Beginning December 1, 2019, a new statute in New Jersey goes into effect that changes the sentencing guidelines for anyone pleading guilty or being found guilty of a DUI. Up until this point, only certain offenders found guilty or pleading guilty had to install an ignition interlock device. Most offenders with a BAC level above the limit, but relatively low could avoid having to install this device. Now, first time offenders having a BAC reading of .08-.10 MUST install the device in their car at their own cost and use it for six months. The trade off is that your driver's license is no longer suspended for at least 3 months. Now, it will be suspended for only 30 days at this BAC level. 

If your BAC is .10-.15, you MUST install the interlock device for six months to a year with your driver's license being suspended for 45 days.

If your BAC is above .15, you will have the interlock device for one year to 18 months and a suspension of 90 days.

This new law also changes the ramifications for refusing to take the breathalyzer test. Now, if found guilty of a refusal, you will also get a mandatory interlock device period, but your driver's license will not be suspended if you are a first time offender. If this is your second refusal conviction, you are looking at one to two years of a loss of license and eight years loss if this is your third offense. 

​Time to start using Uber and Lyft people!!!

Depending on where you live in the world, it can be a scary place to navigate the laws. When the rights of a fetus and the criminal laws overlap, it can seem like a horror flick.

A woman in Alabama was arrested and charged with manslaughter over the fatal shooting of her fetus. The fetus was, obviously, in her belly. She didn't have the gun or pull the trigger. Someone else shot the woman in her stomach, causing the fetus to die. However, it is the mother of the fetus that is being charged. The shooter was charged with manslaughter, but the Grand Jury determined her charges should be dismissed. Instead, the Grand Jury indicted the mother of the baby. Does that seem right?

The "logic" behind the charge goes like this...when the mother was five months pregnant, she was in an altercation with another woman fighting over the unborn baby's father. Facts seem to indicate that the mother initiated the fight and attacked this other person. As a result, an altercation ensued and this other person decided to shoot the mother in the stomach. It is unclear if the mother knew the other person had a gun. The police believe that if a pregnant mother initiates a fight, she should have some responsibility with any injury caused to the unborn child because the child is dependent on a mother to keep it safe and should not seek out unnecessary physical altercations. 

**UPDATE: As of July 3, 2019, Alabama authorities decided to drop the manslaughter charge against this woman due to the public outrage. The District Attorney stated that pursuing the charges is not in the best interest of justice, so the charges are being dropped. 
​

A lot of individuals have started purchasing home cameras to protect themselves. This also includes one of the various models of doorbell cameras. For those not familiar, someone comes to your door and rings the doorbell. An alert is sent to your phone and you can choose to see and speak to the person standing at your front door. Maybe you recognize the person and have a discussion. Maybe you realize it is someone soliciting and you send them on their way. 

The popularity of these doorbell and home security cameras are essentially creating a network of cameras watching what is going on in each individual neighborhood, which is turning out to be a blessing for a lot of police stations. A growing number of local police are now partnering with Amazon's Ring product. By promoting the Ring service, the police are getting more security cameras on each doorstep that will in turn help them solve a crime. It should also serve as a deterrent to those looking to commit crime in a neighborhood. Maybe as you attempt to break into an unlocked car, you think twice is any camera capturing my act. 

A known trick used by burglars is to ring the doorbell. If no one comes to the door, then presumably, no one is home and the house is clear to rob. However, what happens when there is a Ring or some other similar product at the front now capturing your image as you ring that doorbell. You likely wouldn't cover your face when ringing the doorbell because if someone is home, that would alert suspicion and have the home owner call the police. If you don't cover your face, then we know who broke in. 

Alternatively, will some police stations go too far and view the surveillance "just in case"? Would this lead to unnecessary surveillance on citizens? The line distinguishing between personal safety and privacy continues to blur.  

Like everything in life, things can be interpreted as good or bad. I think in this case, Ring and similar products are at a minimum going to help slow down crime in neighborhoods.

It is never easy when someone you love is going to jail. Maybe you care and will want to visit them while they are in jail. Maybe you are just so pissed at the way they have handled their life, that you have no intention of making any effort to see them. Everybody has their own opinion on how to handle the situation and you have to do what is right for you. A lot of time though, kids are involved. A father or mother is going to jail and the correction system could care less if the relationship between the parent and child is maintained. Some think maybe the child would be better off not seeing the parent while he/she is in jail. Some think jail is no place for a child anyway. However, the child does not understand these adult ideas. All the child knows is that daddy or mommy was here yesterday and now you are telling me that he/she will not be back for 3-5 years. It is hard for a child to understand what is happening.

For those who do want to have the child visit the parent in jail, it can be quit difficult, especially when the jail house is 2 hours away from where the child lives. New York is looking to fix this problem. A new Bill in New York looks to place inmates near their family in an effort to maintain that parent-child relationship. Studies have shown that an incarcerated parent is 13% less likely to commit another felony and 25% less likely to be back in jail due to parole violations when they have frequent visitors. I think this is a great measure for those families that do want to visit their family member in jail and to ensure that the family member does not need to drive hours away. 

Hopefully you are not in a situation where you need to take a drug test. However, a lot of employer's now do random drug tests. If you do not use drugs, you may think it is no big deal. I will pass the test with flying colors. Did you know that there are a lot of every day items that could cause you to fail a drug test?

Most people are aware that poppy seeds could do it. Some of the other items may surprise you. Here is a list of items.

• Bread: most bread products are made with yeast. But did you know that when yeast ferments it produces alcohol. Certainly not enough for you to appear drunk, but could be enough to fail a breathalyzer test or even make it appear on the test results that you had some alcohol. This alcohol effect in your mouth does not last that long. However, imagine if you are eating while driving and then pulled over and asked to do a test. An officer could charge you with drunk driving until a blood test confirms otherwise. Sure the problem could be straightened out, but who wants to deal with that mess! 
• Hemp seeds: A lot of products now include "seeds" as we move towards a healthier eating style. However, hemp seeds can contain THC, which is the psychoactive ingredient found in pot. You are not going to get high on this amount contained in hemp seeds, but if your diet includes eating these seeds regularly, the THC ingredient can build up in your body, which could make a drug test think you are smoking pot. Normally, THC can stay in your system for 45 days since it is stored in the fat cells. Therefore, if your diet included hemp seeds, you may want to delay a drug test.  
• Durian fruit can actually create "mouth alcohol" in your system. Therefore, if you were stopped by the police, you may actually fail a breathalyzer test due to the lingering mouth alcohol that is present.
• Tonic water. Many people like their drinks with tonic, but this is made with a small amount of quinine that sometimes shows up in cocaine or heroin. Quinine is dissolved in the carbonated tonic. A long time ago, quinine was used to fight against malaria. While the quinine level in tonic water is less then it used to be, it can still throw off a drug test.

Over the past 30 years I have represented 100s of high school and college age kids for offenses ranging from underage drinking, possession of marijuana to DUI/DWIs and worse.  During my representation I have gotten to know the kids and in many instances, their parents.  Most of the kids are good kids who made a mistake and most of the parents are involved, caring parents.  What I have learned from my years defending these matters and from my years prosecuting them is that we, as a society, tend to minimize these illegal and dangerous activities. Am I a hypocrite? My high school and college friends would probably say yes. I am okay with that. The facts are the facts and what they show is that the earlier a child begins to drink alcohol, the greater the problems he or she will face in adulthood, not only with substance abuse but with meeting important life goals such as education and careers. Oh and did I mention it is illegal?
Parents are the single most important influence on their children’s decision to drink alcohol or smoke marijuana. It is very simple. Parents who express positive attitudes towards drinking and smoking are more likely to have kids that drink before they are legal and to smoke marijuana.  Children whose parents warn them of the dangers of alcohol and drugs are less like to start drinking underage.  Here are some suggestions for parents.

• Talk to you kids about the dangers of drinking and smoking.
• Make sure they understand to drink responsibly if they are going to drink
• DO NOT MAKE ALCOHOL AVAILABLE
• Get to know their friends
• Supervise all parties to make sure there is no alcohol. 
• IT IS OKAY TO NOT BE THE “COOL” PARENT-YOUR KIDS WILL APPRECIATE IT WHEN THEY ARE ALIVE AND OLDER.

Everyone loves the ease with which you can unlock your phone. All it takes is a fingerprint. This is great if you live a law abiding life and have no one after you. But what happens if you don't? What happens if there is a reason for the police to investigate you and your phone is set to unlock with the touch of a finger. The situation becomes even trickier if you are dead.

This scenario played out in Florida recently when two detectives showed up at a funeral home to find a dead man's finger prints. The police had the phone, but couldn't unlock it. Prior to the man's death, there was an incident involving the police, the man and at least his car. The man tried to drive away prior to the police conducting their search of his person. However, his attempt to flee somehow resulted in his death when he was killed by the Largo police. Now, the police were investigating the incident and maybe other events and needed to unlock his phone. They arrived at the funeral home and held his hands up to the phone and used his fingers to see if any of them would unlock the phone using the fingerprint reader. It didn't work. 

The sad reality is that this is actually legal because a dead person cannot assert their fourth amendment protections against illegal search and seizures. One does wonder though, even if it is technically legal to do, is it right? Should the police be able to use your loved one's dead body to try to further their own investigation by unlocking his private cell phone?

A man in Florida sent a text to an on-duty officer by mistake to sell him drugs. The text asked if the officer wanted to "buy bud". Well, you can imagine how this story played out. At first, the officer thought it was a joke. He later found out it was a real text when the man showed up at the sell meeting spot. The man now earned a free ride in a police car and new bracelets!

https://nypost.com/2017/09/27/dumb-dealer-texts-officer-by-mistake-to-sell-drugs-cops/?utm_campaign=iosapp&utm_source=mail_app

In 2016, the expungement statute in New Jersey was revised to make it a little friendlier for people to clear their record and start over. One of the changes seemed to imply that if you entered drug court and successfully completed the program without any new arrests or convictions, you could expunge your whole record and start over. 

Most of the time, those in drug court have drug offenses on their record. It seemed like a great new start. Become sober or drug free through a court intensive program and at the end, you have a new outlook on life and a new clear criminal record to help you find a job and really change your ways. 

Many expungements were granted clearing the records of those in drug court. However, those orders were questioned and appealed. Now, based on a new case, it appears if on your record is a 3rd or 4th degree drug charge that would normally require one to prove expungement was in the public interest, you now have to prove that even if you graduated drug court.

Our NJ Supreme Court recently ruled that when a State Trooper entered a woman's home without waiting for a proper warrant, he violated the woman's rights, but she can't sue the police.

The police claimed they feared the woman was going to destroy evidence in the home based on her perceived behavior, so they entered the home without the warrant. The woman was made a prisoner in her own home while the cops waited there for the warrant. The woman filed a suit claiming her civil rights were violated. The trial court level dismissed the case, but our appellate court reversed that ruling. The case went on to the NJ Supreme Court where a recent decision stated that there is a lack of clarity in the law governing the lawful means to secure a home by law enforcement while a warrant application is pending. The court determined the troopers acted according to their training and therefore could not be sued.