New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney Blog

Millstone Township Municipal Court

Location: 215 Millstone Road
Millstone Twp., NJ 08510

Phone: (732) 446-6219
Fax: (732) 446-4853

The judge in Millstone Courts is the Honorable Francis F.X. Foley, J.M.C. The prosecutor is Richard Kelly, Esq. The Court Administrator is Diane Canzanella, CMCA. Millstone Township does not have its own police department. The New Jersey State Police have jurisdiction over the area and issue a large amount of speeding and other traffic tickets. Also a fair amount of minor drug possession arrests resulting from car searches.

In this recent NJ Criminal Appeal, the defense attorney successfully argued that a police search of a vehicle's glove box was illegal.

State v. Ricardo Manuel Ortiz and Arnaldo A. Ortiz, unpublished opinion, App. Div. Docket No. A-4026-08T4 (December 28, 2009) - Suppression of evidence affirmed. Although the stop of the vehicle for having too-darkly tinted windows was justified, and the smell of unburned marijuana gave the police "a well-grounded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot," "we conclude that sufficient credible evidence in the record supports the motion judge's finding that the police lacked exigency to search the glove compartment without first obtaining a warrant, either by telephone or in person....

[A]t all times, the occupants of the SUV complied with police directions, including moving their vehicle some distance from the scene. There was no indication they knew Arnaldo's vehicle contained CDS, nor was any CDS in plain view. Far from presenting any threat to the officers' safety or preservation of the evidence, one of the SUV occupants, a relative of defendants, was actually given the keys to Arnaldo's Honda to take possession of the vehicle upon the defendants' transport to jail....

Equally lacking is any indication that any delay occasioned by obtaining a warrant to search the car would have jeopardized either the officers' safety or the integrity of the evidence.... Koeppen, upon opening the glove compartment and observing the bag, did not believe the bag contained a weapon of any kind. Even if Koeppen lawfully opened the glove compartment, there would have been no justification under the State's theory for further searching the plastic bag, which did not appear on its exterior to contain any weapon therein....

Here, to avoid suppression as fruit of the poisonous automobile search, the State had to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the cocaine in Ricardo's shoe and sock would have inevitably been discovered as a result of a search incident to a lawful warrant or an inventory search prefatory to his incarceration on that charge. Yet the State has offered no evidence -- much less clear and convincing proof -- of the circumstances attending Ricardo's stationhouse search....

Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that Ricardo would have been lawfully confined to a municipal or county detention facility, that he would not otherwise have been released on his own recognizance, or have posted bail if, in fact, bail had been set on the warrant charge. To the contrary, the record is silent even as to the underlying charge on which Ricardo's outstanding warrant was based." (Marc E. Lieberman)
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a4026-08.pdf

Mercer County Superior Court
Mailing Address:
PO Box 8068
Trenton, NJ 08608
Street Address:
209 S Broad Street
Trenton, NJ 08608

East Windsor Municipal Court
Mailing Address:
80 One Mile Road, East
Windsor, NJ 08520
Phone Number: (609) 448-3228

Ewing Township Municipal Court
Mailing Address:
2 Jake Garzio Drive
Ewing, NJ
Phone Number: (609) 883-2900

Hamilton Township
Municipal Court
Mailing Address:
1270 Whitehorse Ave Cn00150
Hamilton, NJ
Phone Number: (609) 581-4071

Hightstown Municipal Court
Mailing Address:
148 N Main Street
Hightstown, NJ
Phone Number: (609) 490-5105

Hopewell Borough Municipal Court
Mailing Address:
PO Box 343
Hopewell, NJ
Phone Number: (609) 466-0968

Hopewell Township Municipal Court
Mailing Address:
201 Washington Crossing
Pennington Road Titusville, NJ
Phone Number: (609) 737-1035

Lawrence Township Municipal Court
Mailing Address:
Municipal Square P.O. Box 6006 Lawrenceville, NJ
Phone Number: (609) 844-7159

Pennington Borough Municipal Court
Mailing Address:
30 North Main Street
Pennington, NJ
Phone Number: (609) 737-1016

Princeton Borough Municipal Court
Mailing Address:
PO Box 390 1 Monument Dr
Princeton, NJ
Phone Number: (609) 497-7600

Princeton Township Municipal Court
Mailing Address:
400 Witherspoon St.
Princeton Township, NJ
Phone Number: (609) 924-5042

Trenton Municipal Court
Mailing Address:
225 N Clinton Ave
PO Box 1360 Trenton, NJ
Phone Number: (609) 989-3700

Washington Township Municipal Court
Mailing Address:
1117 Route 130
Robbinsville, NJ
Phone Number: (609) 259-7085

West Windsor Municipal Court
Mailing Address:
20 Municipal Drive PO Box 38 Princeton Junction, NJ
Phone Number: (609) 799-0915

In this NJ criminal defense appeal victory, the defense attorney successfully argued that flight from an unconstitutional stop does not automatically justify the admission of evidence obtained during a subsequent search at trial. Summary by Mark Friedman.

State v. Robert E. Williams, ? N.J. Super. ?, 2009 N.J. Super. LEXIS ? (November 23, 2009) - Conviction reversed, suppression ordered. "The primary issue presented by this appeal is whether flight from an unconstitutional investigatory stop that could justify an arrest for obstruction automatically justifies the admission of any evidence revealed during the course of that flight.

We conclude that such evidence is admissible only if there is a significant attenuation between the unconstitutional stop and the seizure of evidence and that commission of the offense of obstruction is insufficient by itself to establish significant attenuation....

[T]he trial court correctly concluded that Officer Delaprida and his partner did not have a reasonable suspicion that defendant was engaged or about to engage in criminal activity. These police officers had been dispatched to the housing complex based on a report of a possible retaliatory shooting in the area....

[T]he officers admittedly did not have any prior contact with defendant and thus had no reason to believe he might be involved in the possible retaliatory shooting or other criminal activity....

Moreover, defendant's conduct after he saw the officers enter the courtyard did not provide an objectively reasonable basis for suspecting that he had engaged in or was about to engage in criminal activity. Defendant simply started quickly pedaling away from the officers and put his hand in his pocket.

We question whether this conduct should even be considered flight because the officers did not initially indicate to defendant that he should stop. Defendant could have believed that he should simply get out of the officers' way....

Defendant argues that his failure to immediately stop his bicycle in response to Officer Delaprida's command could not be found to constitute obstruction within the intent of N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a) as interpreted in Crawley [187 N.J. 440 (2006)]. We have no need to address this argument because we conclude that even if defendant's failure to obey Officer Delaprida's command to stop would have provided an adequate basis to arrest him for obstruction, the evidence obtained when Officer Delaprida and his partner grabbed defendant was not 'sufficiently attenuated' from the taint of the unconstitutional stop to justify its admission into evidence....

In New Jersey, the three-factor test reaffirmed in Williams [192 N.J. 1 (2007)] delineates the circumstances in which the attenuation exception may be properly applied. Under those factors, the State failed to establish a 'significant attenuation' between the unconstitutional stop of defendant and the seizure of the drugs he discarded following that stop." (Alyssa Aiello, A.D.P.D.)

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a4530-07.pdf

In this case recently decided on appeal, a NJ criminal defense appeal lawyer successfully argued that the police's search and seizure of evidence was illegal. The court found that the State could not establish that the police were acting under the community caretaking or plain view exceptions.

State v. Andre Scott, unpublished opinion, App. Div. Docket No. A-1787-07T4 (November 17, 2009) - Conviction reversed, suppression ordered. "The State justifies the warrantless entry of the police officers into the first-floor apartment as a part of their community caretaking function.

However, ... , the motion judge found that the police's community caretaking function arose only after they observed the open door to the first floor apartment -- an observation necessarily made from the building's hallway, since the judge found that the building's owner, Martin, was unable to see the doorway from her vantage point at the entrance to the residence.

Nothing in the record suggests that the police had any authorization to enter the hallway, either from Martin or from a first-floor resident. Their presence in that hallway thus violated the Fourth Amendment....

[T]he State has failed to meet its burden of proving that it was reasonably fulfilling its community caretaking function when it entered, first, the building owned by Martin, second, the first-floor apartment in that building and, third, the bedroom occupied by defendant and Taylor.

We further conclude that because the police were not lawfully on the premises, their invocation of the plain view exception to the warrant requirement as justification for seizure of the drugs found on the bedroom nightstand fails." (Michael Noriega, Designated Counsel)

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a1787-07.pdf

The following criminal case was recently decided on appeal pertaining to the State's failure to produce an expert witness from a GPS manufacturer. The State sought to introduce evidence from the defendant's GPS despite the absence of expert testimony. Summary by Mark Friedman.

State v. Eric Pittman, unpublished opinion, App. Div. Docket No. A-2569-08T4 (November 4, 2009) - Order denying admission of evidence from Global Positioning System (GPS), State's motion for reconsideration, and State's motion to reopen affirmed.

"Specifically, the State sought to introduce evidence of the location of defendant's Yukon motor vehicle, on which a GPS unit had been installed pursuant to court order, to show that the Yukon traveled to the vicinity of an apartment in Edison where guns, drugs, and drug paraphernalia were later seized pursuant to a search warrant.

No independent surveillance corroborated defendant's location and travel on the day in question.... [T]he State [argued] that an expert from Orion was not necessary for admission of the GPS evidence, because the device's technology has been generally accepted as scientifically reliable.... [The trial court concluded] that while it was satisfied the GPS system was an appropriate technology in general, 'the question came down to this particular system, the Orion system ... that was installed by the county prosecutor's office in the defendant's vehicle.

Whether or not this system was an appropriate method of calculating one's position in the world.'... Here, the trial judge decided that expert testimony, beyond that of McDonald, who attested only to the acceptance of GPS technology in general, was essential to determining the accuracy and trustworthiness, and therefore admissibility, of the particular GPS device used in this case.

We agree.... The State's belated effort to reopen the N.J.R.E. 104 hearing nine months after commencement of the proceeding and seventeen months after the issue was raised is simply too little, too late. The State declined many requests and opportunities to present the expert proof deemed necessary by the court to close the gaps identified in McDonald's and Palfy's testimonies. Moreover, when the State finally relented after the close of evidence and resolution of the issue, it failed to make an offer of proof to assure the court that its expressed concerns would be satisfied by the proposed testimony." (Joshua D. Altman; Steven D. Altman, on the brief).

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a2569-08.pdf

Searches and seizures made under a warrant are the most difficult to challenge. The reason for this is that such searches are presumed to be valid and the burden to prove otherwise is upon the defense. This is in contrast to warrantless searches, which are presumed to be illegal unless the state can prove otherwise.

A warrant can only be issued after a finding by a judge that there is "probable cause." Therefore, before a warrant can be issued, the law enforcement officer who is seeking the warrant must submit a "probable cause" affidavit to the judge. Probable cause "exists when an officer has a well-founded suspicion or belief of guilt which may constitute something less than proof needed to convict and something more than a raw, unsupported suspicion." State v. McKenna, 228 N.J. Super. 468, 474 (App. Div. 1998) (citing State v. Davis, 50 N.J. 16, 23 (1967), cert. den., 389 U.S. 1054 (1968)). It is not a rigid concept; rather, it is a "flexible, nontechnical concept." State v. Novembrino, 105 N.J. 95, 120 (1987) (citation omitted). A court determines the existence of probable cause by applying a "common-sense, practical standard." Ibid.

Continue reading "NJ Search Warrant Law (Part I - Overview)" »

Police in New Jersey are obviously trained to spot signs of criminal activity during routine traffic stops. However, police do not have the right to search your car just because you have been pulled over for a motor vehicle offense.

The first step in determining whether police can search your car is whether the police had "reasonable suspicion" to stop you in the first place. Law enforcement officials may stop motor vehicles when they have a reasonable suspicion that either the vehicle or occupant is subject to seizure for violation of the law. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 6641973). New Jersey Courts have held that a police officer's observation of a motor vehicle offense is sufficient to justify a stop. State v. Murphy, 238 N.J. Super. 546, 553 (App. Div. 1990).

Next, it is important to keep in mind that any search made without a warrant is presumed to be illegal unless an exception to the warrant requirement can be shown by police. In the context of automobile searches, the most frequently found exceptions to police needing a warrant include: 1) Search of vehicle after arrest. This exception is no longer allowed by the courts in New Jersey; 2) The so-called "automobile exception. Under current law (see State v. Pena-Flores) this requires police to have both a) "probable cause" and b) exigent circumstances;" 3) abandonment; and 4) consent.

If police have searched your vehicle and found drugs, weapons, or other contraband and none of the exceptions to the warrant requirement exist (or are subject to challenge) an attorney skilled in pre-trial motions may be able to have the evidence tossed out after a suppression hearing. If you have been convicted of a crime after such a search, it may be possible to reverse your conviction and arrest on appeal.