By Laura K. Gasiorowski, Esq.

My partner Robert Stahl and I recently met with a potential client who was served with a Grand Jury Subpoena and was concerned about the potential criminal investigation and charges. This client came to the meeting with a detailed list of questions for us, many of which concerned our background, experience, and approach to handling a federal criminal case. These questions prompted me to think about what is the most important qualifications for hiring the right lawyer when a client is facing potential prosecution by the federal government.

Facing criminal charges is one of the most serious and stressful experiences anyone can endure. Whether you’re under investigation or have already been charged, one of the most important decisions you will make is choosing the right attorney to represent you. The stakes are high — your freedom, reputation, and financial future are all on the line. When the criminal charges might be federal, it is even more important to make sure that you choose the right attorney to defend you. When it comes to defending against complex federal charges, especially white-collar crimes such as fraud, embezzlement, or insider trading, not all criminal defense lawyers are the same. Here’s what you should look for when hiring a white collar criminal defense attorney:

1. Federal Court Experience Matters: Federal cases are vastly different from state criminal cases. The criminal statutes are more complex, and the penalties more severe. Federal cases also differ from state cases in terms of procedures, judges, prosecutors, and the applicable Rules. Make sure your attorney regularly practices in federal court, particularly in the jurisdictions where your case is pending (e.g., the Southern District of New York, Eastern District of New York, or District of New Jersey). At Stahl Gasiorowski, our primary practice area is federal criminal defense, which includes white-collar criminal defense and corporate investigations, in the District of New Jersey, and in the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York. We can, and have, handled federal criminal cases in Pennsylvania, California, Massachusetts, Maryland, Alaska and West Virginia as well.

Ask: – How many federal cases have you handled in this district? – What types of federal charges have you defended?

1. Specialization in White Collar Crimes: These cases often involve complicated financial transactions, regulatory issues, and intricate investigations that often require the assistance of investigators, experts and e-discovery providers. Electronic discovery in federal white collar cases can be staggering… in the terabytes… and require significant resources, time and familiarity with review platforms. In addition, all federal criminal cases require a deep familiarity and experience with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which your attorney must understand in order to assess your potential sentencing exposure, as well as the complicated law regarding determination of forfeiture, restitution and losses for Guideline purposes. In many cases, there are also parallel civil investigations, by the SEC, FINRA or other entities. Your attorney should have a track record defending clients charged with white-collar offenses like wire fraud, securities fraud, tax fraud, or conspiracy and other violations of federal law.

Ask: – Have you defended clients in cases similar to mine? – Do you have experience dealing with federal prosecutors, agencies like the SEC or IRS, or parallel civil investigations?

1. Reputation and Credibility: Federal prosecutors respect experienced defense attorneys who have a proven reputation in the courtroom. Judges, too, take notice of skilled advocates with a history of effective, ethical representation. Familiarity with the prosecutors (AUSAs) in the United States Attorneys’ offices, with the Judges on the bench, and with the Pretrial Services and Probation Officers is an asset when negotiating a plea, seeking to reduce charges, obtaining release or more lenient release conditions, or obtaining services for your client.

Look for: – Recognition by legal organizations – positive client testimonials – peer endorsements from other attorneys

1. Strategic Approach to Early Intervention: The earlier your attorney can get involved in your case, the better the chances of limiting your exposure to charges or penalties. Look for a lawyer who emphasizes early intervention — engaging with prosecutors before charges are filed can sometimes prevent an indictment altogether.

Ask: – How would you approach early negotiations with the government in my case?

1. Trial Experience: You may be surprised to learn that the vast majority of federal criminal cases resolve with pleas, not trial. This is because such cases are more thoroughly investigated than state cases, with greater resources. In federal trials, there is a significant “trial penalty” that may result in a more severe sentence. Sometimes, the best attorney may not be the one with the most trials under their belt, because many white-collar defense attorneys are successful by avoiding charges altogether, or resolving cases short of a trial through plea or alternative dispositions. That said, while many cases resolve through negotiations, hopefully resulting in no charges, reduced charges and a favorable plea or other disposition, you need an attorney who is fully prepared to go to trial if necessary. A lawyer who isn’t afraid to take your case before a jury can often secure better plea deals or dismissals simply because the prosecution knows they’re facing a formidable opponent who is willing and able to go to trial if necessary.

Ask: – How many federal jury trials have you conducted? – What were the outcomes of those trials?

1. Personal Attention and Communication: Federal cases can drag on for months or even years. Choose an attorney who will provide personal attention, keep you informed at every stage, and answer your questions honestly. At Stahl Gasiorowski, we take on a limited number of clients and cases so that we can provide that personal attention and devote the time necessary to thoroughly investigate and prepare a defense. We are criminal defense attorneys first and foremost. As a small firm, we provide big firm expertise, and obtain big firm results, at a better price point, and without layers of administrative assistants and lower level associates. Our partners will be handling your case.

Ask: – Who will be handling my case day-to-day? – How often will I get updates?

Bottom Line: If you or your business is under federal investigation or facing white-collar criminal charges, choosing the right lawyer is your first line of defense. Don’t settle for general criminal defense — find an advocate with federal experience, a deep understanding of white-collar law and the sentencing guidelines, and a reputation for winning tough cases or achieving good results with alternatives to incarceration, favorable pleas or non-prosecution agreements.

If you’d like a confidential consultation to discuss your federal case, contact us today. We have extensive experience defending individuals and businesses in federal courts in New Jersey and New York, and we’re ready to fight for you.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers have successfully represented hundreds of individuals under complex federal and state investigations with terabytes of discovery. To contact the firm’s NJ office, call 908.301.9001 and to contact the firm’s NYC office, call 212.755.3300, or email Ms. Gasiorowski at lkg@sgdefenselaw.com or Mr. Stahl at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com.

Federal agents and AUSAs serve subpoenas that demand the production of huge amounts of documents and data. They seek search warrants that authorize the seizure of every electronic device at the location to be searched – computers, servers, external hard drives and cell phones. They seize tens of thousands of emails, texts and other forms of communication from businesses and individuals. This common investigative tactic results in an exponential growth in seized data to be reviewed and turned over in discovery to the defense.

A few years ago, after several high profile cases exposed the Department of Justice’s failures in processing and timely disclosing seized data to the defense, the DOJ told U.S. Attorney’s Offices around the country to collect less evidence. In late 2022, a training program was implemented to teach more than 6000 federal prosecutors to be more selective in the evidence sought and seized. This was the so called “smart collection” approach.

This approach was developed because DOJ struggled to fund and find the software and personnel needed to store and analyze the volume of electronic evidence seized. In fiscal year 2023, DOJ requested $27 million for U.S. Attorneys’ offices “e-Litigation modernization”, including 52 new positions and technology upgrades. This was in addition to DOJ’s $1.5 billion e-discovery vendor services contract awarded in 2020 and set to expire in 2027.

Putting aside the government’s issues and budget, seizures of terabytes of data require an enormous expenditure of time and resources for the defense. Effective review of the data requires hosting a search platform that can search millions of pages for key words, names and dates in an expedient fashion. Outside vendor platforms can cost thousands of dollars a month just for the platform. Add to that the time spent by paralegals and associates conducting the actual searches and initial review of the documents, and then the further review by the attorney handling the case. One can quickly see that only well-funded clients, or ones with some type of insurance or corporate backing, can afford zealous representation.

The costs for the review of massive amounts of documents and other data, coupled with potentially much lengthier prison sentences post-trial rather than a negotiated plea, account for the 95-97% rate of pleas in the federal system. Few individuals can afford the costs of a trial – legal and discovery fees, expert witness fees and the so-called “trial penalty” (harsher sentences after a loss at trial).

DOJ must do better at seizing and turning over data that falls within the confines of the items authorized to be seized in the warrant, and limiting the scope of the documents sought in grand jury subpoenas. Courts must enforce discovery obligations on the government and compel the government to produce the discovery in a timely and organized fashion that permits defendants to be properly and zealously represented, including those defendants that cannot afford costly search platforms.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers have successfully represented hundreds of individuals under complex federal and state investigations with terabytes of discovery. To contact the firm’s NJ office, call 908.301.9001 and to contact the firm’s NYC office, call 212.755.3300, or email Mr. Stahl at rgs@stahlegasiorowski.com Ms. Gasiorowski at lkg@stahlegasiorowski.com.

For years, courts around the country have admitted “expert” testimony on bitemark analysis. These so-called experts have opined that bitemarks on human skin, often presented in sexual assault and murder trials, are distinct and “match” the defendant’s dental records.

A new comprehensive federal report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), still in its draft/commentary stage, finds quite the opposite. The report states in relevant part, “forensic bitemark analysis lacks a sufficient scientific foundation because the three key premises of the field are not supported by the data . . . . First, human anterior dental patterns have not been shown to be unique at the individual level. Second, those patterns are not accurately transferred to human skin consistently. Third, it has not been shown that defining characteristics of those patterns can be accurately analyzed to exclude or not exclude individuals as the source of a bitemark.”

Bitemark analysis relies on the assumptions that teeth marks are unique, that they reliably transfer to surfaces such as skin, and that the marks can then be analyzed and linked to specific individuals. The NIST Report notes that it is not clear that bites leave distinct patterns because bites usually consist only of the front (anterior) teeth and the marks they leave can vary greatly depending on injuries, breakages, or obstructions. Second, skin is the surface most often analyzed for bitemarks, but it’s malleable and doesn’t reliably hold teeth marks over time depending on the rate and amount of swelling at the site, healing, and skin elasticity. Third, linking bitemarks that may or may not be unique, left on elastic surfaces that swell and heal, to people is riddled with uncertainty.

The Report’s key takeaways reveal that bitemark analysis lacks sufficient scientific foundation; dental patterns have not been shown to be unique; those patterns are not accurately transferred to human skin consistently; there is a lack of data to demonstrate that anterior (front teeth) dental patterns are unique; a number of studies have shown high levels of inaccuracies; and there is insufficient support in the scientific community as to the accuracy of such analysis.

Bitemarks, along with hair and shoe prints analysis, all have been debunked to a large extent in recent years as lacking objective test of scientific validity. Yet, scores of defendants remain in prison based, at least in part, on highly questionable “expert” analysis and testimony. The scope of the problem was evidenced in 2015, when the FBI admitted that nearly every one of the experts at its microscopic hair analysis lab had given scientifically invalid testimony. This erroneous testimony affected close to 270 cases, of those, 32 defendants were sentenced to death and 14 were executed or died in prison.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers aggressively defend our clients’ rights, including moving to exclude faulty analysis of crime scene “evidence”. To contact the firm’s NJ office, call 908.301.9001 and to contact the firm’s NYC office, call 212.755.3300, or email Mr. Stahl at rstahl@stahlesq.com.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (HHS, OIG) issued a special fraud alert advising healthcare providers to exercise caution when contracting with telemedicine companies. Such alerts are significant as they put providers on notice that OIG intends to investigate and prosecute potential fraud regarding telemedicine/. Such notices provide the opportunity for healthcare providers to review their practices and compliance, as well as list examples of suspect practices in the industry.

Historically, federal regulations limited the use and scope of telemedicine. It became widely available, however, during the COVID crisis that necessitated the loosening of government regulations. While a relaxation of regulations and restrictions offered patients greater access to physicians, it also opened the door to fraudulent conduct. In previous articles, we explored schemes involving compound medicines, genetic cancer screening (CGx and PGx tests) and durable medical equipment (DME) such as orthotic braces.

This latest fraud alert confirms that OIG is still aggressively targeting DME companies, laboratories and pharmacies using telehealth services. The OIG alert offers a non-comprehensive list of factors that they examine in potential fraud cases, including:

1. Patients that are referred to a practitioner through a telemedicine company, telemarketing, recruiter, call center, health fair or internet;
2. Practitioner has only limited access or contact with the alleged patient to meaningfully access the medical necessity of the services solicited;
3. Telemedicine company compensates the practitioner based on the volume of prescriptions and services;
4. Telemedicine company only provides services to federal health care program beneficiaries, and does not accept private insurance;
5. Telemedicine company only provides a single class of products such as braces, genetic testing, compound medicines – pain, scar and vitamin creams – thus limiting a practitioner’s treatment options; and
6. Telemedicine company does not expect its physicians to follow up with the patients regarding their prescriptions or services.

This alert expressly notes that proactive marketing that advertises free or low cost items or services covered by federal healthcare programs and exclusively marketed to such beneficiaries is “suspect”. Additionally, any program that limits a practitioner from contacting a patient to follow up or offer other medical services is suspect.

While HHS, OIG alerts provide valuable guidance for practitioners and other healthcare professionals, they also provide federal prosecutors the opportunity to argue that a provider’s good faith defense is limited after such an alert has been issued, i.e. that providers are on notice that such practices as suspect.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys have represented dozens of physicians, marketers, telehealth companies and pharmacists in federal healthcare fraud investigations. We proactively and aggressively protect our clients’ rights. To contact Mr. Stahl, call 908.301.9001 for the NJ office and 212.755.3300 for the NYC office, or email Mr. Stahl at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com.

In the past, federal agents and prosecutors have sought subpoenas and search warrants that authorize the seizure of every electronic device at the location to be searched – computers, servers, external hard drives and cell phones. This policy has resulted in an exponential growth in seized data to be reviewed and turned over in discovery. After several high profile cases exposed the Department of Justice’s failures in processing and timely disclosing seized data to the defense, the DOJ has told U.S. Attorney’s Offices around the country to collect less evidence.

DOJ officials disclosed this new emphasis in an interview with Bloomberg Law. In a program set to launch later this year in mandatory training for more than 6,000 federal prosecutors, DOJ will instruct them to be more selective in the evidence sought and seized. This controversial policy shift will emphasize a “smart collection” approach in DOJ’s annual discovery training.

As with most new policies, some veteran prosecutors are pushing back claiming that the new policy could result in missing valuable evidence, result in less than thorough investigations, miss exculpatory information and is generally not in the government’s best interests.

For its part, DOJ readily acknowledges that it is a constant struggle to fund and find the software and personnel needed to store and analyze the volume of electronic evidence seized. DOJ requested $27 million for U.S. Attorneys offices for the next fiscal year for “e-Litigation modernization”, including 52 new positions and technology upgrades. DOJ already has a $1.5 billion e-discovery vendor services contract awarded in 2020 that is set to expire in 2027.

Despite the massive amount of money, search platforms and personnel devoted to electronic discovery, there have been a plethora of cases that have revealed DOJ’s failure to timely analyze and turn over discovery to the defense. And when discovery is turned over, often times it is in a massive dump in an unusable format that the defense must then retain its own experts to load onto costly search platforms. By tailoring government searches of electronic devices, the government acknowledges that its past practice of grabbing every bit of data is impractical and unworkable. While the government claims that it is at a disadvantage to well-funded big law and corporations in reviewing large amounts of electronic data, the reality is that most individuals charged in federal fraud cases are the ones at a disadvantage. The vast majority of defendants cannot afford the costs of web-based search platforms and 100s or 1000s of hours it takes to search and review potentially the electronic data. Data that may be critical defense evidence that may go undiscovered.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers have successfully represented hundreds of individuals under complex federal and state investigations with terabytes of discovery. To contact the firm’s NJ office, call 908.301.9001 and to contact the firm’s NYC office, call 212.755.3300, or email Mr. Stahl at rstahl@stahlesq.com.

In many types of criminal cases, the right expert can be invaluable. Whether it is a forensic accountant in a complex fraud or tax investigation; a medical or billing expert in a healthcare fraud investigation; a forensic psychiatrist for a sex abuse or child pornography case; a computer expert for a computer crimes matter or to download and organize a searchable database for millions of documents in discovery; or a drug or gang expert in a serious drug case, the proper expert retained early in the investigation can assist the client’s criminal defense attorney in their efforts to prevent the charges from being filed, or to assist in developing a defense to aid in plea negotiations or to prevail at trial.

Often the government employs or hires its own experts to analyze a wide variety of data, information or documents. These government “experts” may be recognized in their fields, or they may be opining on evidence in fields in which they are not truly qualified. It is critical in such cases, that the defense attorney have at his disposal the best possible expert in the relevant field of inquiry to conduct their own review and analysis of the evidence and to potentially refute the conclusion of the government expert.

In recent years, there have been notable cases that have demonstrated that government “experts” have either overreached or provided false reports and testimony. For instance, state drug labs around the country have discovered state laboratory technicians that have failed to conduct drug tests on tens of thousands of drug seizures and simply falsified their reports. Other so-called experts have opined on subjects that do not meet generally accepted scientific standards, including hair and fiber analysis, bite marks and lead analysis of bullets. Too often the testimony by these alleged experts have resulted in convictions based on false or unsound results.
Experts can be used to analyze the evidence and discover the weaknesses or fallacies in the government’s theory of the case. The ability to independently review and analyze varied and complex financial transactions, computer code, thousands of emails and attachments, billing records or scientific results can mean the difference between a conviction and acquittal. In addition, most fraud cases and potential sentences are driven by the loss amount. Experts can provide valuable analysis that reduces the loss amount and the potential sentencing ranges.

Aggressive, experienced defense attorneys use experts as early in the process as possible. There are certain procedures that must be followed to protect and preserve the attorney-client and work-product privileges. To do so, the law firm retains the expert to work under the firm’s supervision and direction. While the client is responsible for the fees and expenses, the expert communicates with the law firm rather than with the client so that the expert cannot be cross-examined by the government about any statements or information provided by the client.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers have extensive experience using experts in their representation of individuals charged with federal and state felonies. To contact the firm’s NJ office, call 908.301.9001 and to contact the firm’s NYC office, call 212.755.3300, or email Mr. Stahl at rstahl@stahlesq.com.

The Department of Justice just announced charges against 21 individuals in a nationwide crackdown of COVID-19 related prosecutions that resulted in $150 million worth of fraud. The schemes were varied and involved medical doctors, medical labs, marketers and others in the healthcare field.

For instance, two owners of a lab in California allegedly billed more than $125 million in fraudulent claims. In Maryland and New York drive through test site operators are accused of using confidential patient information to bill for lengthy office visits that never occurred. In New Jersey, five individuals were accused of paying or receiving kickbacks for referring COVID tests to a particular lab. Even though the tests were medically necessary, and the lab only billed the allowable rate to the government program, the lab was accused of violating the anti-kickback statute that prohibits paying individuals or companies to refer tests.

The Maryland case charged a physician with submitting false claims to Medicare and private insurers. The defendant owned drive through COVID testing sites. Employees gathered patient information at the sites and later submitted false claims for complex in office visits for other healthcare procedures that never occurred.

In Florida, a registered nurse was charged with signing huge numbers of medically unnecessary doctor’s orders in exchange for sham telemedicine consulting fees. Another case in Florida charged individuals with fraudulent Medicare billing for medical equipment that was obtained by paying kickbacks to marketing companies that solicited patients for equipment they didn’t need.

In other schemes, defendants in California were charged with allegedly counterfeiting vaccine cards. Another case involved a hospital pharmacy director who obtained authentic Moderna dose lot numbers and used them to falsify vaccine ecards.

In New Jersey, one of the District’s first healthcare fraud trials just resulted in a guilty verdict against a medical sales representative of a diagnostic lab who paid kickbacks to a physician for referring tests to the lab. In an effort to disguise the kickbacks, the marketer placed the physician’s medical assistant on the lab’s payroll. In a related scheme, the marketer was paid for promoting medically unnecessary compound medicines that certain insurance plans covered. The defendant and others paid kickbacks to doctors to prescribe the unnecessary compounds without even examining the patients.

Other cases have charged individuals with fraudulently obtaining relief funds from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act. A 2020 bill that provided billion in emergency financial assistance.

These and scores of other cases highlight federal authorities continuing investigations and DOJ’s aggressive prosecution of a variety of healthcare fraud schemes. These schemes involve medically unnecessary compound medicines, genetic cancer tests, kickbacks on prescriptions for DME – durable medical equipment – such as braces, as well as COVID-19 tests.

Federal healthcare laws and regulations are complex. There are countless ways for doctors, pharmacists, lab owners and marketers to violate these laws. Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers have extensive experience representing individuals and corporations accused of healthcare fraud. To contact the firm’s NJ office, call 908.301.9001 and to contact the firm’s NYC office, call 212.755.3300, or email Mr. Stahl at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com.

State v. Tier concerns an issue of criminal procedure that had not previously been addressed by any court of appeals in New Jersey: the interpretation of Rule 3:13-3(b)(2)(C), which addresses a criminal defendant’s obligations to provide the State with discovery before trial. Though at first glance the opinion seems to concern a mundane issue of criminal procedure, it touches on the interplay of several important constitutional principles. On one hand, a defendant has a right to remain silent and “has an absolute, unqualified right to compel the State to investigate its own case, find its own witnesses, prove its own facts, and convince the jury through its own resources.” On the other hand, New Jersey courts have adopted a stated policy that favors the pre-trial sharing of information to avoid surprise and gamesmanship at trial. These principles often come into conflict as the State puts pressure on the trial court to preview the defense before it is entered at trial, arguing that the trial will be delayed by surprise evidence.

The trial judge in Tier, over a defense objection, ordered the defendant’s attorney to create written summaries of defense witness statements that had been communicated orally to defense counsel and to provide the summaries to the State before the start of trial. The defendant appealed, arguing that the judge’s order exceeded the mandate of Rule 3:13-3(b)(2)(C). Rule 3:13-3(b)(2)(C) provides that the defendant must provide the State with “the names, addresses, and birthdates of those persons known to defendant who may be called as witnesses at trial and their written statements, if any, including memoranda reporting or summarizing their oral statements.” On appeal, the Supreme Court found that the trial judge misinterpreted the plain language of Rule 3:13-3(b)(2)(C), which must be interpreted narrowly to protect a defendant’s constitutional rights. The Court said that a defendant is obligated to provide the State only with pre-existing written statements by its witnesses who are expected to testify, but that defendants are not obligated to reduce oral statements to writing for the benefit of the State.

A similar issue had previously been decided by the Supreme Court in 1979 in State v. Williams: whether defense witness summaries already in existence were required to be disclosed if the defendant had no intention of using them at trial. In that case, the Supreme Court also ruled in favor of the defendant, placing no duty on the defendant to produce those documents. The Court felt that to place such a burden on a defendant “would chill the defense’s investigation and infringe on the defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel.”

These two Supreme Court opinions, taken together, clearly delineate the circumstances under which a defendant must turn over witness statements to the State prior to trial. They also provide valuable guidance to defense attorneys who, in preparing for trial, should be making reasoned, strategic decisions as to whether to reduce witness statements to writing.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers aggressively defend individuals charged with white collar crimes, domestic violence, drug crimes and criminal charges. Mr. Olesnycky’s cases have been widely covered in the news, including the New York Times, CBS This Morning, NBC4 New York, the Associated Press, the Boston Globe, NJ.com, the Star Ledger, and ESPN. To contact us to discuss your case, call 908.301.9001 for our NJ office and 212.755.3300 for our NYC office, or email us at ao@sgdefenselaw.com.

Fitbit Data Leads to Husband Charged with Wife’s Murder

Technology has advanced the ease and quality of life immeasurably. Smart phones are handheld computers that can surf the internet; deliver emails, texts and phone calls; take videos and pictures; make dinner reservations and track your every movement through various apps. Our cars can almost drive themselves with lane change warnings; infrared cameras; heads-up displays, cruise control with radar; event data recorders that record speed, braking and seatbelt use; and GPS tracking in case the car is stolen. Home security cameras, Amazon Echo, smart TV, smart appliances and the like can all be controlled remotely through the internet. A variety of devices that are small and comfortable enough to wear, such as Fitbits, iWatches and the like can track our movements, heart rates, calories burned, number of steps and location.

As helpful as these devices are to their users, law enforcement too has come to discover that these devices can provide valuable, irrefutable evidence in criminal investigations. Just recently, a Connecticut husband was charged with his wife’s murder after his story about his wife’s whereabouts was refuted by information from her Fitbit that revealed not only her location but when and far she was moving (or not) at specific times.

Earlier this year, Arkansas authorities used recordings from an Amazon Echo in a murder case. And last year, investigators in Ohio used evidence from a man’s pacemaker to charge him in an arson case.

Until recently, E-Z Pass records, cell site pings, GPS in our cars, social media postings and red light and other security cameras were all that investigators had available to piece together a person’s movements with varying degrees of accuracy. Now, with these new wearable devices, law enforcement has gained valuable new tools to track a person’s movements.

With rapidly developing technology, and law enforcement’s ability to gather and use the information in criminal cases, courts are increasingly called upon to determine the legitimate collection and preservation methods permitted. Whether the collection of the data requires a search warrant, communications data warrant or grand jury subpoena is being fought in courts throughout the country.

Contact NJ & NY Criminal Defense Attorneys

Protect your rights.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers aggressively defend organizations and individuals charged with complex federal and state crimes. Founder Robert G. Stahl is recognized as one of the top criminal defense attorneys in the NY/NJ area for his skills, knowledge and success.

Our offices are located in Mountainside, New Jersey and Manhattan. To contact us to discuss your case, call 908.301.9001 for our NJ office and 212.755.3300 for our NYC office, or email us at rstahl@stahlesq.com. Or Contact us online.