The Law Offices of Jonathan F. Marshall, is a statewide criminal defense firm with twelve offices throughout New Jersey. Our team includes ten (10) attorneys that dedicate their practices exclusively to defending the accused, making it a unique commodity in the state. The qualifications of the lawyers are also impressive and include:
• Over 200 Years of Combined Experience Representing Clients Charged With Indictable Crimes, Disorderly Persons Offenses and Serious Motor Vehicle Violations
• Former County Prosecutors Who Have Served At The Highest Levels Such As Director Of Major Crimes, Juvenile, Domestic Violence, Special Operations, Homicide, Drug Task Force, Guns, and Even An Entire Trial Division
• Certified Criminal Trial Attorneys
• Recognition as Top 100 Trial Lawyers by the National Trial Lawyers Association, Top 10 Defense Lawyers in New Jersey by the National Academy, Ten Leaders in both Criminal Defense & DWI in New Jersey and Superlawyers
Free consultations with an attorney at the firm are always free. You can reach us 24/7 at 877-450-8301.
Additional Penalties Proposed for NJ DWI Convictions
The New Jersey Assembly is considering an amendment to the penalties for DWI related vehicular homicide. The bill is referred to as “Josh’s Law” and proposes to increase the mandatory jail sentence to 10-20 years from 5-10 for those found guilty of vehicular homicide. The bill was sponsored in response to the death of Josh Moren, a young man who was killed by a drunk driver possessing a blood alcohol content in excess of four times the legal limit.
It is always sad to learn of another DWI related death. While a life was lost, the question of incarceration is always something that needs to be fact sensitive in my judgment. There is no question that a stiff jail sentence would be warranted when an accused is driving with a blood alcohol content of .35 but how about the high school senior with a .08% blood alcohol content and no prior history of any kind? Do we destroy two lives to equal the score? This is a very difficult question and I believe that the enactment of a mandatory jail term of 10-20 years will be too inflexible.
Juvenile Detention Center Consolidation Continues in NJ
We previously outlined the planned elimination of the Warren County Juvenile Detention Center as a budget measure by the County. The Freeholders had determined that it would be more cost effective to house youthful offenders at the Morris County center. A similar proposal is now being considered by the Monmouth County Board of Freeholders.
The Monmouth County Sheriff, Kim Guadagnino, is scheduled to present a study concerning closing the Juvenile Detention Center and transferring offenders to Middlesex County. The move has been a matter of considerable debate and one of the newly elected Freeholders was vocal in support of the measure. Sheriff Guadagnino will be presenting a detailed report outlining the pros and cons of consolidation and the Freeholders will have to make the call on whether the jail shall be closed. Monmouth County currently spends approximately $5.5 million annually to operate its Juvenile Detention Center.
From the perspective of a NJ defense attorney, the consolidation is unfavorable. Aside from the logistical complications, the creation of a mini-Jamesburg is nothing to revel about.
DWI Related Fatalities & Injuries Reported over the Holiday
The 2008 Christmas holiday resulted in drunk driving fatalities and serious injuries. Early Sunday morning, a Glassboro man slammed his vehicle into the back of a dumb truck resulting in the death of his passenger. Chemical tests allegedly revealed a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit, resulting in vehicular homicide charges being filed filed.
On Tuesday, another alcohol related accident occurred in Kearny. The collision resulted in serious injuries and involved a motorist with a BAC of .19, over twice the legal limit. Assault by Auto charges have been filed.
The holiday season is always a festive time involving alcohol. Unfortunately, this seems to result in DWI related fatalities every year. If the toxicology stands up in cases like these, the defendants have serious jail exposure.
NJ Legislation Targets Road Rage
The New Jersey Legislature recently approved stiffer penalties for individuals found guilty of road rage. Individuals were previously exposed to a fourth degree offense and up to 18 months in jail. The amendment now makes it a third degree offense and carries up to 5 years in jail. The bill loosely defines “road rage” as including any actions or maneuvers of aggression, akin to harassment with a car (e.g. tailgating, driving at an excessive speed, weaving through traffic, etc.).
The legislative revision was contained in a bill captioned “Jessica’s Law”, named after a young lady seriously injured as a result of a road rage incident. Jessica was injured when an individual who believed he was cut off weaved through traffic, causing an accident.
Over the last 15 to 20 years as a defense lawyer, I have learned that there are simply some people out there who could be described as unreasonable, irrational, and even unstable. Many have seen these individuals on the road waving their hands, yelling or even driving aggressively for seemingly nothing. While I certainly agree with the revision of the statute, I have a hard time thinking that it is going to deter the type of individual who engages in “road rage”.
Breath Test Refusal Clarified by NJ Supreme Court
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in State v. Spell appears to have created bad law for the defense. The issue in Spell was whether or not a police officer had to read the second paragraph of the refusal form in all instances. The Appellate Division concluded that this was always a requirement even when an accused unequivocally refuses to provide a breath test. The Supreme Court disagreed, concluding that the second and final warning need not be read where an accused “either conditionally consents or ambiguously declines to provide a breath sample.”
I candidly see little logic to this ruling. Why the Court sees no need to impose the minimum requirement of taking a minute to read a final warning is beyond me. It certainly seems that this is only reasonable given the mandatory penalties associated with a refusal.
Social Hosts Not Responsible for Self-Serving Drunk Drivers
New Jersey’s Supreme Court recently refused in Mazzacano v. Happy Hour Social and Athletic Club of Maple Shade, to impose a duty on social hosts to monitor potential intoxicated drivers who serve themselves alcohol at a gathering. The decision creates a boundary line in the liability exposure for those who organize social events where alcohol is supplied for consumption of event goers.
There have been a variety of commentators on the decision. Plaintiff lawyers claim that the decision shall encourage DWI. On the other hand, defense attorneys are taking the position that the ruling is nothing more than reinforcement of what they already believed the law to be. In either respect, the law is now clear that there exists no duty to monitor the alcohol intake of guests who serve themselves such as, in this case, where patrons utilize self-serve taps on a beer truck.
As an individual who has been embroiled in these types of issues for almost two decades, I find it hard to believe that the ruling will have any real effect on the incidents of DWI in NJ. In fact, if someone is already to the point that they are visibly intoxication (e.g. supposed trigger point for withholding additional alcohol), it is probably too late to accomplish much in terms of preventing these awful outcomes.
Ignition Interlock Bill Gaining Momentum
New Jersey currently requires multiple DWI offenders to install ignition interlock devices in their vehicles under certain circumstances. The ignition interlock device prevents the vehicle from operating until the motorist blows into a breath test device affixed to his or her ignition and logs a blood alcohol concentration below the legal limit of .08%. Individuals who are subject to the regulation cannot register their motor vehicle or restore their license unless the interlock is installed.
Under “Ricci’s Law”, the requirement of an ignition interlock device would also apply to someone convicted of a First Offense of DWI where their blood alcohol content is .15% or above. The law also extends the period an individual must possess an ignition interlock and grants authortity for Judges to order installation where someone has a blood alcohol concentration between .08% and .15% under special circumstances.
While I certainly appreciate the goals of the proposed law, I have heard many horror stories about ignition interlocks including cost, limited supply, over-sensitivity and malfunction. If these problems can be worked out, it may be a worthwhile effort to combat those who simply do not have the ability to resist putting their keys in the ignition after they have been drinking.
Is National Legalization of Marijuana Foreseeable?
There has been considerable recent publicity concerning national legalization of marijuana. I have even overheard other defense attorneys in Court voicing concern about how such reform would impact their NJ criminal defense practices.
The discussion primarily stems from optimism concerning “change” and the perceived “open mind” of President Obama. Capital Hill blog recently went as far as to describe legalization of marijuana as a political opportunity. The post may well have merit in view of the fact that one of the most frequent issues raised on the Obama transition site concerns legalization of marijuana.
It is outrageous to me that issues like medical marijuana are even issues. If someone has AIDS, MS, cancer, glaucoma, whatever, and cannabis has a valid medical application to help them, how is national legalization on this front even subject to debate? When you attempt to branch out even more, however, the issue enters a more grey area, hence, the President’s stated position that he “is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana.” If legalization is going to come, it probably will have to flow from state initiates like those in Massachusetts and Michigan. However, NJ probably shall not be a part of this group in view of the fact that we have been unable to even pass a medical marijuana law to date.
Car Search Permitted So Long As Exigent Circumstances Exist
The NJ Supreme Court decided the case of State v. Fuller last week. The case further clarified the law concerning warrantless searches of motor vehicles.
Mr. Fuller was stopped for a valid motor vehicle violation. There was conflicting documentation concerning the ownership of the car and the driver’s information. The question was whether this conflict provided probable cause for the arresting officer to search the compartment of the vehicle for additional information. The officer went ahead with a search and discovered a gun and xanax pills in the console, and a additional drugs elsewhere in the car. The Supreme Court concluded that the search of the console was warranted based on the inconsistencies with the credentials but that any additional search was invalid as Mr. Fuller was already under arrest by virtue of the items in the console and there was therefore no reason that the police could not obtain a warrant to further search the vehicle. Once the exigency to search has been eliminated (e.g. Fuller placed under arrest), so too does the basis for a warrantless search of the car.
In my judgment the decision does little to establish anything new under the law other than to reiterate that this determination is very fact sensitive. Every case like Fuller comes down to just how far the arresting officer(s) have gone to establish probable cause or basis for believing that the car contains contraband. Not surprising, invalidating car searches boils down to officers either making mistakes in their reports or good cross-examination.
Prostitution Advertising Triggers Lawsuit
It was reported last week that a Federal lawsuit had been filed by the Cook County Sheriff against Craigslist. The lawsuit alleges that Craigslist has effectively created the largest source for soliciting and/or promoting prostitution in the United States. It is important to emphasize that this is a lawsuit and not a criminal proceeding. No charges for promoting prostitution or solicitation have been filed, nor are any contemplated.
Federal law immunizes online advertisers from liability stemming from inappropriate ads placed on their sites provided a proper disclaimer is published on the site. The lawsuit alleges Craigslist repeatedly ignored notices that the site was being used for purposes of solicitation and to promote prostitution. Cook County claims that these actions negate Craigslist’s shield under the law.
Our law firm includes a team of NJ Prostitution Defense Lawyers and I have to admit that Craigslist is clearly a primary source for online solicitation. There are also other portals on the site which arguable give rise to New Jersey Lewdness Charges. The fact remains, however, that the site is explicitly limited to adults and that Craigslist has no role in the conduct beyond allowing placement of ads. While it is obvious that the intention of the advertising is to promote prostitution, Federal law affords broad immunity to an entity like Craigslist. I have serious doubts that these claims will result in any government action against Craigslist.