New Jersey Law More Protective than Federal Law and Prevents Police From Ordering Automobile Passengers Out of Motor Vehicle without Reasonable Suspicion

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

In the recent appellate division case, State v. Bacome the Appellate Division held that the removal of a passenger and driver from an automobile because of an alleged seat-belt violation was contrary to the New Jersey Constitution.  Under New Jersey law the police must point to specific and articulable facts warranting a heightened awareness to do so during a motor vehicle traffic violation stop.

In this case the police could not point to anything that lead them to believe that the passenger posed an danger to them when they testified that the passenger could have reached under the seat to retrieve a weapon.  The fact that the police believe that they had returned from Newark to purchase narcotics was also not sufficient to remove them from the vehicle.  Based on these facts and law, the CDS found in the automobile was suppressed, because the officers’ alleged plain view of the narcotics occurred after the defendants had exited the motor vehicle.

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

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

277 North Broad Street

Raymond Building

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth (Union County), N.J. 07207

(908) 354-7006

Essex, Hudson and Union County criminal defense attorney, protecting the rights of the criminally accused for 25-years.  Practice devoted exclusively to criminal trial practice.

United States Supreme Court Holds No Canine Sniff of Front Porch without Warrant.

Prepared by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq., as a public service.

The facts of Florida v. Jardines (2013) are simple and straight forward.  The police in Florida took a drug-sniffing canine to the front porch of the defendant’s home to see whether the dog would make a positive hit for drugs.  The dog did, and based on the that positive hit, the police obtained a search warrant to search the home.  In searching the home pursuant to the warrant the police discovered marijuana plants, and the defendant was charged with trafficking in CDS.

The evidence was suppressed by the lower courts in Florida and affirmed by the Florida Supreme Court.  The United States took certiorari and our highest court agreed that the police had no right to bring the drug-sniffing dog on the defendant’s porch without a warrant.  That any search of a home or its curtilage without a warrant was a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Following Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 180 (1984), which held that any area immediately surrounding and associated with the house is part of the home for purposes of Fourth Amendment protection.

If you have been arrested as result of a search of your home, office or motor vehicle without a warrant you must seek competent legal advice from an experienced criminal defense attorney, to see if your fourth amendment rights have been violated and your chances of obtaining a dismissal based on a motion to suppress the evidence illegally seized.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

(908) 354-7006

Criminal Defense Attorney in New Jersey, Union County, Federal Court, Newark, Elizabeth, Jersey City, New Brunswick, Hackensack, Morristown, Somerville, Bayonne, Union City, Clifton, Roselle Park, Clark, Westfield, Union, Short Hills, Milburn.

Dated: December 26, 2013

Quote of the day:  “Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope.” Robert Kennedy

Defending the Possession with Intent to Distribute Case In Superior Court-Hudson County, Jersey City, by Criminal Defense Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

www.criminaldefensenj.com

It is without argument that the majority of criminal cases on the docket in Superior Court, Hudson County are the controlled dangerous substance (CDS) offenses.  Even drug users who have quantities of over 10 to 20 dime bags are often charged with possession with intent to distribute, notwithstanding that they do not possess the narcotics for sale, but only for their own personal use.  Often these users face the draconian penalties as sellers when in fact they only possess the CDS for their own personal consumption.

Remember if you are convicted twice for such an offense, the second conviction will result in a mandatory extended term, increasing the offense level automatically from a third-degree to a second-degree, or a second-degree crime to a first-degree crime depending on the amount of CDS and whether it was recovered within 1000-feet of a school, or 500-feet of a public park or public building such as a library.

There are many ways to defend these types of case and often an expert is needed to refute the prosecutor’s police expert who will testify that based on his knowledge and the hypothetical question posed to him, that the defendant possessed the quantity of CDS not for possession but rather with intent to distribute. 

The police expert will use factors such as other packaging material, such as baggies found near the CDS, scales, cutting agents, large sums of money, as well as other facts which he will claim shows that the defendant possessed these drugs not for his personal use but with intent to distribute.  In most cases the defendant will need to refute this testimony with his own drug intent expert.  Accordingly, the defendant must retain his own intent expert to explain to the jury that possession of 15-bags of heroin for example is typical and highly standard for a person who has a drug habit of 5-10 bags per day, and that the sum of 15 or 20 bags, based on the defendant’s drug usage, will last him or her maybe two days.  The law office of Vincent Sanzone has handled hundreds of these types of charges, and has successfully worked with defense drug experts at trial in defending these cases.  If you are charged with such an offense in Superior Court, Hudson County you are urged to consult the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

(908) 354-7006

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

Dated: October 10, 2013