New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney Blog

Howell Arrests and Traffic Tickets

Howell Township police are very active in issuing traffic tickets, DWI and criminal charges in the Township. The New Jersey State Police have jurisdiction over the stretch of I-195 that runs through Howell Township. If you have been arrested in Howell or issued a traffic ticket, call to speak with a local defense lawyer.

A lot of DWI - NJSA 39:4-50 - arrests are made in Howell Township. The majority of these occur on Route 9 and 33. Traffic tickets for speeding NJSA 39:4-98 and suspended license NJSA 39:3-40. My office also handles Howell Expungements and gun permit appeals.

Police in Howell regularly make criminal arrests for a wide variety of charges. Most of these are drug charges in Howell, especially possession of marijuana and other CDS. Arrests for harassment, assault and other disorderly persons offenses are common as well.

Howell Municipal Court

The Howell Township Municipal Court has jurisdiction over all motor vehicle and disorderly persons offenses in the town. Any Howell juvenile case or felony charge will be sent to the Monmouth County Superior Court.

The Howell Court is located at 300 Old Tavern Road, Howell, NJ 07731. The Court Administrator can be reached at (732) 938-4848. The prosecutor in Howell Court is Sean T. Kean, Esq. The judge is the Hon. Allan Kaplan, J.M.C.

Howell Township, New Jersey

Howell Township was formed from territory taken from Shrewsbury Township in 1801. At that time it included, in addition to its present area, all of what now are the Townships of Wall, Lakewood and Brick as well as all the boroughs along the Atlantic Ocean, from Barnegat Inlet of the Shark River Inlet at Belmar. Portions of Howell were taken to form Farmingdale in 1903. The community was named after Governor Richard Howell.

The total area of the township is 61.0 square miles, of which practically all is land, with only 0.15% water. As of the 2000 Census, the township of Howell was 48,903 people in 16,063 households.

The major ancestry groups reported by Howell residents include 24% Italian, 19% Irish, 13% German and 8% Polish. At present, the most common places of birth of foreign-born residents are: India (11%), Canada (8%), Iran (6%).and Mexico (6%). At the time of the last census, the racial makeup of the township was 89.99% White, Hispanic or Latino of any race 5.34%, African American 3.56% and Asian 3.58%

The median household income has been increasing steadily since 1999, when it was $59,858; by the time of the 2000 census it was $68,069 and estimates for 2008 place it at $76,391. The estimated median house or condo value in 2000 was $130,300, which more than doubled by 2008 when it reached $281,367
The median age of this township's population according to the U.S. Census Bureau was 36 years as of the last census.

The highest percentages of this figure correspond to people between 25 and 44 years old (32.8%) and those under the age of 18 (30.9%). The smallest percentage (1.6%) belongs to people age 45 to 64.

The principal industries in which males engage are: Construction (22%), Machinery (18%), Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting (17%) and Electrical and electronic goods merchant wholesalers (10%). Females are mostly found in the following industries: Finance and insurance (21%), Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting (12%) and Computer and electronic products (12%).

The above statistics are reflected in the occupations to which males of this township are dedicated: Metal workers and plastic workers (18%), Farmers and farm managers (10%), Sales representatives, services, wholesale and manufacturing (10%) and Driver/sales workers and truck drivers (10%). Female inhabitants of Howell work mostly in the following occupations: Child care workers (16%), other management occupations except farmers and farm managers (12%) and other financial specialists (11%).

In 2003, the FBI reported 68 violent crimes in Howell without murders or homicides. The violent crime rate was 1.4 per 1,000 people.

According to the 2000 census data, the educational attainment of the school population 25 and older is distributed quite evenly between high school graduates (30.0%), those with some college or associate0s degree (29.3%) and with a bachelor's degree (20.2%). These percentages are comparable with state and national ones. Only the percentage of individuals with master's, professional or doctorate degree falls below the state level (8.7% vs. 11.0%).

Long Branch police make a ton of drug possession arrests. In addition to the Long Branch Police, the New Jersey State Police and even the FBI are active in the city. Call any time to speak with a Long Branch drug arrest lawyer.

Long Branch has undergone something of a renaissance in the last ten years. However, the addition of Pier Village and exclusive apartments lining the coast have not brought a decline in drug arrests in Long Branch. Most drug arrests in Long Branch are for marijuana possession, cocaine and prescription pills. Arrests for ecstasy and heroin are also made on a regular basis.

Long Branch CDS charges usually occur after either a traffic stop or a street encounter. If police have reasonable suspicion to stop your car for a traffic ticket, they do not automatically have the right to search you or your vehicle. However, police may ask you to step out of the vehicle and pat you down to check for weapons.

While checking for weapons, the officer may feel what he or she immediately knows to be drugs. While it is difficult to believe that many of these searches are valid, they often survive a suppression motion. A suppression motion is the legal filing that enables you to challenge a police search of your home, car, or person.

Street encounters with police are also common in Long Branch. Most of these occur off Broadway and in the Pier Village area. Garfield Park has also seen a ton of drug activity and arrests in the past. If a police officer approaches a suspect on the street, the suspect does not have to answer any questions. Case law suggests that even if the suspect takes off running, police do not generally have the right to arrest and search the person without probable cause.

If you are charged with possession of marijuana or drug paraphernalia in Long Branch, your case will be sent to the Long Branch Municipal Court. The Long Branch Municipal Court is located at 279 Broadway # 1, Long Branch, NJ 07740-6961. The phone number is (732) 571-6500. If you are charged with possession of less than 50 grams of marijuana or drug paraphernalia, you will likely be processed at the Long Branch Police station and released with a complaint and court date. You have the right to remain silent during your processing and should not make any incriminating statements.

Possession of Marijuana and drug paraphernalia in Long Branch are disorderly persons offenses. A disorderly persons offense in New Jersey carries up to 6 months in jail and a $1,000 fine. For possession of marijuana in an amount less than 50 grams, you must also pay a $500 DEDR penalty, $75 SS and $50 VCCB penalty, and $33 court costs.

Your summons or complaint the police give you will have a court date entered. This hearing will be your arraignment. At your arraignment, the judge will read the charges to you and advise you of your rights. You have the right to remain silent at your arraignment and should not make any statements other than "not-guilty." Better yet, simply hire a Long Branch criminal defense attorney and let us do the talking.

If we are retained before your arraignment we can usually have your first appearance waived. Hiring an attorney is the first step in fighting your Long Branch CDS charge. We will contact the Long Branch court, enter a not-guilty plea for you, waive your arraignment, demand all discovery (evidence) and a speedy trial.

We will review the evidence with you and see if there may be a way to attack the search. The evidence will usually include the arrest report, incident report, video, and the results of the lab testing of any drugs that were found. The lab report usually takes at least a month to be delivered to us from the police. Local police departments in New Jersey do not conduct laboratory testing. Suspected CDS is sent to a State Police lab for analysis. The Sea Girt lab services the Long Branch Police Department.

If you have been charged with a CDS offense or were arrested in Long Branch, we can help. Call now to speak with a New Jersey drug charge lawyer.

State v. Brian Wilk, unpublished opinion, App. Div. Docket No. A-0628-09T4 (October 20, 2010) - Conviction reversed, suppression ordered. "The first two prongs of the automobile exception are present. Garcia stopped defendant unexpectedly and he had probable cause to believe that defendant's car contained contraband. Garcia had a well-grounded suspicion that heroin was in the car because defendant produced a torn cigarette filter.... We conclude, however, that the third prong was not met because exigent circumstances that precluded obtaining a warrant were not present. Neither the officers' safety nor the preservation of evidence were in jeopardy, and it was not impractical to obtain a warrant prior to searching defendant's car.... Garcia stopped defendant's car on Friday afternoon around 12:15 p.m. Defendant was the sole occupant; the surrounding area was part business and residential; the stop was not in a high crime area; traffic was light and not obstructed by defendant's car; back-up arrived immediately; defendant cooperated; and he was not arrested until after the search.... Moreover, police had control of the car and never left it unguarded. Katsigiannis remained with the car when Garcia took defendant to police headquarters because the car had been impounded. Impounding the car obviated any concern for the destruction of any potential evidence. Any delay in obtaining a search warrant would not have placed the officers' safety in jeopardy or compromised the integrity of the evidence."

State v. Darius S. Mansoory, unpublished opinion, App. Div. Docket No. A-5735-08T4 (March 17, 2010) - Suppression of evidence affirmed. Although it was proper for the police to impound the car (defendant driver intoxicated, passenger had no license) and open the wallet found during an inventory of the car's contents, "when the officer unfolded the papers found within the wallet, the officer exceeded the permissible scope of the inventory.

The papers did not appear to be valuable. Furthermore, Spahr testified that he unfolded the papers because he suspected that they contained illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia. Therefore, the search of the contents of the papers found in the wallet was not undertaken for one of the purposes identified in [South Dakota v. ]Opperman[, 428 U.S. 364 (1976)].... The search at issue here was not undertaken pursuant to a policy designed to prevent or deter a terrorist attack upon a ferry. As we have explained, the search was in furtherance of the DRPA's policy to inventory the contents of an impounded vehicle."

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 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)" »