|
25 Jul
|
Posted by Mollo Law Firm
|
In the near future, an ignition interlock device may be as standard a feature on a new car as windshield wipers and climate control. Toyota and Nissan have already announced they are exploring this technology as a standard safety feature in all vehicles. If Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and the companies that stand to make millions in profits get their way, we may all have to blow into a device to start our cars in the near future, regardless of whether we have ever been convicted or even accused of drinking and driving.
More and more states, including New Jersey, require the ignition of an ignition interlock device for purposes of reinstatement in order for a person with a driver’s license revocation to reinstate his or her driver’s license early after a DUI conviction or administrative revocation based on operating a vehicle with excessive alcohol content.
Currently in New Jersey, an ignition interlock device is not require if a first-time offender is revoked for refusing to take a test or if he or she did not have a BAC at or over 0.17. However, even with a lower BAC, a first-time offender is required to install and maintain an ignition interlock device for at least four months in order to reinstate his or her license early.
Currently, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NTTSA) and other organizations are investigating technology that would come equipped in all vehicles to prevent an intoxicated driver from starting a vehicle. These devices would not just be required for a person convicted of a driving and driving offense, but will come in all motor vehicles in the United States.
Some of the technology being investigated other than ignition interlock devices are:
Tissue spectroscopy, which uses infrared light to measure alcohol levels in tissue beneath the skin. With this device, a person places a forearm or a finger on a sensor pad, which can detect both a person’s identity and the levels of certain chemicals in the body, such as alcohol.
Ocular measurement technology, which consists of an indicator of alcohol or other drug impairment by recording and analyze a driver’s eye movements, including their percent of eye closure(PERCLOS), tunnel vision and frequent or extended glances away from the road.
Trandermal technology, which detects a person’s BAC based on his or her perspiration and used to estimate BAC. This is similar to a SCRAM (Secure Continuous Alcohol Monitor), which is a device is strapped to an offender’s ankle while on probation to monitor the user. Technology currently in development can produce a device that is small enough to be worn on the wrist or even embedded in a vehicle’s steering wheel.
Ignition interlock devices are not just a thing of the future; many drivers in New Jersey currently have these devices installed as part of a restricted driver’s license. Experienced New Jersey DUI attorney Al Mollo Esq. from Mollo Law Firm will fight for the best possible result for each and every client facing a DUI charge in New Jersey. If you have been charged with a DUI in NJ, call Mollo Law Firm, at (732) 747-1844 or for a FREE and confidential consultation.
Click to Watch Al Mollo on TV
| Category: DWI Law | Tag: Al Mollo Esq., DUI Defense, DUI Laws, DUI News, DUI Prevention, DUI Revocations, Mollo Law Firm, NJ DUI Attorneys |
|
23 Jul
|
Posted by Mollo Law Firm
|
Breath testing machines are commonly used to estimate a person’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC) before an arrest. New Jersey law enforcement officers typically use an Intoxilyzer 5000, which is a particular brand of breath-testing machine.
In the Intoxilyzer:
–> A lamp generates a broadband (multiple-wavelength) IR beam.
The broadband IR beam passes through the sample chamber and is focused by a lens onto a spinning filter wheel.
–> The filter wheel contains narrow band filters specific for the wavelengths of the bonds in ethanol. The light passing through each filter is detected by the photocell, where it is converted to an electrical pulse.
–> The electrical pulse is relayed to the microprocessor, which interprets the pulses and calculates the BAC based on the absorption of infrared light.
All breath testing machines work on the principle that alcohol, once it’s ingested, enters the bloodstream through the walls of the digestive tract. Once it’s there, the alcohol travels with the blood throughout the body, including into the lungs, where the blood drops off carbon dioxide and picks up oxygen as you breathe. Some of the alcohol in your blood leaves the body as you breathe out, along with the carbon dioxide.
The Intoxilyzer uses infrared (IR) spectroscopy to sense the number of alcohol molecules in a breath sample. Since alcohol molecules have a different weight and shape than carbon dioxide or any other molecule in human breath, the IR spectroscope inside the Intoxilyzer machine can be calibrated to “see” these molecules while ignoring others in the sample. The machine then measures the number of alcohol molecules it “sees” against the total sample size to determine what percentage of the sample is alcohol. This number estimates the percentage of the test-taker’s blood that is alcohol. A person with a BAC percentage of 0.08 or higher is prohibited from driving under New Jersey law.
The Intoxilyzer is a piece of precision equipment that must be calibrated, tested, and maintained regularly in order to give accurate test results. If you have been charged with drunk driving in New Jersey, the experienced New Jersey DUI lawyers at Mollo Law Firm, can help you build an aggressive defense that fights for the best possible outcome in your case. For a FREE confidential consultation, call us today at 732-747-1844.
| Category: DWI Law | Tag: Al Mollo Esq., BAC, DUI, DWI, intoxicated drivers, Intoxilyzer, Mollo Law Firm, New Jersey DUI attorney, NJ, Red Bank |
|
22 Jul
|
Posted by Mollo Law Firm
|
DUI checkpoint tonight 11-3am rt 35 north in Neptune – Pass It On.
Call BEER CAB TAXI 732-757-7856 and save thousands of dollars and hassle. Plus a few dollars!
If you do not listen beforehand and get in trouble with the law for DUI/DWI you need an experienced lawyer to handle your case.
Mollo Law Firm is committed to defending clients accused of criminal, DWI and traffic offenses in New Jersey.
Call our office for a free consultation. We will give you as much time as you need to discuss and; more important, understand your case. We are committed to defending people charged with criminal, DWI and traffic matters.
This is a different kind of law firm. If you need a New Jersey criminal attorney, DWI attorney or traffic court attorney we can help. Every prospective client is entitled to a free consultation, a free report outlining the legal issues and fees and unlimited office meetings to discuss your case. We will explain your case is a comprehensive way, not in confusing legal talk- but in straight talk you will understand. Most important, you are promised to be treated with the dignity and respect your deserve.
Our job is to ensure justice for the accused. We understand that if you have been charged with a a criminal offense, DWI or traffic violation and have been subjected to arrest, it is likely that you are going through a traumatic time in your life. You have suffered through the unpleasant experience of of roadside field sobriety tests, been handcuffed, finger printed, and, in many ways, treated like a “criminal.” You are also likely anticipating the accompanying embarrassment and sting associated with a arrest.
New Jersey criminal, DWI and traffic law is continually evolving. As such, you need a lawyer who has the skill, experience, capacity and interest to remain on the cutting edge of this rapidly-developing area of the law.
This law firm has handled thousands of cases in all of New Jersey’s counties. Each year, we appear on hundreds of matters. We handle cases at every level in the New Jersey Court system, and Albert Mollo Esq. is one of few attorneys who have argued before the New Jersey Supreme Court.
Our obligation is to hold the State to its burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As New Jersey criminal, DWI and traffic attorneys, we vigorously defend our clients. We promise to painstakingly examine all the evidence against you. We promise to explain the law and charges against you in a way that you can understand, so that we can make the best decisions concerning how to move forward.
| Category: Current Events | Tag: Al Mollo Esq., DUI, DWI, Dwi checkpoint, Jersey Shore DWI, Mollo Law Firm, Neptune, NJ, NJ DWI attorney |
|
19 Jul
|
Posted by Mollo Law Firm
|
About New Jersey Theft
New Jersey theft crimes are among the most serious cases. Police and prosecutors aggressively pursue convictions for theft crimes. Theft crimes encompass a broad range of criminal offenses, including misappropriating funds, stealing property or committing fraud.
The manner in which a theft crime is carried out, as well as whether it is violent or non-violent in nature, will often influence the way in which the case is prosecuted. Some theft crimes, such as robbery or burglary, are committed with force or violence. Shoplifting, on the other hand, is carried out in a more subtle manner with the hopes of not even being noticed. Fraud is yet another form of theft that involves deceit to carry out the offense. In some situations, fraud is also referred to as “theft by deception.”
Regardless of the nature of the offense, a theft conviction can have a significant impact on a defendant’s future. Theft is a crime of moral turpitude. That means it is a crime that reflect on one’s character. As a result, convictions can have lifelong consequences. Indeed, a theft conviction can result in a permanent criminal record. Since employers routinely conduct background checks, a theft conviction can severely limit employment opportunities.
Click here to read some of New Jersey’s theft statutes.
[N.J.S. 2C:20-3. ] Theft by unlawful taking or disposition
a. Movable property. A person is guilty of theft if he unlawfully takes, or exercises unlawful control over, movable property of another with purpose to deprive him thereof.
b. Immovable property. A person is guilty of theft if he unlawfully transfers any interest in immovable property of another with purpose to benefit himself or another not entitled thereto.
L.1978, c. 95, s. 2C:20-3, eff. Sept. 1, 1979.
[N.J.S. 2C:20-4.] Theft by deception
A person is guilty of theft if he purposely obtains property of another by deception. A person deceives if he purposely:
Creates or reinforces a false impression, including false impressions as to law, value, intention or other state of mind, and including, but not limited to, a false impression that the person is soliciting or collecting funds for a charitable purpose; but deception as to a person’s intention to perform a promise shall not be inferred from the fact alone that he did not subsequently perform the promise;
b. Prevents another from acquiring information which would affect his judgment of a transaction; or
c. Fails to correct a false impression which the deceiver previously created or reinforced, or which the deceiver knows to be influencing another to whom he stands in a fiduciary or confidential relationship.
The term “deceive” does not, however, include falsity as to matters having no pecuniary significance, or puffing or exaggeration by statements unlikely to deceive ordinary persons in the group addressed.
L.1978, c.95; amended 2003, c.43.
[N.J.S. 2C:20-5.] Theft by extortion
A person is guilty of theft by extortion if he purposely and unlawfully obtains property of another by extortion. A person extorts if he purposely threatens to:
a. Inflict bodily injury on or physically confine or restrain anyone or commit any other criminal offense;
b. Accuse anyone of an offense or cause charges of an offense to be instituted against any person;
c. Expose or publicize any secret or any asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to impair his credit or business repute;
d. Take or withhold action as an official, or cause an official to take or withhold action;
e. Bring about or continue a strike, boycott or other collective action, if the property is not demanded or received for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act;
f. Testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another’s legal claim or defense; or
g. Inflict any other harm which would not substantially benefit the actor but which is calculated to materially harm another person.
It is an affirmative defense to prosecution based on paragraphs b, c, d or f that the property obtained was honestly claimed as restitution or indemnification for harm done in the circumstances or as lawful compensation for property or services.
L.1978, c. 95, s. 2C:20-5, eff. Sept. 1, 1979. Amended by L.1979, c. 178, s. 34, eff. Sept. 1, 1979.
[N.J.S. 2C:20-6.] Theft of property lost, mislaid, or delivered by mistake
A person who comes into control of property of another that he knows to have been lost, mislaid, or delivered under a mistake as to the nature or amount of the property or the identity of the recipient is guilty of theft if, knowing the identity of the owner and with purpose to deprive said owner thereof, he converts the property to his own use.
L.1978, c. 95, s. 2C:20-6, eff. Sept. 1, 1979.]
Fines & Monetary Penalties
In New Jersey, penalties for theft crimes are directly related to the amount allegedly stolen.
| Value Stolen | Criminal Degree | Potential Jail Term | |
| $75,000 or more | 2nd Degree Crime | Up to 10 years in prison | |
| More than $500 and less than $75,000 | 3rd Degree Crime | Up to 5 years in prison | |
| More than $200 up to $500 | 4th Degree Crime | Up to 18 months in jail | |
| Less than $200 | Disorderly Persons Offense | Up to 6 months in jail |
Furthermore, the nature of the property stolen can also increase the potential penalties. For instance, theft can be a Second Degree crime if the property is taken by extortion, considered a dangerous or controlled substance greater than 1 kilogram, or involves human remains. Similarly, theft can be a Third Degree crime if the property is a gun, automobile, boat, airplane, pet, taken from the body of the victim (as in from their pocket or hand), taken by threat, social benefits (such as Social Security, TANF, food stamps) or a blank prescription.
| Category: Laws & Offenses Explained | Tag: Al Mollo Esq., fraud, misappropriating funds, Mollo Law Firm, stealing property, theft |
|
18 Jul
|
Posted by Mollo Law Firm
|
Can somebody explain me difference between proof and evidence in the legal english? As i understand it, proof has more abstract meaning, while evidence is more practical.
Re: proof and evidence
It is not really a difference of abstract versus practical. Evidence is a fact or situation that suggests something might be true. Proof is a fact or situation that removes all doubt. Sometimes more than one evidence can add up to proof.
Fingerprints are proof that a person touched something. If I find your jacket in my car, it is evidence that you were there, but not proof. If the police find lots of money in my house, it might be evidence that I robbed a bank. A videotape showing me at the bank holding the gun would prove that I robbed a bank.
Be wary of lax standards for proof. We all want to know things absolutely, which causes us to tend to misinterpret mere evidence as proof.
Proof comes from a premise or premisses and an argument. For instance:
(1) All cats have fur.
(2) Fluffy is a cat.
(3) If Fluffy is a cat, then Fluffy has fur.
(1) and (2) are premisses. (3) is an argument. If the premisses are true and the argument is reasonable, we have proof that Fluffy has fur.
The problem usually is trying to establish that your premisses are true. Events occur in time. To actually say that an event happened requires evidence of its occurance. Evidence can be eyewitness accounts and the current effects of the event’s occurance. For instance we may have:
(A) A live, furless cat with a collar bearing the name tag “Fluffy.”
(B) a pile of white curly hair near the cat.
(C) a hair clipper.
(D) a 10 year old boy with bleeding scratches all over his forearms. He denies having shaved the fur off the cat.
(E) a 7 year old girl who claims to have seen the boy shaving the fur off the the cat.
We might:
(F) finger print the boy. We lift finger prints off of the clipper. They match.
(G) call in a veterinarian. She says the scratches on the boy’s are are consistant with the scratches that the cat could have made.
(H) test the blood on the cat’s claws. The DNA of the blood on the cat’s claws matches the boy’s DNA.
(I) test the DNA of Cat. The DNA of the pile of curly hair on the floor matches the cat’s DNA.
Items (A) through (I) are evidence. But until someone puts together a logical, inductive argument using the evidence as premisses, there’s no proof that Fluffy ever had any fur or that the boy shaved it off.
| Category: Law FAQ's | Tag: abstract meaning, Al Mollo Esq., evidence, Mollo Law Firm, practical, Proof |
|
18 Jul
|
Posted by Mollo Law Firm
|
New Jersey DWI Court Process
While every drunk driving case in unique, the process in each case is largely the same. DWI cases in New Jersey are governed by the New Jersey Court Rules. As a result, there is a specific process for all DWI cases in New Jersey.
Arraignment
After an individual is arrested for DWI, he or she must be arraigned by a municipal court Judge. This is primarily a procedural formality and nothing substantive typically happens at an Arraignment. The Arraignment is an opportunity for the Judge to advise the defendant of his or her rights, responsibilities and the potential penalties associated with the DWI charge. The defendant also enters a plea of “guilty” or “not guilty” at this time. An application may also be made for the public defender, if the defendant is unable to afford private legal counsel. Finally, if a defendant is already represented by a lawyer prior to the Arraignment, the Court Rules permit that lawyer to waive the client’s appearance at the DWI Arraignment.
Discovery
After the Arraignment, the DWI attorney will request discovery from the municipal court prosecutor. The prosecutor represents the State of New Jersey in the DWI case against the defendant. The State is required to give the defendant’s DWI lawyer all relevant discovery. In essence, discovery means the evidence the State has against the defendant. Discovery includes police reports, narratives, witness statements, video recordings of the arrest and/or sobriety tests, audio recordings, scientific documents related to the breath-testing machine, photographs and any other evidence the State may use in the case. An experienced DWI attorney can review all of this discovery and begin to craft a strategy for legal defense of the DWI charges. Indeed, this is one of the most important phases of a DWI case.
Status Conferences
The court will schedule several regular status conferences throughout the DWI case. These conferences are an opportunity for the DWI lawyer to meet with the municipal prosecutor and discuss the case. Often the DWI attorney and prosecutor will address issues involving discovery. Sometimes the defense lawyer and prosecutor will meet with the Judge to talk about the case. Generally, DWI defendants are required to appear for all status conferences.
Motions
Sometimes it becomes necessary for a DWI lawyer to file motions in the municipal court. A Motion is a formal application to the Court and is the way an attorney seeks particular relief. Motions can be made on a wide variety of issues, including production of discovery, suppression of evidence, barring testimony and dismissal. As a general rule, Motions in municipal court are made orally.
Plea Bargaining
A municipal prosecutor is prohibited by the New Jersey Court Rules from plea bargaining a DWI charge. This means that prosecutors rarely dismiss a DWI charge unless they believe that the DWI charge cannot be won at trial. For a prosecutor to believe that a DWI charge cannot be won at trial, a DWI defense lawyer must convince the prosecutor that there are problems with the State’s case. This will often result in a dismissal of the charge or downgrade to a less serious offense.
Trials
If a DWI case cannot be resolved it will proceed to trial. DWI trials are conducted in the municipal court in which the DWI ticket was issued. A municipal court Judge will preside over the DWI trial. Defendants charged with drunk driving in New Jersey are not entitled to a trial by jury. During the trial, the State has the burden to prove all of the elements of the DWI charge against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence and witness testimony is introduced by the state and DWI defense lawyer. Upon completion of the trial, the municipal court Judge will decide if the State proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt and issue a verdict.
Appeals
If a defendant is convicted of a DWI, he or she has a right to appeal. Appealing the conviction may reduce the sentence or may have the charge removed from the record altogether. An appeal is not a retrial. Rather, it is a reexamination of your case by a higher court to determine if your trial was conducted in a fair manner. Because DWI law is so complex, it is in a defendant’s best interest to hire an attorney who focuses exclusively on cases of this nature. Time is of the essence during an appeal. The law limits the time you can appeal a DWI conviction. In New Jersey, appeal from a DWI conviction is made to the New Jersey Superior Court. The DWI appeal is venued in the county in which the conviction occurred. If the defendant loses the DWI appeal in the New Jersey Superior Court, he or she can appeal to the New Jersey Appellate Division. If the defendant loses the DWI appeal in the New Jersey Appellate Division, he or she can appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which is the highest court in New Jersey. Below is a chart demonstrating the court hierarchy for DWI appeals:
NJ Supreme Court |
|
NJ Appellate Division |
|
NJ Superior Court |
|
| Municipal Court |
| Category: Laws & Offenses Explained | Tag: Al Mollo Esq., Arraignment, Discovery, DWI, DWI attorney, Mollo Law Firm, New Jersey DWI laws |
|
18 Jul
|
Posted by Mollo Law Firm
|
NJ Shoplifting Offenses Explained
The New Jersey Shoplifting Law is contained at N.J.S.A. 2C:20-11. The grade of criminal offense that a shoplifting charge will trigger is contingent upon the value of the merchandise allegedly stolen.
About New Jersey Shoplifting
Shoplifting is type of theft crime that occurs when a person enters a store and steals goods with no intention of paying. In most cases, shoplifting is discovered once the person tries to exit the store and security or an alarm detector detects merchandise that has not been purchased.
Many people charged with New Jersey shoplifting crimes are good, productive citizens who made an unfortunate mistake. These people deserve a second chance. Additionally, not everyone accused of shoplifting is guilty. As such, it is imperative that you have an experienced New Jersey shoplifting attorney on your side.
[2C:20-11] Shoplifting
A. Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
(1) ”Shopping cart” means those push carts of the type or types which are commonly provided by grocery stores, drug stores or other retail mercantile establishments for the use of the public in transporting commodities in stores and markets and, incidentally, from the stores to a place outside the store;
(2) ”Store or other retail mercantile establishment” means a place where merchandise is displayed, held, stored or sold or offered to the public for sale;
03) ”Merchandise” means any goods, chattels, foodstuffs or wares of any type and description, regardless of the value thereof;
(4) ”Merchant” means any owner or operator of any store or other retail mercantile establishment, or any agent, servant, employee, lessee, consignee, officer, director, franchisee or independent contractor of such owner or proprietor;
(5) ”Person” means any individual or individuals, including an agent, servant or employee of a merchant where the facts of the situation so require;
(6) ”Conceal” means to conceal merchandise so that, although there may be some notice of its presence, it is not visible through ordinary observation;
(7) ”Full retail value” means the merchant’s stated or advertised price of the merchandise;
(8) ”Premises of a store or retail mercantile establishment” means and includes but is not limited to, the retail mercantile establishment; any common use areas in shopping centers and all parking areas set aside by a merchant or on behalf of a merchant for the parking of vehicles for the convenience of the patrons of such retail mercantile establishment;
(9) ”Under-ring” means to cause the cash register or other sale recording device to reflect less than the full retail value of the merchandise;
(10) “Antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure” means any item or device which is designed, manufactured, modified, or altered to defeat any antishoplifting or inventory control device;
(11) “Organized retail theft enterprise” means any association of two or more persons who engage in the conduct of or are associated for the purpose of effectuating the transfer or sale of shoplifted merchandise.
B. Shoplifting. Shoplifting shall consist of any one or more of the following acts:
(1) For any person purposely to take possession of, carry away, transfer or cause to be carried away or transferred, any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale by any store or other retail mercantile establishment with the intention of depriving the merchant of the possession, use or benefit of such merchandise or converting the same to the use of such person without paying to the merchant the full retail value thereof.
(2) For any person purposely to conceal upon his person or otherwise any merchandise offered for sale by any store or other retail mercantile establishment with the intention of depriving the merchant of the processes, use or benefit of such merchandise or converting the same to the use of such person without paying to the merchant the value thereof.
(3) For any person purposely to alter, transfer or remove any label, price tag or marking indicia of value or any other markings which aid in determining value affixed to any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale by any store or other retail mercantile establishment and to attempt to purchase such merchandise personally or in consort with another at less than the full retail value with the intention of depriving the merchant of all or some part of the value thereof.
(4) For any person purposely to transfer any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale by any store or other retail merchandise establishment from the container in or on which the same shall be displayed to any other container with intent to deprive the merchant of all or some part of the retail value thereof.
(5) For any person purposely to under-ring with the intention of depriving the merchant of the full retail value thereof.
(6) For any person purposely to remove a shopping cart from the premises of a store or other retail mercantile establishment without the consent of the merchant given at the time of such removal with the intention of permanently depriving the merchant of the possession, use or benefit of such cart.
C. Gradation. (1) Shoplifting constitutes a crime of the second degree under subsection b. of this section if the full retail value of the merchandise is $75,000 or more, or the offense is committed in furtherance of or in conjunction with an organized retail theft enterprise and the full retail value of the merchandise is $1,000 or more.
(2) Shoplifting constitutes a crime of the third degree under subsection b. of this section if the full retail value of the merchandise exceeds $500 but is less than $75,000, or the offense is committed in furtherance of or in conjunction with an organized retail theft enterprise and the full retail value of the merchandise is less than $1,000.
(3) Shoplifting constitutes a crime of the fourth degree under subsection b. of this section if the full retail value of the merchandise is at least $200 but does not exceed $500.
(4) Shoplifting is a disorderly persons offense under subsection b. of this section if the full retail value of the merchandise is less than $200.
The value of the merchandise involved in a violation of this section may be aggregated in determining the grade of the offense where the acts or conduct constituting a violation were committed pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct, whether from the same person or several persons, or were committed in furtherance of or in conjunction with an organized retail theft enterprise.
Additionally, notwithstanding the term of imprisonment provided in N.J.S.2C:43-6 or 2C:43-8, any person convicted of a shoplifting offense shall be sentenced to perform community service as follows: for a first offense, at least ten days of community service; for a second offense, at least 15 days of community service; and for a third or subsequent offense, a maximum of 25 days of community service and any person convicted of a third or subsequent shoplifting offense shall serve a minimum term of imprisonment of not less than 90 days.
D. Presumptions. Any person purposely concealing unpurchased merchandise of any store or other retail mercantile establishment, either on the premises or outside the premises of such store or other retail mercantile establishment, shall be prima facie presumed to have so concealed such merchandise with the intention of depriving the merchant of the possession, use or benefit of such merchandise without paying the full retail value thereof, and the finding of such merchandise concealed upon the person or among the belongings of such person shall be prima facie evidence of purposeful concealment; and if such person conceals, or causes to be concealed, such merchandise upon the person or among the belongings of another, the finding of the same shall also be prima facie evidence of willful concealment on the part of the person so concealing such merchandise.
E. A law enforcement officer, or a special officer, or a merchant, who has probable cause for believing that a person has willfully concealed unpurchased merchandise and that he can recover the merchandise by taking the person into custody, may, for the purpose of attempting to effect recovery thereof, take the person into custody and detain him in a reasonable manner for not more than a reasonable time, and the taking into custody by a law enforcement officer or special officer or merchant shall not render such person criminally or civilly liable in any manner or to any extent whatsoever.
Any law enforcement officer may arrest without warrant any person he has probable cause for believing has committed the offense of shoplifting as defined in this section.
A merchant who causes the arrest of a person for shoplifting, as provided for in this section, shall not be criminally or civilly liable in any manner or to any extent whatsoever where the merchant has probable cause for believing that the person arrested committed the offense of shoplifting.
F. Any person who possesses or uses any antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure within any store or other retail mercantile establishment is guilty of a disorderly persons offense.]
Defending New Jersey Shoplifting Charges
Fighting New Jersey shoplifting cases can be challenging. These cases often involve strong evidence, such as video surveillance, that places the defendant at the scene. There may also be witnesses, including store employees or security personnel, who may testify at the time of trial. Finally, the merchandise itself may be used as evidence if it was found on the defendant’s body or in their vehicle.
An experienced New Jersey shoplifting attorney can evaluate all of the evidence and develop case strategy, even if it seems as though there is a slim chance of avoiding a conviction. For instance, your attorney can challenge witness testimony, the constitutionality of the search and how the evidence was processed by law enforcement. An experienced shoplifting lawyer will examine the store video, interview witnesses and conduct an independent investigation. An experienced shoplifting attorney will demand proof of every retail charge and ensure that police followed all rules when conducting their investigation.
Fines & Monetary Penalties
The penalties for New Jersey shoplifting charges are potentially devastating.
Fines:
| Second Degree Shoplifting: | Fine of up to $150,000 | |
| Third Degree Shoplifting: | Fine of up to $15,000 | |
| Fourth Degree Shoplifting: | Fine of up to $10,000 | |
| Disorderly Persons Shoplifting: | Fine of up to $1,000 |
Jail:
| Second Degree Shoplifting: | Up to 10 Years in Jail | |
| Third Degree Shoplifting: | Up to 5 Years in Jail | |
| Fourth Degree Shoplifting: | Up to 18 Months in Jail | |
| Disorderly Persons Shoplifting: | Up to 6 Months in Jail |
* Anyone convicted of three or more Shoplifting offenses must serve 90 days in jail.
Community Service:
| First Offense Shoplifting: | 10 Days Community Service | |
| Second Offense Shoplifting: | 15 Days Community Service | |
| Third Offense Shoplifting: | 25 Days Community Service |
New Jersey Shoplifting Penalties:
| Crime | Degree | Penalty |
| Shoplifting merchandise with a total combined value less than $200.00 | Disorderly persons shoplifting | Up to six months of jail time and/or a fine up to $1,000.00 |
| Shoplifting merchandise with a total combined value of $200-$500 | Crime of the fourth degree | Up to 18 months of jail time and/or a fine of up to $10,000 |
| Shoplifting merchandise with a total combined value of $500-$75,0000 | Crime of the third degree | Between 3-5 years of jail time and/or a fine up to $15,000 |
| Shoplifting merchandise with a total combined value of $75,000 or greater | Crime of the second degree | Between 5-10 years of jail time and/or a fine up to $150,000 |
New Jersey Shoplifting Civil Penalty Law
New Jersey law permits victims of shoplifting to impose civil penalties on shoplifters. The law allows a civil penalty up to $150.00 and recovery up to $500.
|
17 Jul
|
Posted by Mollo Law Firm
|
CHRISTINE PERSICHETTE
MYFOXNY.COM – As the “Jersey Shore” cast kicks off another season of partying in Seaside Heights, N.J., cops in Jersey shore towns are kicking off their efforts to crack down on underage drinking; something they deal with every summer.
The slogan is: “If you’re too young to buy, don’t try.”
“We have people who are underage consuming alcohol, they try to enter the water sometimes at night, we’ve had drowning in those situations,” said Chief Ed Kerr of the Spring Lake Police Dept.
The “Cops in Shops” program targets young people who try to buy liquor at stores and bars.
“Underage people and adults beware: the person behind the counter at any retail location may very well be a law enforcement officer,” said Jerry Fischer of the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
Still, some say it won’t prevent underage drinking. Chelsea Swenson, 18, came here to check out the “Jersey Shore” cast, then she is going to the bars — even though we told her the cops are watching.
“I’m on vacation, so hopefully I don’t get in trouble,” Chelsea said.
In summer 2010, police arrested 230 people through the Cops in Shops program. This year police are hoping those underage get the message: if you’re too young to buy, don’t try.
|
16 Jul
|
Posted by Mollo Law Firm
|
The Associated Press|Daily Business Review – July 13, 2011
Three years ago, Jose Baez’s name was barely a blip in the legal community.
This was a lawyer who made his way to the profession after dropping out of high school, getting a GED and going into the Navy. He tried several failed businesses — including two bikini companies — before he eventually enrolled at Florida State University and St. Thomas University School of Law. It took another eight years for him to be admitted to the bar.
Now he’s arguably one of the most recognizable attorneys in the country after his client Casey Anthony was acquitted in the death of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee, in a case marked by a captivated national audience and searing scrutiny of every legal twist. For the last three years since, Baez faced questions from other attorneys and TV commentators about his lack of criminal law experience and tactics. Now he’s a legal celebrity almost certain to be offered interviews, book offers and possibly movie deals that could bring hundreds of thousands of dollars.
“I think this is obviously life-altering for Jose Baez,” said Terry Lenamon, a former member of Anthony’s defense team, who left the case in 2008 after a disagreement over strategy. “It’s not as big as (the) OJ (Simpson verdict), but close to OJ and look at all what happened to those lawyers … I’m sure he’s going to capitalize on it. The issue is: Was that always the plan?”
Baez, 42, took Anthony’s case pro bono in 2008, after getting a referral from a former client who shared a cell with Anthony following her initial arrest. He has handled the case since then, operating on state funds available to Anthony because of her indigent status, and from an early $200,000 she received from licensing photos and videos to ABC News.
The Associated Press attempted to contact Baez for this story, but those inquiries were not immediately returned.
In an interview with Fox News’ Geraldo Rivera the night of the verdict, Baez shrugged off a question about whether his success in this case will silence his detractors.
“I think their competence argument has fallen,” he said. “What they want to say about me, well, you know, they can say what they want.”
Baez, who was born in Puerto Rico and raised in New York and Florida, had to take a winding path to becoming a criminal lawyer, even after he graduated law school. He passed the written test for the Florida Bar, but he was denied admission by the Florida Board of Bar Examiners because of a list of complaints about his personal and financial conduct. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the bar’s decision in 2000 for not paying child support for a daughter he had with his first wife and for what it called “very serious doubts as to his respect for the rights of others and for the law,” like writing worthless checks.
He eventually was able to prove to the bar he was rehabilitated and he was admitted to practice law in 2005. He has had no disciplinary action taken against him by the bar since then.
Alfredo Garcia, the former dean at St. Thomas, didn’t know Baez when he was a student at St. Thomas and prior to his graduation in 1997. But he said he got to know him shortly after he took on Anthony’s case. Garcia said the school gave Baez, who also ran a pair of non-profit organizations before he began his law practice, an alumni award in 2008 for providing disabled children in foreign countries with prostheses. He said at the award dinner Baez showed him a yellowed copy of his acceptance letter to the law school. The letter had been signed by Garcia, ironically a law school classmate of Anthony prosecutor Jeff Ashton at the University of Florida.
“(Baez) said, ‘I’ve held on to this since I received this. This is the letter you wrote when you were associate dean and chair of the committee that admitted me into law school.’ He still had that with him,” Garcia said. ” … Obviously, that meant a lot to him because he took time to show it to me and had it with him.”
Garcia said he also had lunch with Baez in Orlando last August as Baez was preparing for the trial. They talked about the “emotional, personal and professional toll that the case had taken on him.”
“I think it was a rough emotional toll, to the extent that you get identified with your client typically by the members of the public,” Garcia said. “I gathered he wasn’t the most popular person in Orlando at the time. I think that was pretty tough.”
During his closing argument, Ashton likened the theories presented by Baez and the defense of how Caylee Anthony died in part as a fantasy “trip down the rabbit hole into a bizarre world.”
Ashton and Baez constantly sparred throughout the three-year case. Each accused the other of questionable legal maneuvering, and once during a pretrial hearing, Ashton even asked Judge Belvin Perry to hold Baez in contempt of court for what Ashton claimed was a blatant disregard of a court-ordered deadline.
Then there was the incident during Baez’s closing arguments, in which he angrily referred to Ashton as “this laughing guy” when he observed him chuckling behind his hand in full view of the jury.
But in his first comments after Anthony’s acquittal, Baez seemed to have put that bad blood behind him. He referred to the prosecution team as a whole as “a fine group,” called Ashton “a fierce opponent” and lead prosecutor Linda Drane Burdick “an incredible adversary” and “one of the best lawyers I’ve ever seen.”
With constant objections that were overruled and motions denied, Baez’s legal skills were often maligned on cable television programs that sometimes depicted him as a sort of Barney Fife, the bumbling deputy on the 1960s TV sitcom “The Andy Griffith Show” who was only allowed to carry one bullet. Lenamon said any of those sentiments that the jury saw in court via the judge or prosecution — however small — could have played a role in the case’s outcome.
“They see things like the prosecutor snickering during the defense’s closing argument,” Lenamon said. “And little things like that can change everything. What they see is a lawyer that may not look to be super-experienced, fighting hard to save his client. That plays into the final formula. It’s not as simple and easy as everyone tries to make it out to be.”
Lenamon said he expects Baez’s star to continue rising.
“The bottom line is he pulled it off in a very favorable way,” he said. “I have to tip my hat to him on that and congratulate him. I really think people underestimated him.”
| Category: Casey Anthony Trial | Tag: Al Mollo Esq., Casey Anthony, Florida law, Jose Baez, legal community, legal fame |
|
15 Jul
|
Posted by Mollo Law Firm
|
Yes, but very young children must first be found competent to testify. In Idaho, Joseph Duncan was set to stand trial for murdering a woman, her boyfriend, and her teenage son, and kidnaping her two younger children for sex; he later killed the younger boy but was captured in Montana with the girl, who is now nine. Idaho law requires a judge to interview privately any child under ten to determine competency. Days before trial, the judge found the girl competent to testify.
Some states establish competency review requirements by statute, while others rely on case law. Most states require that witnesses under ten be interviewed to determine their competency, either before trial or during trial but outside the presence of the jury. Older children’s competency may also be challenged, if the lawyer opposing the testimony files a motion asking the court to determine competency. In the Duncan case, the nine year old is the only living witness to a triple homicide; the judge determined her competency before trial because of the potential effect on plea discussions and trial if she were unable to testify.
The issue in determining competency is whether the minor witness has the ability to 1) understand the obligation to tell the truth, and 2) to accurately relate events seen, heard, or experienced. (The same rules apply to adult witnesses whose mental capacity is in question.) Those criteria are broken down further into these elements:
• Capacity to observe.
• Sufficient intelligence.
• Adequate memory.
• Ability to communicate.
• Awareness of the difference between truth and falsehood.
• Appreciation of the obligation to tell the truth in court. Judges are trained to use age-appropriate terms and measures. A young child may say that if she lies she’ll be punished, or if he doesn’t tell the truth, God won’t love him any more. In most cases, that’s enough.
In Washington State, a three year old was allowed to testify about abuse that occurred when she was two, because she met the basic criteria for competence as to the subject of her testimony. Obviously, she could not be asked more complex questions that a seven or ten year old could understand and respond to, but she demonstrated her understanding of the difference between the truth and a lie, and the importance of telling the truth; the judge concluded that she had the necessary ability to observe and communicate what had happened to her. However, it’s entirely possible that another three year old or an older child might not be found competent.
When a child is unable to testify, their prior statements to parents, counselors, doctors, or law enforcement may be admissible at trial under some circumstances. I’ll look at that issue in another column.
As a direct result of the Idaho court’s competency decision in Duncan’s case, on the day jury selection was scheduled to begin, Duncan pled guilty in state court to three charges of first degree homicide and three charges of first degree kidnaping. He was immediately sentenced to life in prison without parole on the kidnaping charges. Federal prosecutors plan to try him on additional kidnaping and homicide charges for taking the two young children to Montana where he molested both and killed the boy. If he is not sentenced to death on the federal charges, Idaho may still seek the death penalty on the Idaho homicides. Duncan said he wanted to spare the family and community any more pain. It’s unlikely that he would have pled guilty without the nine year old’s testimony. Two other states are still considering charges for unrelated crimes.
The possibility that a child will testify can add a lot of drama and tension to a case. You can use that possibility, the competency evaluation, and the trial testimony to complicate your plot and add layers to your story.
| Category: Law FAQ's | Tag: Al Mollo Esq., case law, children, competency, jury, Mollo Law Firm, stat laws, testify |
