The New Jersey Police Chief Magazine | March 2022
Continued from previous page
Police officers seized the evidence following an investigatory stop of an automobile in which defendant was a passenger . The arresting officer testified he stopped the car because he was advised two black men had robbed a store . The officer used a spotlight mounted to his car to illuminate the interiors of passing vehicles as he traveled to the store . In one car , he observed three black men who did not react to the light . The officer stopped the car based on those observations .
Following the denial of his motion to suppress physical evidence , defendant pled guilty to first-degree robbery , N . J . S . A . 2C : 15-1 .
The court held that knowledge of the race and gender of criminal suspects , without more , does not establish a reasonable articulable suspicion that the men in the car had robbed the store . Accordingly , the court reverses defendant ' s conviction , vacates his sentence , and remands for further proceedings . A-0891-18T4
12 . Court here rejects protective sweep where defendant handcuffed State v Radel 465 N . J . Super . 65 ( App . Div . 2020 )
Police did not have proof they had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that there were other persons inside the home or that
they posed a risk to the police or others State v Radel . Defendant moved in the trial court for the suppression of evidence – guns , ammunition , drugs , and drug paraphernalia – seized pursuant to a search warrant based on information police obtained during a warrantless entry into defendant ' s home . The trial judge denied the suppression motion , finding the police conducted a permissible protective sweep of the home .
The Appellate court concluded that the police lacked both a reasonable and articulable suspicion of danger and a legitimate purpose for remaining on the premises , since defendant was arrested outside the home and handcuffed before police conducted the sweep .
13 . The courts have expunged the cases of anyone convicted or adjudicated delinquent if the case has only one of these three offenses :
N . J . S . A . 2C : 35-5 ( b )( 12 ) - Distribution of marijuana less than 1 ounce or hashish less than 5 grams N . J . S . A . 2C : 35-10 ( a )( 3 ) - Possession of more than 50 grams of marijuana , or more than 5 grams of hashish N . J . S . A . 2C : 35-10 ( a )( 4 ) - Possession of 50 grams or less of marijuana , or 5 grams or less of hashish
The courts have expunged other marijuana and hashish cases as well . If the case included only one of the above offenses AND any of the below offenses , it was expunged : N . J . S . A . 2C : 36-2 - Possession of Drug Paraphernalia N . J . S . A . 2C : 35-10 ( b ) - Use or Being Under Influence of Controlled , Dangerous Substance N . J . S . A . 2C : 35-10 ( c ) - Failure to Make Lawful Disposition of Controlled , Dangerous Substance Source https :// www . njcourts . gov / marihashexpunge . html
The courts also expunged cases that involved attempts to commit and conspiracy to commit any offense listed above . Attempts and conspiracies to commit these offenses also were expunged according to the July 1 , 2021 Supreme Court Order .
The legislation does not require that every case containing a marijuana charge be expunged . Source https :// www . njcourts . gov / marihashexpunge . html
14 . No more license suspensions for Failure to Appear FTA
The Supreme Court has relaxed and supplemented Rule 7:8-9 ( b ) (“ Driving Privileges ; Report to Motor Vehicle Commission ”) so as to conform to L . 2019 , c . 276 , § 20 , which repealed N . J . S . A . 2B : 12-31 and thereby eliminated the authority for municipal courts to issue driver ’ s license suspensions for failures to appear for non-parking violations . Ex- criminal
Consistent with L . 2019 , c . 276 , § 20 , which repealed N . J . S . A . 2B : 12-31 effective January 1 , 2021 , municipal courts shall not issue a driver ' s license suspension or a prohibition against obtaining driving privileges based on a person ' s failure to appear for any non-parking violation , specifically ( a ) a disorderly persons offense ; ( b ) a petty disorderly person offense ; ( c ) a violation of a municipal ordinance ; or ( d ) any other law of this State for which a penalty may be imposed . –[ ex traffic tickets ] https :// www . njcourts . gov / notices / 2020 / n201214a . pdf
15 . NJSA 39:6B-2 No Insurance Penalties . No more mandatory suspension
An owner or registrant of a motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this State who operates or causes to be operated a motor vehicle upon any public road or highway in this State without motor vehicle liability insurance coverage required by P . L . 1972 , c . 197 ( C . 39:6B-1 et seq .), and an operator who operates or causes a motor vehicle to be operated and who knows or should know from the attendant circumstances that the motor vehicle is without motor vehicle liability insurance coverage required by P . L . 1972 , c . 197 ( C . 39:6B-1 et seq .) shall be subject , for the first offense , to a fine of not less than $ 300 nor more than $ 1,000 and a period of community service to be determined by the court .
The court , in its discretion , also may suspend the person ' s right to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State for a period of up to one year from the date of conviction ; provided , however , the period of license suspension may be reduced or
12
Continued on page 22