Marijuana has steadfastly been listed by the DEA as a Schedule I Controlled Substance, the most highly restricted category. Schedule I drugs, like heroin, mean that there is no evidence of the drug’s medical efficacy. As recently as 2016, federal regulators concluded that there was no evidence of currently accepted medical use justifying moving marijuana to a less restricted category of drugs.

Recently, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommended that marijuana could be moved to Schedule III because 38 states now have approved medical marijuana programs leading to the conclusion that marijuana has a “currently accepted medical usage”. The finding by HHS still has to be approved by the DEA which has the ultimate say whether federal regulations on marijuana can be changed. Schedule III include such drugs as steroids and Tylenol with codeine.

With the advent of numerous state approved marijuana programs there is now a sufficient body of evidence for HHS to conclude that marijuana can be used therapeutically as well as to treat pain, vomiting and other medical conditions. HHS reported that there are more than 30,000 healthcare professionals authorized to recommend the use of marijuana, and more than 6 million registered patients in state regulated programs.

HHS also concluded that marijuana is not as dangerous as other drugs in Schedule I like heroin, or Schedule II drugs like cocaine and fentanyl, or even alcohol which is not scheduled at all. HHS studied these drugs potential for abuse by examining death rates and emergency room visits. Marijuana very rarely resulted in serious adverse outcomes compared with these other highly addictive drugs, particularly heroin and alcohol.

Thus, despite marijuana’s high prevalence of abuse, the lack of serious outcomes related to that abuse resulted in HHS’s conclusion that marijuana is more properly categorized as a Schedule III drug.

Should the DEA accept and adopt this recommendation, the real world consequences are a positive step forward for people using, growing and distributing marijuana because the criminal penalties are dramatically reduced. Given the empirical data now available, it seems antiquated and non-scientifically based to keep marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance. Whether it should de-scheduled completely and simply regulated like alcohol and tobacco is for another day, perhaps after a lengthier period of study.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys actively and aggressively protect clients’ rights and have represented numerous clients faced with drug charges in federal and state courts. 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.

On April 19, 2021, one day after Governor Phil Murphy conditionally vetoed a bill that would have eliminated mandatory minimum prison sentences for a broad set of crimes, New Jersey’s Attorney General, Gurbir Grewal, issued a groundbreaking internal directive to prosecutors (the “Directive”) that exercised prosecutorial discretion to effectively eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug distribution crimes. It also creates a legal mechanism by which to release prisoners currently serving such sentences.

The Directive is based on recommendations issued in 2019 by the Criminal Sentencing and Disposition Commission (CSDC or the Commission) – a diverse body of criminal justice stakeholders convened in 2018 to review the New Jersey’s sentencing laws. Notwithstanding their positioning on opposite sides of the criminal justice system, members of the Commission – including the Attorney General, the Public Defender, the President of the New Jersey County Prosecutors Association, and the Chairman of the State Parole Board – unanimously recommended that the Legislature end mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offenses and provide a pathway to freedom for those incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses.

The Directive – unlike the vetoed bill – is not an act of the Legislature; it is an internal order by the head prosecutor in New Jersey to other prosecutors directing them not to seek certain mandatory minimum terms for non-violent drug offenses. To understand how the Directive works, one must understand that in the absence of a mandatory period of parole ineligibility (colloquially referred to as a “stip” by prosecutors and defense attorneys), a defendant in New Jersey may become eligible for parole in less than a third of the time called for by his or her prison sentence. For instance, a first time offender sentenced to four years in prison will likely become eligible for parole in a little over a year of incarceration, after taking into account several types of credits. The criminal statutes that punish the most harmful crimes typically impose various mandatory periods of parole ineligibility, making early release unavailable until a certain number of years are actually served.

In an effort to reduce the actual time that offenders spend incarcerated for non-violent drug crimes, the directive targets these mandatory periods of parole ineligibility for non-violent drug distribution offenses. While prosecutors have always had the legal authority to bypass mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes, the Attorney General’s past guidance – known as the Brimage Guidelines – bound prosecutors to follow a complex set of rules that mandated the imposition of severe minimum sentences unless extraordinary circumstances warranted a departure. Though the purpose of the Brimage Guidelines was to avoid sentencing disparities based on race, the draconian mandatory sentences that applied to all defendants for non-violent drug crimes became a major driver of mass incarceration. The new directive doesn’t change New Jersey drug laws, but rather encourages prosecutors to use an extremely powerful tool more sparingly.

If you are facing a serious drug distribution offense or if you or a loved one is currently incarcerated based on a mandatory minimum sentence, speak to an experienced criminal defense attorney about how the Directive may affect your circumstances. Though the Directive has not yet received much media attention, it represents a sea change in the manner in which non-violent drug crimes will be prosecuted in New Jersey for the foreseeable future. Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense is here for all of your criminal legal needs during this time. 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.

Despite the overwhelming support for legalization by voters, thousands of people in New Jersey continued to be arrested for possession of marijuana over the past few months while the details of the new laws were being debated in Trenton. The new laws, as well as an Attorney General Directive issued shortly after the laws were signed, put an immediate end to new charges for possession of small amounts of marijuana by adults, and will result in the dismissal of thousands of cases currently pending in New Jersey courts.

Though the signing of the bills ends a major chapter in a three-year political saga surrounding marijuana legalization, the laws controlling the possession and sale of marijuana remain complex and some significant legal uncertainty remains, especially with regard to the regulations that will govern the regulated sale of marijuana. Prosecutors and defense attorneys will likely spend years arguing over inconsistencies and vague language in the hundreds of pages of new and amended laws. Though it is now clear that the sale and growing of marijuana will only be legal for registered businesses capable of compliance with a complex regulatory environment, even marijuana users should read the law carefully or consult with a lawyer about what is permitted and what remains forbidden.

This article highlights only some of the important changes brought about by the new laws, which are collectively hundreds of pages in length and contain too many details to distill into a brief article. Accordingly, this article is not intended as legal advice or a comprehensive legal review.

1. The Heart of the Legislation: Decriminalization of Possession in Small Amounts
   The political will surrounding decriminalization arose from a very disturbing truth: While there has never been an appreciable difference in the rate of marijuana use between minorities and white New Jersey residents, minorities have been nearly three times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession. Thus, black residents have borne a disproportionate burden of the very real criminal consequences that follow a marijuana conviction.The most direct and simple fix to this problem was to legalize the possession and use of small amounts of marijuana, now that society has become more accepting and less concerned about the negative effects of the drug. Under the new legislation, the possession of less than 6 ounces of marijuana by an adult is now completely decriminalized and has no associated criminal or civil penalties. Pending cases based on possession of less than 6 ounces of marijuana will be dismissed. Possession of more than 6 ounces, however, is punishable as a fourth degree crime. Possession of larger amounts of marijuana carry even greater criminal penalties.Because marijuana is legal, a positive marijuana test cannot serve as the justification for a violation of probation, parole, or pretrial release.
2. The Black-Market Sale of Marijuana Remains Illegal, Even in Small Amounts
   A legal market for sale of marijuana has not yet been established, but under the new legislation, unregulated or “black-market” sale of marijuana will remain illegal, and will remain a very serious criminal offense for those who illegally transact in large quantities. Possession with intent to distribute over 25 pounds of marijuana remains a first-degree offense punishable by over 10 years in New Jersey State Prison, and intent to distribute between 5 and 25 pounds remains a second-degree offense. Distribution of more than one ounce remains a third-degree offense.Penalties for the sale of smaller amounts have been reduced, however. Under the new laws, distribution of less than one ounce of marijuana is still illegal, but, for a first offense, the penalty is a mere written warning. Subsequent offenses for small amounts would be punished as a fourth-degree criminal offense, as they are currently. Supplying cannabis items to an underage person at any amount carries a civil penalty of $250 for a first violation and $500 for a second violation. A third violation is a disorderly persons offense, which carries potential imprisonment.
3. The Controversy: Dramatic Restrictions on Police Searches
   As any criminal defense attorney or prosecutor will tell you, the smell of marijuana is one of the most often cited justifications for unplanned invasive searches of people and automobiles by police. “Plain smell” searches, which have long been deemed a legal exercise of police authority by the New Jersey Supreme Court, lead to temporary deprivations of liberty for thousands of additional people – disproportionately people of color – who may never be charged with a crime if no drugs are found. The Legislature made very clear that because possession of marijuana is now legal, the odor of marijuana may not be used as a justification to conduct a search of a person by the police (even if the possessor is underage).But the Legislature went further than to simply declare that the “plain smell” is no longer a legal justification for a search. The Legislature declared that it is a third-degree crime for police officers to conduct certain searches based solely on suspicion of marijuana. This aspect of the new laws drew immediate condemnation from the State Police Benevolent Association (PBA), which issued a statement the same day as the legislation calling the bill “intentionally designed to make law enforcement officers criminals overnight in New Jersey.”
4. Possession of Marijuana by Persons Under Twenty-One
   The new laws create a framework for regulation of underage possession of marijuana by persons under twenty-one years old, but impose little in the way of punishment for violators. A first violation is met with a written warning. A second violation is met with a written warning, the provision of informational materials, and, for possessors under 18 years of age, parental notification. A third or subsequent violation triggers another write-up and a referral to a community services organization for counseling-type programs, but there is no obligation to take part in services. A child’s third violation, like a second violation, would also trigger parental notification.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense is here for all of your criminal legal needs during this time. 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.

It may come as a surprise to most, including many criminal defense attorneys, that the federal system detains a greater percentage of people arrested than state systems. Since the Bail Reform Act (BRA), enacted in 1984, pretrial detention has significantly increased from 19% in 1985 to 75% in 2019, which is particularly astounding, considering violent crime accounts for only 2% of federal arrests.

The BRA provides that a court release a defendant on the “least restrictive” conditions to “reasonably assure” the appearance of the defendant and the safety of the community. Detention hearings shall only be held in cases which involve very specific factors that authorize pretrial detention. Such factors include drug offenses, certain gun and recidivist offenses, crimes of violence or terrorism, as well as offenses involving a maximum term of life in prison or death.

In 1987, when the constitutionality of the BRA was challenged, the United States Supreme Court stressed that “[i]n our society liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial . . . is the carefully limited exception.” However, statistics demonstrate that federal prosecutors around the country routinely and impermissibly seek pretrial detention at a far greater rate than allowed by the BRA. In spite of the fact that in 2019, 99% of federally-charged defendants appeared in court as required, and 98% of defendants did not commit new crimes while on pretrial release.

In an effort to counter a government’s claim of serious risk of flight, defense counsel may overcome the argument by demonstrating that the client has lived in the community for a long time, is married with children, is steadily employed, has no record of failing to appear, and/or no prior record. In cases involving serious risk of danger to the community, defense counsel may overcome the argument through similar factors, as well as additional conditions of release such as home confinement with electronic monitoring or third-party custodians.

Recently, the Judicial Conference of the Unites States asked Congress to narrow the presumption of detention in drug cases to only people with very serious criminal records. This is important given the push from the Department of Justice to federally charge a greater number of people arrested for state drug and gun offenses. Many lower-level drug offenders are scooped up under the guise that they are associated with organized drug distributors or gangs. Since federal cases routinely take far longer to resolve by plea or trial, individuals in federal pretrial detention face limited family contact and ready access to counsel, as well as loss of employment and ultimately harsher sentences.

It is critical to hire experienced federal criminal defense counsel when charged with a federal crime. Our attorneys are highly experienced in representing individuals charged with federal crimes where the government seeks pretrial detention. Mindful of the importance of self-distancing, we at times work remotely but are available to meet new clients either in person, through video conferencing, or by phone. Challenging times demand innovation and accommodation to our client’s needs. Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense is here for all of your criminal legal needs during this time. 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

The federal government has hired 300 additional prosecutors and created the Opioid Fraud and Abuse Detection Unit and the Joint Criminal Opioid Darknet Enforcement Team to investigate, uncover, and prosecute the prescribing and dispensing of opioids by healthcare professionals – doctors and pharmacists – as well as street-level sales of opioids and fentanyl. Since January 2018, over 200 doctors have been charged.

What are the agents and prosecutors looking for in these cases? They are typically looking for what is referred to as “pill mill” cases, where corrupt doctors write prescriptions to patients they know or should have known are misusing the prescriptions. The pharmacists who fulfill those suspect prescriptions are also frequent targets.

Typically, investigations center on doctors who are suspected of writing prescriptions for large quantities of opioids to individuals that do not medically need them. Investigators look for red flags such as patients traveling from geographically distant locations to the doctor’s office; incomplete or no medical exams to verify alleged pain; a failure to offer alternatives, such as non-opioid based pain management; the absence of a gradual increase from less addictive pain medications to opioids; patients without medical insurance paying cash for each visit; a high number of pills prescribed; and doctors who write and fill the prescriptions themselves for cash.

With regard to pharmacists, investigators look for red flags such as prescriptions with unusually high quantities or that have evidence of alteration; patients traveling far distances to the pharmacy or the prescribing doctor; patients paying with cash for their prescriptions; a high percentage of opioid prescriptions filled; and prescriptions sent and filled from suspect doctors.

In addition to these red flags, every state but Missouri has Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMP). These programs monitor and track information submitted by doctors and pharmacies about the prescribing and dispensing of controlled substances. They track which doctors give opioid prescriptions, which patients receive the prescriptions, and what pharmacies do the fulfilling. These systems allow for quick and early detection of patterns evidencing possible fraud or abuse.

Given that many doctors and national chain pharmacies have greatly limited their prescribing and dispensing of opioids due to heightened government scrutiny, small independent pharmacies and medical practices have come under enormous pressure to fill a legitimate need for these medications. Along with that need comes the potential for abuse and investigation.

____________________________________________________________________________

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense has successfully represented many doctors and pharmacists under investigation by the DEA, state investigators, and licensing boards. To contact the firm, call 908.301.9001 for the NJ office and 212.755.3300 for the NYC office, or email Mr. Stahl at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com.

With the legalization of marijuana for recreational and medicinal uses across the country, police and legislators are scrambling for accurate devices that can detect a person’s impairment for driving under the influence of marijuana. Most law enforcement agencies rely on observation and specific cognitive and field balance tests by certified drug recognition experts (DRE). However, none are scientifically accurate to detect the level of impairment.

There is a company that claims to have developed a portable device that can be used at a roadside motor vehicle stop to detect the presence of THC, the psychoactive active ingredient in marijuana. The device maker claims that it can detect whether a person has smoked pot within the prior two hours, a window that many experts consider the peak impairment time frame. If true, this would be a major breakthrough for law enforcement because the other standard tests – blood, saliva or urine – require days for the results.

Given the difficulties in reliably and accurately detecting the presence of THC in breath molecules – measured in parts per trillion rather than parts per thousand for alcohol – it is likely that this device will not be approved for use in most states for many years to come. In addition, even if the device can accurately discover the presence of THC, it cannot calculate the amount of THC consumed. Given that there is no consensus as to what amount or level of THC constitutes functional impairment, it will be up to each state to pass laws as to what standards are acceptable for driving while impaired for marijuana. So far only seven states have set legal standards as to how much THC in a person’s system is considered impaired. Yet many scientists believe those standards are not scientifically reliable.

What seems indisputable, however, is that states with legal marijuana experience higher incidents of accidents with drivers under the influence of alcohol and marijuana. What is still unknown is what role the use of marijuana played, if any, in these higher accident rates. This is the challenge for scientists and legislators to determine now that the use of marijuana is steadily being decriminalized.

In the interim, the experts’ advice is simple – have a designated driver, call a cab, Uber or Lyft – if you have used marijuana before driving.

Robert Stahl, and his firm, Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers aggressively defend individuals charged with complex federal and state crimes, including drug 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. To contact the firm, call 908.301.9001 for the NJ office and 212.755.3300 for the NYC office, or email Mr. Stahl at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com.

It seems that nearly everyone, however, has ignored both the plain language and context of the Attorney General’s statements on the temporary moratorium. Though Attorney General Grewal may be a champion of liberal causes, the moratorium is not pro-marijuana. Grewal’s statements make clear that moratorium is not a step toward decriminalization, but rather a move to stop certain mayors and municipal prosecutors from unilaterally decriminalizing marijuana offenses in their jurisdictions without legal authorization from the Attorney General or the Legislature. This is not a watershed moment in marijuana legalization, but rather a disagreement between a certain prominent mayor and the Attorney General over prosecutorial discretion.

The “certain mayor,” in this case, is Mayor Steven Fulop of Jersey City. The Attorney General was essentially forced to act on July 19, 2018, after the chief municipal prosecutor of Jersey City issued a memorandum to his assistant municipal prosecutors implementing a “New Marijuana Decriminalization Policy.” The following day, in a memorandum to prosecutors, Attorney General Grewal declared the Jersey City policy void. Then, in imposing the temporary moratorium on marijuana prosecutions on July 24, 2018, Attorney General Grewal explicitly invoked Jersey City’s decriminalization memorandum as the reason underlying the need to issue new guidelines on prosecutorial discretion. “The issuance and subsequent rescission of the Municipal Decriminalization Memorandum made clear that some municipal prosecutors would benefit from additional guidance about the scope of their discretionary authority, particularly with regard to marijuana offenses,” Grewal wrote.

If that weren’t a clear enough indication that the moratorium grew out of a tug-of-war and not out of a broad policy to decriminalize marijuana throughout the state, the Attorney General’s director of communications issued a press release yesterday explaining why the moratorium was necessary. Missing was any mention of a desire to increase prosecutorial discretion to dismiss marijuana cases or to weaken marijuana laws more generally. Instead, the statement reiterated that the Jersey City decriminalization policy was an “an improper exercise of a municipal prosecutor’s authority” that will place police officers in a dangerous position of having to enforce laws that people will mistakenly believe are no longer in effect.

So what should one expect from the new Attorney General guideline set to be issued next month? The press release noted the Attorney General’s dedication to social justice issues, which is shorthand for marijuana reform. But at the forefront of the decision to impose the moratorium is the Attorney General’s legal obligation to ensure that laws are prosecuted uniformly throughout New Jersey, as well as his conclusion that Jersey City exceeded its legal authority in effectively decriminalizing marijuana on its own terms. So while we don’t know exactly what will be in the new guideline, we can be certain that it will not “decriminalize” marijuana by permitting municipal prosecutors to dismiss marijuana cases wholesale, as in the case of Jersey City.

While most people consider themselves unlikely to become the subject of a police investigation, there is one common situation in which ordinary citizens fall under police scrutiny: the traffic stop. Police officers are trained to search for evidence of illegal activity every time they pull over a driver, whatever the reason for the stop. While the consequences for speeding, failure to maintain lane, careless driving or Driving Under the Influence (DUI) can be bad enough – carrying the possibility of loss of driving privileges, assessment of motor vehicle points and higher insurance rates – things become far more serious if the police search for and find illegal drugs in a car. Teenagers and young adults – who are presumed by police to be more likely to be in possession of illegal recreational drugs – are often the targets of such searches late at night, while driving to and from wherever it is that teenagers actually disappear to when they leave the house to “hang out with friends.”

Police are legally permitted to stop a car for a relatively insignificant driving infraction, such as excessive window tints or improperly colored headlights, then expand their inquiry if they find anything suspicious during the traffic stop. We often hear from our clients that the initial reason for a stop was simply a pretext to search the vehicle (based on the client’s interpretation of the police officer’s questions), and that the officer suspected there was going to be alcohol or marijuana in the vehicle because the car was being driven by a younger person late at night. In cases like this, the police officer often asks the driver and passengers directly whether they have drugs or alcohol in the car, or whether they have been drinking. Sometimes the officer claims that he can smell the odor of either burned or raw marijuana and asks whether the driver will give their permission to search the vehicle. In many cases, even though not legally obligated to do so, the person gives their permission, or “consent,” to search the car.

Sometimes, the driver consents to a search of the vehicle not knowing that a passenger was in possession of some type of illegal substance, only to find that the passenger coyly jettisoned the illegal substance from his pocket into the common area of the automobile. Then, depending on where the illegal substance is found, the police can charge everyone in the vehicle with possessing the drugs. If the drugs are found in a common area of the car accessible to more than one occupant, the police officer may use the fact of the discovery of the drugs to pressure the occupants into making an admission as to the ownership of the drugs. They may say, for example, that unless someone owns up to possessing the drugs, that everyone will be charged. This often results in the creation of a false confession, when one person, in the heat of the moment, attempts to save his or her friends or family from prosecution.

The penalties for possessing a “Controlled Dangerous Substance” (CDS) – i.e. illegal drugs – depend on the type and amount of the substance. For some drugs, the charges will be heard in municipal court, but possession of certain more dangerous drugs are prosecuted in Superior Court, whatever the amount in possession. In either case, a driver charged with possessing a CDS while operating a vehicle faces a two-year mandatory license suspension and criminal charges relating to the possession. Those criminal charges can result in fines, penalties, probation, and even jail. In addition, if the person charged with a CDS offense is a student, his or her school may take administrative action based upon the outcome of the case that could include suspension or expulsion.

It is critically important to immediately retain experienced criminal defense counsel in these types of cases. Defense counsel will obtain the discovery – any police reports, summonses, audio and video recordings of the stop and questioning, radio logs and lab reports of the drugs – to determine whether the initial stop was valid and whether there is a viable motion to suppress any drugs that were found in the car. The suppression may be based either on the invalidity of the initial stop or upon the warrantless search of the vehicle. Given the serious potential penalties, experienced criminal defense counsel may be able to suppress the search or negotiate a much less onerous outcome.

Robert Stahl, and his firm, Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers aggressively defend 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. To contact the firm, 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 several years, the federal government has focused investigative and enforcement resources on pharmacies that compound drugs, and the marketers, doctors and pharmacists involved. Criminal and civil actions have been brought for violations based on statutes prohibiting kickbacks, fraud and false claims.

A compounded drug is one that is supposed to be tailored to a particular patient’s needs. These compounds are legitimately prescribed and used by very young or older patients that have difficulty swallowing pills, patients that cannot tolerate dyes used in pills or patients with certain allergies. Most are topical creams for pain or scars, or specialized vitamins. While these compounded drugs are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), they are subject to regulation and enforcement actions by a variety of state and federal agencies.

The scope of the problem has been growing rapidly. The government claims that from 2013 to 2015, $2 billion in fraud was committed against one government program alone, TRICARE, the provider of civilian benefits for military personnel and their families. The reason that compounded medications are ripe for fraudulent schemes is because of the huge mark-up in costs that certain insurance companies and the federal government have been willing to pay for certain formulations. Some of the topical creams and ointments for pain and scars have been billed and reimbursed by insurers at upwards of $10,000 or more per prescription.

Often, the alleged schemes involve marketers that are paid a percentage of the reimbursed amount charged for each prescription. These marketers typically receive 30-50% of the amount received from the insurer. According to the government, in these schemes the marketers target people who are covered by insurance companies that reimburse for these types of prescriptions. Under the government’s theory, the marketers improperly target potential patients not based on true medical need, but rather based upon their insurance coverage.

Other schemes that have been successfully prosecuted involved cash kickbacks to the doctors who wrote the prescriptions, kickbacks to patients who bring in other colleagues that have similar insurance plans and pharmacies that simply submitted claims for compounded medicines that were never actually made or provided to the patients.

In these investigations, the government looks for what they believe are indicia of fraud:

• High volume of production or prescriptions
• Mass marketing using individual marketers or call centers
• High volume of out-of-state prescriptions
• Changing of formulations based upon insurance coverage/reimbursement
• Mass production of the compounds rather than for the individual patient
• Lack of true doctor-patient relationship; use of telemedicine
• Use of preprinted prescriptions
• Steering patients to particular doctors who write the prescriptions for their benefit rather than the patients’ medical needs

Physicians, pharmacies and sales representatives must be particularly careful when dealing with compounded drugs. They must insure that there is a true doctor-patient relationship, that the patient requires the compounded medication (its’ medically necessary), that the medication is compounded for that particular patient rather than mass produced and that the fees received for the marketing services are based upon the time and efforts expended in legitimate marketing activities.

At Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers we have defended these types of cases and have extensive knowledge of how these cases are investigated and prosecuted.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers aggressively defend 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. 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.

You are driving on the roads of New Jersey, paying attention to the speed limit, road conditions, and other drivers, when you glance in your rearview mirror and see the flashing strobe lights of a police car. You carefully reduce speed and pull to the side of the road to let the officer pass, but you realize he is pulling you over. What do you do, and what are your rights?

First, remain as calm as possible, turn off the radio and wait for the officer to approach before you start looking for your documents. The officer will approach either your driver’s window or the front passenger window depending on the officer and the situation. The officer will ask you for your driver’s license, registration and proof of insurance. Hand those to the officer and ask why you were stopped. Some officers will tell you the reason and briefly listen to your side of the story. Many will simply tell you to wait in your car and return with your summonses. The side of the road is not the time to debate or argue with the officer. You are better off firmly, but respectfully, asserting your rights. If the officer asks you to step out of the car, you must do so. If the officer begins to question you about where you are going to, or coming from, you have the right to decline answering.

Suspicion of Alcohol Intoxication

If the officer says that he smells the odor of alcoholic beverage on your breath and asks how many drinks you have had, what type, and over what period of time, you have the right to refuse to answer.

If the officer asks you to perform certain roadside, field balance tests, you have the right to refuse, but you may still be arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol and may be brought to the station for a breath test (known as the “Alcotest” as long as the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that you are driving under the influence of alcohol.

If you refuse to submit to a breath test, however, you will be charged with a separate violation for “refusal” and face a separate period of license suspension and fines that are meant to mirror those for DWI. Your right to remain silent does not give you the right to refuse a breath test; every motorist on the roads in New Jersey is deemed to having given implied consent to submit to a breath test. Also, even without a breath test, a motorist who refuses a breath test can still be found guilty of DWI, because a conviction for DWI can be based upon the officer’s observations of your driving prior to the motor vehicle stop; your actions, appearance and movements while stopped; and your appearance in police headquarters.

Suspicion of Marijuana

If the officer says that he smells an odor of marijuana in your car and asks you whether you have just smoked, or where the drugs are in the car, you have the right to refuse to answer any questions. If the officer asks for your consent to search your car, you also have the right to refuse consent. The officer should (but might not), tell you explicitly that you have the right to refuse consent to search the car. Police officers usually attempt to obtain consent prior to performing a search, because obtaining consent allows them to search the car, even without probable cause that a crime was committed or that the car contains contraband.

But your refusal to provide consent to search does not mean that the officer does not have the right to search the car. If the officer can (or is willing to testify that he can) smell marijuana in your car, he can search the car under the theory that he has probable cause to believe that there is contraband – marijuana – in the vehicle.

The possession of a small amount of marijuana or a DWI or refusal is handled in the local municipal court. The possession of a small amount of marijuana is known as a “disorderly persons” offense (which is akin to a “misdemeanor” in other states), and is criminal in nature. DWI and refusal are considered traffic offenses in New Jersey, but the penalties are severe. For any of the above offenses, you can suffer loss of driving privileges, costly fines and penalties, increased insurance costs, and possibly even jail.

Contact Our NJ Drug Trafficking Defense Attorneys

Protect your rights. For questions regarding criminal defense of drug charges and drug trafficking, including charges relating to cocaine and marijuana, or DWI charges, contact Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers. Our offices are located in Mountainside, New Jersey and Manhattan. Contact us online or call us at 908-301-9001.

There is an alarming trend towards aggressive investigations by state and federal authorities on physicians. Whether it is by the state medical boards, DEA or federal or state prosecutors, doctors’ practices are subjected to heightened scrutiny. While this may be traced to the war on drugs, recent deaths related to the abuse of prescription opioids, and the criticism the DEA has faced for its failure to develop measureable results in its enforcement efforts; the genesis is less important than the trend itself for those subjected to the harsh spotlight of scrutiny.

Under the standard that a physician is guilty of criminal conduct if he or she prescribes without “a legitimate medical purpose” and “outside the usual course of his or her professional practice,” many good, decent, over-worked physicians find themselves fighting to keep their licenses, DEA registrations and freedom. This is particularly true for those brave souls who continue to help patients with chronic, non-cancer pain.

The law enforcement climate surrounding prescribing opioids has resulted in many good physicians abandoning that aspect of their practice and patients. This has had the effect of reducing the number of physicians willing to treat those in chronic pain, while increasing the scrutiny on those who continue to do so. Those physicians now have become a limited pool of targets for law enforcement and regulatory agencies.

Most alarming is the increasing number of criminal investigations using undercover agents pretending to be patients with chronic pain. These covert operations may be run independently, or in conjunction with the medical board and DEA administrative authorities. These investigations may be initiated by a complaint from a pharmacy about the number of prescriptions by a particular doctor, a complaint by a patient or the patient’s insurer, a check with the Prescription Monitoring Program revealing a larger number of opioid prescriptions, or a motor vehicle stop of patients that are interviewed about their medications. With little more than a suspicion that the physician may be over-prescribing, a full-fledged undercover operation could be launched.

Should the undercover operation reveal certain conduct or actions that appear inconsistent with law enforcement’s view of normal medical practice, the physician and her office may be subjected to a search warrant, seizure of medical records and computers, administrative or grand jury subpoenas for medical records and testimony, and the entire staff may be interviewed and treated like co-conspirators. The devastating effects of such actions can result in severe economic and reputational losses to the medical practice.

The dangers faced by the physician require immediate retention of experienced, skilled defense counsel to represent and protect their interests. The dilemma faced by the physician may come down to fighting to keep her DEA registration and ability to prescribe Schedule II-V drugs, protecting her medical license or potentially waiving her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent in a criminal investigation. These “parallel investigations” – criminal and administrative at the same time – often present a Hobson’s choice of actively defending one’s medical license by producing documents and testimony, or protecting one’s freedom and not testifying until the full scope and breathe of the criminal investigation is known. Only experienced criminal defense counsel can competently analyze the situation and offer advice about how to proceed. Every licensed professional must worry about their ability to continue in their chosen field, however, the first and foremost concern must be for one’s liberty. Although the instinct is understandable, rushing to defend the administrative action, while a parallel criminal investigation is on-going, may lead to disastrous results.

The dichotomy is straightforward. Physicians are trained to listen to their patients, rely in great part on their self-reporting of their conditions and pain, and to establish a relationship of trust. Law enforcement and regulatory bodies turn that relationship on its head and undermine what is a “legitimate medical purpose.” They hold physicians to a heightened standard of verification and a view that pain patients lie and deceive to obtain the medications for their own addictions or for diversion. Given this dichotomy, is it any wonder that physicians face increasing peril in their practices?

The attorneys at Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense have decades of experience representing physicians, dentists and other medical professionals in federal and state criminal and administrative investigations. If retained early in the investigation, our goal is to prevent criminal charges from being pursued or filed, and to protect the license and registration of the healthcare professional.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers aggressively defend 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. 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.

On April 25, 2016, in the wake of startling revelations that a laboratory technician at the New Jersey State Police Laboratory in Little Falls had been falsifying test results, the Supreme Court of New Jersey issued an order centralizing the litigation of all post-conviction challenges in the State before a single judge. The order appointed Bergen County Superior Court Judge Edward A. Jerejian to handle all post-conviction litigation in which Kamalkant Shah, the laboratory technician found to have faked results, was either the primary laboratory examiner, conducted peer review, or conducted administrative review of purported drug evidence. Pending cases predicated upon Shah’s laboratory work are to remain with the judges presently assigned under the order.

Shah was the primary laboratory examiner in 7,827 cases, conducted peer review in 970 cases, and conducted administrative review in 1,622 cases in the ten years he worked for the lab, from 2005 to 2015. A firestorm of controversy erupted on February 29, 2016 when the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office disclosed to the Office of the Public Defender and representatives of the criminal defense bar that Shah was observed “writing ‘test results’ to suspected marijuana that was never tested.”

It was later revealed that Division of Criminal Justice Director Elie Honig advised County Prosecutors on February 22, 2016 by letter that Shah had “failed to appropriately conduct laboratory analyses in a drug case” and that his failure should be disclosed to defense counsel. According to NJ Advance Media, which was provided a copy of the February 22 letter, “Mr. Shah was observed in one case spending insufficient time analyzing a substance to determine if it was marijuana and recording an anticipated result without properly conducting the analysis.”

If you or a family member has been wrongly convicted of a drug crime in NJ based on tests that you feel were either not completed or falsely reported, contact an experienced criminal attorney. The experienced attorneys at Robert G. Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers aggressively defend individuals charged with drug crimes. To contact us to discuss your case, call 908-301-9001 for our Mountainside, New Jersey office and 212-755-3300 for our New York City office, or email us at rgs@sgdefenselaw.com.

References

• https://stahlesq.com/wp-content/uploads/attachments/n160426a.pdf
• http://www.nj.com/passaic-county/index.ssf/2016/03/state_police_lab_tech_allegedly_faked_results_in_p.html

For many non-citizens, the threat of deportation is more terrifying than a prison sentence because it means permanent separation from the home that they have made here, and the family and friends who remain behind in the States. A criminal defendant’s immigration status also means that they may face mandatory detention awaiting trial or disposition, and more onerous prison conditions once sentenced. Such clients require the skills and experience of an attorney well versed in the intersection of immigration and criminal law to craft a plea or negotiate a sentence that avoids immigration consequences.

The attorneys at Robert G. Stahl, Esq. Criminal Lawyers, have this knowledge and experience. We have applied our knowledge and experience in representing clients who have been arrested and face trial in a wide variety of matters, including credit card fraud, mortgage fraud, obstruction of justice, health care fraud, terrorism, and drug possession and trafficking.

We also represent clients whose prior attorneys failed to give them advice about immigration consequences, or provided incorrect advice in this complicated and ever evolving field of law, by drafting and filing motions for post-conviction relief and coram nobis petitions in state and federal court.

We constantly educate ourselves in seminars and conferences where we learn about recent developments in the law, and consult with experts where necessary to ensure we give correct advice and achieve the best results while avoiding immigration consequences for our criminal clients. From a trial perspective, our experience representing non-citizens and immigrants has also been helpful in understanding and presenting cultural defenses, challenging admission of confessions and suppressing evidence where the client’s language proficiency and background may have precluded understanding his or her rights or waiving them properly, and preparing sentencing mitigation.

Attorney Laura K. Gasiorowski, Esq. frequently lectures on immigration consequences and criminal law. She has been a panel member and speaker for the “Immigration Law and Criminal Acts” seminar presented by the New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education, New Jersey State Bar Association, every year since 2012 along with well-respected judges, defense attorneys and immigration lawyers. Her lectures have focused on representing non-citizens and immigrants in the criminal justice system, and the particular challenges of language and culture differences.

Source for Graph:https://stahlesq.com/wp-content/uploads/attachments/fy2015removalStats.pdf