New Jersey Now Requires All Police Departments to Have Dashboard, or Dash-Cam MVR Tapes Installed in All Patrol Vehicles

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

September 11, 2014, finally Governor Christi signed the Dash-Cam law which will require all New Jersey police departments to install these devices in their patrol vehicles.  These dash-cams, or also known as MVR video recording devices, will video tape everything in front of the patrol vehicle when activated. 

This new law is good news for anyone who is stopped by a police officer, since the video will now video all activity from the vantage point of the patrol vehicle front windshield.  Normally, the device is set up to record back 30-seconds, prior to the activation of the device.  The device continues to record until manually turned off, or the siren or overhead lights are turned off.  Normally, by default, the dash-cam will activate once the overhead and/or siren is activated.  However, the MVR tape can be activated manually, and can also be turned off manually.

Hopefully the new law will prevent police departments and its officers from falsely claiming that the video was not working or not installed in the particular patrol vehicle.  Most often aggressive and dishonest police officers will patrol in patrol vehicles without dash-cam devices for the purpose of making unlawful DWI stops and arrests, claiming that the motorist committed a moving violation and than failed field sobriety tests.  Further, if the sobriety field tests are done in view of the cameras, it might help eliminate perjured police testimony when the officer falsely claiming that the motorist failed the sobriety field tests, when in fact the motorists passed.  Further, the law will now allow a jury to objectively view the dash-cam tape to refute or confirm a police officers allegation that the suspect motorist engaged in eluding of the officers during an automobile stop.

For years most police departments in New Jersey have fought fiercely not to have these devices in their vehicles.  Newark, Jersey City and Elizabeth, to name a few, have refused to install such devices, and none of their patrol vehicles have any of these devices in patrol vehicles.  Further, these MVR tapes will help eliminate police beatings and other abuses of errant police officers, because a patrolman driving a patrol vehicle with such a device will think twice before he commits these types of illegal activities on a motorist. 

Of course some errant and dishonest police officers will find away around this new law by turning off the device, claiming it was inoperable, destroying the tape, or manually turning the device to the side, so that it does not depict the interaction between the motorist and police officer.  Another trick that the dishonest cop will use, which I have seen multiple times with field sobriety tests, the dishonest police officer will move the suspect outside the view of the tape, in which case, the motorist cannot prove that the officer is lying and that he/she passed the field sobriety tests.  Further, if the dishonest police officer wants to engage in an illegal search or beating of the motorist he will move the suspect out of range of the camera, since the cameras view depicts only what transpires in front of the patrol vehicle.  Of course, the dishonest cop (which has occurred repeatedly in many municipal court and superior court cases) will tell the judge and/or jury that they moved the suspect outside the view of the camera for his or the motorists safety, but of course that story is likewise bogus, because the officer can pull his vehicle behind the motorists vehicle in such a way as to give a wide shoulder view of road in which the tests will ultimately be performed.

Lastly, the new law will only be applied to every new or used or leased police vehicle or otherwise acquired on or after the effective date (of this bill) which is primarily used for traffic stops shall be equipped with a mobile video recording system.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, N.J.

Tel. No. (908) 354-7006

Dated: September 11, 2014

Union Essex, Hudson, Morris, Bergen, Middlesex, Ocean, Monmouth, County Criminal Defense Attorney, Jersey City, Newark, Elizabeth, New Brunswick, Eluding, Carjacking, Drugs, Guns, Weapons, Assault

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 Post-Conviction Relief (PCR) Motion an Analysis of New Jersey Criminal Law, Through the Michael Skakel Case.

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

Defendant Michael Skakel was indicted for the murder of Martha Moxley in Connecticut in 1975.  Twenty-seven years (2002) later Mr. Skakel was convicted of the crime and has been incarcerated ever since.  In spite of legal fees and costs paid to his defense attorney Michael Sherman in the amount of approximately, $1,200,000.00 (one-million two-hundred thousand dollars).

On October 23, 2013 the Honorable JTR Bishop ruled that Attorney Sherman’s representation was deficient and ineffective and thus, Mr. Skakel was entitled to a new trial. 

The opinion of Judge Bishop is very informative and educational not only for the experienced criminal defense attorney, but also for individuals charged with crimes because it is a text book example of a “high profile” or “marquee defense attorney”, who simply didn’t know the law, did not adequately prepare for trial, and simply didn’t do his homework, as stated by Judge Bishop.

Judge Bishop made a number of finding of facts and conclusion of law which demonstrated that Attorney Sherman’s representation was substandard and therefore denied Mr. Skakel his Sixth Amendment to effective legal representation and a fair trial.

Although the court held that Attorney Sherman had made many trial errors, the court focused on the following five major errors.

First, there was overwhelming evidence that was in possession and knowledge of Attorney Sherman regarding the third-party culpability of Mr. Skakel’s older brother, T. Skakel.  However, instead of arguing to the jury that there was evidence that T. Skakel committed the murder and not his client, Attorney Sherman decided to argue and present evidence that someone else probability committed the murder, notwithstanding, that there was no credible evidence that this person was involved.  The court held that if the jury had heard this evidence at the trial (culpability of T. Skakel) that there was a likelihood that the jury would have harbored reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilty, and the resulting verdict would have been different.

Second, that Attorney Sherman failure to locate and present the testimony of an alibi witness for the defense was likewise ineffective.  This witness was a powerful witness and Attorney Sherman should have known the existence of this witness because his identity was testified to by another witness in the grand jury proceedings.  Again, if the jury had heard this testimony the resulting verdict would have been different.

Third, that Attorney Sherman knew or should have known with reasonable diligence of two witnesses whom would have refuted the alleged confession that Mr. Skakel had allegedly made to a key state witness Gregory Coleman.  The court held that Attorney Sherman’s “failure of judgment borne of an undeserved confidence in the impact of his cross-examination of Coleman ... This failure of judgment prejudiced the petitioner.”  Therefore, the court held that because these witnesses did not testify there is a reasonable likelihood that the outcome of the trial would have been different. 

Fourth, Attorney Sherman’s failure to provide expert testimony that any alleged admissions made by Mr. Skakel while a patient in the intensive inpatient drug rehabilitation facility (Elan Facility), should not be used for the truth.

Fifth, Attorney Sherman’s failure to attempt to rebut the prosecution’s allegation that Mr. Skakel engaged in recent fabrication of his story by asserting that he had masturbated on the victim prior to her murder because he was afraid that the recent discovery of DNA would have linked him to the crime and murder.  However, the truth was that Mr. Skakel had stated to state investigators in 1987 that he had masturbated on Ms. Moxley, four to five years before any law enforcement agency knew how to apply DNA testing to a crime scene investigation.

In summary this is a text book case of a high priced attorney who dropped the ball.  If you are faced with a serious crime you should consult a New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney who will fight for your defense.

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

IT IS TIME THAT PHONE COMPANIES STOP RIPPING OFF FAMILIES AND CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS THAT NEED TO COMMUNICATE WITH STATE PRISON INMATES BY TELEPHONE

August 9, 2013, Elizabeth, New Jersey

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has finally decided to vote on a resolution after 10-years to stop phone companies such as Global Tel Link (GTL) from overcharging attorneys and inmates and their families for phone service from county and state prisons.  For years this company and others have been paying the prisons with kickbacks and other incentives for the privilege to rip off inmates who need to communicate with their criminal defense attorneys. 

By way of example a one-hour phone call can cost over $60.00, and collect calls even higher.  These phone companies have a captive audience and take full advantage of that fact.  It is cheaper for my clients to call Asia from the Union County Jail than to call my office six blocks away from the jail in Elizabeth.

Today the FCC will vote to cap these exorbitant fees and hopefully they will do more to monitor these companies from ripping off criminal defense attorneys, inmates and their families.

Thank you for acting FCC commissioner Mignon Clyburn for finally taking action to help protect our most vulnerable are incarcerated citizens.

“If you want peace work for justice.”  Pope John Paul, I

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth (Union County) New Jersey 07207

Office Phone Number (908) 354-7706

Cell Phone Number   (201) 240-5716

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

YourCivilRights@gmail.com