Fall Municipal Court Law Review 2019

Fall Municipal Court Law Review 2019

1. Reduced DL suspension for DWI with law Expanding Use of Ignition Interlock Devices P.L.2019, c.248.

2. Police false promise of no jail and leniency required suppression of confessionState v. L.H.

3  Weapons search not permitted here after DV TRO State v. Hemenway

 4 For DWI PCR on prior uncounseled DWI proceeding, neither an indigent nor a non-indigent defendant must show that the outcome would have been different had he been represented

State v. Patel

5. When a driver is unconscious and cannot be given a breath test, the exigent-circumstances doctrine generally permits a blood test without a warrantMitchell v. Wisconsin

6. Refusal of consent to search is inadmissible State v Tung

8Photo Municipal Court Annual Meeting Seminar 

9 Office for rent Professional Office Space available in Edison Law Office

10 Recent NJ Municipal Court Cases webinar December 11, 2019

1. Reduced DL suspension for DWI with law Expanding Use of Ignition Interlock Devices P.L.2019, c.248.

     On 8/23/2019 new laws signed expanding the use of ignition interlock device for those convicted of drunk driving offenses and of refusing breath tests. The legislation (S824) also reduces the length of license suspension and forfeitures for these offenses. New law takes effect December 1, 2019
    This law requires that first time offenders install ignition interlock devices (IID), at a cost to the offender. IIDs and suspensions from then on are based upon the severity of the offense.
         

If someone does not own a car.

n  Attest to Court that you don’t own, lease or operate a motor vehicle – Lose License for Interlock Period

Offense	BAC	Suspension
1st	0.08 to 0.10	3 months
1st	0.10 to 0.15	7 to 12 months if you don’t own a car
1st	Over 0.15	9 to 15 months if you don’t own a car
2d offense		2 to 4 years if you don’t own a car

    It is better to buy a cheap car and pay for interlock so you can get your license restored

First-time offenders with BAC of:
0.08 to 0.10 

Fine	Old $250-400 + 389	New same
IDRC	12-48 hrs	same
Jail	30 days discretionary	same
Suspension	90 days	New Until install of Interlock
Interlock	6 months – 1yr discretionary (after suspension)	3 months after install Source: NJ Bar seminar

 (1)   For the first offense:

     (i)    if the person's blood alcohol concentration is 0.08% or higher but less than 0.10%, or the person operates a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, or the person permits another person who is under the influence of intoxicating liquor to operate a motor vehicle owned by him or in his custody or control or permits another person with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% or higher but less than 0.10% to operate a motor vehicle, to a fine of not less than $250 nor more than $400 and a period of detainment of not less than 12 hours nor more than 48 hours spent during two consecutive days of not less than six hours each day and served as prescribed by the program requirements of the Intoxicated Driver Resource Centers established under subsection (f) of this section and, in the discretion of the court, a term of imprisonment of not more than 30 days [and] . In addition, the court shall [forthwith] order the person to forfeit [his] the right to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State [for a period of three months] until the person installs an ignition interlock device in one motor vehicle the person owns, leases, or principally operates, whichever the person most often operates, for the purpose of complying with the provisions of  P.L.1999, c.417 (C.39:4-50.16 et al.); 

     First Offense 0.10 to 0.15 - must install ignition interlock at own cost

Fine	Old $300-500 + 389	New same
IDRC	12- 48 hrs	same
Jail	30 days discretionary	same
DUID	7-12 months DL suspension	same
Suspension	7-12 months	New Until install of interlock
Interlock	6 months -1yr Discretionary (after suspension)	7-12 months after install Source: NJ Bar Assoc Seminar

 (ii)   if the person's blood alcohol concentration is 0.10% or higher, or the person operates a motor vehicle while under the influence of narcotic, hallucinogenic or habit-producing drug, or the person permits another person who is under the influence of narcotic, hallucinogenic or habit-producing drug to operate a motor vehicle owned by him or in his custody or control, or permits another person with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.10% or more to operate a motor vehicle, to a fine of not less than $300 nor more than $500 and a period of detainment of not less than 12 hours nor more than 48 hours spent during two consecutive days of not less than six hours each day and served as prescribed by the program requirements of the Intoxicated Driver Resource Centers established under subsection (f) of this section and, in the discretion of the court, a term of imprisonment of not more than 30 days [and]; 

     in the case of a person who is convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of a narcotic, hallucinogenic or habit-producing drug or permitting another person who is under the influence of narcotic, hallucinogenic or habit-producing drug to operate a motor vehicle owned by the person or under the person’s custody or control, the person shall [forthwith] forfeit [his] the right to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State for a period of not less than seven months nor more than one year;  

higher than 0.15 - must install ignition interlock at own cost

Fine	$300-500 +389	same
IDRC	12 -48 hrs	same
Jail	30 days discretionary	same
Suspension	7-12 months	Until install of interlock and for 4- 6 months after installation
Interlock	6 months – 1yr mandatory during suspension and 6 months -1 yr after suspension	Interlock remains between 9- 15 months after license restored Source: NJ Bar Assoc Seminar

      in the case of a person whose blood alcohol concentration is 0.10% or higher but less than 0.15%, the person shall forfeit the right to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State until the person installs an ignition interlock device in one motor vehicle the person owns, leases, or principally operates, whichever the person most often operates, for the purpose of complying with the provisions of  P.L.1999, c.417 (C.39:4-50.16 et al.);  

     in the case of a person whose blood alcohol concentration is 0.15% or higher, the person shall forfeit the right to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State for a period of not less than four months or more than six months following installation of an ignition interlock device in one motor vehicle the person owns, leases, or principally operates, whichever the person most often operates, for the purpose of complying with the provisions of  P.L.1999, c.417 (C.39:4-50.16 et al.);

Second

Fine	Old $500-1000 +389	New same
IDRC Community Service	48 hours 30 days	Same same
Jail	2 – 90 days discretionary (substitute IDRC for jail)	same
Suspension	2 years	1 – 2 years
Interlock	1-3 years + during suspension period	During period of suspension and 2- 4 years after restoration Source: NJ Bar Assoc Seminar

   For a second violation, a person shall be subject to a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $1,000, and shall be ordered by the court to perform community service for a period of 30 days, which shall be of such form and on [such] terms [as] the court shall deem appropriate under the circumstances, and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than 48 consecutive hours, which shall not be suspended or served on probation, [nor] or more than 90 days, and shall forfeit [his] the right to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State for a period of not less than one year or more than two years upon conviction[, and after].  

     After the expiration of [said] the license forfeiture period, [he] the person may make application to the Chief Administrator of the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission for a license to operate a motor vehicle, which application may be granted at the discretion of the chief administrator, consistent with subsection (b) of this section.  For a second violation, a person also shall be required to install an ignition interlock device under the provisions of P.L.1999, c.417 (C.39:4-50.16 et al.).  

Third offense

Fine	Old $1000 +389	New same
IDRC	48 hours	same
Jail	180 days w/ possible 90 reduction for treatment	same
Suspension	10 years	8 years
Interlock	During period of suspension and 2-4 years after restoration

     (3)   For a third or subsequent violation, a person shall be subject to a fine of $1,000, and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than 180 days in a county jail or workhouse, except that the court may lower such term for each day, not exceeding 90 days, served participating in a drug or alcohol inpatient rehabilitation program approved by the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center and shall thereafter forfeit [his] the right to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State for [10] eight years.    

     For a third or subsequent violation, a person also shall be required to install an ignition interlock device under the provisions of P.L.1999, c.417 (C.39:4-50.16 et al.).   

Refusal

n  If in connection with 1^stDWI then suspended until the defendant installs an interlock for 9-15 months after the license is restored

Section 2 of P.L.1981, c.512 (C.39:4-50.4a) is amended to read as follows:  

     2.    a.  [Except as provided in subsection b. of this section, the] The municipal court shall [revoke the right to operate a motor vehicle of] order any [operator] person who, after being arrested for a violation of R.S.39:4-50 or section 1 of P.L.1992, c.189 (C.39:4-50.14), [shall refuse] refuses to submit , upon request, to a test provided for in section 2 of P.L.1966, c.142 (C.39:4-50.2) [when requested to do so, for not less than seven months or more than one year unless]:

(1)       if the refusal was in connection with a first offense under this section, to forfeit the right to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State until the person installs an ignition interlock device in one motor vehicle owned, leased, or principally operated by the person, whichever the person most often operates, for the purpose of complying with the provisions of P.L.1999, c.417 (C.39:4-50.16 et al.); 

n  If in connection with a 2^ndDWI license is suspended for 1 to 2 years after the interlock is installed; it shall remain 2 to 4 years after the restoration

(2)       if the refusal was in connection with a second offense under this section, [in which case the revocation period shall be for two years or unless], to forfeit the right to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State for a period of not less than one year or more than two years following the installation of an ignition interlock device in one motor vehicle owned, leased, or principally operated by the person, whichever the person most often operates, for the purpose of complying with the provisions of P.L.1999, c.417 (C.39:4-50.16 et al.); 

Third Refusal If the refusal was in connection with a 3^rdor subsequent DWI then license is suspended for 8 years after the interlock device is installed and remains 2 to 4 years after the license is restored

All other penalties for refusal are the same – IDRC, Fines, Penalties, etc.

     (3) if the refusal was in connection with a third or subsequent offense under this section [in which case the revocation shall be for ten years], to forfeit the right to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State for a period of eight years following the installation of an ignition interlock device in one motor vehicle owned, leased, or principally operated by the person, whichever the person most often operates, for the purpose of complying with the provisions of  P.L.1999, c.417 (C.39:4-50.16 et al.).  A conviction or administrative determination of a violation of a law of a substantially similar nature in another jurisdiction, regardless of whether that jurisdiction is a signatory to the Interstate Driver License Compact pursuant to P.L.1966, c.73 (C.39:5D-1 et seq.), shall constitute a prior conviction under this section.  

What if you are poor? Revised N.J.S.A.39:4-50.17

u(a) If family income does not exceed 100% of the federal poverty level, the monthly leasing fee is 50% of the regular fee.

u(b) If family income does not exceed 149% of the federal poverty level, the monthly leasing fee shall be 75% of the regular fee.

u(c) Qualifying individuals are not be required to pay 

uinstallation fee

ucost for monitoring of the device

ufees for calibration or removal of the device.

Federal Poverty Level (1/11/2019): $12,490/year + $4,420 each additional person – U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services[source: NJ Bar seminar]

39:4-50.17: whether the offender qualifies for a reduced fee for monthly rental of an ignition interlock device pursuant to section 6 of P.L.2009, c.201 (C.39:4-50.17a) categorized by family income exceeding 100 percent or 149 percent of the federal poverty level; the percentage these offenders constitute of the total  number of offenders; and the number of these offenders that reside in each county;   

School zone DWI eliminated

39:4-50.19 Violation of law; penalties.  No changes

   4. a. A person who fails to install an interlock device ordered by the court in a motor vehicle owned, leased or regularly operated by him shall have his driver's license suspended for one year, in addition to any other suspension or revocation imposed under R.S.39:4-50, unless the court determines a valid reason exists for the failure to comply.  A person in whose vehicle an interlock device is installed pursuant to a court order who drives that vehicle after it has been started by any means other than his own blowing into the device or who drives a vehicle that is not equipped with such a device shall have his driver's license suspended for one year, in addition to any other penalty applicable by law.

   b.   A person is a disorderly person who:

   (1)   blows into an interlock device or otherwise starts a motor vehicle equipped with such a device for the purpose of providing an operable motor vehicle to a person who has been ordered by the court to install the device in the vehicle;

   (2)   tampers or in any way circumvents the operation of an interlock device; or

   (3)   knowingly rents, leases or lends a motor vehicle not equipped with an interlock device to a person who has been ordered by the court to install an interlock device in a vehicle he owns, leases or regularly operates.

   c.   The provisions of subsection b. of this section shall not apply if a motor vehicle required to be equipped with an ignition interlock device is started by a person for the purpose of safety or mechanical repair of the device or the vehicle, provided the person subject to the court order does not operate the vehicle.

   L.1999, c.417, s.4; amended 2009, c.201, s.3.

revised 39:4-50.18  Notification to NJMVC of ignition interlock device installation.

   3. a. The court shall notify the Chief Administrator of the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission when a person has been ordered to install an ignition interlock device in a vehicle pursuant to the provisions of P.L.1999, c.417 (C.39:4-50.16 et al.).  The commission shall require that the device be installed before restoration of the person's driver's license that has been forfeited pursuant to R.S.39:4-50 or section 2 of P.L.1981, c.512 (C.39:4-50.4a).

   b.   The commission shall imprint a notation on the driver's license stating that the person shall not operate a motor vehicle unless it is equipped with an ignition interlock device and shall enter this requirement in the person's driving record.  The expiration date of the device requirement shall not be imprinted on the license. 

   c.   Notwithstanding the provisions of section 2 of P.L.1999, c.417 (C.39:4-50.17), an ignition interlock device shall be removed on the date the person completes the installation period only if the person submits to the chief administrator a certification from the vendor that:

   (1)   during the final 30 days of the installation period there was not more than one failure to take or pass a test with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% or higher unless a re-test conducted within five minutes of the initial test indicates a blood alcohol concentration of less than 0.08%; and

   (2)   the person complied with all required maintenance, repair, calibration, monitoring, and inspection requirements related to the device.

   d.   If the vendor does not issue a certification to the person because there were two or more violations of paragraph (1) of subsection c. of this section, the vendor shall forward the violation information to the chief administrator and the court.  The court shall decide whether to extend the period of ignition interlock device installation for up to 90 days or issue the certification to the chief administrator.

   L.1999, c.417, s.3; amended 2019, c.248, s.5.

During of the period of IID installation imposed by the sentencing judge, the defendant may not operate any vehicle that is not equipped with an IID. (NJSA 39:4-50.17(c)).  A notation to this effect will be imprinted on the operator’s license. (NJSA 39:4-50.18(b)).

2. Police false promise of no jail and leniency required suppression of confessionState v. L.H.

    The State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, under the totality of the circumstances, defendant’s statement was voluntary. Defendant may withdraw his guilty plea. The failure to record the identification procedure as required by Delgado requires a remand to allow defendant the benefit of a hearing to inquire into the reliability of the identification and any other remedy deemed appropriate by the trial court. (A-59-17)

3  Weapons search not permitted here after DV TRO State v. Hemenway

       The beneficent goal of protecting domestic violence victims must be accomplished while abiding by well-established constitutional norms. Before issuing a warrant to search for weapons under the Act, a court must find that there is (1) probable cause to believe that an act of domestic violence has been committed by the defendant; (2) probable cause to believe that a search for and seizure of weapons is necessary to protect the life, health or well-being of a victim on whose behalf the relief is sought; and (3) probable cause to believe that the weapons are located in the place to be searched. Transposed into the context of a domestic violence search warrant for weapons, probable cause requires that the issuing court only have a well-grounded suspicion. (A-19-18)

4 For DWI PCR on prior uncounseled DWI proceeding, neither an indigent nor a non-indigent defendant must show that the outcome would have been different had he been represented

State v. Patel

     To secure relief from an enhanced custodial sentence for a subsequent DWI conviction, a non-indigent defendant must establish that in the earlier uncounseled DWI proceeding, (1) he was not advised or did not know of his right to counsel and (2) had he known of his right to counsel, he would have retained a lawyer. A defendant contending he was indigent must establish that in the earlier uncounseled DWI proceeding (1) he was not advised and did not know of his right to appointed counsel, (2) he was entitled to the appointment of counsel under the applicable financial means test, R. 7:3-2(b), and (3) had he been properly informed of his rights, he would have accepted appointed counsel. 

      Because denial of counsel is a structural defect in the proceeding, to secure relief from an enhanced custodial sentence, neither an indigent nor a non-indigent defendant must show that the outcome would have been different had he been represented. The Court removes the five-year limitation in Laurick petitions and amends Rule 7:10-2(g)(2), effective immediately, to provide the following: “(2) Time Limitations. A petition seeking relief under this Rule may be filed at any time.” Here, Patel’s unrebutted certifications established that his 1994 plea was uncounseled, and he had no obligation to establish that he would not have pled guilty or been convicted at trial had he been represented by counsel. The Court therefore reverses the judgment of the Appellate Division and remands the matter for proceedings consistent with this opinion. (A-13-18)

5. When a driver is unconscious and cannot be given a breath test, the exigent-circumstances doctrine generally permits a blood test without a warrantMitchell v. Wisconsin 139 S. Ct. 2525 (2019)

  (a) BAC tests are Fourth Amendment searches. See Birchfield v. North Dakota,579 U.S. ___, ___, 136 S.Ct. 2160, 195 L.Ed.2d 560. A warrant is normally required for a lawful search, but there are well-defined exceptions to this rule, including the "exigent circumstances" exception, which allows warrantless searches "to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence."  In McNeely, this Court held that the fleeting nature of blood-alcohol evidence alone was not enough to bring BAC testing within the exigency exception. Missouri v. McNeely133 S.Ct. 1552 But in Schmerber v. California 86 S.Ct. 1826the dissipation of BAC did justify a blood test of a drunk driver whose accident gave police other pressing duties, for then the further delay caused by a warrant application would indeed have threatened the destruction of evidence. Like Schmerber, unconscious-driver cases will involve a heightened degree of urgency for several reasons. And when the driver's stupor or unconsciousness deprives officials of a reasonable opportunity to administer a breath test using evidence-grade equipment, a blood test will be essential for achieving the goals of BAC testing.  

 (b) Under the exigent circumstances exception, a warrantless search is allowed when "`there is compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant.'" McNeely133 S.Ct. 1552. P. 2534.

(1) There is clearly a "compelling need" for a blood test of drunk-driving suspects whose condition deprives officials of a reasonable opportunity to conduct a breath test. First, highway safety is a vital public interest—a "compelling" and "paramount" interest, Mackey v. Montrym  99 S.Ct. 2612  Second, when it comes to promoting that interest, federal and state lawmakers have long been convinced that legal limits on a driver's BAC make a big difference. And there is good reason to think that such laws have worked. Birchfield  136 S.Ct., at ___. Third, enforcing BAC limits obviously requires a test that is accurate enough to stand up in court. Id., at ___, 136 S.Ct., at ___. And such testing must be prompt because it is "a biological certainty" that "[alcohol dissipates from the bloodstream," "literally disappearing by the minute." McNeely 133 S.Ct. 1552 (ROBERTS, 2530*2530 C.J., concurring).  Finally, when a breath test is unavailable to promote the interests served by legal BAC limits, "a blood draw becomes necessary." Id., at 133 S.Ct. 1552.  

 (2) Schmerber demonstrates that an exigency exists when (1) BAC evidence is dissipating and (2) some other factor creates pressing health, safety, or law enforcement needs that would take priority over a warrant application. Because both conditions are met when a drunk-driving suspect is unconscious, Schmerber controls. A driver's unconsciousness does not just create pressing needs; it is itselfa medical emergency. In such a case, as in Schmerber, an officer could "reasonably have believed that he was confronted with an emergency."   86 S.Ct. 1826. And in many unconscious-driver cases, the exigency will be especially acute. A driver so drunk as to lose consciousness is quite likely to crash, giving officers a slew of urgent tasks beyond that of securing medical care for the suspect— tasks that would require them to put off applying for a warrant. The time needed to secure a warrant may have shrunk over the years, but it has not disappeared; and forcing police to put off other urgent tasks for even a relatively short period of time may have terrible collateral costs.  

 (c) On remand, Mitchell may attempt to show that his was an unusual case, in which his blood would not have been drawn had police not been seeking BAC information and police could not have reasonably judged that a warrant application would interfere with other pressing needs or duties.  

6. Refusal of consent to search is inadmissible at trial State v Tungunpublished

    The court reverses defendant's conviction after trial for murder of his estranged wife's lover. The court determines that testimony and an unabridged audiotape of defendant's invocation of the right to counsel, his refusal to consent to a search of his computer and car, and the interrogating officer's opinion that defendant was lying cumulatively constitute plain error. The court relies on federal and out-of-state case law to decide that a refusal of consent to search is inadmissible in these circumstances. Given the paucity of direct evidence of defendant's guilt, this improperly admitted evidence undermines the integrity of the verdict. (A-3692-15T1) source https://www.law.com/njlawjournal/almID/1562724879NJA369215T/

8Photo Municipal Court Annual Meeting Seminar Speakers:  Kenneth A. Vercammen, Esq. Orange Prosecutor Gracia Montilus, Esq., Peter H. Lederman, Esq.,     Joshua H. Reinitz, Esq.,  Ronald P. Mondello, Esq.,  Also speaking Hon. Ashlie C. Gibbons J.M.C., Newark Municipal Court  Hon. Harry D. Norton Jr., J.M.C., Pascack Joint Municipal Court    

9 Office for rent Professional Office Space available in Edison Law Office

2053 Woodbridge Ave.

Edison, NJ 08817

 Excellent space for an Attorney, Financial Planners, Accountant, Insurance Agents, and other Business Professionals as a 2nd location or location to meet clients in Edison. 

    The offices are located on the 1st floor of the building.

2 rooms office   

office room # 6 approx 12.4 x 9.4        

and front room approx 8 x 9 -office room # 5

plus use of reception room  16.6 x 7.2

and use of storage area in basement 

   Previously used by Robert Blackman, late former Judge and Prosecutor of Edison

   $500 per month  [was $600]

Call 732-816-4449

    Owner of building is local attorney, Kenneth Vercammen who handles Municipal Court, Estate Planning & Probate, and Criminal Law. 

10 Recent NJ Municipal Court Cases webinar December 11, 2019- the Foundation of the Municipal Court Attorney’s Arsenalan NJICLE webinarNoon-1:40pm

Featuring:

David R. Spevack, Esq.

Municipal Court Prosecutor Edison, Woodbridge, Carteret

Francis M. Womack, III, Esq.

Municipal Court Prosecutor Edison, Piscataway, Sayreville, South Amboy

 John E. Kawczynski, Esq.

Municipal Court Prosecutor Metuchen & Piscataway

Chirag Mehta, Esq. Prosecutor  Irvington and Morris Plains and Municipal Court Alternate Prosecutor Edison, New Brunswick, Rockaway Township, and Perth Amboy.

Kenneth A. Vercammen, Esq.

Past Chair, NJSBA Municipal Court Practice Section   

   Join the bar for a convenient luncheon webinar and become familiar with the newest key municipal court law cases that should be part of your legal arsenal. Seminar WMCP064819

NJCIEL Phone: (732) 214-8500 · CustomerService@njsba.com

N.J. Municipal Court - Law Review SUBSCRIPTION INFO

       Please forward a check or voucher for $20.00 to receive the NJ Municipal Court Law Review.  This quarterly newsletter reports changes in New Jersey Court decisions, selected revised motor vehicle and criminal laws, cases, seminars, and information on Municipal Court practice.

       Vouchers accepted. Please send a stamped, self-addressed envelope for their return.  Multiple subscriptions encouraged.

       Please must send a $20.00 check payable to Vercammen & Assoc PC. 

If the law firm or municipality no longer wishes to subscribe, please fax or mail us. 

Name:      ______________________________________

(or staple business card here)

Address:   ______________________________________

              

We also need your email address ________________________ 

Return to:   

Kenneth A. Vercammen, Esq.,    

                    Editor- NJ Municipal Court Law Review    

                    2053 Woodbridge Ave.

                    Edison, NJ 08817

                    732-572-0500

                   Tax ID # available

   Free Office Space for Transitional or New Attorney and work with Metuchen Public Defender and go to Court & Mentor program- Edison, NJ 

              The Metuchen Public Defender Kenneth Vercammen has a space sharing opportunity for new lawyer or recent Transitional attorney to get experience and go to court and learn NJ Law office procedures and handle some Municipal court cases. This is a mentoring experience where you can learn NJ Law Office Procedure. Must be licensed in NJ.

        Help handle Wednesday night 5:15 -7:55pm Metuchen Municipal Court matters and two Friday mornings per month.

              Attorney will be provided with use of desk, plus if needed additional private office space in furnished basement to start their practice, rent-free. They can see clients in first floor office rooms. In return they will handle municipal court appearances, Telephone communications with courts, Prosecutors, clients, etc, Will signings and other legal work and criminal law website updates in lieu of rent for maximum 5 hours per week.

-Call Courts to follow up on Letter of Representation and scheduling of hearings & call Police Departments to follow up on discovery

- Prepare timesheets on Fatal Accident cases

-Call clients and remind them of hearing dates and what to do

- Update Criminal and Civil blogs with recent cases

-Assist at Senior citizen Will Seminars and Municipal Court programs

               Go to court and get court experience. Excellent opportunity to jump-start your career. You will get to represent people in Municipal Courts in Middlesex, Union and Monmouth County and meet the top Prosecutors and Judges. Must be admitted in NJ and have a car.

https://www.njlaws.com/office_space.html

               Learn to interview potential Municipal Court/Criminal clients. Also learn to draft Wills and work on Litigation files. Attorney may also help provide legal assistance to members of prepaid legal plans and public defender clients. Follow up contact calls with clients, courts, prosecutors and bar associations.

          Excellent mentoring position for the right attorney. Are you hardworking and aggressive?  Visit our website: www.njlaws.comto learn about our office. More details at www.njlaws.com/lease.htm

    If interested, fax, mail , fax or email a resume and cover letter.

KENNETH VERCAMMEN, Esq. Metuchen Public Defender

2053 Woodbridge Ave. Edison, NJ 08817 (Phone) 732-572-0500 

(Fax) 732-572-0030   vercammenlaw@njlaws.com

__________________________________________

   The following is included with office use:

Desk space 

Reception room for clients and use as Bona Fide Office

You can copy and use our Complaints, Motions, Form Letters and Pleadings.

 Use our marketing books, marketing CDs, Criminal, Municipal Court and Elder law audiotapes and video library now located in basement

 Use of our computer forms Motions, Complaints, and Form letters 

Ability to use a file cabinet in basement to store your old files 

Lighting/ Utilities

Bathroom Supplies

Landscaping / Snow Removal

Valuable advice

Hot water, municipal water/sewer charge paid

     Other Duties/ Services to Clients

-      Help add our 900+ criminal articles and statutes to our new criminal articles blog [We will teach you how to add articles to Blogs]

-Prepare Police Chief letters

- Whatever else needed to assist clients [ex Motions, ]

About Mentor Program Director: Kenneth Vercammenis an Edison, Middlesex County, NJ trial attorney.    Mr. Vercammen has published 125 articles in national and New Jersey publications on criminal, traffic, DWI, probate, estate planning, and litigation topics. He has been selected to write the book on Criminal Law for the American Bar Association. He often lectures to trial lawyers of the American Bar Association, New Jersey State Bar Association and Middlesex County Bar Association.  

  Kenneth Vercammen was the NJ State Bar Municipal Court Attorney of the Year and past president of the Middlesex County Municipal Prosecutor's Association. He is the past chair of the NJ State Bar Association Municipal Court Section and is the Co-Chair of the ABA Criminal Law committee, GP Division. 

       He is a highly regarded lecturer on litigation issues for the American Bar Association, ICLE, New Jersey State Bar Association and Middlesex County Bar Association. His articles have been published by New Jersey Law Journal, ABA Law Practice Management Magazine, and New Jersey Lawyer. As the Editor in Chief of the New Jersey Municipal Court Law Review. Mr. Vercammen is also a recipient of the NJSBA- YLD Service to the Bar Award.

In his private practice, he has devoted a substantial portion of his professional time to the preparation for trial of litigated matters.  He has appeared in Courts throughout New Jersey several times each week on Criminal personal injury matters, Municipal Court trials, and contested Probate hearings. He serves as the Editor of the popular legal websites www.njlaws.com 

Kenneth Vercammenis an Edison, Middlesex County, NJ trial attorney where he handles Criminal, Municipal Court, Probate, Civil Litigation and Estate Administration matters. Ken is author of the American Bar Association's award winning book Criminal Law Forms and often lectures to trial lawyers of the American Bar Association, NJ State Bar Association and Middlesex County Bar Association. As the Past Chair of the Municipal Court Section he has served on its board for 10 years. He is admitted to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Awarded the Municipal Court Attorney of the Year by both the NJSBA and Middlesex County Bar Association, he also received the NJSBA- YLD Service to the Bar Award and the General Practitioner Attorney of the Year, now Solo Attorney of the Year.

Ken Vercammen is a highly regarded lecturer on both Municipal Court/ DWI and Estate/ Probate Law issues for the NJICLE- New Jersey State Bar Association, American Bar Association, and Middlesex County Bar Association. His articles have been published by NJ Law Journal, ABA Law Practice Management Magazine, YLD Dictum, GP Gazette and New Jersey Lawyer magazine. He was a speaker at the  ABA Annual meeting program “Handling the Criminal Misdemeanor and Traffic Case” and serves as is the Editor in Chief of the NJ Municipal Court Law. For nine years he served as the Cranbury Township Prosecutor and also was a Special Acting Prosecutor in nine different towns. Ken has successfully handled over one thousand Municipal Court and Superior Court matters in the past 27 years.

His private practice has devoted a substantial portion of professional time to the preparation and trial of litigated matters. Appearing in Courts throughout New Jersey several times each week on Criminal and Municipal Court trials, civil and contested Probate hearings. Ken also serves as the Editor of the popular legal website and related blogs. In Law School he was a member of the Law Review, winner of the ATLA trial competition and top ten in class.

         Throughout his career he has served the NJSBA in many leadership and volunteer positions. Ken has testified for the NJSBA before the Senate Judiciary Committee to support changes in the DWI law to permit restricted use driver license and interlock legislation. Ken also testified before the Assembly Judiciary Committee in favor of the first-time criminal offender “Conditional Dismissal” legislation which permits dismissal of some criminal charges. In his private life he has been a member of the NJ State champion Raritan Valley Road Runners master’s team and is a 4^thdegree black belt.

KENNETH VERCAMMEN

ATTORNEY AT LAW

2053 Woodbridge Ave.

Edison, NJ 08817

(Phone) 732-572-0500