11/15/11 3:03 PMCriminal and Traffic Cases Decided by NJ Courts

Page 1 of 7http://www.njlaws.com/criminal_and_traffic_cases.html?id=186&a=

Kenneth Vercammen & AssociatesA Law Office with Experienced Attorneys for Your New Jersey Legal Needs

2053 Woodbridge Ave.Edison NJ 08817

732-572-05001-800-655-2977

Personal Injury and Criminalon Weekends 732-261-4005

Princeton Area68 South Main St.

Cranbury, NJ 08512By Appointment OnlyToll Free 800-655-2977

Criminal and TrafficCases Decided by NJ

Courts

Selected by Kenneth Vercammen, Esq.

1. Defendant does not have burden to provediscrimination in stop . State v. Segars 172 NJ 481(2002). The Municipal Court of Ridgewood erred inruling that the defendant in this case, who wascharged with operating a motor vehicle while hisdriving privileges were suspended, failed to sustainhis burden of proving discriminatory targeting on thepart of the officer, who ran a Mobile Data Terminalcheck on the defendant¹s license plate.

2. Phone call creates Jurisdiction in DV. A.R. v.M.R. 351 NJ Super. 512 (App Div. 2002) The NewJersey courts may exercise personal jurisdiction overa defendant who subjected his victim to domesticviolence in another state, threatened to pursue her ifshe left him, and attempted to contact her in NewJersey by telephone when she came here for safety. Source: 11 NJL 1259

3. Stalking can be putting secret camera inestranged wife¹s bedroom. H.E.S. v. J.C.S. ___ NJSuper. __ (App Div. A-719-00T3, Decided March21, 2002). Plaintiff¹s proof regarding the hidden

Search Website

FOR POTENTIAL CLIENTS TOCONTACT US DURING NON-BUSINESS HOURS, PLEASE FILL OUTTHE FORM.

Name:

Cell Phone:

E-Mail Address

If You Do Not Include a Complete E-Mail Address, Verizon will not ForwardYour Contact Form to the Law Office.

Details of the Case

Agree

By typing " agree" into the box you are confirming thatyou wish to send your information to the Law Office ofKenneth Vercammen

Change ImageWrite the characters in the imageabove

11/15/11 3:03 PMCriminal and Traffic Cases Decided by NJ Courts

Page 2 of 7http://www.njlaws.com/criminal_and_traffic_cases.html?id=186&a=

surveillance equipment in her bedroom does notsatisfy the elements of harassment because it doesnot establish that the defendant had the purpose toharass and to alarm or seriously annoy her; however, it does establish the predicate offense ofstalking because it constitutes a course of conductthat would cause a reasonable person to fear bodilyinjury, and the trial judge properly entered the finalrestraining order based on the predicate offense. Source: 268 NJL 49

4. Sup MT granted where DV hearing officer didnot take details. State v. Johnson 352 NJ Super. 15(App Div. 2002). Since the purpose of a searchwarrant issued pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:25-28j is toprotect the victim of domestic violence from furtherviolence, not to discover evidence of criminality,³reasonable cause,² as opposed to ³probablecause,² is the barometer by which theappropriateness of it¹s issuance is to be judged; thejudge must find reasonable cause to believe that: (1)the defendant has committed an act of domesticviolence; (2) he possesses or has access to a firearmor other weapon delineated in N.J.S.A. 2C:39-1r;and that (3) his possession or access to the weaponposes a heightened risk of injury to the victim--additionally, a description of the weapon and itsbelieved location must be reasonably specified in thewarrant. In this case, although there may have beensufficient facts and information available to satisfythe reasonable-cause requirements outlined here, theprocedures were insufficient to establish theirexistence in the record; plaintiff testified before theDomestic Violence Hearing Officer (DVHO), not theFamily Part Judge, who received no writtensummary, transcript or affidavit that would enable ananalysis of whether there was reasonable cause tobelieve that defendant, her husband, had access to ahandgun and, if so, whether that access posed adanger or heightened risk of injury to plaintiff, andthe judge did not ³state with specificity the reasonsfor and scope of the search and seizure authorized bythe order,² N.J.S.A. 2C:25-28j; even in the recordbefore the DVHO there is an absence of anytestimony by plaintiff that she was in fear ofdefendant or, more particularly, that his access to aweapon created additional risk of harm to her;

Submit Clear

Kenneth Vercammen was theMiddlesex County Bar MunicipalCourt Attorney of the Year

11/15/11 3:03 PMCriminal and Traffic Cases Decided by NJ Courts

Page 3 of 7http://www.njlaws.com/criminal_and_traffic_cases.html?id=186&a=

accordingly, the Law Division properly granteddefendant¹s motion to suppress the marijuana thatthe police found in his bedroom pursuant to thesearch (which revealed no gun). Source: 168N.J.L.J. 1295

5. School can¹t require drug testing of chess clubstudents. Joye v. Hunterdon Central 353 NJ Super.600 (App Div. 2002). The United States SupremeCourt held in Earls that the random testing ofstudents involved in extracurricular activities doesnot violate a privacy interest recognized by theFederal Constitution, and, in the absence of anysupport in the history, language, or intent of the NewJersey Constitution, there is no basis for concludingthat it warrants a different approach; because theparties¹ briefs developed only constitutional issues,the matter is remanded to permit plaintiffs to proceedon any ground not reached by the trial judge, whoshould also consider inviting the Attorney General toparticipate in deciding whether a local board ofeducation has the authority to implement drug testingin the absence of legislation permitting it orstatewide standards promulgated by the Legislatureor the Department of Education. Source: 169N.J.L.J. 745

6. 4th Amendment does not require police to advisebus passenger of right to refuse search. US v.Drayton ___ US __(US Supreme Court, No. 01-631,Decided June 17, 2002). The FourthAmendment does not require police officers toadvise bus passengers of their right not to cooperateand to refuse consent to searches. FourthAmendment permits officers to approach buspassengers at random to ask questions and requesttheir consent to searches, provided a reasonableperson would feel free to decline the requests orotherwise terminate the encounter, id. at 436. Thecourt identified as ³partially worth noting² thefactors that the officer, although obviously armed,did not unholster his gun or use it in a threateningway, and that he advised respondent passenger thathe could refuse consent to a search. Relying on thislast factor, the Eleventh Circuit erroneously adoptedwhat is in effect a per se rule that evidence obtainedduring suspicionless drug interdictions on buses must

11/15/11 3:03 PMCriminal and Traffic Cases Decided by NJ Courts

Page 4 of 7http://www.njlaws.com/criminal_and_traffic_cases.html?id=186&a=

be kept suppressed unless the officers have advisedpassengers of their right not to cooperate and torefuse consent to a search. Source: 168 N.J.L.J.1272

7. Exigent circumstances required private warrantlesssearch of home. Kirk v. Louisiana ___ US __ (USSupreme Court, No. 01-8419, Decided June 24,2002). Court of Appeals¹ conclusion thatwarrantless search of a home was constitutional,without deciding whether exigent circumstanceswere present, violates Us v. Payton doctrine that the³firm line at the entrance to the house...may notreasonably be searched without a warrant.² Source: 169 N.J.L.J. 236

8. Eviction permitted in public housing if familymember engages in drug activity. Dept. of Housingv. Rucker ___ US __(US Supreme Court, No. 00-1770, Decided March 26, 2002). Statute¹s plainlanguage unambiguously requires lease terms thatgive local public housing authorities the discretion toterminate the lease of a tenant when a member of thehousehold or a guest engages in drug-relatedactivity, regardless of whether the tenant knew, orshould have known, of the drug-related activity. Source: 168 N.J.L.J. 58

9. Expert testing found unreliable regarding policeinterrogation. State v. Free 351 NJ Super. 205 (AppDiv. 2002). The premises of defendant¹s expert, a social psychologist, about the effects in general ofpolice interrogation techniques on the credibility ofconfessions have not gained general acceptance inother jurisdictions and, therefore, the expertopinions offered in his report are inadmissible as notscientifically reliable, and the trial court erred inadmitting them; also, the proposed evidence failedto satisfy N.J.R.E. 702¹s requirement that thenature of offered expert testimony must be such as³will assist trier of fact to understand the evidenceor to determine a fact in issue.² Source: 168N.J.L.J. 69

10. Civil- No reliable scientific foundation that lowimpact cannot cause herniated disk. Suanez v.Egeland 353 NJ Super. 191 (App Div. A-3302-00T1,Decided July 11, 2002). There is no reliable

11/15/11 3:03 PMCriminal and Traffic Cases Decided by NJ Courts

Page 5 of 7http://www.njlaws.com/criminal_and_traffic_cases.html?id=186&a=

scientific foundation for a purported expert opiniontestimony by a biomechanical engineer that a low-impact automobile accident cannot cause a herniateddisk.

11. Evidence suppress where entry unjustified. Statev. Lashley 353 NJ Super. 405 (App Div. 2002). The evidence must be suppressed and theconvictions based on it reversed here, where cocaineand packaging paraphernalia were observed by thepolice upon their warrantless entry of defendant¹sdwelling, which was not only unlawful in theabsence of both probable cause and exigentcircumstances but was unannounced andaccomplished with the aid of a steel ram, a methodof entry unjustified in the record; the subsequentapplication for a search warrant referred to the earlierobservations, and the warrant, pursuant to whichadditional evidence was seized, must be invalidatedunder the State Constitution, if not the Federal,because of the unlawful warrantless forced entry;Chaney is distinguished. Source: 169 N.J.L.J. 557

New law- DWI S of L moved to 90 days. P.L.2002, c.57 Extends time to file complaint fordrunk driving from 30 to 90 days.

Receive free NJ Laws Email newsletterwith current laws and cases

GO

Telephone Consultation Program New Article of the Week

Meet with an experienced Attorney to handle your important legal needs.Please call the office to schedule a confidential "in Office" consultation.

Attorneys are not permitted to provide legal advice by email.

Kenneth Vercammens Law office represents individuals chargedwith criminal, drug offenses, and serious traffic violationsthroughout New Jersey. Our office helps people with traffic/municipal court tickets including drivers charged with Driving WhileIntoxicated, Refusal and Driving While Suspended.

Kenneth Vercammen was the NJ State Bar Municipal Court Attorneyof the Year and past president of the Middlesex County Municipal

11/15/11 3:03 PMCriminal and Traffic Cases Decided by NJ Courts

Page 6 of 7http://www.njlaws.com/criminal_and_traffic_cases.html?id=186&a=

Prosecutors Association.

Criminal and Motor vehicle violations can cost you. You will have topay fines in court or receive points on your drivers license. Anaccumulation of too many points, or certain moving violations mayrequire you to pay expensive surcharges to the N.J. DMV [Divisionof Motor Vehicles] or have your license suspended. Dont give up!The Law Office of Kenneth Vercammen can provide experiencedattorney representation for criminal motor vehicle violations.

When your job or drivers license is in jeopardy or you are facingthousands of dollars in fines, DMV surcharges and car insuranceincreases, you need excellent legal representation. The leastexpensive attorney is not always the answer. Schedule anappointment if you need experienced legal representation in atraffic/municipal court matter.

Our website www.njlaws.com provides information on trafficoffenses we can be retained to represent people. Our website alsoprovides details on jail terms for traffic violations and car insuranceeligibility points. Car insurance companies increase rates or dropcustomers based on moving violations.

Contact the Law Office ofKenneth Vercammen &

Associates, P.C.at 732-572-0500

for an appointment.The Law Office cannot provide legal advice or answer legal questions over

the phone or by email. Please call the Law office and schedule aconfidential "in office" consultation.

11/15/11 3:03 PMCriminal and Traffic Cases Decided by NJ Courts

Page 7 of 7http://www.njlaws.com/criminal_and_traffic_cases.html?id=186&a=

Disclaimer This web site is purely a public resource of general New Jersey information (intended, but notpromised or guaranteed to be correct, complete, or up-to-date). It is not intended be a source of legal

advice, do not rely on information at this site or others in place of the advice of competent counsel. TheLaw Office of Kenneth Vercammen complies with the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct. This website is not sponsored or associated with any particular linked entity unless specifically stated. The existenceof any particular link is simply intended to imply potential interest to the reader, inclusion of a link should

not be construed as an endorsement.

2011 Kenneth Vercammen & Associates, P.C.