CORONAVIRUS UPDATE: We are offering free Video Chat services through all Apple, Android and Skype devices. This includes free consultations.

Criminal Defense and
Immigration Lawyers
Former Immigration Officer
with Over 40 Years Experience
Former Prosecutor
Now Fighting for You
Justia Lawyer Rating
Super Lawyers
Martindale-Hubbell
NHTSA

New Jersey Police departments claim they can see and smell everything. Using skills usually reserved for a Marvel superhero, law enforcement routinely claims they can see drugs through a closed container, smell marijuana through a brick house miles away, or detect the odor of marijuana from a vaporizer pen used solely for cigarettes.

 If you have been the victim of a superman cop stop, whereby plain smell or plain view was the basis for the search and subsequent seizure of contraband on your person, seasoned criminal defense attorneys can help.

 One of the most used exceptions to the warrant requirement is the plain view exception. In New Jersey, the plain view exception to warrant requirement rule can be applied to four different sensory perceptions including view, smell, sound, and touch. The plain view doctrine is used in cases involving guns and drugs routinely, but there are requirements that need to be fulfilled for the exception to be deemed reasonable.

Last Friday, February 10, for the first time under President Trump, an individual covered by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (“DACA”) was taken into custody. Daniel Ramirez Medina, a 23-year-old with no criminal record who was brought to the United States from Mexico when he was seven years old, filed a challenge to his detention in Seattle the Monday following his arrest, arguing that the government violated his constitutional rights because he had work authorization under the DACA program.

Immigration Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)  spokeswoman Rose Richeson issued an official ICE statement claiming that Daniel Ramirez was a “self-admitted gang member,” alleging that “ICE officers took Mr. Ramirez into custody based on his admitted gang affiliation and risk to public safety.”

In response, Mark Rosenbaum, one of Daniel Ramirez’s attorneys, strongly refuted the allegation, saying in a statement: “Mr. Ramirez unequivocally denies being in a gang. While in custody, he was repeatedly pressured by ICE agents to falsely admit affiliation.”

Shoplifting under N.J.S.A. 2C:20-11 of the New Jersey Criminal code is one of the most common crimes committed in the state of New Jersey, and can often times be accused over mistake of fact or misunderstanding between vendor and customer. Specifically, there have been a large number of cases in recent years stemming from the popular women’s cosmetics store Sephora. The high number of cases stemming from this vendor revolve around its policies concerning free samples, which are not followed strictly by their sales employees, but can be enforced stingily by their anti-theft team.

Title 2c of the New Jersey Criminal code outlines shoplifting in its entirety as one of six offenses; however, we will be looking at the statute as it deals with purpose or intent. Specifically did you mean to take something and not pay for it? What that your intent? N.J.S.A 2C:20-11b(2), outlines the types of cases accused shoplifters generally encounter at Sephora. This section of the statute outlines that it is considered shoplifting,

“(2) For any person purposely to conceal upon his person or otherwise any merchandise offered for sale by any store or other retail mercantile establishment with the intention of depriving the merchant of the processes, use or benefit of such merchandise or converting the same to the use of such person without paying to the merchant the value thereof.”

Constitutionally protected privacy interests are enshrined in the 4th Amendment protection against warrantless searches and seizures as well as Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey State Constitution. One key exception to the warrant requirement, as well as the requirement for probable cause precedent to the execution of a search, is voluntary consent knowingly waived by a party with authority to search. For a person to be considered a valid third party that can consent to a search of property he or she must meet a few requirements:

·         The area being searched is shared with the suspect and the third party.

·         The third party has control over the shared area- i.e., they have a key to such areas or their name is listed on the lease.

The Fourth Amendment of the constitution protects people from unreasonable search and seizures, but the law is not as clear-cut in some particular circumstances.  One grey area in search and seizure law involves searches conducted at student housing owned by colleges.  College campuses are unique in that they create their own set of laws and policies that their students need to abide by while attending the school. Universities generally have very strict policies, including rules that could be seen as infringing on the students 4th Amendment rights.  Is it reasonable for universities to be able to conduct warrantless search and seizures on campus living facilities? The 4th Amendment protects people from unreasonable search and seizures, but is it considered reasonable for universities to be able to conduct random searches of students living on campus? There are two primary means by which universities may bypass a students Fourth Amendment right:

1.      Courts deem attending a university and residing in a school owned building as a voluntary waiver to follow the university polices and laws. Student routinely sign contracts consenting to random searches by school officials when living in a school owned facility.

2.      The University’s inherent duty to keep the student’s facilities safe with inspections, i.e. checking fire alarms systems give schools a regulatory exemption to conduct warrantless searches.

Although shoplifting is widely thought of as a petty offense and is generally associated with troublesome adolescents or teenagers, it can be a serious crime under Title 2c of the New Jersey Criminal Code, that can carry significant consequences. In the state of New Jersey, shoplifting under N.J.S.A. 2c:20-11, is a somewhat broadly defined offense that, if committed, can result in punishments as minimal as community service and as severe as multiple years in prison, not to mention possible civil action. Shoplifting is categorized in six types of offenses, all of which can constitute charges ranging anywhere from a second-degree crime to a disorderly persons offense. There are certain requirements of proof the state has to deliver, and multiple defenses, some of which bode more effectively than others in shoplifting cases.

The term “shoplifting” is defined in full in N.J.S.A. 2C:20-11 as one of six acts. To be issued a charge of shoplifting, one of the six following actions are to have been accused.

(1)    Purposeful removal of merchandise from any merchant or vendor without payment of full retail value.

If charged with drug possession/Controlled Dangerous Substance (“CDS”) possession in a vehicle, the penalty may be severe.  In addition to fines which are upwards of $50.00, there is a mandatory two-year loss of license. This offense is almost always coupled with criminal drug charges such as N.J.S.A 2C:35:10(a)(4) – Marijuana Possession – and N.J.S.A 2C:36-2 – Drug Paraphernalia Possession.

The state must prove multiple elements to obtain a conviction for N.J.S.A. 39:4-49.1 Possession of CDS in a motor vehicle. These elements include:

·         Driver operated a motor vehicle

In New Jersey, a request for consent to perform a search is a commonly used tactic by police, especially in drug/controlled dangerous substance and firearms cases. Receiving consent may permit law enforcement to search your personal property, car, even your home without a warrant. Per the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution and  Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution, a warrant or probable cause is necessary for law enforcement to be able to execute a search. Consent searches are a way for law enforcement to get around the warrant requirement, but are problematic in several respects.  

Who is the appropriate party to grant consent to search the property? What is the scope of the consent? Can the police pressure someone into consenting? What is the potential to have any evidence obtained by the police, i.e. weapons, drugs, tossed out of court or suppressed if the consent given to search was not valid?

The Fourth Amendment requires that consent for a search must be voluntarily given and not the result of duress or coercion.  The New Jersey Supreme Court in State v King listed multiple factors in gauging whether the consent was voluntary such as:

On Wednesday, January 25, amidst a bevy of executive orders, President Trump signed one particular order promising to withhold federal dollars from “sanctuary jurisdictions.” The order, which according to the White House Briefing Room, is officially titled Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States, states that “the Secretary of Homeland Security shall, by no later than one year after the date of the executive order, ensure that sanctuary jurisdictions are not eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes by the Attorney General or the Secretary.”

To unpack the provisions of this order, one must first consider the meaning of a “sanctuary city,” as defined by the president’s administration, legal scholars, and immigration officials. Since the term does not necessarily have a set definition, it is important to consider all perspectives. The executive order, for one, leaves it to the secretary of Homeland Security to designate “sanctuary jurisdictions” based on whether they allow local officials to share people’s immigration status with the federal government.

Based on a 1996 law prohibiting localities from withholding such information, the Trump administration believes sanctuary cities to be clear violators of the law. But, long before the issuance of the executive order, there has been much contention surrounding these claims. According to Barry Friedman, a constitutional law scholar who runs the Policing Project at NYU, “The federal government can’t demand that state officials or local officials do their work.”

President-elect Trump’s hardline statements on immigration, which are often peppered with shifting details, have left millions of Americans uncertain about their future status in the U.S. More than 700,000 undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children are protected currently by Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”), established by President Obama, and another four to five million were eligible for protection under a similar program for parents of U.S. citizens and lawful residents.  Many of these families’ information could be stored in federal systems, allowing for targeted removal under the Trump administration.

Below are two of the less discussed areas where some of the national debate over immigration policy may take place under the soon-to-be President Trump:

Sanctuary Cities:

Contact Information