change the locks and do a safety inspection it was discovered that Mr. Hinton had left his stash of heroin and cash in his bedroom.  Upon discovering this, the court officer notified the local police you entered the apartment without a warrant. 

Although the Appellate Division suppressed the drugs, on the basis that the police violated the defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy, the Supreme Court reversed holding that the tenant no longer had this privacy right.

Although on its face this case appears to be an innocuous decision limited to the facts; it appears, however, that this case is of concern to the defense bar.  This is the first case in many years which refused to follow the automatic standing rule with all personal property.

Under Governor Christi’s Supreme Court appointment, the court is becoming more conservative and a clear shift in the slow evisceration of the constitutional protections previously afforded defendants in this state.

Quote of the Day: “There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”  President James Madison

Law Office of Vincent J.Sanzone, Jr.

Elizabeth (Union County) New Jersey

(908) 354-7006

NJ Criminal Defense Attorney, Newark Criminal Attorneys, Elizabeth Criminal Attorneys, Hudson County Criminal Attorneys, Middlesex County Criminal Lawyers, Ocean and Monmouth Criminal Lawyers.

The Filing of a New Trial Motion Based On Newly Discovered Evidence

Of course not all jury trials result in a not guilty verdict.  In fact, depending on the county in which the trial takes place, not guilty verdict as to all counts are rare.  In federal court the chances of an acquittal are even more rare.  Stating this truth is not meant to dissuade a defendant who decides to exercise his constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Even after a guilty verdict the sentence imposed by the judge at the time of sentencing might even be lower than the plea offer of the prosecutor.  This is often the case in counties in which there is an extremely high conviction rate, and the county prosecutors believe that they run the courtrooms with their draconian plea offers.  Unfortunately, in some cases they actual do.  In those cases there is less downside risk of going to trial and taking your chances in having the jury make the call as to whether the State or Government has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.  In a recent case in Ocean County the defendant actually received four years less than the plea offer by the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office after losing at trial.

Another avenue for the defendant is the filing a new trial motion after the verdict based on newly discovered evidence.  Although this motion is rarely granted, the defendant and his/or her attorney must be cognizant of discovering, if possible, any new evidence, if presented to the jury during trial, would have likely altered the verdict if known to defense counsel prior to trial.

Today, AttorneySanzone was granted a new trial motion in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Gloucester County.  In that case, defendant’s prior attorney was unaware that an essential witness withheld important evidence from the parties.  After reviewing the transcripts for appeal, it became clear that this witness appeared to know more than she had disclosed.  After a tape recording of her conversation with the defendant’s wife it was clear that her testimony if known to the jury, and if believed, would have acquitted the defendant since her testimony was convincing evidence that the alleged victim and lied, and had a strong motive to do so in this case.

A new trial motion based on newly discovered evidence as no statutory time limits and can be filed at anytime.

If you are charged with a serious crime you owe it to yourself and family to retain the legal services of an experienced NJ criminal defense lawyer.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

Office No. (908) 354-7006

Cell No.   (201) 240-5716

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Dated: December 24, 2012

Blow To New Jersey Drivers Who Enjoy Fast Driving

The New Jersey Appellate Division recently ruled in State v. Vanderkooy in an unpublished opinion affirmed the decision of the municipal court that the radar device, Stalker Dual S.L., is scientifically reliable. 

The prosecutor in the municipal court trial flew in a Stalker an employee of the manufacture of the device, to testify that the machine adhered to the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration accuracy standards.  Would you expect otherwise from the employee of the company that sells the devices to police departments in New Jersey and 49 other states?

This case however, did not overturn State v. Green, 417 N.J. Super. 190 (App. Div. 2010), which is still good law, holding that the Stalker Lidar laser radar gun has not been proven as scientifically reliable.  Unfortunately, in many municipal courts throughout the state, prosecutors and municipal court judges will not dismiss these cases, although required to do so under State v. Green, requiring instead for the defendant and his attorney to come to court repeatedly on multiple occasions until the client and attorney agree to accept a plea to a lesser charge.

In any event if you are charged with a speeding ticket or other traffic moving violation it might be beneficial to discuss your case with an experienced municipal court attorney to discuss your options, and possible defenses to those charges.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

CriminaldefenseNJ.com

277 North Broad Street

PO Box 261

Elizabeth (Union County), New Jersey 07207

Office Phone: (908) 354-7007

Cell Phone:   (201) 240-5716

New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney, New Jersey Municipal Court Attorney.

September 29, 2012