Kinnelon Marijuana Charges Dismissed

Posted by Travis Tormey on May 15, 2012

I represented a client last week who was charged with possession of marijuana (under 50 grams) in Kinnelon Municipal Court. I received the discovery package and upon my review of the video evidence from the police officer's motor vehicle, it became very clear to me that this was an unlawful search and the evidence was illegally seized from the defendant.

In this case, my client was pulled over for having a cracked windshield. When the officer approached the vehicle, he allegedly smelled marijuana and asked the driver and the passenger of the vehicle to get out of the car. After searching them with negative results, he asked for consent to search the vehicle and informed the occupants that if they failed to consent to a search, he would "get the dogs and/or a warrant to search the car anyway". My client consented to a search of the vehicle and the marijuana was found.

This is an illegal search in New Jersey. State law requires that the consent to search be voluntary and that "an essential element of such voluntariness is knowledge of the right to refuse consent." State v. Johnson, 68 N.J. 349 (1975). At no point during this motor vehicle stop was my client informed of her legal right to refuse to consent to a search of her vehicle. The police officer also failed to have her sign a consent to search form which specifically advises her of the right to refuse to consent.

Based on this illegal search, I filed a motion to suppress the unlawfully seized evidence and the charges were dismissed against my client. This was the correct result in this case.

Bernards Township NJ Driving under the Influence of Drugs Charge Dismissed

Posted by Travis Tormey on May 14, 2012

I represented a client last week who was charged with driving under the influence of drugs (DWI) in Bernards Township (Twp.), New Jersey. My client was pulled over by a state trooper for careless driving and he suspected that she was driving under the influence. She allegedly failed the field sobriety tests which were performed at the scene and she was arrested for drunk driving (DWI). However, when she was placed on the Alcotest 7110 breath testing device she had a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .00%. The state trooper still believed that she may be under the influence of drugs so he obtained a urine sample and the case proceeded to court.

When I received the discovery from the Bernards Township Municipal Prosecutor, there was one glaring ingredient which was missing for a drug DWI prosecution in New Jersey. The state failed to call a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) to the scene to examine my client to determine whether or not she was under the influence of drugs at the time of the stop. A "DRE" is a law enforcement officer trained to detect whether or not the driver is under the influence of drugs. The DRE performs a series of tests on the driver at the police station and makes a determination as to whether or not the driver is under the influence of drugs. The DRE also generates a detailed report as to the findings of the testing.

The lab report came back positive for prescription drugs (which my client was prescribed by a doctor) but the positive drug test alone is inconclusive. Drugs can show up in a person's system for a long time after use. For example, marijuana can show up in your system a month after use. Therefore, without the DRE evaluation and report, the state was unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my client was under the influence of drugs at the time of operation of the motor vehicle. The DWI was dismissed.

Morristown Criminal Mischief Charges Dismissed

Posted by Travis Tormey on April 24, 2012

I represented a client last night in the Morristown Municipal Court who was charged with criminal mischief in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:17-3. Criminal mischief can be graded as a third degree, fourth degree, or disorderly persons offense in New Jersey depending on the circumstances of the alleged offense and the amount of the damage done. In this case, my client was charged with a disorderly persons offense because the damage done was $500.00 or less.

My client had no prior criminal history. A disorderly persons offense in New Jersey, if convicted, leads to a $1,000.00 fine and up to six (6) months in the county jail. In this case, my client was out in Morristown, had a few drinks, and lost his keys. When he came back to his apartment building he broke the window to his apartment so that he could get inside from the cold and go to bed. However, it turned out that he broke the window to his next door neighbors apartment and ended up in the wrong apartment. My client paid for the window to be fixed and apologized to both the police and his neighbor. His neighbor did not want to press charges and I was able to convince the prosecutor and the judge to dismiss the criminal mischief charge against him. In fact, the State would have had a difficult time proving criminal mischief because the "mens rea" or state of mind element of the criminal offense was not present. When my client broke the window he thought he was breaking his own window so he could enter his own apartment. To break your own window is not criminal mischief. However, I was able to avoid that issue at trial and the case was dismissed against my client.

Boonton Township Receiving Stolen Property Charges

Posted by Travis Tormey on April 18, 2012

I recently represented a client charged with theft and receiving stolen property arising out of Boonton Township. A receiving stolen property charge is governed by N.J.S. 2C:20-7A which provides in pertinent part:

a. Receiving. A person is guilty of theft if he knowingly receives or brings into this State movable property of another knowing that it has been stolen, or believing that it is probably stolen. It is an affirmative defense that the property was received with purpose to restore it to the owner. "Receiving" means acquiring possession, control or title, or lending on the security of the property.

b. Presumption of knowledge. The requisite knowledge or belief is presumed in the case of a person who:

(1) Is found in possession or control of two or more items of property stolen on two or more separate occasions; or

(2) Has received stolen property in another transaction within the year preceding the transaction charged; or

(3) Being a person in the business of buying or selling property of the sort received, acquires the property without having ascertained by reasonable inquiry that the person from whom he obtained it had a legal right to possess and dispose of it; or

(4) Is found in possession of two or more defaced access devices.

A receiving stolen property offense in New Jersey can be graded as a second degree, third degree, fourth degree, or disorderly persons offense depending on the value of the goods allegedly stolen. The grading is as follows:

  • Second Degree: Value of goods $75,000.00 or more
  • Third Degree: Value of goods between $500.00 and $75,000.00
  • Fourth Degree: Value of goods between $200.00 and $500.00
  • Disorderly Persons Offense: Value of goods less than $200.00

The alleged amount in this case was approximately $450.00 which is a crime of the fourth degree in New Jersey. A fourth degree offense must be handled at at the Morris County Superior Court in Morristown, New Jersey.

Here, my client lives in Washington State and had a package delivered to her apartment which was paid for using a stolen bank account number. A Boonton Township resident was the victim of this bank account theft and the proceeds were used to purchase a good which was delivered to my client's house. However, my client denied any knowledge of the theft and claimed that she was dating someone who sent her the package as a gift.

I appeared at the Early Disposition Conference (EDC) which is the pre-indictment court in Morris County. The assistant prosecutor realized that they had no evidence linking my client to the theft and could not prove that she knew that the goods which were delivered to her apartment were stolen. As a result, the prosecutor agreed to remand the case to the Boonton Township Municipal Court as a disorderly persons offense (theft under $200).

Once in the Municipal Court, I was able to resolve the case without any criminal record. My client was originally facing a fourth degree felony charge with up to eighteen (18) months in New Jersey State Prison and I was able to resolve the case without any criminal record whatsoever. This was a great result for my client and the firm.

East Hanover Burglary Charge Success Story

Posted by Travis Tormey on April 04, 2012

I recently represented a client in East Hanover Municipal Court who was originally charged with burglary, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2, a crime of the third degree, and theft, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7A, a crime of the fourth degree. These are indictable criminal offenses which must be handled at the Morris County Superior Court in Morristown, New Jersey.

The circumstances surrounding the alleged offense were as follows. My client was a young man from Pennsylvania with no prior criminal record who was visiting New Jersey with a friend and staying at the Ramada Inn in East Hanover. An incident occurred between my client and his friend and another group of young men wherein my client's friend was assaulted and punched in the jaw by members of the other group. My client, who was sleeping at the time, was then summonmed by his friend to respond and these two individuals went to the other guys room and flipped over their mattresses, etc. in response to the assault. My client and his friend were then arrested for burglary and theft for allegedly stealing a pair of blue jeans from the hotel room.

As you can see, this was not a strong burglary case for the State. To prove a burglary, the State must prove unlawful entry AND that the defendant's entered with the intent to commit a crime therein. In this case, my client and his friend entered the room looking for the other guys and, when they weren't present, responded by messing up their hotel room. Based on these circumstances, I was successful in convincing the Morris County Prosecutor's Office that these charges should be remanded to Municipal Court. As a result, the case was sent back to East Hanover Municipal Court for disposition.

In East Hanover Municipal Court my client was still facing disorderly persons offenses which would result in a criminal record if convicted. However, I was again successful in convincing the East Hanover Municipal Prosecutor to amend the disorderly persons charges to a municipal ordinance violation for disturbing the peace which results in a fine and no criminal record. This was the proper result in this case and my client and his family were extremely grateful that he was able to avoid a criminal record and jail in this case.

Illegal Prescription Drug Possession: Adderall

Posted by Travis Tormey on March 19, 2012

My law firm frequently represents clients charged with illegal possession of prescription drugs including Adderall, Vicodin, Percocet, Xanex, and OxyContin. Here is some important information regarding Adderall and criminal charges relating to same.

Adderall is a prescription medication amphetamine used to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Narcolepsy. Similar to other stimulant prescription drugs, adderall is considered to have high abuse potential and is labeled a Schedule II narcotic by the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Ritalin is a similar medication to Adderall and is used to help people focus and, for many college students, study for exams, etc. Adderall is widely used as a "study drug" at many colleges and universities due to the medications' reported ability to focus energy and concentration at a much higher level than normal. This allows students to stay awake, focus, and study. However, as with most medications, abuse is an issue and this drug is considered a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) under New Jersey law. As a result, possession of this drug without a valid prescription is a criminal offense in New Jersey.

Some of the charges related to illegal possession and/or distribution of Adderall include the following:

  • Prescription forgery - This is typically a third degree charge which is punishable by three (3) to five (5) years in New Jersey State Prison.
  • Possession of Adderall - Possession of a prescription legend drug without a valid prescription is graded based upon the amount of pills (or units) in your possession. Possession of four (4) pills or less is a disorderly persons offense in New Jersey. Possession of between five (5) and one hundred (100) pills is a third degree indictable offense. Possession or more than one hundred (100) units without a valid prescription is a second degree criminal offense which includes between (5) and ten (10) years in prison if convicted.
  • Under the influence of Adderall - It is a disorderly persons offense to be under the influence of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) without a valid prescription.

I am ready and able to assist you with your prescription drug charges. It is important to examine the validity of the search if the search was conducted without a warrant. There are several exceptions to the warrant requirement in New Jersey such as search incident to arrest, plain view, and consent but it is imperative that an experienced criminal defense lawyer examine your charges and the search relating to same to determine whether or not the search was valid. If the search was illegal or unconstitutional, then the entire case can be thrown out based on a Motion to Suppress the illegally seized evidence. Moreover, even if the case is valid, you may be eligible for a diversionary program such as Pre-Trial Intervention (PTI) or a conditional discharge. Contact our Morristown or Parsippany offices for a free initial consultation at (973)971-0030.

Morristown St. Patrick's Day Parade Saturday, March 10, 2012

Posted by Travis Tormey on March 07, 2012

This Saturday, March 10, 2012, is the famous Morristown Saint Patrick's Day Parade to be held in downtown Morristown, New Jersey. For full information on the parade, please see the official website at paradeday.com.

I have represented many clients over the years who have been arrested in relation to a St. Patrick's Day Parade in either Hoboken or Morristown. In fact, Hoboken's parade, which was supposed to be held last Saturday, was cancelled this year because of all the problems associated with the parade in previous years including arrests, assaults, crime, etc. Some of the charges typically include:

As you can see, sometimes these parades lead to serious issues typically associated with alcohol consumption. Please be smart and safe in enjoying the parade this Saturday.

Successful Appeal in a Refusal/DWI case in State v. O'Driscoll

Posted by Travis Tormey on March 06, 2012

Our law firm recently won an appeal at the New Jersey Appellate Division in a drunk driving/refusal to submit to a breath test case. For the entire Appellate opinion, please see the New Jersey Judiciary website under State v. William O'Driscoll.

The case was based on the following. Our client was arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI) and refusal to submit to a breath test out of Harding Township in Morris County, New Jersey. Our client was convicted after a trial in Harding Township for drunk driving and refusal and was sentenced to a ten month license suspension (three (3) months on the DWI and seven (7) months on the refusal to be run consecutively). Our law firm appealed the conviction to the Morris County Superior Court in Morristown, New Jersey. The basis for the appeal was that the Refusal to Submit to a Breath Test conviction was unfounded because the arresting officer read an outdated "Standard Statement" form which must be read to all drivers arrested for DWI in New Jersey. The old "Standard Statement" had a different set of penalties than the current "Standard Statement" for a conviction for refusal to submit to a breath test in New Jersey including a different license suspension and fine for a conviction.

The appeal was heard at the Morris County Superior Court and affirmed by a Morris County Superior Court Judge. Our law firm again appealed this decision, this time to the Appellate Division in New Jersey. The Appellate Division overturned the previous decisions and dismissed the refusal conviction. As a result, our client was sentenced to a three (3) month license suspension as opposed to the original ten (10) month suspension. This establishes new law in the Refusal/DWI arena in New Jersey and was a great success for our law firm.

Disorderly Conduct vs. Municipal Ordinance Violation

Posted by Travis Tormey on February 24, 2012

I represented a client yesterday in Morristown Municipal Court who was charged with disorderly conduct in violation of N.J.S. 2C:33-2. In New Jersey, a criminal charge for disorderly conduct is governed by N.J.S. 2C:33-2 which provides in pertinent part:

a. Improper behavior. A person is guilty of a petty disorderly persons offense, if with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof he

(1) Engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or

(2) Creates a hazardous or physically dangerous condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.

b. Offensive language. A person is guilty of a petty disorderly persons offense if, in a public place, and with purpose to offend the sensibilities of a hearer or in reckless disregard of the probability of so doing, he addresses unreasonably loud and offensively coarse or abusive language, given the circumstances of the person present and the setting of the utterance, to any person present.

My client is a young man with no prior criminal record. If he was convicted of disorderly conduct under the criminal code, he would have this petty disorderly persons offense on his record. As a result, this offense would show up on his record if a background check was done. This record can only be expunged after five (5) years. 

I was able to negotiate a downgrade of the criminal offense to a municipal ordinance violation. This is a violation of local law which is just a ticket and a fine. This ordinance violation does not result in a criminal record and should not show up on a background check. The only thing that will show up is the original arrest for disorderly conduct which is expungable after two (2) years from the date of the plea to the ordinance violation. This downgrade of the charges was crucial for my client as he was able to preserve his clean record.

Middlesex County (Edison) New Jersey Shoplifting Charges Dismissed

Posted by Travis Tormey on February 15, 2012

I represented a client this morning in Edison Municipal Court who was charged with shoplifting in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:20-11. The defendant was charged with shoplifting from Macy's in the Menlo Park Mall in Edison, New Jersey. The alleged amount was approximately $1,500.00 worth of merchandise. This is a third degree indictable criminal offense in New Jersey. Third degree offenses are punishable by three (3) to five (5) years in New Jersey state prison if convicted. However, there is a presumption of non-incarceration on third degree charges. This means that, if you have no prior criminal record, you are considered a good candidate for probation. Unfortunately though, if you are convicted of a third degree offense you will have a felony conviction on your record.

In this case, the Middlesex County Prosecutor's office screened the case and remanded the case back to the Edison Township Municipal Court for resolution. This means that the third degree charges were downgraded to a disorderly persons offense for shoplifting which is in an amount of $200 or less. As a result, when I appeared in Edison Municipal Court this morning my client was facing a disorderly persons offense for shoplifting which is punishable by a maximum of six (6) months in the county jail and a $1,000.00 fine. If convicted, my client would have a record which is subject to expungement after five (5) years.

The representative from Macy's failed to appear in court this morning despite the fact that the witness was subpoenad to be there. Therefore, the State was unable to prove the shoplifting charges against my client and the charges were dismissed for lack of prosecution.