On June 6, 2023, the New Jersey Appellate Division issued State v. Johnson, a valuable published opinion that clarifies the procedures that must be followed under the “vehicle registration search” exception to the warrant requirement. The vehicle registration search exception the warrant requirement authorizes police to enter a lawfully stopped vehicle to conduct a pinpointed search for a paper registration certificate if the motorist is unable or unwilling to produce that document after having been provided a meaningful opportunity to comply with the officer’s request. By holding that “a motorist is not ‘unable’ to produce a registration certificate within the meaning of the exception when the sole reason for that inability is a police officer’s discretionary decision to prevent reentry,” the Appellate Division effectively prevents police from forcing a police search of a glove compartment by denying the motorist access for safety reasons.

In Johnson, the defendant parked and exited his vehicle before the police could complete the stop. The question before the court was whether the police could lawfully initiate a vehicle registration search when the detained driver is outside the vehicle at the time the officer requests the registration certificate, but where the officer deems it unsafe for the driver to reenter the vehicle to retrieve it. The court concluded that providing a detained driver with a meaningful opportunity to produce the registration certificate is an essential prerequisite for conducting a registration search, and that the requirement to provide that opportunity can only be waived if the driver is genuinely unable or unwilling to comply with the police request for the vehicle credentials. In the court’s view, any alternative interpretation of the registration search exception would undermine, if not completely negate, the protection of privacy rights guaranteed by the meaningful opportunity element, as it would leave the application of this exception entirely at the discretion of the police without any possibility of review.

Applying the new rule to the facts of the case, the court concluded the police were justified in placing the defendant in their car for safety reasons and preventing him from reentering the detained vehicle during the investigative detention, but that they were not permitted to undertake a warrantless registration search. The court noted that adhering to the meaningful opportunity prerequisite in such circumstances does not hinder the police’s ability to investigate whether a car is stolen, as they can obtain the necessary information contained in the paper registration certificate by conducting a lookup in the Motor Vehicle Commission database.

The court also addressed the impact of a recent revision to N.J.S.A. 39:3-29, the statute that outlines a motorist’s obligation to possess and present a registration certificate to the police during a motor vehicle stop and serves as the foundation for the registration search exception to the warrant requirement. Under the revised statutory framework, motorists are no longer obligated to carry a physical copy of the vehicle registration certificate. Instead, they are now permitted to possess and present the registration certificate in either paper or electronic form. To prevent fruitless searches for a physical document that may not even exist and is not required to be kept in the vehicle, going forward, police officers may not enter a detained vehicle under the authority of the registration search exception to search for a paper document without first inquiring whether the registration is kept in paper or electronic form.

Contact Our NJ Defense Attorneys

Protect your rights. If you are the driver of a personal vehicle or the owner, you have what is known as an expectation of privacy and “standing” to suppress searches. For questions regarding criminal defense of traffic and warrantless searches, 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.

Law enforcement and intelligence agencies around the world use facial recognition technology and other AI in investigations to track targets’ movements and as evidence in prosecutions. While books and movies often portray this technology as highly advanced and foolproof, reality can be quite different. Recent cases have demonstrated that facial recognition technology is far from foolproof and may lead to even more misidentifications when identifying people of color.

Companies such as Clearview AI have contracts with law enforcement agencies across the United States. Clearview scrapes billions of photos from social media for its database. Photos from LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram and the public web are uploaded to its database. For an annual fee, law enforcement has access to a face-based search engine. Obviously, a number of factors affect the reliability of the search results. The quality and resolution of the surveillance photo used for the search, the ethnicity of the subject, and the number and age of the comparison photos can all affect the results.

The most troubling, however, is that it appears that in a number of cases law enforcement failed to use other investigative means before seeking arrest warrants for the individuals “identified” by facial recognition software. As Clearview’s CEO made clear to the New York Times recently, when its technology comes up with an “initial result” that should be the starting point in law enforcement’s investigation, not the conclusion. In other words, facial recognition technology should only be used as one investigative tool that may provide a lead in an investigation that must then be coupled with other basic investigative steps.

A recent example of this is the case of Randal Quran Reid who was driving near Atlanta when he was stopped and arrested for alleged thefts in Louisiana. The police in Baton Rouge and Jefferson Parish had apparently used facial recognition from store videos purporting to show Mr. Reid stealing valuable items. Warrants for his arrest were issued and Mr. Reid was held for days pending extradition for crimes he did not commit. The NYT reports that it seems likely that local police simply used the faulty facial recognition identification to obtain the arrest warrants. It is difficult to know for sure because many law enforcement agencies do not reveal that such technology was used, or that it was the sole or primary basis for the warrant.

What should officials in Louisiana have done before issuing an arrest warrant based on facial recognition? First, actually compare the photos to Mr. Reid. According to the article, Mr. Reid is smaller, lighter and less muscular that the actual thief. Next, investigate to see if Mr. Reid was actually in Louisiana around the time of the thefts. How does one determine that? Examine credit card receipts for gas purchases or any other items in the state, travel records and EZ-Pass records, social media, license plate readers and the like. Conversely, look to see if there is evidence that Mr. Reid was in his home state during the thefts. In fact, had law enforcement checked, they would have discovered that Mr. Reid had never been to Louisiana.

Artificial intelligence is advancing at breakneck speed and law enforcement is eager to use all forms of technology to assist in their investigations. The key, however, is AI should only be used to “assist” not conclude. Traditional investigative techniques must be employed to corroborate and verify the alleged results of such database searches, lest more innocent people sit in jail hoping that their attorneys can free them.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys actively and aggressively protect clients’ rights and challenge the use of such AI based searches in pretrial hearings and trial. 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 June 23, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision that dramatically altered a citizen’s ability to carry a firearm outside one’s home. New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843, was a challenge to New York State’s Law requiring justifiable need and good cause for an individual to secure a permit for concealed carry of a firearm. The Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment afforded individuals the right to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense and that the necessity of justifiable need would be an infringement on that right.

The Bruen decision has led to a dramatic change in New Jersey law. Prior to Bruen, New Jersey, like New York, issued only a handful of such permits as N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4 required every applicant to “demonstrate a justifiable need to carry a handgun.” That need was strictly interpreted.

Thus, on June 24, 2022, Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin issued Law Enforcement Directive No. 2022-07 urging all police departments to process concealed carry permits by continuing to implement statutory prohibitions, background checks and firearms familiarity as required by N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(1) – (11) and N.J.A.C. 13:54-2.4(b). With the change in law, Governor Murphy predicted that 200,000 applications for concealed carry permits would likely be filed. The system, however, was designed to handle a very small number of applications. For instance in 2014, in a state with a population almost 9 million residents, only 496 concealed carry permits were issued.

New applications have already overloaded the application process, police departments and the Courts. Several counties are requiring hearings before the Presiding Criminal Division Judge to determine the eligibility, restrictions, and approval of concealed carry permits. These courts, already severely backlogged with criminal cases that were on hold during the COVID-19 pandemic, are now deluged with carry permit applications. While it remains to be seen how the Courts will adjust to the volume of applicants, as well as, what new or additional restrictions may be introduced by law makers, one thing is certain, applicants will endure a long and arduous process. These delays will be met with pressure from applicants citing N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4, which states: “If the application is not approved by the chief police officer or the superintendent within 60 days of filing, it shall be deemed to have been approved, unless the applicant agrees to an extension of time in writing”.

In the wake of Bruen, Governor Murphy also implemented new training and safety requirements for those applying for a Firearms Purchaser Identification Card (FID). An FID is required for any New Jersey Resident to purchase a firearm. On July 5, 2022, Governor Murphy signed into law new revisions to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3 to take effect immediately. Revisions included “In order to obtain a permit to purchase a handgun or firearms purchaser identification card, the applicant shall demonstrate that, within four years prior to the date of the application, the applicant satisfactorily completed a course of instruction approved by the superintendent in the lawful and safe handling and storage of firearms. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate completion of a course of instruction only once prior to obtaining either a firearms purchaser identification card or the applicant’s first permit to purchase a handgun.” In addition, a NJ FID Card must now display a color photograph and thumb print of the card holder and the card holder must now renew their FID Card every ten (10) years. NJ FID Cards previously had no expiration date.

The immediate implementation of these revisions caused further confusion and delays. A number of municipalities stopped processing applications, uncertain which training course(s) would be approved by the State Police Superintendent. Another issue involves the cards themselves. FID Cards now must bear both the photograph and thumbprint of the card holder. The current system, however, was designed to distribute approved FID cards in a digital format. Towns are now concerned whether new equipment to print the FID cards with photographs and thumb prints must be purchased. Indecision regarding the new statutory amendments reached its peak when the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office issued a directive to all municipal police departments in the county to stop processing and issuing FID cards until clarification on fulfillment of new protocols was established by both the Superintendent and Governor.

In a speech to members of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, the Governor announced that the Superintendent had approved a new online course to satisfy the training requirement of the new law. This instructional safety course, provided free of charge to first time applicants, was implemented on Monday, September 16, on the New Jersey Firearms Application & Registration portal found on the NJSP’s website. The Governor also confirmed that all County Prosecutors were to process first-time purchaser applications without the requirement of the new amendments.

Undoubtedly, New Jersey has one of the nations’ strictest set of gun laws. Experienced and skillful legal advice can greatly assist applicants navigating the ever-changing landscape of firearm ownership in New Jersey.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys have represented numerous clients facing a variety of issues involving firearms and firearm ownership at both the state and federal level. We actively and aggressively protect 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 RStahl@StahlEsq.com

Cybercrimes – hacking, phishing, ransomware and the like – are well-known to every user of the internet. We are bombarded weekly with emails and texts claiming that we need to update our passwords, personal profile, and the like. Now comes the rise of what has been called “romance scams”. The typical scheme starts with a fake dating profile on an online dating site. Fake name, picture, background, likes and what the alleged person is looking for in a mate is established. Once selected, the fraudster starts a series of on-line communications that lure the unsuspecting victim in with attention, romance and affection. The fraudster then sets out a story about why s/he needs money – lost their passport and credit cards while on a trip; a co-worker was injured and it was the fault of the scammer; needs money for a sick relative – always with the promise to return the money.

In 2021, it was reported that victims were scammed out of at least $547 million, an 80% increase over 2020. This figure is likely conservative since many victims of romance scams are too embarrassed to report them or the amounts are too small for law enforcement to actively investigate. Not unexpectedly, recently divorced and windowed women are frequent targets of romance scams.

Federal law enforcement has discovered that many of these types of scams are run out of Nigeria by organized groups, a well-known hotbed for cyber fraud and money laundering schemes. Many others, however, are simply con artists here in the United States looking for easy marks by preying on someone’s kindness, loneliness and vulnerabilities.

While older woman are common targets, the government reported that people between the ages of 18-29 are increasingly targets resulting in a tenfold increase from 2017 to 2021. Netflix documented one such scam in its documentary “The Tinder Swindler”. The film recounted the exploits of Shimon Hayut who held himself out as the son of a famous Russian-Israeli diamond scion. He lavished his victims with first class travel, jewelry and clothing using the proceeds from prior victims. His promotion of his lavish lifestyle on social media – private jets, yachts, expensive watches and clothes – was one way he recruited his victims. Once he lured a woman in, he then fabricated tales of being in danger and needing money for his safety.

These types of schemes are particularly heinous. They not only deprive the victims of often limited resources, they prey on their vulnerabilities, often leaving the victims psychologically scarred and feeling deeply violated. Victims are often too embarrassed to tell family, friend or law enforcement. Some are even left believing that the person who romanced them was genuine and something bad must have happened to him after they lose contact.

Recently, U.S. Attorney’s Offices, FBI and other federal agencies have been aggressively investigating and prosecuting these hideous schemes as often there are multiple victims totaling substantial losses.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Attorneys actively and aggressively protect 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 response to a dramatic surge in car thefts across New Jersey, State Attorney General Matt Platkin announced today that he is reversing a policy that prevented police officers from pursuing stolen cars. In late 2021, Platkin effected a statewide policy that prohibited police from chasing a stolen car unless they suspected it had been used in the most serious of crimes, such as murder, vehicular homicide or kidnapping. Thus, the A.G.’s policy prohibited police from pursuing a car simply because it had been stolen.

After scores of stolen vehicles, and complaints from citizens, local government officials and police, Platkin relented to now permit police to chase a car they think has been stolen.

Last year, Platkin said he wanted to limit police chases because high-speed car chases are dangerous, and can put police officers and innocent drivers alike at risk. It was part of an overhaul led by Governor Murphy to reduce the use of force by police. However, with motor vehicle thefts up 127% from last January state officials recognized that the policy needed to be changed.

In addition, Platkin and Gov. Murphy announced that the state would use $10 million in American Rescue Plan funds to purchase automated license plate recognition technology. The funds will allow local police departments to purchase high-speed, automated camera systems that capture and store computer-readable images of license plates. These license-plate readers will be placed at “strategic locations throughout” towns and the N.J. State Police will also deploy cameras along major highways.

According to the Attorney General’s office, the most commonly stolen luxury vehicles are BMW X6, Land Rover Range Rover Sport, Audi Q5 and BMW X3.

The top vehicles stolen statewide in 2022 include Honda Accord, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Honda CR-V, BMW X5 and BMW 3-Series.

High speed chases are dangerous to the officers involved, as well as innocent drivers and pedestrians that may be injured when the stolen vehicle or the police crash. Police must use common sense, as well as policy guidelines, in their pursuits. More often than not, a stolen vehicle is just that – stolen – not a car being used to commit a serious felony. Many high end cars are stolen from wealthy suburbs because the owners negligently leave the keys in their car in their driveway or unlocked garage. Others are left running at convenience stores while their owners run in for a quick purchase. These types of thefts are crimes of opportunity and can be easily eliminated. Other car thefts involve use of force, specialized electronic equipment or fraudulent schemes that obtain access to vehicles that are much more difficult to combat.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers have extensive experience representing 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.

It’s 6 a.m. or 8 p.m., your doorbell rings and two people are standing outside holding up their badges and credentials. They say they are Special Agents with the FBI or IRS and would like to talk with you for just a few minutes about something important. They ask if they could come in to speak with you privately. Caught off-guard, and not wanting them to think that you have anything to hide, you invite them in (and, of course, you don’t want your neighbors to see them talking to you on your front steps). The agents are “friendly” and just have a few questions to get your input, your side of things, or to serve you with a grand jury subpoena. You decide to talk to them, only for a few minutes, in the comfort of your own home or office. At the end, they thank you for your time and hand you either a grand jury subpoena or a “target letter.”

After they leave, you start to wonder – what did I say? How much did I tell them? Am I in trouble, did I implicate myself or others? You start to look for an attorney. You can’t ask your family or friends who they hired last time the FBI or IRS visited them because you don’t know anyone who ever faced such a situation. So, you scour the internet to find an experienced criminal defense attorney, one with a lot of federal experience because it’s a federal investigation.

The next day you’re in the attorney’s office. After talking to the attorney you realize that what you thought was an innocuous 15 -30 minute chat with the FBI was actually an hour and a half where you told them some things, but not others. You discover that it is a federal crime to lie to the agents. You learn that it doesn’t matter that they didn’t read you your rights, like in the movies, because you weren’t “in custody.” When you tell the lawyer that you only spoke to them because you didn’t want the agents to think you were involved or guilty, the lawyer tells you that the agents already think that you’re involved, that’s why they were at your house to interview you in the first place. You then learn that there were two agents so that the interview was witnessed by two of them for credibility later on if you dispute what you said. You learn that a “target letter” is issued by an Assistant U.S. Attorney because she believes that you are involved in criminal activity and wants you to come in with your attorney to negotiate a plea of guilty. You realize that it was a mistake to say anything to the agents without first talking with an experienced white-collar criminal defense attorney.

So, what should you do in such a situation? The safest course would be to politely tell the agents that while you would like to talk with them, you need to contact your attorney and that he will get back to them. Ask them for their business cards so that you can give the information to your attorney. If they don’t have cards, write down their names, agency and contact information. Do not under any circumstances talk with them about the subject matter of their investigation. After they leave, contact an experienced criminal defense attorney to discuss your rights, potential exposure and your options.

If you did talk with the agents, experienced criminal defense counsel can help you get through the situation and protect your rights going forward. The task will be to mitigate any statements made and develop an overall strategy to succeed.

Stahl Gasiorowski Criminal Defense Lawyers have successfully represented hundreds of individuals under federal and state investigations. 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.

Gurbir Grewal, the New Jersey State Attorney General, recently announced a new policy that will affect the State’s more than 38,000 police officers beginning on December 31, 2021. The change comes after two years of study into racial disparities and other issues involving the use of force in New Jersey. The new rules, which will limit the use of force, ban using police dogs on suspects who are simply resisting arrest and require departments to review every incident where force was used, are focused on protecting the “sanctity of human life.”

The new policy was developed after input from law enforcement, civil rights groups and religious organizations, as well as widespread comments from the public. Certainly, while there will be push back from individual departments and officers, many law enforcement groups have stated that the updated policy is long overdue.

In terms of specifics, all types of force – from physical restraints to discharge of a firearm – must be reported within 24 hours via an online portal. This system is designed to assist departments in tracking an individual officer’s use of force and whether it is at a higher rate than colleagues. It will also help departments determine whether its officers use force disproportionately against minority residents.

Furthermore, officers will be required to explain their use of force, respond to questions, “provide a clear warning that force will be used,” and give the person “a reasonable opportunity” to respond. In addition, the policy provides clearer guidelines and limitations on motor vehicle chases. These types of high speed chases often begin with a simple traffic violation, but can result in injuries or death of innocent third parties.

Training has begun on the new policy and requires a two-day course for each officer in more than 500 police departments. Use of force policies around the country are largely outdated and in need of reform to address the very real issues confronting law enforcement and citizens today. Training, advancements in non-lethal weapons and strategies to de-escalate situations provide tools to limit the unnecessary use of force and facilitate better relations with the communities the officers serve.

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.

At airports throughout the United States, Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) officers are seizing travelers’ cash when coming into and leaving the country for failure to report the cash. Regular international travelers may be familiar with the Customs forms airlines hand out just prior to arrival in the United States. On the form you must declare goods purchased during your international travel, as well as any cash in excess of $10,000. Most people do not realize, however, that you must also declare any cash in excess of $10,000 before you leave the United States, as well.

If travelers are carrying cash in excess of $10,000 and fail to disclose the exact amount, they risk violation of a little-known anti-money laundering law, the Bank Secrecy Act. Their money, if found, is therefore subject to seizure and forfeiture, unless the traveler contests the forfeiture. At times, even when the cash is declared, it is seized anyway as suspected drug funds.

The U.S. government, to put it bluntly, assumes that anyone traveling with a large amount of cash is a criminal. This completely ignores the reality of currency and banking restrictions in other countries, sometimes costly wire transfer fees, personal or business use, and a host of other legitimate reasons people travel with cash.

We have handled a number of cases where business people from Nigeria and various Middle Eastern countries have traveled to the U.S. to buy merchandise or automobiles for sale in their home country. Our clients declared the cash, were stopped by CBP, and then questioned about the source and purpose of the funds. They were eventually allowed to continue with their money, only to be stopped as they exited passport control by DEA agents, who then seized their cash as suspected drug proceeds.

When this happens, the traveler has a crucial decision to make. They must decide whether to formally contest the seizure administratively or through the court system. Both methods are time consuming and can be expensive, as the individual must prove the legitimate source and use of the funds. This often involves acquiring bank records, currency exchange documents, and proper declarations from their country of origin – a sometimes costly – and complicated proposition.

On a typical day, CBP seizes over $300,000 in undeclared or illicit currency. Last year, the total seizures amounted to more than $65 million in cash from international travelers. At times, it seems that the government simply takes advantage of a foreign traveler’s limited time, ignorance of U.S. law, and limited resources to contest the seizure and simply keeps the funds without any substantive evidence of criminal activity.

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.

Press reports of late have revealed that former Army Lieutenant-General and National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and former Trump Foreign Policy Advisor George Papadopoulos pled guilty to making false statements to government agents. Federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, prohibits a person “in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch” of the federal government from “knowingly and willfully” (1) falsifying, concealing or covering up “by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;” (2) making any materially “false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation;” or (3) making or using “any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry …”.

This statute applies when someone is interviewed by the FBI or other federal agent, without being advised of his rights or being placed under oath, as in a deposition or court proceeding. There is no pre-warning required or given. In fact, these situations usually occur under a “friendly- type” interview, or when an agent wants to ask “just a few questions” to clear up an issue.

Remember Martha Stewart? While investigating a potential insider trading scheme involving Stewart and her financial advisor, Stewart spoke with federal agents and it was later determined that she lied. While she escaped the stock fraud charges, she went to prison for making false statements during the investigation. More recently, Flynn, Papadopoulos and many others have not been charged with the crime for which they were being investigated, but have faced federal prison for lying to investigators.

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 rgs@sgdefenselaw.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.

Violent police encounters and police officer involved shootings have dominated the national press for some time. Such encounters have led to mass protests; much-needed examinations of police policies, procedures and training; and pleas for better relations between the police and the communities they serve. One result has been the call for body worn video cameras that record encounters between police and citizens in real time. While not perfect, these body worn cameras can provide valuable evidence of what transpired at a given moment during what may have been a high stress encounter.

Such technology has been on display for many years. We have all witnessed the value-added, positive results in professional sports of the instant replay. When a referee’s call is disputed, within a matter of seconds multiple camera angles can be reviewed to determine whether the eyewitness – the official – made the correct call. Whether it’s a first down or a penalty in football or a 118 mph serve in tennis, today’s cameras with multiple angles and slow motion reduce human error. The instant replay provides a more accurate review of a fast-paced situation on the field.

Advances in police work have allowed similar reviews. For more than a decade, many police departments have video cameras mounted in their patrol cars that record motor vehicle stops, car chases and DWI field balance tests at the side of the road. Time and again these videos have proven their worth in confirming the report and testimony of the officer, or refuting it. In many cases, the video and audio recordings have been the “best evidence” of what actually transpired. These car-mounted cameras, however, can only record a limited field of view from a car and only when the officer positions the car stop or encounter with the person in the camera’s view.

Since many more police encounters occur beyond a car stop and the range of car mounted video cameras, the importance of body cameras has become self-evident. Technology has advanced so that cost-effective, light weight, portable and reliable body cameras can be worn by the average police officer. These cameras have the ability to record both video and audio of an encounter as in happens. Thus, the movements, actions and words of the officer, the person being questioned and the surrounding crowd can be memorialized for later review by both the defense attorney and the prosecutor. The National Association of Criminal Defense lawyers (NACDL), a highly- respected organization, recently released results of its Body Camera Task Force. The review examined the use of body worn cameras over a two-year period. The review resulted in a number of recommendations to enhance the accountability, transparency and evidentiary availability for use in court cases. Standardization of policies and procedures for the use of body worn cameras will enhance their reliability and potential use in reviewing many encounters. And while body worn cameras will not be dispositive in every case, as they can only capture certain angles and moments in time, they will certainly add valuable information to independent views of unfolding, stressful encounters between the police and civilians. Systematic use of these cameras will help insure the safety of both the police and the public. When both sides are aware that they are being recorded, actions may be tempered and behavior may be more civil. A number of studies have demonstrated that when body cameras are worn the number of complaints against the police have dramatically reduced and the use of force has substantially decreased.

Opposition to body worn cameras by some members of law enforcement is seemingly a combination of issues of privacy, not wanting every encounter to be scrutinized by supervisors and citizen complaint boards, and a general reluctance to change. Hopefully reason will prevail and body worn cameras will be viewed by all as another advancement for the safety and protection of the public and police.

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. 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 rgs@sgdefenselaw.com.