Top 25 Cases affecting Municipal Court for NJ Lawyer Magazine

No margins.
Revise !"!"2#$#
%y &ennet' (ercammen) *s+.
No iscussion of recent Municipal Court caselaw woul ,e
complete wit'out first mentioning t'e most important case in t'e past
25 years- .tate v. C'un $/0 NJ 50 12##!2. 3ere t'e NJ .upreme Court
'el) su,4ect to certain conitions) t'e 5lcotest ,reat' testing
mac'ine is scientifically relia,le an t'at its results are amissi,le
in run6 riving prosecutions. .ince C'un is analyze in ot'er
articles in t'e NJ Lawyer Magazine) t'e following are t'e top cases
recently ecie.
Refusal $. .tate v. Mar+uez7777 NJ77777 12#$#2 15-85-#/2 9"$2"$#
:n t'is case involving a conviction for refusing to su,mit
to a c'emical ,reat' test) t'e Court 'ols t'at New Jersey;s implie
consent law) N.J...5. 8/<0-5#.2) an refusal law) N.J...5. 8/<0-5#.0a)
re+uire proof t'at an officer re+ueste t'e motorist to su,mit to a
c'emical ,reat' test an informe t'e person of t'e conse+uences of
refusing to o so. T'e statement use to e=plain to motorists t'e
conse+uences of refusal must ,e given in a language t'e person spea6s
or unerstans. %ecause efenant >erman Mar+uez was avise of t'ese
conse+uences in *nglis') an t'ere is no ispute t'at 'e i not
unerstan *nglis') 'is refusal conviction is reverse.
Refusal 2 .tate v. .c'mit77777 NJ .uper.77777 15pp. ?iv. 2#$#2
5-2289-#!T0 #9"#$"$#
:n t'is opinion t'e court 'ol t'at 1$2 t'e police are
re+uire to comply wit' N.J...5. 8/<0-5#.21e2 ,y reaing t'e stanar
language concerning t'e conse+uences of a refusal to ta6e an 5lcotest
1part two of t'e .tanar .tatement2 w'en a efenant une+uivocally
agrees to su,mit to an 5lcotest ,ut t'en fails wit'out reasona,le
e=cuse to prouce a vali sample an 122 t'e police 'ave t'e
iscretion to iscontinue t'e 5lcotest an c'arge t'e arrestee wit'
refusal wit'out afforing t'e arrestee t'e ma=imum eleven attempts
t'at t'e 5lcotest mac'ine permits.
.entencing 8. Juge Can .uspen ?L for Traffic @ffense. .tate v.
Moran777777 NJ7777777 12#$#2 15-55-#/2 9"$8"$#
T'e license suspension provision of N.J...5. 8/<5-8$) w'ic'
is pu,lis'e in t'e Motor (e'icle Coe of t'e New Jersey .tatutes
5nnotate) is not A'ien)B an efenant) li6e all motorists) is
presume to 6now t'e law. To ensure t'at license suspensions mete
out pursuant to N.J...5. 8/<5-8$ are impose in a reasona,ly fair an
uniform manner) so t'at similarly situate efenants are treate
similarly) t'e Court toay efines t'e term Awillful violationB
containe in N.J...5. 8/<5-8$ an enunciates sentencing stanars to
guie municipal court an Law ?ivision 4uges
.earc' 0. Cassenger Cat own uring traffic stop permitte if ,elief
gang mem,er is arme an angerous 5rizona v Jo'nson $92 L. *. 2 D/0
12##/2
E'ile patrolling near a Tucson neig',or'oo associate wit' t'e Crips
gang) police officers serving on 5rizona;s gang tas6 force stoppe an
automo,ile for a ve'icular infraction warranting a citation. 5t t'e
time of t'e stop) t'e officers 'a no reason to suspect t'e car;s
occupants of criminal activity. @fficer Trevizo attene to responent
Jo'nson) t'e ,ac6-seat passenger) w'ose ,e'avior an clot'ing cause
Trevizo to +uestion 'im. 5fter learning t'at Jo'nson was from a town
wit' a Crips gang an 'a ,een in prison) Trevizo as6e 'im get out of
t'e car in orer to +uestion 'im furt'er) out of t'e 'earing of t'e
front-seat passenger) a,out 'is gang affiliation. %ecause s'e
suspecte t'at 'e was arme) s'e patte 'im own for safety w'en 'e
e=ite t'e car. ?uring t'e patown) s'e felt t'e ,utt of a gun. 5t
t'at point) Jo'nson ,egan to struggle) an Trevizo 'ancuffe 'im.
Jo'nson was c'arge wit') inter alia) possession of a weapon ,y a
pro'i,ite possessor.
3el< @fficer Trevizo;s patown of Jo'nson i not violate t'e Fourt'
5menment ;s pro'i,ition on unreasona,le searc'es an seizures.
.entencing 5. Four Factors re+uire to wit'raw guilty plea .tate
v. .later $/! NJ $05 12##/2
Juges are to consier an ,alance four factors in
evaluating motions to wit'raw a guilty plea< 1$2 w'et'er t'e
efenant 'as asserte a colora,le claim of innocenceG 122 t'e nature
an strengt' of t'e efenant;s reasons for wit'rawalG 182 t'e
e=istence of a plea ,argainG an 102 w'et'er wit'rawal coul result
in unfair pre4uice to t'e .tate or unfair avantage to t'e accuse.
T'is efenant 'as met 'is ,uren an is entitle to wit'raw 'is
guilty plea in t'e interest of 4ustice.
.earc' D. Colice i not always nee to reaminister Mirana warnings
.tate v. Ny'ammer $/9 NJ 8!8 12##/2
T'e trial court i not err in fining) ,ase on t'e
totality of t'e circumstances) t'at Ny'ammer 6nowingly) voluntarily)
an intelligently waive 'is Mirana rig'ts uner ,ot' feeral an
state law. T'us) t'e trial court i not a,use its iscretion in
amitting Ny'ammer;s confession into evience. Furt'er) a efenant
cannot assert t'at 'e was enie 'is rig't of confrontation uner t'e
feeral an state constitutions unless 'e first attempts to cross-
e=amine t'e witness on t'e core accusations in t'e case. Ny'ammer
'a t'e opportunity to cross- e=amine t'e c'il-victim at trial a,out
'er out-of-court testimony implicating 'im in t'e crime ,ut c'ose not
to o soG t'erefore) 'e cannot claim t'at 'e was enie 'is rig't of
confrontation.
?E: 9. No se+uestration of efense e=pert in ?E: case .tate v.
Copovic' 0#5 NJ .uper. 8/2 15pp. ?iv. 2##/2
?efenantHs conviction is reverseG t'e trial court erre
w'en it rule t'at efenantHs e=pert was su,4ect to a se+uestration
orer an woul not permit t'e e=pert to watc' t'e trial testimony.
.earc' !. Car searc' re+uires e=igent circumstancesG No automatic
auto e=ceptionG Telep'onic searc' warrants approve .tate v. Cena-
Flores $/! NJ D 12##/2
T'e .upreme Court affirms its longstaning preceent t'at
permits an automo,ile searc' wit'out a warrant only in cases in w'ic'
t'e police 'ave ,ot' pro,a,le cause to ,elieve t'at t'e ve'icle
contains evience an e=igent circumstances t'at woul 4ustify
ispensing wit' t'e warrant re+uirement. E'et'er e=igent
circumstances e=ist is to ,e ecie on a case-,y-case ,asis wit' t'e
focus on police safety an t'e preservation of evience. T'e Court
also etermines t'at a warrant o,taine ,y telep'onic or electronic
means is t'e e+uivalent of an in-person warrant an oes not re+uire
proof of e=igent circumstances.
.earc' /. Colice cannot searc' car passenger compartment if occupant
alreay arreste. 5rizona v. >ant $2/ .. Ct. $9$# 12##/2
Colice may searc' t'e passenger compartment of a ve'icle
incient to a recent occupantHs arrest only if it is reasona,le to
,elieve t'at an arrestee mig't access t'e ve'icle at t'e time of t'e
searc' or t'at t'e ve'icle contains evience of t'e offense of arrest.
%elton overrule.
Trial $#. I. .upreme Court Rules La, Report Not 5missi,le in
Criminal Case. Melenez-?iaz v. Mass $2/ ..Ct. 2529 12##/2
?efenantHs rug conviction is reverse) w'ere t'e trial
courtHs amission of t'e prosecutionHs certificates ,y la,oratory
analysts) stating t'at material seize ,y police an connecte to
?efenant was cocaine of a certain +uantity) violate petitionerHs
.i=t' 5menment rig't to confront t'e witnesses against 'im.
.earc' $$ .c'ool Crincipal can searc' ve'icle on sc'ool grouns.
.tate v. %est 2#$ NJ $## 12#$#2
5 sc'ool aministrator nee only satisfy t'e lesser reasona,le grouns
stanar rat'er t'an t'e pro,a,le cause stanar to searc' a
stuent;s ve'icle par6e on sc'ool property
.earc' $2. *rror ,y police ispatc'er in invali arrest warrant
re+uires suppression of evience uner NJ Constitution. .tate v. 3any
0$2 NJ .uper. 0/2 15pp. ?iv. 2#$#2
T'is appeal re+uire t'e Court to etermine w'et'er evience foun
uring t'e searc' incient to efenantHs arrest s'oul 'ave ,een
suppresse ,ecause t'e ispatc'er w'o incorrectly informe t'e
arresting officer t'at t'ere was an outstaning arrest warrant acte
unreasona,ly uner t'e circumstances) even t'oug' t'e conuct of t'e
arresting officer 'imself was reasona,le.
T'e warrant at issue) w'ic' was ten years ol at t'e time) 'a t'e
same ,irt' mont') ,ut a ifferent ,irt' ay an year. T'e first name
on t'e warrant was a variant spelling of efenant;s first name. T'e
court conclue t'at suppression is re+uire an) conse+uently)
reverse t'e conviction ,ase on NJ Constitution.
.entencing $8 ?efense counsel must avise criminal of eportation
conse+uences. Cailla v. &entuc6y $8# .. Ct. $098 12#$#2
Cetitioner Cailla) a lawful permanent resient of t'e Inite .tates
for over 0# years) face eportation after pleaing guilty to rug-
istri,ution c'arges in &entuc6y. :n post conviction proceeings) 'e
claims t'at 'is counsel not only faile to avise 'im of t'is
conse+uence ,efore 'e entere t'e plea) ,ut also tol 'im not to worry
a,out eportation since 'e 'a live in t'is country so long. 3e
alleges t'at 'e woul 'ave gone to trial 'a 'e not receive t'is
incorrect avice T'e I. .upreme Court 'el ,ecause counsel must inform
a client w'et'er 'is plea carries a ris6 of eportation) Cailla 'as
sufficiently allege t'at 'is counsel was constitutionally eficient.
?E: $0. :n ?E: case .tate must provie 2# minute o,servation of
river prior to ,reat' test ,y clear an convincing evience) ,ut
arresting officer can testify as part of 2# minutes .tate v Igrovics
0$# NJ .uper. 0!2 15pp. ?iv. 2##/2
T'is appeal concerne t'e amissi,ility of t'e results of an 5lcotest.
%y leave grante) t'e .tate appeale from t'e orer of t'e Law
?ivision suppressing t'e results of t'e 5lcotest ,ecause t'e arresting
officer) rat'er t'an t'e 5lcotest operator) was t'e person w'o
o,serve efenant uring t'e twenty minutes prior to 'im ta6ing t'e
test. :n reac'ing t'is conclusion) t'e trial court relie on w'at it
c'aracterize as t'e JproceuresJ manate ,y t'e .upreme Court in
.tate v. C'un $/0 N.J. 50 12##!2. T'e court reverse. T'is 5ppellate
panel 'el t'at t'e .tate is only re+uire to esta,lis' t'at t'e test
su,4ect i not ingest) regurgitate or place anyt'ing in 'is or 'er
mout' t'at may compromise t'e relia,ility of t'e test results for a
perio of at least twenty minutes prior to t'e aministration of t'e
5lcotest. T'e .tate can meet t'is ,uren ,y calling any competent
witness w'o can so attest.
Refusal $5. Cono Car6ing >arage is Kuasi-pu,lic for Refusal
(iolation. .tate v. %ertran 0#! NJ .uper. 5!0 15pp. ?iv. 2##/2
?efenantHs conviction for refusing to provie ,reat'
samples) N.J...5. 8/<0-5#.2) is affirme. T'e par6ing garage of a
'ig'-rise conominium t'at 'el 850 cars) an t'e use of w'ic' was
restricte to resients of t'at ,uiling) constitute a A+uasi-pu,lic
areaJ for purposes of t'e statute.
.earc' $D. Cassengers can ,e orere out if ,elief of anger. .tate v.
Mai77 NJ777 12#$#2 15-/!-#/2
T'e officers presente sufficient facts in t'e totality of t'e
circumstances t'at woul create in a police officer a 'eig'tene
awareness of anger t'at woul warrant an o,4ectively reasona,le
officer in securing t'e scene in a more effective manner ,y orering
t'e passenger to e=it t'e car. T'ose same circumstances aut'orize a
police officer to open a ve'icle oor as part of orering a passenger
to e=it. T'us) t'e seizure of t'e weapon was proper uner t'e plain
view octrine) an t'e seizure of t'e 'olster an loae magazine from
t'e passenger was lawful as t'e fruits of a proper searc' incient to
an arrest.
Mirana $9. Mirana (iolation cannot ,e 5sserte ,y Co-efenant.
.tate v. %aum $// NJ 0#9 12##/2
?efenant passenger Moore;s motion to suppress evience
foun uring a warrantless searc' of t'e ve'icle in w'ic' 'e was
riing s'oul 'ave ,een enie ,ecause 'e i not 'ave staning to
argue t'at t'e river;s rig't against self-incrimination was violate
an ,ecause t'e searc' was not unreasona,le.
.earc' $!. Mirror @,struction .'oul @,struct ?river;s (iew for
(iolation. .tate v. %arrow 0#! NJ .uper. 5#/ 15pp. ?iv. 2##/2
5 police officer stopping a motor ve'icle for violating
N.J...5. 8/<8-90 must provie articula,le facts s'owing t'at 'e or s'e
reasona,ly ,elieve t'at an o,4ect 'anging from a rearview mirror
o,structe t'e riverHs view. Lmini ,o=ing gloves 'angingM
.earc' $/. Colice cannot searc' 'ome wit'out warrant. .tate v.
Jefferson77 NJ .uper.7777 15pp. ?iv. 2#$#2 5-$/05-#DT0 1#5-2$-$#2
1$2 :n t'e a,sence of a warrant or a recognize e=ception from t'e
Fourt' 5menmentHs warrant re+uirement) t'e police coul not lawfully
enter efenantHs 'ome to conuct a Terry type etention an
investigation of efenant.
122 5 police officerHs weging 'erself in t'e oorway to prevent
efenant from closing 'is front oor was entry into t'e 'ome.
182 T'e police faile to s'ow eit'er J'ot pursuitJ e=igent
circumstances or a community careta6ing e=ception from t'e warrant
re+uirement.
102 5lt'oug' t'e police entry was unlawful) efenant 'a no rig't to
resist p'ysically) an t'e searc' of 'is person incient to arrest was
lawful.
152 Consent to searc' efenantHs apartment) given ,y efenantHs
wife) was tainte ,y t'e unconstitutional police conuct an was not
s'own to ,e voluntary.
Mirana 2#. ?efenant must invo6e rig't to remain silent. %erg'uis v.
T'omp6ins777 .. Ct.7777 12#$#2 June #$) 2#$#
No. #!-$09#
?efenant T'omp6insH silence uring t'e interrogation i not invo6e
'is rig't to remain silent. 5 suspectHs Mirana rig't to counsel must
,e invo6e Junam,iguously.J ?avis v. Inite .tates) 5$2 I... 052) 05/.
:f t'e accuse ma6es an Jam,iguous or e+uivocalJ statement or no
statement) t'e police are not re+uire to en t'e interrogation)
i,i.) or as6 +uestions to clarify t'e accuseHs intent) i.) at
0D$-0D2. T'ere is no principle reason to aopt ifferent stanars
for etermining w'en an accuse 'as invo6e t'e Mirana rig't to
remain silent an t'e Mirana rig't to counsel at issue in ?avis. %ot'
protect t'e privilege against compulsory self-incrimination ,y
re+uiring an interrogation to cease w'en eit'er rig't is invo6e. T'e
unam,iguous invocation re+uirement results in an o,4ective in+uiry
t'at JavoiLsM ifficulties of proof an ... provieLsM guiance to
officersJ on 'ow to procee in t'e face of am,iguity. ?avis) supra) at
05!-05/. 3a T'omp6ins sai t'at 'e wante to remain silent or t'at 'e
i not want to tal6) 'e woul 'ave invo6e 'is rig't to en t'e
+uestioning. 3e i neit'er.
?E: 2$. ?estruction of (ieo Tape may Cermit ?E: ?efenant to (acate
>uilty Clea. .tate v. Mustaro
0$$ NJ .uper /$ 15pp. ?iv. 2##/2
T'e court consiere efenantHs appeal from t'e enial of a post-
sentence motion to vacate 'is plea of guilty to riving w'ile
into=icate. T'e motion was preicate on a claim t'at t'e state
wit''el e=culpatory evience) ,ut ,y t'e time t'e motion was file
t'e evience N a vieotape recore ,y t'e camera in t'e arresting
officerHs patrol car N 'a ,een estroye t'roug' reuse in accorance
wit' t'e police epartmentHs proceures. 5pplying .tate v. Carsons)
80$ N.J. .uper. 00! 15pp. ?iv. 2##$2) an .tate v. Mars'all) $28 N.J.
$) $#9-#/ 1$//$2) t'e court conclue t'at efenant faile to
esta,lis' t'at 'e woul not 'ave amitte to riving if 'e 'a access
to t'e vieotape prior to t'e plea) an t'e court furt'er conclue
t'at t'e enial of 'is motion was fully consistent wit' a proper
application of t'e principles set fort' in .tate v. .later) $/! N.J.
$05 12##/2.
?E: 22. ?E: ?ismisse Iner .peey Trial E'ere More t'an 8D# ?ay
Lapse. .tate v. Tsetse6as 0$$ NJ .uper $
15pp. ?iv. 2##/2
T'e court reverse t'e Law ?ivision conviction an re+uire
ismissal of t'e ?E: c'arge ue to a violation of efenantHs rig't to
a speey trial. T'e e=tensive elay in a4uicating t'is matter)
cause solely ,y t'e stateHs repeate lapses in preparation an t'e
failure to secure its witnesses) infringe on efenantHs ue process
rig'ts.
Refusal 28. Crior refusal counts for 8r ?E: .tate v Ciancaglini
0$$ NJ .uper. 2!# 15pp. ?iv. 2#$#2 cert grante
:n t'is appeal from a ?E: conviction) after prior separate ?E: an
refusal convictions) t'is 5ppellate panel isagrees wit' t'e 'oling
of .tate v. ?i.omma 2D2 N.J. .uper. 895 15pp. ?iv. $//82) an 'ol
t'at t'e prior refusal conviction oes count towar ma6ing t'is a
t'ir offense. T'e court feels t'is 'oling is consistent wit' a line
of cases ,ot' ,efore an after ?i.omma concluing t'at a prior ?E:
conviction counts towar en'ancement of t'e sentence impose for a
refusal conviction. .ee) e.g.) .tate v. Te6el) 2!$ N.J. .uper. 5#2
15pp. ?iv. $//52. T'e court also 'el t'at ou,le 4eopary oes not
,ar reinstatement of t'e sentence originally impose in t'e municipal
court for a t'ir ?E: offense) w'ic' was reuce in t'e Law ?ivision
to a sentence for a first ?E: offense.
.entencing 20 No Coints on Insafe /9.2 if More t'an Five Oears ,etween
@ffenses. Catel v. New Jersey Motor (e'icle Commission 2## NJ 0$8
12##/2
T'e unsafe riving tic6et is no points for offense one an
two. T'e 8r gives t'e river 0 points) unless t'ere is more t'an 5
years ,etween t'e 2n an 8r offense. T'e .upreme Court 'el Iner
N.J...5. 8/<0-/9.21e2) t'e e=emption provision for assessing motor
ve'icle penalty points for an unsafe riving offense t'at occurs more
t'an five years after At'e prior offense)B At'e prior offenseB
refers only to t'e most recent preceing offense ,ase on ,ot' a plain
reaing of t'e statute an a review of t'e legislative 'istory. T'us)
t'e Motor (e'icle Commission correctly impose motor ve'icle points on
Catel for 'aving a fourt' unsafe riving conviction in 2##9) only one
year after t'e ate of 'er prior) t'ir) unsafe riving offense.
25. Refusal oes not merge into ?E: .tate v *c6ert 0$# NJ .uper. 8!/
15pp. ?iv. 2##/2
5 conviction for refusal to su,mit to a ,reat' e=amination cannot ,e
merge wit' a ?E: conviction. .uc' a plea agreement violate
applica,le merger principles as well as t'e CourtHs >uielines for
@peration of Clea 5greements in t'e Municipal Courts of New Jersey.
KENNETH VERCAMMEN & ASSOCIATES, PC
ATTORNEY AT LAW
2#58 Eoo,rige 5ve.
*ison) NJ #!!$9
1C'one2 982-592-#5##
1Fa=2 982-592-##8#
we,site< www.n4laws.com