New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney Blog

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State v. Andre Scott, unpublished opinion, App.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)" »