Five cities in New Jersey have seen major police layoffs in the past year and this drop in patrolling officers has already led to fewer arrests as the departments must re-prioritize. Citizens claim they already see the effects, with some low-level criminals being more brazen in their activities.

It stands to reason that the police would begin making fewer arrests for the least serious offenses. If they only have enough officers for a certain number of arrests and contacts everyday, it makes sense to focus on the most serious offenses. But many are worried that decreased enforcement for the less serious offenses will ultimately increase all crime.

According to NJ.com, one Camden resident says that the drug dealers already present in her neighborhood have become more brave, taking over her stoop. She chases them away and they are back within minutes. Another woman in the Waterfront South area says dealers are openly manning their street corners and that “it’s getting worse.”

From January 2009 through November 2010, Newark police officers made arrests or issued summonses for about 5,100 “other infractions” every month. Since the layoffs, that rate has dropped to about 2,600 per month. These infractions include things like curfew and noise violations—those things which can hurt the quality of life.

Paterson has also seen a drop in misdemeanor shoplifting and drug possession charges, with about 700 arrests per month before the layoffs, falling to about 545 per month afterwards. Camden has seen the change among traffic tickets, falling from 3,820 to 1,850 per month.

When a police agency has the money, addressing these so-called quality of life offenses can help reduce overall crime by keeping communities safe and signaling would-be law violators that the police are present and are actively enforcing even the most minor criminal offenses.

Police in these cities have declined to comment on the decreased arrests and citations. But what would they say? They simply don’t have the manpower to address all violations and disregarding the more serious offenses would lead to even an even direr situation.

Criminal justice professor Mike Maxfield with the John Jay College of Criminal Justice says, “In general, the less serious stuff is treated with more discretion. You can’t write off a bank robbery, you can’t ignore a homicide.”

So it seems this is the way things will unfold, at least until the agencies have funds to rehire officers for the enforcement of crimes or until we figure out a way to address the actual causes of crime.

Whether you are accused of something “trivial” or a very serious felony crime, we may be able to help. Contact my offices today to discuss your case.

This year, New Jersey has a much-discussed new law that is considered the nation’s toughest anti-bullying statute. Adopted following the suicide of Rutgers University student, Tyler Clementi.

Many states across the country join New Jersey in having introduced laws trying to prevent intimidation, harassment, and bullying in their schools and districts. Anti-bullying laws are written to minimize violence at school.

The New Jersey law specifically requires schools to create policies to prevent bullying, as well as training for faculty, as how to police behavior that may lead to bullying. Students who violate anti-bullying provisions can be suspended and face possible expulsion; and the school district may face huge fines from civil liability claims.

Examples of bullying include:

• Wearing gang paraphernalia such as bandanas and other clothing meant to intimidate non-members
• Spreading rumors or posting degrading, harmful, or explicit pictures, messages, or information using social media, text, email or other forms of electronic communication (cyber-bullying).
• Harassment based on someone’s sexual orientation, or sexual harassment;
• Making offensive remarks about a person’s religion, gender, ethnicity, physical size or socioeconomic status
• Physical bullying, such as pushing, punching, slapping, or tripping.

The crime of cyber-bullying is truly a terroristic act that can have huge consequences, and even lead to deaths of innocent kids. What often starts as an “innocent” prank on an unpopular peer often turns into a nightmare for the harassed and ridiculed child, as well as his or her parents.

The bullying begins in the hallways at school, which should be safe havens of education, and simply doesn’t stop. With the technology of instant messaging, Facebook, Twitter, email, texting and other social media outlets, bullies have stalked into the cyber world to give their victims no place to hide.

Teens and even twenty-something, college-age adults have no escape from the bullying. College campuses are still notorious for frat house initiation stunts that are organized by outright social predators.

Tyler Clementi was one out of thousands of victims of cyber crime that had no choice in what ended up being his undoing.

New Jersey anti-bullying laws are tough for a reason. Bullying and Cyber-Bullying are crimes against humanity. It’s hard enough growing up in this world without the constant harassment from a disturbed classmate, or “friend”.

Penalties for Bullying

All state anti-bullying laws include penalties of at least one, or all three of the following:

1. Suspension or expulsion from school
2. Civil Fines
3. Jail time depending on the severity of the offense

School districts, including those in New Jersey, may face monetary fines, arising out of its failure to prevent or punish certain types of behavior by students within their district.

Resources: Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights

In departments across the state, police officers have been laid off in alarming numbers this year. And while many hope to get hired back or find another job in law enforcement, most are collecting unemployment and taking on side work as they wait. One union president has warned the frustration among cops may lead to rioting, but it seems there are no organized revolts in the immediate future.

According to NJ.com, 705 cops statewide have been laid off since January 1^st and have been unable to find employment as of yet. Some have been fortunate enough to find work in their field, though they are few and far between. The Essex County Sheriff’s Department hired 7 laid off Newark police officers, but this was only a dent in the 162 that were laid off there.

Cities are broke. They don’t have the money to maintain large police forces, even when police presence is needed. Trenton laid off a third of its force this month when it let go of 105 officers. Camden laid off 93 earlier this year and more than half are still unemployed.

In Camden, the local police union president John Williamson seemed to want to stir things up when he warned of rioting. “Based on my observations and history in the U.S. and in the world, where people feel desperate and impoverished, they tend to let out their frustrations.” He goes on to say that his remarks aren’t “fear mongering”, though he can’t seem to back his predictions with any evidence.

Sure the officers are frustrated—most unemployed are. And how the cities will fare with fewer cops on patrol remains to be seen.

At the county level, however, Essex County Sheriff Armando Fontoura says his office has recently come off of a 3 year hiring freeze, just in time to lose 35 officers to retirement. He was able to hire 20 new officers and plans to hire even more.

Fortunately, as the number of officers on the streets drops, so has the crime rate in most cities across the country. No one is quite sure why but violent crime last year dropped dramatically. One can only hope the decrease in police doesn’t cause the numbers to climb again.

As someone accused of a criminal offense in New Jersey, you likely didn’t think about the police layoffs before you followed through with the act you are now accused of. You may have acted on the spur of the moment, with little thought at all.

If you are currently facing criminal charges, we may be able to help. Contact our offices today to discuss the details of your case.

The New Jersey Supreme Court issued a ruling this week that could go on to change eyewitness identification handling procedures in courts across the country. Not because their ruling has to be followed throughout the nation but because the NJ High Court is often recognized as a trailblazer in criminal law. The changes are seen as much needed and a step towards reducing wrongful convictions.

Eyewitness identifications are often the most convincing pieces of evidence in a criminal case. There’s nothing quite as damning as a witness pointing out the suspect in a court of law and saying with certainty that they are the one who committed the crime. But despite their dramatic impact, they are often flawed.

In the majority of wrongful convictions, discovered through DNA testing, an eyewitness identified the suspect. Human memory is fallible and although an eyewitness identification is convincing, it isn’t always correct.

There are several factors that can make an eyewitness id less credible—things like lighting, the race of the witness versus that of the suspect, he time elapsed between the offense and the lineup, any input given to the witness by the police officers, and how the lineup is presented to the witness.

Over the last several years, new revelations have come about leading justice advocates and researchers to call for changes in how police and courts handled eyewitness identifications and accounts. While some departments made slight changes, showing photos to witnesses in a sequential manner rather than a photo-spread, for instance, not all departments were as proactive.

The New Jersey Supreme Court’s latest ruling could stand to show police departments and courts across the country that the time is nigh for real changes to how they handle identifications like this.

The 134 page decision, authored by Chief Justice Stuart J. Rabner, includes a new list of rules for judges to follow when encountering cases involving eyewitness identification. The rules dictate that a judge must hold a hearing about the credibility of the identification when there is evidence the identification was influenced. The hearing will look at such things as police behavior, lighting, and other factors that can influence such an id.

While the ruling included more than 12 factors for a judge to consider in evaluating the reliability of an eyewitness identification, it stopped short of “bright line rules that would lead to suppression or reliable evidence any time a law enforcement officer makes a mistake.” In most cases, the evidence would still go before the jury, though it might be accompanied with judicial instruction as to the fallible nature of eyewitness testimonies.

Jurors are convinced when a witness identifies a suspect. Each jury should be informed of the problems with eyewitness procedures and their repeated presence in wrongful convictions.

When you are accused of a criminal offense in New Jersey and someone identifies you as the suspect, it may seem like all hope is lost. But witnesses make mistakes and more judges are aware of that these days than in days past. If you are accused of an offense you simply didn’t do, contact us today to discuss your case and what can be done.

After placing medical marijuana on the backburner for three months, and leaving many people suspicious that it would never come to fruition, Governor Chris Christie has given state officials the ok to get the program up in running, possibly by the end of the year. And he hasn’t only asked them to move ahead with the plan, but to “move forward as expeditiously as possible.”

Governor Christie had put the program on hold because he wanted to know for certain if state workers involved in the program would be vulnerable to federal prosecution, since selling and possessing marijuana is a federal offense. Following a memo released by United States Deputy Attorney general James Cole, he said he felt more confident that New Jersey workers would not be scrutinized by the feds.

Since the beginning of 2011, federal law enforcement has raided numerous dispensaries in other medical marijuana states. Warning letters were also sent out by the U.S. Justice Department to alert states that their legislation did not negate the federal controlled substances act, which still considers marijuana to be a Schedule I drug.

Cole’s memo didn’t explicitly state that state medical marijuana workers would be immune from investigation or arrest but gave Christie the feeling that they would remain unbothered if they stayed within the tight restrictions under the New Jersey medical marijuana program (referred to as one of the most restrictive).

Christie seems more dedicated than ever to getting the program in full swing. He said he would be disappointed if the dispensaries weren’t up and running by the end of the year. The president of Compassionate Care Foundation Inc, one organization planning on opening a dispensary in New Brunswick, says the best-case scenario is that they will be able to provide patients with their marijuana by right after Thanksgiving.

This news is hopeful for people suffering from chronic, debilitating diseases that would qualify for the drug. Those who have been recommended by their physician to participate in the medical marijuana program will be required to apply for an identification card and register with the state.

Although New Jersey will be the latest state to throw their hat in the medical marijuana ring, officials remain steadfast in their desire to keep the program as limited and as tightly controlled as possible. This could certainly mean that those not authorized to smoke under the medical marijuana program will face just as harsh if not more serious penalties than before.

If you’re facing marijuana charges, you will face the courts and you could go to jail. Contact my offices today to discuss your charges and what options may be available to you.

Forty years after a drug conviction, Rasheed Abdul-Haqq is in his second term serving on the local Plainfield school board. But he stands to lose this position because of a new law that bans people convicted of certain crimes from serving on any school boards in the state. Abdul-Haqq has contacted the ACLU and states he will not leave his post willingly.

The ban includes people convicted of serious violent crimes, but also those convicted of 1^st and 2^nd degree drug possessions. There are no exceptions written into the law and some believe this is the problem.

Abdul-Haqq spent 8 months in a state reformatory in 1968 for possession of heroin. He admits he was an addict but says his stay there helped change his life. Upon his release he became a Muslim leader within the community, a community activist, business owner, and was eventually voted to serve on the local school board.

He states most of the people who voted for him knew about his history and they elected him anyways. He, and many others, believe he has served his time for his error and shouldn’t continue to be punished today.

One of the law’s primary sponsors is Assemblyman Jerry Green (D-Union). Abdul-Haqq believes Green may have pushed the law for some personal political reasons to force Abdul-Haqq out. Green says that’s not true and that he merely wanted to make things fair. As it stood, employees of the school board (including janitors and the like) cannot have criminal records, so the elected members should not either.

The law does allow for people to serve if they’ve had their record expunged. But getting an expungement isn’t always easy. Abdul-Haqq tried and his request was denied. One lawmaker says it’s the expungement law that should be changed.

But what no one is suggesting is that perhaps a criminal conviction should not have any bearing on employment or service. No, that would be out of line. Interesting, considering how many people in the state have criminal records.

A criminal conviction can haunt you for decades, and Abdul-Haqq is living proof. You can serve your time, pay fines, and completely change your life but still be haunted by your past. It’s unfair. But, at least for now, it’s the reality we live in.

The key to avoiding this type of trouble down the road is to avoid the conviction in the first place. While this can sometimes be easier said than done, a criminal charge does not always mean a criminal conviction. Consulting with a local criminal defense lawyer could be the first step in avoiding such a situation.

If you are facing criminal charges in the state of New Jersey contact me today for a consultation on your case.

The New Jersey legislature is proposing to make use of a cell phone while driving fall under the state’s reckless driving statutes. As noted by MyfoxNY, talking on a cell phone without use of a hands-free device, bluetooth, or other method is already against the law, and can get you a traffic citation. The new proposed laws (Assembly Bill 2816 and Senate Bill 1950) would add any manual cell phone use, for voice, internet, or texting, as grounds for a reckless driving offense. The primary purpose of the bill is to establish that use of a cell phone while driving is inherently reckless. Therefore, any tragic resulting accident or incident is punishable my New Jersey’s vehicular homicide or assault by auto laws.

Ten members of the notoriously dangerous MS-13 gang have been arrested in Plainfield for conspiring to kill a man who slapped one of their gang members. Under the state’s gang criminality law (§2C; 33:29), those suspects will be facing a more serious penalty specifically because they acted in conjunction with other gang members for furtherance of the gang’s objectives.

According to the Star-Ledger, the man who slapped an MS-13 gang member was marked for death by the end of the day. Although the man who he slapped was arrested, the plot was still going to be carried out. Ten alleged members of the MS-13 gang were arrested in all, in an effort to stop the murder of the slapping man—all charged with first-degree conspiracy to commit murder along with other various drug and gun charges.

Though not all were charged in conjunction with the murder, they were all charged under the gang criminality law, which requires any crime filed under it to have been “committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang.”

MS-13, or Mara Salvatrucha, is widely recognized as one of the world’s most ruthless and dangerous street gangs, with ties originating in El Salvador and current roots all over North, Central, and South America.

The gang has recently grown to a significant size in Plainfield, population 50,000. They reportedly labeled the once-powerful Latin Kings as an “oppressor” and moved in to take over areas of the small city. They not only sought to take over other gangs’ territories but also required their own members and families to pay “tributes” of around $200 per month to go back to El Salvador where a MS-13 leader is locked up.

The gang criminality law is designed to provide especially harsh penalties to those who are involved in the commission of criminal acts while being associated with a gang. Typically, being charged under this law raises the level of the offense you are charged with one degree. For instance, if you are charged with Unlawful Possession of a Weapon, typically a 3^rd degree offense, under the gang criminality law, you would face a 2^nd degree crime instead.

The problem with gang-centered laws like this one is they can occasionally be applied to people who aren’t actually in a gang but merely associate with gang members. From the outside people may think this is okay, that people who associate with gang members should learn their lesson and find friends elsewhere. But the bottom line is, if you’re not in a gang, you shouldn’t be penalized as if you are.

Whether you are facing charges under the gang criminality law or simply facing any criminal charges in New Jersey, you have every right to be worried. An experienced defense lawyer can help set your mind at ease. Contact my offices today to discuss your case and receive some valuable legal advice.

Last month Governor Chris Christie signed legislation canceling the mandatory early release program that set inmates free after serving only a portion of their sentence. He stated that it took away the discretion of the parole board to determine who warranted an early release. More recently, Christie backtracked on a plan to send drug addicted inmates into residential treatment programs. All of these changes are quite possible spurred by fear of looking soft and losing political clout.

Across the country lawmakers are making major changes to their criminal justice policies and laws as people from both political parties recognize the old way of doing things simply isn’t working. Prisons are bursting at the seams and inmates are released only to return again. But in New Jersey this same progressive movement doesn’t seem to be taking hold.

According to NJ.com, one lawmaker admits that others don’t want to “take the political risk” of appearing soft on crime. Apparently they don’t think the general public has enough common sense to recognize good, effective criminal justice policies from those that have proven time and time again to perpetuate the problems of the system.

Senator Raymond Lesniak, a Democrat says, “Basically what they’ve told me is that any early release, as meritorious as this is, as helpful as this is in preventing recidivism, they don’t want to take the risk of anyone committing murders.” The end to the mandatory early release program was spurred by two released inmates who went on to commit murders, nevermind the fact that they would’ve likely done the same thing had they been released on a normal timeline.

The Christie Administration has mentioned they will be proposing a reentry program to help inmates find employment and stay out of prison. This would be a move in the right direction, though details are still unavailable.

Jeff Mellow of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice points out that appropriate housing, employment, education, and mental health counseling are just some of the things that can keep former inmates from reentering the system. These resources, plus the added supervision of a parole officer is what was thought to have made the former early release program effective.

Sometimes, even before someone is convicted of a crime, these resources can be used to lessen their sentence and improve their standings in the community.

If you are facing charges for a crime and are interested in avoiding prison time, there may be options available to you. Contact my offices today for a consultation on your case

In an effort to point out glaring problems with the New Jersey criminal code, the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) released a study this week outlining some of the offenses and related penalties and how the public views their rationality. What they found is the law is extremely out of line with what the people of New Jersey see as just and this is largely due to lawmakers playing politics.

According to Crime and Punishment in New Jersey, 222 New Jersey residents were asked about their opinions regarding certain offenses and punishments as dictated by NJ law. In 90% of the questions, the respondents said the punishment didn’t fit the crime and was instead too harsh.

A report in the Jersey City Independent reveals that the lead researcher for the DPA study, University of Pennsylvania Professor Paul Robinson, attributes the misalignment between public values and law to lawmakers jumping on the “crime du jour problem”. This refers to a lawmaker hearing of a particular case in the news, seeing as an opportunity to play to the public’s fear of crime, introducing “tough” legislation and getting it passed with little resistance.

This is nothing new and can be seen in the majority of crime bills that are passed, particularly the ones named after victims. No one wants to be a victim of crime but the haphazard method of writing and passing legislation based on singular high profile cases has resulted in many disparities within the New Jersey code.

The New Jersey criminal code was rewritten in 1978 and had 243 criminal offenses. Since that time an additional 407 offenses and sub-offenses have been added, many of them carrying penalties that simply don’t make sense when weighed against other, less serious offenses.

For instance, punching someone in the face can get you 180 days in jail. But merely attending a dog fight carries up to five years in prison. Again and again, the people of New Jersey showed researchers what was important to them and what should carry the harshest penalties only to find out the crimes and punishments, when compared to one another, made little sense at all.

What is the DPA hoping to gain from this study? Reform. While they haven’t said whether they want the entire criminal code rewritten or simply “fixed”, there’s no doubt that something needs to happen. They say they will be circulating the study to legislators in coming months and hoping to get support for massive changes to the criminal code.

Penalties often don’t make sense and there are many situations where someone faces an unusually harsh sentence for a crime that deserves little more than a slap on the wrist. When you are facing criminal charges and you are concerned about the penalties that may be doled out, consulting with an attorney is a smart first step. Contact my offices today for a free consultation on your case and to discuss what may be done to minimize the impact of these charges on your life.