New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney Blog

Keyport Criminal Defense

Keyport police make arrests on a regular basis for CDS possession, DWI and criminal charges. Small pieces of Route 35 and Route 36 go through Keyport. These roads bring in most of the traffic tickets, drug charges and DUI arrests in Keyport. Call to speak with a Monmouth County defense attorney before appearing in Keyport Court.

Keyport Municipal Court

The Keyport Municipal Court is charged with hearing all traffic tickets, DWI and minor criminal charges in the borough. The court is located at 70 W Front Street in Keyport. The mailing address is: Keyport Municipal Court, PO Box 70, Keyport, NJ 07735. The phone number is (732)739-5155.

Keyport, New Jersey

Keyport, mostly known for its thriving oyster industry, is a borough in Monmouth County. One of Keyport's nicknames is "the Perl of the Bayshore". It was originally created as a town in 1870 from portions of Raritan Township. The replacement of Town by Borough took place in 1908. The total area of the borough of 1.4 square miles is mostly composed of land, with only 0.70% of water.

According to the data of the U.S. 2000 Census, the population was 7,586. In 2003 the estimated population had barely changed to 7,504. This decrease in population has continued and in July 2009, the reported figure was 7,482.

The gross racial composition of Keyport Borough at the time of the last census was 85.2% White, 11.09% Hispanic or Latino of any race and 7.0% African American. The principal ancestry groups reported by Keyport residents include 22% Irish, 17% Italian, 13% German, 8% Polish and 7% Black or African American.

According to the 2000 census, the population was divided into 3,264 households. More than a third of all households were made up of individuals and a fifth had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The median age of the population stands at 38.70 vs. 37.40 for the state and 35.60 for the nation. The senior population (age 65 and over) of Keyport Borough represents 15.67% of the whole.

Both the estimated median household income and the estimated median value for a house or condo have gone up since 2000. Median income in 2000 was $43,869, rising to $54,479 in 2009. The increase in the median value for house or condo has been more significant since the estimated $140,800 in 2000 more than doubled by 2009 to reach $309,001.

During the period 2005-2009, the most common industries in Keyport Borough, aside from the oyster industry, were: construction (15%), retail trade (11%) and manufacturing (10%). The female population during the same time span was dedicated largely to retail trade (18%), health care and social assistance (14%) and educational services (13%).

Non-official figures for 2010 rate the total crime risk index at 67 vs. 73 for the state. The only risk indexes higher than state figures are larceny (98 s. 62), assault (68 vs. 62) and burglary (65 s. 66). The index for robbery risk is significantly lower than the state's, at 19 vs. 108. Also lower are the murder risk (63 vs. 84), rape risk (28 vs. 39) and motor vehicle theft risk (51. vs. 76)

Regarding educational level attained by the population of Keyport Borough age 25 and older, the percentage of those who did not complete high school is par for state and national figures. Percentages of individuals who completed high school, some college or associate degree are only about 3-4% above the state. The figures for those who completed bachelor's or graduate degrees fall short by almost half of the state's percentages.

Any Lakewood New Jersey DWI arrest defendants will have their case heard before the Lakewood Municipal Court. The judge in the Lakewood DWI court is the Honorable Scott Basen, J.M.C. Judge Basen also presides in Aberdeen Municipal Court and Freehold Borough Municipal Court. You should speak with a Lakewood DUI lawyer before your first appearance in court to discuss what rights you have and what defenses may exist in your case.

DWI convictions in New Jersey are not criminal violations. As serious as a New Jersey DWI is, it is still technically a traffic violation. What this also means though is that a DUI conviction will remain on your motor vehicle history forever. There is no possibility of ever expunging a New Jersey DWI.

A big mistake DWI suspects also make is to refuse to provide the police with a breath sample. Refusal to submit to the Alcotest in New Jersey is a totally separate offense from the underlying drunk driving charge Until recently, Refusal convictions in New Jersey were treated as prior and subsequent DUI convictions for DWI sentencing. The law recently changed on this issue. A refusal conviction - first offense - carries a minimum 7 month driver's license suspension.

Defending a refusal case is tough, but defenses do exist. It might be possible to argue that there was no probable cause to arrest you. There may have been a language or confusion issue. Other defenses exist as well, but they all depend on the specific facts of your case.

Cranbury DWI arrest defendants will have their case heard in the joint Plainsboro - Cranbury Municipal Court. The judge in Cranbury DWI court is the Honorable Edward Herman, J.M.C. You should contact a Cranbury DWI lawyer before your first appearance in court to discuss your rights and what defenses may exist in your case.

DWI convictions in New Jersey are not criminal violations. As serious as a New Jersey DWI is, it is still technically a traffic violation. The flip side to this however, is that a DWI conviction stays permanently on your motor vehicle history. There is no possibility of expunging a New Jersey drunk driving conviction.

A common misconception is that you should refuse to give a breath sample. This is a huge mistake in most cases. Refusing to submit to a breath test in New Jersey is a completely separate offense from the underlying DWI. Until recently, Refusal convictions in New Jersey were treated as prior and subsequent DUI convictions for DWI sentencing. The law recently changed on this issue. A refusal conviction - first offense - carries a minimum 7 month driver's license suspension.

Defending a refusal case is difficult, but defenses do exist. It may be possible to argue that there was no probable cause to arrest you. There may have been a language or confusion issue. Other defenses exist, but all depend on the facts of your case.

The NJ Supreme Court recently added a defense to the toolkit of NJ DWI defense attorneys. Police now must read the implied consent law to New Jersey DWI suspects in the defendant's native language. The deciding case was State v. Marquez.

This had obviously put a strain on local law enforcement, since it would be impossible to have an officer or translator on staff that could speak the myriad languages drivers in NJ might speak. The response has been a boom in business for "Language Line," a call-in company that offers on the spot interpreting services in most languages from a remote location.

Along with probable cause to arrest, this new defense to NJ Refusal to Submit should be considered in every case where the defendant is not fluent in English. It is important to keep in mind that the burden is on the defendant to put forth this affirmative defense. Some testimony will therefore likely be needed from the defendant.

Earlier this month, the NJ Appellate Division held that a prior conviction for Refusing to Submit to the taking of breath samples qualifies as a prior conviction for subsequent NJ DWI sentencing. This creates new challenges for NJ DWI-DUI defense attorneys and drunk driving defendants.

In State v Ciancaglini, the State appealed from the Law Division trial court's decision that the defendant should have been sentenced as a first offender for her DWI conviction. Defendant was previously convicted of Driving while Intoxicated in 1979. In 2006, she was convicted of refusing to take the breathalyzer test. The Law Division discounted those convictions and gave the defendant the 10-year step down and also did not count the prior Refusal charge as a prior conviction. On appeal, the court agreed with the State that defendant's prior convictions required that she be sentenced as a third-time DWI offender, subjecting her to 10 years license suspension, 6 months jail and a $1000 fine.

Sergeant Steven Pelligra, a veteran of the NJ State Police, was arrested last week and charged with DWI-DUI, Refusal to Submit to a Breath Test, and related offenses. His arrest followed a two-vehicle accident that occurred in Hackettstown. He has been suspended from duty without pay.

At the time of the crash, Pelligra was off duty and traveling north in his Nissan Frontier when his truck hit the driver's side of a 1999 Pontiac Grand Prix going south. Pelligra fled from the scene after the accident. He later refused to give a breath sample.

The New Jersey Assembly voted unanimously approved a bill this week that levies harsh penalties on individuals who are caught loaning their cars to anyone whose whose license is suspended or revoked from a drunk driving (DWI/DUI) or refusal conviction.

The new law, S-2940/A-4302, is contained in a package of legislation sponsored by Richard Codey aimed at cracking down on repeat DWI offenders. If passed, the new law would levy on first or second-time offenders a fine of $1,000 and up to 15 days jail time for anyone who knowingly lends their vehicle to someone with a suspended license resulting from a DWI-DUI conviction or refusal to take a breath test. A third-time offender would receive a $1,000 fine, up to 15 days jail time, and a 90-day driver's license suspension.

As the law currently stands, the only penalties that exist for this offense are a fine of $200-$500 and up to 15 days in jail. The proposed law will now proceed to the Senate floor for final approval.

In a New Jersey DWI-DUI case, you do not have the right to refuse to take a breath test. However, under current law the refusal of a defendant to provide police with a blood sample during a DWI-DUI investigation does not constitute a crime under the criminal or motor vehicle laws.

In State v. Ravotto, 169 N.J. 227, the Supreme Court held that a good-faith fear of needles was a legitimate reason to refuse to give a blood sample. However, police may use "reasonable force" in obtaining the sample. The Court in Ravotto found that police had used excessive force under the facts of that case.

However, be warned that if a court finds that the refusal to give the blood sample was "self-serving" it may infer that the reason for the refusal was that the defendant in fact was driving while intoxicated. The same inference may be drawn when the defendant refuses to take the breath test.