New Jersey supreme court settles issue as to Whether a locked fenced yard is a structure for Purposes of burglary offense

New jersey criminal defense attorney blog, Elizabeth, new jersey (union-essex-hudson-middlesex county criminal defense practice) phone no. (908) 354-7006.

In state v. Olivero (decided June 29, 2015) our highest court held that a fenced-in and locked lot is a structure within the n.j.s.a. 2c:18-2.

In this case the defendant-Olivero entered the fenced yard to steal industrial equipment that was located in a fenced yard which adjoined a warehouse which was part of a larger manufacturing facility.  At the close of the state’s case the defendant moved for a directed verdict arguing that a fenced yard was not a structure for purposes of the burglary statute.

The trial court and appellate division disagreed with the defendant’s argument and the Supreme Court granted certification. (217 N.J. 304 (2014)

The court agreed that although the term structure is not clear, legislative intent for penal statutes must be strictly construed, and doctrine of lenity should not apply.

Therefore, the rule of law for this case is that if you enter a fenced lot which is locked for the purpose of committing a theft or attempted theft, you have committed a crime of burglary in the state of new jersey.

Prepared as a public service by the law office of vincent j. sanzone, jr., esq.

Law Office of Vincent j. sanzone, jr., esq.

p.o. box 261

277 north broad street

raymond building

elizabeth (union county), new jersey 07207

(908) 354-7006

Criminaldefensenj.com

Detention of Motorist after a Motor Vehicle Stop Without Further Probable Cause Is Unlawful United States Supreme Court Says.

Prepared as a public service by the law office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

In Rodriguez vs. United States decided on January 21, 2015, the United States Supreme Court held that detaining a motorist after a motor vehicle stop has been concluded violated the motorist’s Fourth Amendment rights to unreasonable search and seizure and all the narcotics seized would have to be suppressed.

In this case Mr. Rodriguez refused to consent to have a drug sniffing dog walk around his vehicle. Accordingly, the police officer on the scene called for backup. The court following Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407 (2005) held that the authority for the police to seize a motor vehicle during a motor vehicle stop for a traffic infraction ends when it did, or reasonable should have ended.  In Illinois v. Caballes the court held that it is permissible to have a drug sniffing dog sniff the exterior of the automobile during the automobile stop.

However, in Rodriguez v. United States the court held that permitting such K9 sniffing can only occur during the period of time of the automobile stop period, which must be a reasonable time period.  In other words, as long as it was reasonable to make the stop, obtain driving credentials, and issue the motor vehicle summons.  Any delay without further probable cause would be unreasonable and therefore unlawful.  The Fourth Amendment does not permit unrelated investigations that lengthen the roadside detention.  Waiting for a K9 dog sniff would be such a prolonged further investigation that is not permitted unless further reasonable suspicion or probable cause can be found.

In this case the patrol officer who conducted the motor vehicle stop had in his patrol vehicle a K9 drug sniffing dog.  After the motor vehicle ticket was issued, the officer asked Rodriguez whether he would permit his K9 to walk around his vehicle.  Rodriguez said no.  Because of the refusal the officer called for back-up, and in about 8-minutes a second officer arrived and the K9 walk around took place.  The court held that without consent the 8-minute wait for the second officer was unreasonable and the CDS (controlled dangerous substances) found in Rodriguez vehicle was suppressed.  What is very remarkable in this case is that the court said that only an 8-minute delay was unreasonable.

This case is very helpful to the defense because often local and State police departments will detain motorist for long time periods in order to secure to scene of the motor vehicle stop drug sniffing K9 unit.  This case is clear and sets forth a bright line rule that any detention outside the normal motor vehicle stop is no longer permitted.  This case however does not address the issue as to how long that period of time would be if the police have additional reasonable suspicion or probable cause to detain the motorist.

The Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth (Union County), NJ 07207

(908) 354-7006

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

The Best Thing to Do If You Are Contacted By the Police to Discus a Criminal Matter.

Prepared by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., a New Jersey criminal defense attorney.

Most people would be shocked at the number of people who voluntarily speak to the police when confronted about their possible involvement in a disorderly person’s offense, traffic offense or crime.

Most people are under the false impression that they can talk their way out of being charged or arrested for a crime which they may or may not have committed.

The theory which most people hold, is that their explanation, or side of the story, will convince law enforcement that they are mistaken.  Whether or not, this is true, means little to the questioning officer.  In other words, the suspect being questioned never knows, or is never told by the police officer, whether the suspect is the person who they believe committed the crime, and convinced of the suspect’s guilt.  In that case, no matter what he or she says, he or she will be arrested after he or she speaks.  Stated differently, the interrogating officer holds all the playing cards and the officer will not reveal his cards, or what he is thinking.  Most suspects erroneously believe that by speaking to the officer that the officer will reveal his thoughts and evidence against him.  This is simply false, and the experienced interrogating police officer understands this.  Therefore, the suspect being interrogated will gain absolutely nothing by presenting the suspect’s side of the story.

Of course, it goes without saying, but some stupid suspects believe that they can male it up as they go along.  Not only is this a crime under federal law, intentionally lying to a federal law enforcement is a federal crime, but stupid because most suspects do not have a photographic memory and will not remember what facts they told 10-minutes prior, if asked the same question differently again.

In summary the best way to handle any questioning by law enforcement is to simply state to any law enforcement office that seeks information from you regarding your possible involvement in a crime, disorderly person’s offense or serious traffic infraction is the following:  “At this time I have decided to consult with my criminal defense attorney before I proceed further with any further questions.” 

In summary the best practice when faced with an allegation by law enforcement is to assert your constitutional right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This constitutional right is yours, do not give it away.  For further information on criminal defense in New Jersey go to: criminaldefensenj.com

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Raymond Building

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

Office Phone: (908) 354-7006

Cell Phone:   (201) 240-5716

Dated: February 20, 2015

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

In a Criminal or Quasi Criminal Case Including DWI the Defendant Never Has the Burden of Alerting The Prosecutor to Missing Evidence

Prepared as a Public Service by Criminal Defense Attorney of New Jersey, Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

Although a fundamental principal of the criminal justice system and corollary principals of procedural due process the defendant in a criminal case never has the obligation to alert the prosecution to any deficiencies in its case.

This attempt to shift the burden to the defense arises more frequently in New Jersey cases involving driving while intoxicated cases.  In these cases the municipal judge will often ask defense counsel prior to trial as to whether the defense is satisfied that the State has provided the necessary Alcotest discovery.  This question is improper because defense counsel has no obligation to confirm or deny whether the State has provided discovery and/or evidence to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.  In seminal case State v. Collins, 262 N.J. Super. 230 , 237-238 (App. Div. 1993), the appellate division made it clear that the defense attorney has no obligation to help the State prove its case by calling attention to any missing element of the offense before the State rests.

This equally applies to the admission of a laboratory certificate offered by the State.  In this case defense counsel has no obligation to present conflicting evidence regarding the report prior the submission of said report at trial by the laboratory analysis.  N.J.S.A. 2C:35-19 imposes no such burden on the defendant, and such a shifting would be unconstitutional. State in the Interest of J.H., 244 N.J. Super. 207, 217 (App. Div. 1990)

Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., has handled hundreds of criminal and quasi-criminal cases in New Jersey for the last 25-years, in Union, Hudson, Essex, Middlesex, Bergen, Somerset, Morris, Ocean and Monmouth counties.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

(908) 354-7006

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Dated: February 2, 2015

Quote of the day and words of Wisdom.

“Benedictus qui venit in nomine domini”- Latin for “blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord”

To be complacent in evil is always wrong, to commit and accept evil even for the alleged good is always morally wrong.

C.S. Lewis, “We do not need more Christian Lawyers, we need more lawyers who are Christian.”

Press Release Hudson County Superior Court, December of 2014.

Defendant charged and indicted by a Hudson County Grand Jury with official misconduct (second degree) and theft (third degree).  Defendant facing a state prison sentence as follows.  For the official misconduct a consecutive sentence of 5-10 years to run consecutive to the third degree theft of 3-5 years. Total maximum state prison exposure of 15-years in state prison.

Appropriate pre-trial motions filed to the Superior Court Judge and the official misconduct count of the indictment is dismissed by court prior to trial. 

After a five day criminal jury trial in which the case was given to the jury for deliberation, and while the jury is still deliberating, the Hudson County Prosecutor offers the defendant PTI (pre-trial intervention program), without the payment of any restitution.

Final results: After a period of one-year the theft charge will be dismissed and the Defendant will move to have his arrest for these charges expunged, and he will have absolutely no criminal record of the arrest or of the charges which were dismissed.

The Defendant who was not guilty is vindicated by Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq. For a further review of the numerous criminal defense victories for Attorney Sanzone go to CriminalDefenseNJ.com

The Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., providing competent and vigorous criminal defense representation for 25-years in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson, Essex, Union, Somerset, Bergen, Passaic, Monmouth, Ocean, Middlesex counties.

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

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

(908) 354-7006

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Ipse dixit, which is translated from Latin to English, “we already decided you are bad.”  Why do the police and/or prosecutor always decided that the defendant committed the crime without knowing all the facts of the case?  Willful blindness is never justice.  Authentic Justice requires that before anyone is charged with a crime that the charging authorities honestly and fairly investigate the alleged unlawful activity.  All too often law enforcement rushes to judgment “to put a feather in their cap” and close a file.

Another Perspectives and Overlooked Fact in the Eric Garner Case; are the talking heads correct?

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

Anyone that is familiar with marshal arts and self-defense knows that a choke hold to someone’s neck in which the carotid artery is restricted will cause the person to pass out in 5-seconds or less. It is without dispute that a well performed martial arts choke (restricting blood flow) will result in unconsciousness within 3-5 seconds, and if applied longer, 30-seconds or longer, death.

It is also without dispute that the air or blood choke hold will prevent the person from speaking.  Therefore, it can be argued that when Eric Garner spoke the words, “I can’t breathe,” he in fact was able to breathe, because someone who is unable to breath would not be able to utter those words.

I am not saying that excessive force was not used against  Eric Garner in July of 2014, however, based on well settled principals of marshal arts and medical physiology, it was not the choke hold that killed him.  Mr. Garner was properly having trouble breathing because all of the force that was exerted to his back while on the ground, but the cause of death could not have been caused by the choke hold.  An independent autopsy and opinion by a forensic pathologist hired by the defense, I believe, would come to the same conclusion.

The forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden, who was hired by the Garner family, was dead wrong when he opined on Fox News that Garner would be able to say eleven times “I can’t breathe”, while the choke hold was being applied.  Further, Dr. Baden was dead wrong when he stated that the medical examiners found hemorrhaging of the blood vessels to the neck of Mr. Garner, this finding was also not made by the autopsy.

Baden also failed to point out that Garner had a number of

pre-existing medical conditions, such as obesity, asthma and possible heart disease, which could have been the actual cause of his cardiac arrest in the ambulance on the way to the hospital.

There has been a lot of hype and hyperbole on both sides of the debate regarding Mr. Garner; sadly, both sides seem to have no regard for the real facts of this case.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth (Union County), New Jersey 07207

(908) 354-7006

Quote of the day:  “All of humanity’s problems stem from man’s inability to sit quietly in a room alone.”

Blaise Pascal (1662), the great Catholic mathematician and philosopher who concluded that the easiest and most secure bet one can place on himself in his lifetime is the bet on God and the teachings of his Holy Catholic Church.  Pascal was the father of modern casino table games, and created the calculus of probabilities.  He knew that betting against God’s Church was a bad bet.  This wager is referred to as the famous Wager ('Pascal's Wager') in which he held:

"If Jesus does not exist, the non Christian loses little by believing in him and gains little by not believing. If Jesus does exist, the non Christian gains eternal life by believing and loses an infinite good by not believing.”  This is why someone who does not believes makes the most foolish bet of his or her life.

New Jersey Appellate Court Gives a Brake to Unlicensed New Jersey Drivers Caught Driving Without a Driver’s License.

Brought to you as a public service from the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

On August 11, 2014, the New Jersey Appellate Division held in State v. Armando Carreon that any person convicted of being an unlicensed driver while driving can only be sentenced to a jail sentence or fine but not both.  This is good news for never licensed drivers because most municipal court judges will interested in getting a fine from the convicted motorist.  If so, the municipal court judge will not be foreclosed for also giving a custodial term sentence pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:3-10.

In this particular case which the appellate division reversed the sentence, because the defendant was a third time offender he was sentenced to a fine of $756.00, plus court costs, and a ten-day jail sentence.

For people who have been previously licensed to drive the statute states that the defendant will be either fined or custodial term, but not both, for violators who have previously been licensed to drive.

If you have been charged with a motor vehicle offense you should consult with an experienced New Jersey criminal defense attorneyhttp://www.criminaldefensenj.com to help optimize the chances of obtaining a favorable result for your case.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Elizabeth, New Jersey, (908) 354-7006

NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT SITTING INSIDE HIS AUTOMOBILE FIVE OR SIX HOUSES AWAY WAS UNLAWFUL SINCE THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS FOR THE HOME AND NOT HIS AUTOMOBILE

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

In another defense victory the Supreme Court ruled that a search warrant being executed of a suspect’s home does not authorize the police to conduct a search of the suspect’s vehicle parked some distance away from the house.  In this case the search warrant authorized the search of the house and all people present in the house reasonably believed connected to the premises or involved in the alleged illegal activity.

Initially, the trial court denied the motion to suppress the 30-bags of crack cocaine which was found on the suspect while sitting in his automobile.  The Appellate Division reversed citing, Bailey v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 103 (2013) which held a search of a suspect who has left the search warrant “spatial area”, cannot be detained or searched unless justified by some other reason other than the search warrant of the premises.  In this case there was no evidence that the suspect was fleeing the area, or was identified as being connected to the house.

A motion to suppress evidence sometimes is the most valuable weapon in the arsenal of a criminal defense attorney.  Make sure that before you take a plea that you have an experienced criminal defense attorney analyzed or case to determine whether you have a chance to have the contraband seized suppressed.

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 regarding various types of contraband.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

908-354-7006

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Gun Suppressed on Motion to Suppress When Cops Pull Motorist Over for Allegedly Failing To Dim High Beam Lights

This post as been prepared as a public service to the People by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., a New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney, serving all the State of New Jersey.

N.J.S.A. 39:3-60 requires that any motor vehicle being driven at night on the road must dim its high beam lights upon the approach of oncoming vehicles.  In this case the patrol officer was parked on the side of road when he gave pursuit for a motorist failing to dim its lights. 

The appellate division in State v. Witt held that the police officer did not have probable cause to stop the vehicle because the patrol vehicle was parked on the side of the road and not traveling directly into the vehicle, which failed to dim its high beam lights.

In this case Mr. Witt was arrested for DWI when he allegedly failed field sobriety tests.  Arrested and handcuffed in the back seat of the patrol vehicle, the patrolman decided to do a warrantless search of the vehicle in search of an open container.  In searching the vehicle the officer found a handgun.

The appellate division held that under well established case law, State v. Pena-Flores, 198 N.J. 6 (2009), there were no exigent circumstances which permitted the search without a warrant, and that even if there were, the officer did not have probable cause to stop the automobile in the first place because Mr. Witt did not violate the high beam motor vehicle law.

Before you plead guilty to a crime in which an automobile was involved and a warrantless search was conducted you must consult an experienced New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney, to consult you as to whether you have a viable Fourth Amendment motion to suppress the evidence that might have been unlawfully seized.

Law Office ofVincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

(908) 354-7006

New Jersey Criminal Defense Lawyer Client Recommendation

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr. CriminalDefenseNJ.com

All attorneys appreciate letters from clients attesting to the Attorney’s skill and dedication. Enclosed is a letter of recommendation which my client wished me to publish as a token of his appreciate to me for the work that was accomplished on the criminal charges which were unfairly charged against him.

"I would highly recommend Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., to anyone in need of a New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney.
Mr. Sanzone through his honesty, high level of skill, dedication and experience in the field of criminal defense, has saved me not once, but twice.
There is no doubt in my mind that no other attorney would have been able to achieve the results which he obtained for me in having numerous criminal charges against me dismissed.
Lastly his fees are fair and modest for an attorney of his skill and repudiation and I was very lucky in finding him when I needed a good criminal attorney.
Because of Mr. Sanzone’s skill efforts and dedication I can go on with my life knowing that I have received a second chance.
You were a blessing to me, God Bless you and your work."

/S Steven Degani
Steven Degani
Dated: May 6, 2014 

Quote of the Day:  "All paths of glory but lead to the grave."
Thomas Gray

Wrongly Accused of a Crime, You are Not the Only One.

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

Innocent people are unjustly arrested everyday in the United States.  Police don’t always get it right, they make mistakes; they of course are only human.  In some cases unfortunately police officers fabricate a case.   This may be done for many reasons but some of the reasons may be that the police just want to close the case and charge someone  that they believe is a  “bad guy” anyway, so what does it matter.  Shocking, yes, but is a fact of reality and happens more than we think.  Yes shocking law enforcement is a competitive business and some cops are looking to make a name for themselves, get in the news paper, make lots of overtime, or make detective, or stay a detective.   Of course most police officers are hard working, and perform their duty with honor and integrity, but even these officers make mistakes, become to zealous or get lazy or sloppy in their investigation.

Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., has been practicing criminal defense in New Jersey for 23-years and has had many cases in which innocent people have been unjustly accused, and exonerated due to the tireless efforts and skill of Attorney Sanzone.  Whether it is with the wrongful planting of evidence by the police, false and fabricated confession planned by the police, misidentification, overbroad indictments, are only some of the reasons, Attorney Sanzone has successfully obtained dismissals and acquittals of some of his criminal clients.

The formula of experience, dedication and meticulous preparation is the method in which these results are obtained.  If you or someone whom you care about has been wrongly accused of a crime, you must make the most important decision in your life in retaining an experienced and affordable New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney. 

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

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

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth, New Jersey

Telephone No. (908) 354-7006; Cell No. (201) 240-5716

New Jersey Criminal Law Defense Attorney Serving, Union, Essex, Hudson, Bergen, Middlesex, Ocean, Monmouth, Passaic, Somerset, Mercer, Gloucester, Cumberland, Atlantic, Cape May counties.

Why Innocent Defendants Take Plea Bargains?

This is blog is presented as a public service and for general criminal legal information by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq. 

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

LawOffice of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth, New Jersey

Telephone No. (908) 354-7006; Cell No. (201) 240-5716

It is without dispute that the State may not exert an unnecessary price for defendants that exercise their constitutional right to a jury trial.  United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570 (1968); Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967); Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, (1965)

That is the law, but the reality is that innocent defendants, both in State and Federal court often take a plea for something that he or she did not do, just to avoid losing at trial and doing double or triple the jail time after conviction.  Although legally the trial sentencing cannot impose a “trial tax”, upon the defendant after conviction, the reality of the situation is that with the draconian sentencing laws and guidelines, such as discretionary or mandatory extended terms, parole ineligibility, consecutive sentences, etc., defendants who refuse plea offers and lose at trial in most cases go to jail for a very long time.  The pressure to take a plea is so strong that very few defendants, whether innocent or guilty, will take the risk at losing at trial.  The cards are stacked against the defendant to such a large degree that taking a plea is the only option. 

The prosecutors in criminal cases have all the cards; they deal them as they choose.  They make the final decisions, they offer the pleas, and sometimes they are given on a take it or leave it basis.  They know their power and they use it to extract pleas.  Even judges sometimes are frustrated with the position that the prosecutors take, but they are powerless and cannot force to the prosecutor to be reasonable.  Often many good judges will attempt to 

appeal to the sensibilities and to the notion of fairness with the prosecutor, but those attempts are often futile.  Because the separations of powers, the executive and judicial branch are co-equals and neither branch can interfere with the other, most of the time the judge must remain silent.  Not to say that there are not some good prosecutors who attempt to do the right thing; however, in most cases prosecutors get their instructions from a chain of command, such as trial supervisors, reviewing committees etc.

Plea bargains it is argued, keeps the system alive because without plea bargains the judicial system could not function.  Because 95% of the criminal cases result in plea bargains and the system could not survive without the plea bargain system, plea bargains are a necessary evil which is necessary for the system to work.   This is true at the lower level, and begs the question.  The real question is who is controlling the plea bargain system, and why do the prosecutor’s have all the cards.  Why not equally penalize the prosecutor office if they lose at trial, in the form of a monetary settlement to the acquitted defendant or at lease a payment of his or her attorney fees.  As the system stands now the prosecutors have zero downside and all the upside.  If there was a penalty imposed when the prosecutor lost a case they would be more careful in pursuing only the meritorious cases and offering plea agreements that were fair. 

As it stands now every legislative body in ever State is making it more and more difficult for sentencing judges.  Every politician that wants to be reelected wants to pander to the public that he or she is hard on crime.  There is no end in sight.  Let’s be fair, and make the constitution work for all, even the criminally accused. 

Nobody knows when the table will be turned on them, and be unjustly accused of a crime.  Did Governor Christie or Lieutenant Governor Kim Guadagno ever thing just a few months ago that they would be accused of something, if true, would be the criminal charge of official misconduct?

Quote of the Day:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.