The New Jersey Police Chief Magazine | March 2022
Continued from previous page
27 . Cassidy cases require a PCR petition online REVIEW OF DWI CONVICTIONS INVOLVING NOT PROPERLY CALIBRATED EQUIPMENT ( STATE V . CASSIDY ) - WEBSITE TO FACILITATE SUBMISSION OF REQUESTS TO REVIEW A DWI CONVICTION
The Supreme Court in State v . Cassidy 235 NJ . 482 ( 2018 ) found that in some driving while intoxicated ( DWI ) cases , some Alcotest machines were not properly calibrated and that the test results from those machines thus could not be used to convict a defendant of DWI . The Judiciary was notified by the Office of the Attorney General that there were thousands of DWI cases in which defendants ' breath samples were procured using such improperly calibrated machines . As a result , more than 13,000 DWI convictions from between 2008 and 2016 are eligible for review , with most of those cases in four counties ( Middlesex , Monmouth , Somerset , Union ).
The Judiciary has created a webpage to facilitate the submission of post-conviction petitions for relief by any defendant affected by the Court ' s Cassidy decision ( https :// www . njcourts . gov / courts / mcs / cassidy . html ).
On July 14 , 2021 , Superior Court Judge Robert A . Fall , serving on recall and designated by the Court as special master for the statewide management of these cases , sent a notice to those 13,000 + defendants potentially affected by the Cassidy decision . That notice advised defendants how to file a petition for review of their case and , if needed , how to request appointment of a public defender . The forms for those steps are available on the website . Initial case management conferences in those matters will begin in August .
28 . Second patdown permitted where belief armed State v Carrillo ( A-4889-18 )
The main issue in this appeal from the trial court ' s denial of defendant ' s suppression motion without a testimonial hearing is whether the officer violated defendant ' s rights when he patted him down a second time , just minutes after the officer patted him down the first time and uncovered no weapons .
The court concludes that an officer may conduct a second pat-down when , giving weight to the unproductive first one , the circumstances preceding the second one still give the officer reason to believe the suspect is armed and dangerous . Because there exist issues of fact material to that question , the court reverses the trial court ' s order and remands for a testimonial hearing .
29 . NJ recently made Magic mushroom use or possession now only a disorderly offense , was previously a 3rd degree crime .
This missed the newspapers articles on legal weed . New 2C : 35-10 Possession P . L . 2021 , CHAPTER 9 , approved February 4 , 2021 Senate , No . 3256 .
Be It Enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey :
1 . N . J . S . 2C : 35-10 is amended to read as follows : 2C : 35-10 . Possession , Use or Being Under the Influence , or Failure to Make Lawful Disposition . a . It is unlawful for any person , knowingly or purposely , to obtain , or to possess , actually or constructively , a controlled dangerous substance or controlled substance analog , unless the substance was obtained directly , or pursuant to a valid prescription or order form from a practitioner , while acting in the course of his professional practice , or except as otherwise authorized by P . L . 1970 , c . 226 ( C . 24:21-1 et seq .). Any person who violates this section with respect to :……
…… or ( 5 ) Possession of one ounce or less of psilocybin is a disorderly persons offense .
2 . This act shall take effect immediately .
This law would reclassify possession of psilocybin as a disorderly persons offense , punishable by up to up to six months imprisonment , a fine of up to $ 1,000 , or both .
30 . OPRA could apply to criminal & DWI complaints Simmons v . Mercado & City of Millville
Because Millville MPD officers create the information contained in the CDR-1s , the CDR-1s fall well within OPRA ’ s definition of a government record . Further , AADARI ’ s records request is narrowly tailored and would not constitute research beyond OPRA ’ s scope .
Because Millville City officers create the information contained in the CDR-1s , the Complaint Summons CDR-1s fall well within OPRA ’ s definition of a government record . Further , AADARI ’ s records request is narrowly tailored and would not constitute research beyond OPRA ’ s scope .
Thus , regardless of who maintains the files , the fact that police “ makes ” the CDR-1s means that it can be called upon to disclose those government records . Nothing in the text of OPRA or Rule 1:38 or the Court ’ s jurisprudence suggests that information cannot be both a court record and a government record . Indeed , the language of the statute that defines a government record as one that has been “ made , maintained , or kept on file ” itself suggests the possibility that different government entities , working cooperatively , could be simultaneous custodians of the same information . The statutory language presupposes that there may be more than one proper place where a requestor can submit an OPRA request . That the Judiciary might maintain on its
25
Continued on next page