Kenneth Vercammen & Associates, P.C.
2053 Woodbridge Avenue - Edison, NJ 08817
(732) 572-0500 www.njlaws.com
Kenneth Vercammen was included in the “Super Lawyers” list published by Thomson Reuters

Thursday, October 14, 2021

State v Cohen


State v. Cohen Defendant appealed his conviction for operating a vehicle while his license was suspended. State trooper observed car with heavily tinted windows in apparent violation of N.J.S.A. 39:3-75. Defendant was driving car that belonged to his son's girlfriend. Both defendant and son told trooper the windows were legal. Trooper learned defendant's license was suspended and issued a summons but did not ticket the car for a tinted window violation because defendant was cooperative. Subsequent investigation showed that defendant's license was suspended for multiple DWI convictions and he was indicted for an upgraded offense. Defendant moved to suppress, arguing trooper lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle. Trial judge found trooper credible and denied the motion. The court affirmed for the reasons expressed by the trial judge. Defendant's reliance on State v. Puzio, 379 N.J. Super. 378, was misplaced because defendant did not assert trooper misread the plain language of the statute but merely challenged trooper's factual assessment of how dark the window tinting was. Source NJLJ April 05, 2021

Wednesday, October 13, 2021

Anand v Anand


Anand v. Anand Plaintiff estate executor appealed the dismissal of her complaint asserting defendant failed to provide estate with accounting of funds derived from defendant's sale of decedent's property under a power of attorney. Plaintiff asserted breach of fiduciary obligations, unjust enrichment and conversion. Defendants moved to dismiss on improper venue grounds, asserting the power of attorney was executed in the United Kingdom and the property that was sold was located in India, the proceeds were in banks in India and decedent's will was probated in the United Kingdom. Defendants failed to submit verifications for those factual assertions and plaintiff disputed many of them. Trial court dismissed the action on venue grounds, finding venue was in India where the property was located. Plaintiff argued she was not disputing defendant's authority to sell the property, but was seeking an accounting as executor of decedent's estate and venue was proper since defendants resided in the county. Appeal Court found trial court incorrectly dismissed the complaint on an incomplete record and jurisdictional discovery was required. Source NJLJ April 30, 2021

S T T v M T M Trial court erred because it relied on info outside th...


S.T.T. v. M.T.M. Defendant appealed the FRO entered against him. The married parties had two children and plaintiff alleged defendant committed predicate acts of harassment and assault and committed prior acts of domestic violence. Plaintiff contended defendant pushed and shoved her numerous times during an altercation. Defendant asserted they had a verbal argument and plaintiff pushed and scratched him. Officer testified that following plaintiff's report concerning the alleged incident, officer did not observe any signs of physical violence for either party. Trial court found plaintiff was the more credible witness and defendant lacked credibility based on his demeanor and was argumentative. Trial court also based its determination of defendant's credibility on his actions and claim of a medical emergency at a prior hearing. Appeal Court found trial court erred in its credibility determinations because it relied on information and events outside the trial record. Trial court focused on defendant's purported medical emergency at the previous proceedings, there was no testimony or evidence concerning the emergency during the FRO trial but trial court relied on the claimed emergency to support its credibility findings. Source April 19, 2021

State v Cortes Court found defendant's waiver of Miranda was made knowi...


State v. Cortes Defendant appealed his conviction for aggravated manslaughter pursuant to a plea deal. Defendant bought marijuana from a dealer, was robbed shortly thereafter, believed dealer was responsible and fired a handgun into car owned by dealer. Dealer's mother was in the car and was killed. Defendant asserted he did not know there was anyone in the car due to car's dark tinted windows. Defendant signed a Miranda form and signed consent to search forms for his apartment, vehicle and cell phone. Defendant invoked his right to remain silent after talking with officers. Victim died days after the shooting, police served defendant with an amended complaint and defendant made statements to them. Defendant moved to suppress his statements and trial court granted the motion in part. Defendant pled guilty and then moved to withdraw his guilty plea on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel and a colorable claim of innocence. Trial court denied the motion. Defendant argued trial court erred in admitting his statement to police because his Miranda waivers were invalidated by officers' misrepresentations of law and promises of leniency. Court found defendant's waiver was made knowingly and intelligently, trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to vacate his plea and defendant failed to demonstrate his counsel was ineffective. Source NJLJ April 19, 2021

Lewd gestures to home camera could be violation of TRO State v EJH 466 ...


Lewd gestures to home camera could be violation of TRO State v EJH 466 N.J. Super 32 (App. Div. 2021) In this appeal, the Appellate court considers whether words and gestures directed to a domestic violence complainant, by way of a consensually-activated home security camera, violated the strictures of the restraining order issued under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35. Although the restraining order did not expressly prohibit defendant from directing remarks to – or making gestures at – his estranged wife via the home security camera, the order expressly prohibited defendant from "having any oral" or "electronic, or other form of contact or communication with [her]." Because defendant directed his comments and gesture to his estranged wife, by way of a camera that was specifically activated so that she could observe his parenting time, defendant was aware of the high probability that she would hear his comments and observe his lewd gesture. The Appellate court vacated the dismissal and remanded for reinstatement of the complaint and for a hearing on the merits. (A-4228-19T)

Expungement of the Criminal Records of SMU case medical community needed...


In the Matter of the Expungement of the Criminal Records of S.M.U. Petitioner appealed the denial of expungement of his criminal records. Petitioner worked at hospital; he admitted sexual assault of a patient and pled guilty to fourth-degree criminal sexual contact. Trial court found petitioner was presumptively eligible for expungement but denied the application because the need for the availability of the records outweighed the need for expungement under N.J.S.A. 2C:52-14(b). State argued employers in the medical community needed to know what petitioner did, he abused a position of trust and his record had to be available because of petitioner's lifelong interest in the medical profession. Trial court found State met its burden. Court found no abuse in trial court's exercise of discretion. Affirmed on appeal Source NJLJ June 17, 2021 IN THE MATTER OF THE EXPUNGEMENT

State v Graziano- Defendant appealed from his convictions for various ...

State v. Graziano Defendant appealed from his convictions and sentence for various crimes including arson. Four Jewish synagogues and community centers were subject to arson, attempted arson, or vandalism in 2011 and 2012. Police investigated and determined defendant was a suspect. Defendant's home was searched pursuant to a warrant and the police seized various pieces of evidence. Defendant agreed to provide biological samples and to be interviewed. Defendant was read his Miranda rights and still agreed to be interviewed. Defendant denied his involvement for hours, then at approximately 4 a.m., the interview ended. Another officer entered the room with defendant's mother. The mother became upset and left the room and defendant spoke with the officer for 30 minutes without the interview being recorded. The officer then turned the equipment back on and defendant admitted to the arsons. Defendant and co-defendant were indicted for 30 crimes relating to fire-bombing and vandalism of multiple Jewish synagogues and community centers. Defendant moved to suppress his recorded statement and the judge denied the motion, finding the time and length of the interview was not unduly coercive and another reading of defendant's Miranda rights was not required. Defendant was convicted of 21 crimes including terrorism, aggravated arson, intimidation, assault, and related crimes and was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 35 years. On appeal, the court affirmed the convictions and sentence. The court found there was sufficient evidence supporting the warrant. The court also found the police had no obligation to re-administer the Miranda warning as the warnings had been read twice already and defendant was not told that the interview had ended. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion by directing the jury to continue deliberations after the jury reported being deadlocked. The jury instructions relative to the Anti-Terrorism Act were appropriate and consistent with the Act, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:38-2(a)(1) and (2). The judge properly considered mitigating and aggravating factors in sentencing defendant. Source NJLJ April 15, 2021

State v Barley

State v. Barley Defendant appealed his conviction on weapons charges. Officer followed and then stopped car for tinted windshield violations. Defendant exhibited signs of anxiety and officer requested consent to search the car after a criminal history check showed a history of CDS offenses. Defendant refused to consent to a search and officer called for K-9 assistance. Dog alerted to the presence of narcotics, officers searched car and found a handgun and marijuana. Defendant's motion to suppress evidence from the search was denied. Defendant argued the K-9 search unreasonably prolonged the traffic stop. Officer had an articulable, reasonable suspicion to stop car for the tinted windows and the 27 minute period until the K-9 arrived was a reasonable delay under the circumstances. Source NJLJ April 19, 2021 at 12:00 AM

Sandy Hook § 2 34 Disorderly conduct


Sandy Hook § 2.34 Disorderly conduct. (a) A person commits disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public alarm, nuisance, jeopardy or violence, or knowingly or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person commits any of the following prohibited acts: (1) Engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent behavior. (2) Uses language, an utterance, or gesture, or engages in a display or act that is obscene, physically threatening or menacing, or done in a manner that is likely to inflict injury or incite an immediate breach of the peace. (3) Makes noise that is unreasonable, considering the nature and purpose of the actor's conduct, location, time of day or night, and other factors that would govern the conduct of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances. (4) Creates or maintains a hazardous or physically offensive condition. (b) The regulations contained in this section apply, regardless of land ownership, on all lands and waters within a park area that are under the legislative jurisdiction of the United States. Federal jurisdiction , including Sandy Hook and National Gateway, Gunnison Beach, Fort Dix, Fort McGuire, Picatinny Arsenal, Naval Station Earle Lakehurst Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst https://www.njlaws.com/sandy-hook-2_3...

Sexual acts prohibited in Sandy Hook beach NJ

Federal DWI in Sandy Hook NJ 18 U S C A

Arrested at Muscle Maker Grill Chili's and Legal Representation

                                  Arrested at Muscle Maker Grill Chili's and Legal Representation

Kenneth Vercammen’s Law Office represents people charged with criminal charges, underage drinking and juvenile offenses. We provide representation throughout New Jersey. Criminal charges can cost you.  If convicted, you can face high fines, jail, Probation  and other penalties.  Don't give up!  Our Law Office can provide experienced attorney representation for criminal violations. We also help represent persons who are injured at bars and restaurants.
Our website www.njlaws.com provides information on criminal offenses we can be retained to represent people.

 Disorderly conduct 2C:33-2. a. Improper behavior. A person is guilty of a petty disorderly persons offense, if with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof he
(1) Engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or
(2) Creates a hazardous or physically dangerous condition by any act, which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.
b. Offensive language. A person is guilty of a petty disorderly persons offense if, in a public place, and with purpose to offend the sensibilities of a hearer or in reckless disregard of the probability of so doing, he addresses unreasonably loud and offensively coarse or abusive language, given the circumstances of the person present and the setting of the utterance, to any person present.
"Public" means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access; among the places included are highways, transport facilities, schools, prisons, apartment houses, places of business or amusement, or any neighborhood.


Other relevant laws:
  2C:12-1. Assault. a. Simple assault. A person is guilty of assault if he:
     (1)Attempts to cause or purposely, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or
     (2)Negligently causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon; or
     (3)Attempts by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.
    •         Simple assault is a disorderly persons offense unless committed in a fight or scuffle entered into by mutual consent, in which case it is a petty disorderly persons offense.

Resisting Arrest:
     It is a criminal offense in the State of New Jersey (2C: 29-2) for a person to purposely prevent a law enforcement officer from effecting a lawful arrest.
    •    A crime of the fourth degree.

Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution
A person commits an offense(2C:29-3) if with purpose to hinder the detention, apprehension, investigation, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of another for any crime or motor vehicle violation.
    •    Depending on the circumstances, a crime of the third degree, fourth degree, or a disorderly persons offense.

2C:33-15 Underage Possession/Consumption Alcohol

2C:33-15. Possession, consumption of alcoholic beverages by persons under legal age; penalty
a. Any person under the legal age to purchase alcoholic beverages who knowingly possesses without legal authority or who knowingly consumes any alcoholic beverage in any school, public conveyance, public place, or place of public assembly, or motor vehicle, is guilty of a disorderly persons offense, and shall be fined not less than $500.00.

b. Whenever this offense is committed in a motor vehicle, the court shall, in addition to the sentence authorized for the offense, suspend or postpone for six months the driving privilege of the defendant. Upon the conviction of any person under this section, the court shall forward a report to the Division of Motor Vehicles stating the first and last day of the suspension or postponement period imposed by the court pursuant to this section. If a person at the time of the imposition of a sentence is less than 17 years of age, the period of license postponement, including a suspension or postponement of the privilege of operating a motorized bicycle, shall commence on the day the sentence is imposed and shall run for a period of six months after the person reaches the age of 17 years.
        If a person at the time of the imposition of a sentence has a valid drivers license issued by this State, the court shall immediately collect the license and forward it to the division along with the report. If for any reason the license cannot be collected, the court shall include in the report the complete name,  address, date of birth, eye color, and sex of the person as well as the first and last date of the license suspension period imposed by the court.
    The court shall inform the person orally and in writing that if the person is convicted of operating a motor vehicle during the period of license suspension or postponement, the person shall be subject to the penalties set forth in R.S.39:3-40. A person shall be required to acknowledge receipt of the written notice in writing. Failure to receive a written notice or failure to acknowledge in writing the receipt of a written notice shall not be a defense to a subsequent charge of a violation of R.S.39:3-40.

     If the person convicted under this section is not a New Jersey resident, the court shall suspend or postpone, as appropriate, the non-resident driving privilege of the person based on the age of the person and submit to the division the required report. The court shall not collect the license of a non-resident convicted under this section. Upon receipt of a report by the court, the division shall notify the appropriate officials in the licensing jurisdiction of the suspension or postponement.

c. In addition to the general penalty prescribed for a disorderly persons offense, the court may require any person who violates this act to participate in an alcohol education or treatment program, authorized by the Department of Health and Senior Services, for a period not to exceed the maximum period of confinement prescribed by law for the offense for which the individual has been convicted.

d. Nothing in this act shall apply to possession of alcoholic beverages by any such person while actually  engaged in the performance of employment pursuant to an employment permit issued by the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, or for a bona fide hotel or restaurant, in accordance with the provisions of R.S.33:1-26, or while actively engaged in the preparation of food while enrolled in a culinary arts or hotel management program at a county vocational school or post secondary educational institution.

e. The provisions of section 3 of P.L.1991, c.169 (C.33:1-81.1a) shall apply to a parent, guardian or other person with legal custody of a person under 18 years of age who is found to be in violation of this section.33:1-81. Underage drinking and Misrepresenting age to induce sale or delivery to minor; disorderly person

    Underage drinking and Misrepresenting age to induce sale or delivery to minor

     33:1-81.  It shall be unlawful for:

      (a)  A person under the legal age for purchasing alcoholic beverages to enter any premises licensed for the retail sale of alcoholic  beverages for the purpose of purchasing, or having served or delivered to him or her, any alcoholic beverage; or

    (b)  A person under the legal age for purchasing alcoholic beverages to consume any alcoholic beverage on premises licensed for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages, or to purchase, attempt to purchase or have another purchase for him any alcoholic beverage; or

    (c)  Any person to misrepresent or misstate his age, or the age of any other person for the purpose of inducing any licensee or any employee of any licensee, to sell, serve or deliver any alcoholic beverage to a person under the legal age for purchasing alcoholic beverages; or

    (d)  Any person to enter any premises licensed for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages for the purpose of purchasing, or to purchase alcoholic beverages, for another person who does not because of his age have the right to purchase and consume alcoholic beverages.

    Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed and adjudged to be a disorderly person, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not less than $500.00. In addition, the court shall suspend or postpone the person's license to operate a motor vehicle for six months.

    Upon the conviction of any person under this section, the court shall forward a report to the Division of Motor Vehicles stating the first and last day of the suspension or postponement period imposed by the court pursuant to this section.  If a person at the time of the imposition of a sentence is less than 17 years of age, the period of license postponement, including a suspension or postponement of the privilege of operating a motorized bicycle, shall commence on the day the sentence is imposed and shall run for a period of six months after the person reaches the age of 17 years.

    If a person at the time of the imposition of a sentence has a valid driver's license issued by this State, the court shall immediately collect the license and forward it to the division along with the report.  If for any reason the license cannot be collected, the court shall include in the report the complete name, address, date of birth, eye color, and sex of the person as well as the first and last date of the license suspension period imposed by the court.

    The court shall inform the person orally and in writing that if the person is convicted of operating a motor vehicle during the period of license suspension or postponement, the person shall be subject to the penalties set forth in R.S. 39:3-40.  A person shall be required to acknowledge receipt of the written notice in writing.  Failure to receive a written notice or failure to acknowledge in writing the receipt of a written notice shall not be a defense to a subsequent charge of a violation of R.S. 39:3-40.

    If the person convicted under this section is not a New Jersey resident, the court shall suspend or postpone, as appropriate given the age at the time of sentencing, the non-resident driving privilege of the person and submit to the division the required report.  The court shall not collect the license of a non-resident convicted under this section. Upon receipt of a report by the court, the division shall notify the appropriate officials in the licensing jurisdiction of the suspension or postponement.
    In addition to the general penalties prescribed for an offense, the court may require any person under the legal age to purchase alcoholic beverages who violates this act to participate in an alcohol education or treatment program authorized by the Department of Health for a period not to exceed the maximum period of confinement prescribed by law for the offense for which the individual has been convicted.

33:1-81.1.  Hearing;  attendance by parent or guardian;  subpoena
    In any hearing for a violation of section 33:1-81 of the Revised Statutes the court in its discretion may require the attendance at such hearing of a parent or guardian, if there be no parent, of the minor charged with such violation if such parent or guardian is a resident of the State and may, in its  discretion, compel such attendance by subpoena.

33:1-81.1a.  Violations by parent, guardian, notification, fine
     A parent, guardian or other person having legal custody of a person under 18 years of age found in violation of R.S. 33:1-81 or section 1 of P.L. 1979, c.264 (C. 2C:33-15) shall be notified of the violation in writing.  The parent, guardian or other person having legal custody of a person under 18 years of age shall be subject to a fine in the amount of $500.00 upon any subsequent violation of R.S. 33:1-81 or section 1 of P.L. 1979, c.264 (C. 2C:33-15) on the part of such person if it is shown that the parent, guardian or other person having legal custody failed or neglected to exercise reasonable supervision or control over the conduct of the person under 18 years of age.

Providing Alcohol to Persons Under 21
It is a criminal offense in the State of New Jersey (2C:33-17a) to serve alcohol to anyone under the legal age of 21.
A fine of up to $1,000 and/or up to 6 months imprisonment.

Allowing Alcohol Possession or Consumption by Persons Under 21 at Private Premises
It is a criminal offense in the State of New Jersey (2C:33-17b) to make your home or property available for the purpose of allowing minors a place to consume alcohol.
(Exemptions:  Any underage person or persons who possesses or consumes alcoholic beverages in connection with religious observance, ceremony or right or consumes or possesses an alcoholic beverage in the presence of and with the permission of the parent , guardian, or relative who has attained the legal age to purchase and consume alcoholic beverages.)
    •    A fine of up to $1.000 and /or up to 6 months imprisonment.  

Possession, Use or Being Under the Influence, or Failure to Make Lawful Disposition
It is a criminal offense in the State of New Jersey (2C: 35-10) for any person knowingly or purposely, to obtain , or to possess actually or constructively, a controlled dangerous substance or controlled substance analog.
    •    Depending on the circumstances, a crime of third degree, fourth degree, or a disorderly persons offense.

Drug possession by motor vehicle operator
No person shall operate a motor vehicle on any highway( 39:4-49.1) while knowingly having in his possession or in the motor vehicle any controlled dangerous substance.
    •    A fine not less than $50.00 and loss of driving privilege for a period of 2 years from the date of his conviction.

No consumption of alcoholic beverages in motor vehicles
A person shall not consume an alcoholic beverage while operating a motor vehicle.  A passenger in a motor vehicle shall not consume an alcoholic beverage while the motor vehicle is being operated.( 39:4-51a)
    •    A fine of $200.00 for the first offense, $250.00 for the second offense or community service for a period of 10 days.

Prohibition of possession of open, unsealed alcoholic beverage container
All occupants of a motor vehicle located on a public highway, or right of way of a public highway, shall be prohibited from possessing any open or unsealed alcoholic beverage container.(39:4-51b)
    •    A fine of $200.00 for the first offense, $250.00 for the second offense or community service for a period of 10 days.

   Mandatory Forfeiture or Postponement of Driving Privileges
Every person convicted of or adjudicated delinquent for a violation of certain offenses (2C:35-16) shall forfeit his right to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State for a period to be fixed by the Court at not less than 6 months or more than 2 years which shall commence on the day the sentence is imposed.

CONCLUSION
    If charged with any criminal offense, immediately schedule an appointment with a criminal trial attorney. Don't rely on a real estate attorney, public defender or a family member who took a law class in school. When your life and career is on the line, hire the best attorney available.

 KENNETH  VERCAMMEN & ASSOCIATES, PC
ATTORNEY AT LAW
 2053 Woodbridge Ave.
Edison, NJ 08817


(Phone) 732-572-0500

Arrested at McDonald's and Legal Representation

                                 Arrested at McDonald's and Legal Representation

Kenneth Vercammen’s Law Office represents people charged with criminal charges, underage drinking and juvenile offenses. We provide representation throughout New Jersey. Criminal charges can cost you.  If convicted, you can face high fines, jail, Probation  and other penalties.  Don't give up!  Our Law Office can provide experienced attorney representation for criminal violations. We also help represent persons who are injured at bars and restaurants.
Our website www.njlaws.com provides information on criminal offenses we can be retained to represent people.

 Disorderly conduct 2C:33-2. a. Improper behavior. A person is guilty of a petty disorderly persons offense, if with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof he
(1) Engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or
(2) Creates a hazardous or physically dangerous condition by any act, which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.
b. Offensive language. A person is guilty of a petty disorderly persons offense if, in a public place, and with purpose to offend the sensibilities of a hearer or in reckless disregard of the probability of so doing, he addresses unreasonably loud and offensively coarse or abusive language, given the circumstances of the person present and the setting of the utterance, to any person present.
"Public" means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access; among the places included are highways, transport facilities, schools, prisons, apartment houses, places of business or amusement, or any neighborhood.


Other relevant laws:
  2C:12-1. Assault. a. Simple assault. A person is guilty of assault if he:
     (1)Attempts to cause or purposely, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or
     (2)Negligently causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon; or
     (3)Attempts by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.
    •         Simple assault is a disorderly persons offense unless committed in a fight or scuffle entered into by mutual consent, in which case it is a petty disorderly persons offense.

Resisting Arrest:
     It is a criminal offense in the State of New Jersey (2C: 29-2) for a person to purposely prevent a law enforcement officer from effecting a lawful arrest.
    •    A crime of the fourth degree.

Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution
A person commits an offense(2C:29-3) if with purpose to hinder the detention, apprehension, investigation, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of another for any crime or motor vehicle violation.
    •    Depending on the circumstances, a crime of the third degree, fourth degree, or a disorderly persons offense.

2C:33-15 Underage Possession/Consumption Alcohol

2C:33-15. Possession, consumption of alcoholic beverages by persons under legal age; penalty
a. Any person under the legal age to purchase alcoholic beverages who knowingly possesses without legal authority or who knowingly consumes any alcoholic beverage in any school, public conveyance, public place, or place of public assembly, or motor vehicle, is guilty of a disorderly persons offense, and shall be fined not less than $500.00.

b. Whenever this offense is committed in a motor vehicle, the court shall, in addition to the sentence authorized for the offense, suspend or postpone for six months the driving privilege of the defendant. Upon the conviction of any person under this section, the court shall forward a report to the Division of Motor Vehicles stating the first and last day of the suspension or postponement period imposed by the court pursuant to this section. If a person at the time of the imposition of a sentence is less than 17 years of age, the period of license postponement, including a suspension or postponement of the privilege of operating a motorized bicycle, shall commence on the day the sentence is imposed and shall run for a period of six months after the person reaches the age of 17 years.
        If a person at the time of the imposition of a sentence has a valid drivers license issued by this State, the court shall immediately collect the license and forward it to the division along with the report. If for any reason the license cannot be collected, the court shall include in the report the complete name,  address, date of birth, eye color, and sex of the person as well as the first and last date of the license suspension period imposed by the court.
    The court shall inform the person orally and in writing that if the person is convicted of operating a motor vehicle during the period of license suspension or postponement, the person shall be subject to the penalties set forth in R.S.39:3-40. A person shall be required to acknowledge receipt of the written notice in writing. Failure to receive a written notice or failure to acknowledge in writing the receipt of a written notice shall not be a defense to a subsequent charge of a violation of R.S.39:3-40.

     If the person convicted under this section is not a New Jersey resident, the court shall suspend or postpone, as appropriate, the non-resident driving privilege of the person based on the age of the person and submit to the division the required report. The court shall not collect the license of a non-resident convicted under this section. Upon receipt of a report by the court, the division shall notify the appropriate officials in the licensing jurisdiction of the suspension or postponement.

c. In addition to the general penalty prescribed for a disorderly persons offense, the court may require any person who violates this act to participate in an alcohol education or treatment program, authorized by the Department of Health and Senior Services, for a period not to exceed the maximum period of confinement prescribed by law for the offense for which the individual has been convicted.

d. Nothing in this act shall apply to possession of alcoholic beverages by any such person while actually  engaged in the performance of employment pursuant to an employment permit issued by the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, or for a bona fide hotel or restaurant, in accordance with the provisions of R.S.33:1-26, or while actively engaged in the preparation of food while enrolled in a culinary arts or hotel management program at a county vocational school or post secondary educational institution.

e. The provisions of section 3 of P.L.1991, c.169 (C.33:1-81.1a) shall apply to a parent, guardian or other person with legal custody of a person under 18 years of age who is found to be in violation of this section.33:1-81. Underage drinking and Misrepresenting age to induce sale or delivery to minor; disorderly person

    Underage drinking and Misrepresenting age to induce sale or delivery to minor

     33:1-81.  It shall be unlawful for:

      (a)  A person under the legal age for purchasing alcoholic beverages to enter any premises licensed for the retail sale of alcoholic  beverages for the purpose of purchasing, or having served or delivered to him or her, any alcoholic beverage; or

    (b)  A person under the legal age for purchasing alcoholic beverages to consume any alcoholic beverage on premises licensed for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages, or to purchase, attempt to purchase or have another purchase for him any alcoholic beverage; or

    (c)  Any person to misrepresent or misstate his age, or the age of any other person for the purpose of inducing any licensee or any employee of any licensee, to sell, serve or deliver any alcoholic beverage to a person under the legal age for purchasing alcoholic beverages; or

    (d)  Any person to enter any premises licensed for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages for the purpose of purchasing, or to purchase alcoholic beverages, for another person who does not because of his age have the right to purchase and consume alcoholic beverages.

    Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed and adjudged to be a disorderly person, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not less than $500.00. In addition, the court shall suspend or postpone the person's license to operate a motor vehicle for six months.

    Upon the conviction of any person under this section, the court shall forward a report to the Division of Motor Vehicles stating the first and last day of the suspension or postponement period imposed by the court pursuant to this section.  If a person at the time of the imposition of a sentence is less than 17 years of age, the period of license postponement, including a suspension or postponement of the privilege of operating a motorized bicycle, shall commence on the day the sentence is imposed and shall run for a period of six months after the person reaches the age of 17 years.

    If a person at the time of the imposition of a sentence has a valid driver's license issued by this State, the court shall immediately collect the license and forward it to the division along with the report.  If for any reason the license cannot be collected, the court shall include in the report the complete name, address, date of birth, eye color, and sex of the person as well as the first and last date of the license suspension period imposed by the court.

    The court shall inform the person orally and in writing that if the person is convicted of operating a motor vehicle during the period of license suspension or postponement, the person shall be subject to the penalties set forth in R.S. 39:3-40.  A person shall be required to acknowledge receipt of the written notice in writing.  Failure to receive a written notice or failure to acknowledge in writing the receipt of a written notice shall not be a defense to a subsequent charge of a violation of R.S. 39:3-40.

    If the person convicted under this section is not a New Jersey resident, the court shall suspend or postpone, as appropriate given the age at the time of sentencing, the non-resident driving privilege of the person and submit to the division the required report.  The court shall not collect the license of a non-resident convicted under this section. Upon receipt of a report by the court, the division shall notify the appropriate officials in the licensing jurisdiction of the suspension or postponement.
    In addition to the general penalties prescribed for an offense, the court may require any person under the legal age to purchase alcoholic beverages who violates this act to participate in an alcohol education or treatment program authorized by the Department of Health for a period not to exceed the maximum period of confinement prescribed by law for the offense for which the individual has been convicted.

33:1-81.1.  Hearing;  attendance by parent or guardian;  subpoena
    In any hearing for a violation of section 33:1-81 of the Revised Statutes the court in its discretion may require the attendance at such hearing of a parent or guardian, if there be no parent, of the minor charged with such violation if such parent or guardian is a resident of the State and may, in its  discretion, compel such attendance by subpoena.

33:1-81.1a.  Violations by parent, guardian, notification, fine
     A parent, guardian or other person having legal custody of a person under 18 years of age found in violation of R.S. 33:1-81 or section 1 of P.L. 1979, c.264 (C. 2C:33-15) shall be notified of the violation in writing.  The parent, guardian or other person having legal custody of a person under 18 years of age shall be subject to a fine in the amount of $500.00 upon any subsequent violation of R.S. 33:1-81 or section 1 of P.L. 1979, c.264 (C. 2C:33-15) on the part of such person if it is shown that the parent, guardian or other person having legal custody failed or neglected to exercise reasonable supervision or control over the conduct of the person under 18 years of age.

Providing Alcohol to Persons Under 21
It is a criminal offense in the State of New Jersey (2C:33-17a) to serve alcohol to anyone under the legal age of 21.
A fine of up to $1,000 and/or up to 6 months imprisonment.

Allowing Alcohol Possession or Consumption by Persons Under 21 at Private Premises
It is a criminal offense in the State of New Jersey (2C:33-17b) to make your home or property available for the purpose of allowing minors a place to consume alcohol.
(Exemptions:  Any underage person or persons who possesses or consumes alcoholic beverages in connection with religious observance, ceremony or right or consumes or possesses an alcoholic beverage in the presence of and with the permission of the parent , guardian, or relative who has attained the legal age to purchase and consume alcoholic beverages.)
    •    A fine of up to $1.000 and /or up to 6 months imprisonment.  

Possession, Use or Being Under the Influence, or Failure to Make Lawful Disposition
It is a criminal offense in the State of New Jersey (2C: 35-10) for any person knowingly or purposely, to obtain , or to possess actually or constructively, a controlled dangerous substance or controlled substance analog.
    •    Depending on the circumstances, a crime of third degree, fourth degree, or a disorderly persons offense.

Drug possession by motor vehicle operator
No person shall operate a motor vehicle on any highway( 39:4-49.1) while knowingly having in his possession or in the motor vehicle any controlled dangerous substance.
    •    A fine not less than $50.00 and loss of driving privilege for a period of 2 years from the date of his conviction.

No consumption of alcoholic beverages in motor vehicles
A person shall not consume an alcoholic beverage while operating a motor vehicle.  A passenger in a motor vehicle shall not consume an alcoholic beverage while the motor vehicle is being operated.( 39:4-51a)
    •    A fine of $200.00 for the first offense, $250.00 for the second offense or community service for a period of 10 days.

Prohibition of possession of open, unsealed alcoholic beverage container
All occupants of a motor vehicle located on a public highway, or right of way of a public highway, shall be prohibited from possessing any open or unsealed alcoholic beverage container.(39:4-51b)
    •    A fine of $200.00 for the first offense, $250.00 for the second offense or community service for a period of 10 days.

   Mandatory Forfeiture or Postponement of Driving Privileges
Every person convicted of or adjudicated delinquent for a violation of certain offenses (2C:35-16) shall forfeit his right to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State for a period to be fixed by the Court at not less than 6 months or more than 2 years which shall commence on the day the sentence is imposed.

CONCLUSION
    If charged with any criminal offense, immediately schedule an appointment with a criminal trial attorney. Don't rely on a real estate attorney, public defender or a family member who took a law class in school. When your life and career is on the line, hire the best attorney available.

 KENNETH  VERCAMMEN & ASSOCIATES, PC
ATTORNEY AT LAW
 2053 Woodbridge Ave.
Edison, NJ 08817


(Phone) 732-572-0500

Tuesday, October 12, 2021

revised opinion STATE V. ANTHONY SIMS, JR., (A-2641-17T1)

 STATE V. ANTHONY SIMS, JR., (A-2641-17T1)

In this appeal, the court determined as a matter of first impression that the Supreme Court's holdings in State v. A.G.D., 178 N.J. 56 (2003), and State v. Vincenty, 237 N.J. 122 (2019), requiring that police inform a defendant subject to custodial interrogation of specific charges filed against him before he can waive his Miranda rights, also applies to an interrogee who was arrested and questioned prior to any charges being filed, where the arrest was based upon information developed through an earlier police investigation

The court also concluded that the trial court erred by admitting the victim's statement to police through a police officer's hearsay testimony at trial because defendant was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to challenge the victim's statement through cross examination at a pretrial hearing or before the jury,where at the pretrial hearing the victim could not recall ever giving the statement to police and he later refused to appear at trial to testify before the jury

In a separate opinion concurring with the result but dissenting from the majority's extension of A.G.D. to custodial interrogations where neither a complaint-warrant nor arrest warrant have been issued, a member of the panel expressed concern that the new rule announced in the majority opinion has the potential to introduce subjectivity, ambiguity, and uncertainty to the administration of Miranda warnings.

The opinion that the court originally issued on January 4, 2021, is being withdrawn and replaced by the accompanying opinion based upon the court having granted the State's motion to correct the record relating to two trial transcripts, and its motion to reconsider in light of those corrections. Specifically, the transcripts were corrected to reflect that defendant, in response to his pre-interrogation inquiry, was not told of any charge that supported his arrest, rather than a lie about the charge as described in the earlier opinion.

The matters are remanded for new trials to be preceded by N.J.R.E. 104 hearings, at which the trial court may consider adopting measures such as explanatory jury instructions, reasonable time and witness limits, and prohibitions on misleading demonstrative aids about the 510(k) clearance process.

Thursday, October 07, 2021

State v. Michelle Lodzinski (083398)

 State v. Michelle Lodzinski (083398) (Middlesex County & Statewide)(Reconsideration) (A-50-19; 083398)

The judgment of the Appellate Division upholding defendant’s conviction is affirmed by an equally divided Court. Three members of the Court found the evidence sufficient and three members found the evidence insufficient to sustain the murder conviction. The six members of the Court who participated in this appeal unanimously modify the Appellate Division’s holding with respect to its characterization of the scope of the evidence that should be considered in reviewing a post-verdict motion for a judgment of acquittal as explained on pages 28-32 of Justice Patterson’s opinion. The Court also unanimously agrees with the Appellate Division that defendant was not entitled to a new trial because a juror substitution occurred, for the reasons set forth on pages 60-66 of Justice Patterson’s opinion.

Wednesday, September 29, 2021

State v. Cohen

 State v. Cohen

Defendant appealed his conviction for operating a vehicle while his license was suspended. State trooper observed car with heavily tinted windows in apparent violation of N.J.S.A. 39:3-75. Defendant was driving car that belonged to his son's girlfriend. Both defendant and son told trooper the windows were legal. 

  Trooper learned defendant's license was suspended and issued a summons but did not ticket the car for a tinted window violation because defendant was cooperative. 

 Subsequent investigation showed that defendant's license was suspended for multiple DWI convictions and he was indicted for an upgraded offense. Defendant moved to suppress, arguing trooper lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle. 

 Trial judge found trooper credible and denied the motion. The court affirmed for the reasons expressed by the trial judge. Defendant's reliance on State v. Puzio, 379 N.J. Super. 378, was misplaced because defendant did not assert trooper misread the plain language of the statute but merely challenged trooper's factual assessment of how dark the window tinting was.

Source NJLJ April 05, 2021

Thursday, September 23, 2021

Fall 2021 Municipal Court Law Review


Fall 2021 Municipal Court Law Review    

 

1.  Partially Obstructed License Plate Does Not Justify Car stop State v. Roman-Rosado 

2.  Complete covering of Garden State on plate permitted stop State v.  Carter  

3.  Member of LLC can’t be charged with ordinance violation State v Ehrman

4.  Police can’t audiotape prisoner phone calls without written notice State v. McQueen

5.  Miranda not complied with on 2nd interrogation State v Dorff

6.  No hot pursuit into house for petty offense Lange v. California

7.   Sealing of Certain Marijuana or Hashish Records Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:52-5.2 Directive 08-21

8.  Process to obtain Certification of Expungement in Pot cases 

9.  OPRA could apply to criminal & DWI complaints Simmons v. Mercado & City of Millville   

10.            Cassidy cases require a PCR petition online

 

1.  Partially Obstructed License Plate Does Not Justify Car stop

State v. Roman-Rosado 

           To avoid serious constitutional concerns, the Court interprets the statute narrowly and holds that N.J.S.A. 39:3-33 requires that all markings on a license plate be legible or identifiable. If a frame conceals or obscures a marking in a way that it cannot reasonably be identified or discerned, the driver would be in violation of the law. In practice, if a registration letter or number is not legible, the statute would apply; but if a phrase like "Garden State" is partly covered but still recognizable, there would be no violation. 

A-67-19

2.  Complete covering of Garden State on plate permitted stop

State v.  Carter  

          To avoid serious constitutional concerns, the Court interprets the statute narrowly and holds that N.J.S.A. 39:3-33 requires that all markings on a license plate be legible or identifiable. If a frame conceals or obscures a marking in a way that it cannot reasonably be identified or discerned, the driver would be in violation of the law. In practice, if a registration letter or number is not legible, the statute would apply; but if a phrase like "Garden State" is partly covered but still recognizable, there would be no violation. In Carter’s case, however, it is undisputed that “Garden State” was entirely covered. As a result, the plate violated the statute, and law enforcement officers had the right to stop Carter. A-66-19

3.  Member of LLC can’t be charged with ordinance violation

State v Ehrman

Defendant challenged numerous complaint-summonses issued in municipal court by the Jersey City Department of Housing, Economic Development and Commerce for municipal violations involving rental properties owned by various limited liability companies (LLCs) of which defendant was a member. In one appeal, defendant challenged an interlocutory order denying his motion to dismiss twenty-five complaint-summonses issued to him individually and granting the State's cross-motion to amend the complaints to name the LLC that was the record owner instead of him. In the other appeal, defendant challenged the order finding the LLC that was the record owner of the property guilty of violating a municipal ordinance following a trial de novo in the Law Division notwithstanding the fact that the LLC made no appearance through counsel and neither the municipal court nor the trial court inquired on the record to ascertain whether there was a knowing and voluntary waiver before proceeding with the trial.

The court reversed and remanded for entry of an order of dismissal without prejudice of the twenty-five complaint-summonses because they were issued to the wrong defendant and therefore fatally defective and both the municipal court and trial court erroneously relied on a Part IV rule governing civil practice to grant the State's cross-motion to amend. The court also reversed the finding of guilt of the LLC and remanded for a new trial because the absence of an appearance through counsel or a clear waiver of such in a quasi-criminal municipal court prosecution constitutes a violation of constitutional dimension requiring reversal. (A-4144-19/A-4447-19

4.  Police can’t audiotape prisoner phone calls without written notice State v. McQueen

The right of privacy, and particularly privacy in one’s telephone conversations, is among the most valued of all rights in a civilized society. McQueen’s custodial status in the stationhouse did not strip him of all constitutional protections. Article I, Paragraph 7 broadly protects the privacy of telephone conversations in many different settings. McQueen and Allen-Brewer had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their conversation in the absence of fair notice that their conversation would be monitored or recorded. The recorded stationhouse telephone conversation was not seized pursuant to a warrant or any justifiable exigency and therefore must be suppressed. A-11-20

5.  Miranda not complied with on 2nd interrogation

State v Dorff

In this appeal the court held that defendant's Fifth Amendment right to counsel was violated during a stationhouse interrogation, reversing the trial court order denying defendant's suppression motion. Detectives at the outset of the interrogation advised defendant of her rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). During the interrogation, defendant made several references to her need to speak with an attorney. The court held that defendant's statement, "[that's why I feel I might need a lawyer," was sufficient to invoke her right to counsel. A detective then commented, "[w]ell, I mean that's a decision you need to make. . . . But if you didn't do anything [wrong], you certainly don't need to have [an attorney]." Defendant immediately responded that she felt she had not done anything wrong and elected to continue with the interrogation. She eventually made an inculpatory admission.

The court ruled the detective's brief, spontaneous comment undercut the Miranda warnings and impermissibly burdened the Fifth Amendment right to counsel. By suggesting in effect that innocent persons do not need an attorney, the detective implied that a request to terminate the interrogation to speak with counsel would evince a consciousness of guilt, thereby discouraging the assertion of the right to counsel. The court emphasized the State bears the burden to show scrupulous compliance with Miranda, adding that there is no "good faith" exception to the Miranda rule. Rather, the court held, a Miranda violation such as the one that occurred in this case triggers the exclusionary rule whether it was intentional or inadvertent. A-2485-19)

6.  No hot pursuit into house for petty offense

Lange v. California 594 US __ (2021) The US Supreme Court ruled that hot pursuit of a person who has committed a petty offense (in this case, DWI) does not justify a categorical rule that will permit police to make a home entry into the suspect's residence without a search warrant 

7.   Sealing of Certain Marijuana or Hashish Records Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:52-5.2 Directive 08-21

    This Directive promulgates the process for sealing records from public access on order of the court at the time of sentencing for a criminal conviction or juvenile adjudication of certain marijuana or hashish offenses in accordance with the statutory amendments to N.J.S.A. 2C:52-5.2, and the marijuana decriminalization laws enacted by L. 2021, c. 19. Additionally, Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive #2021-1, “Directive Governing Dismissals of Certain Pending Marijuana Charges” (issued February 22, 2021), instructs prosecutors to seek dismissal of certain pending marijuana-related charges against either a juvenile or an adult where the conduct occurred on or before February 22, 2021. 

The court at the time of sentencing shall order the records of the courts, probation services, and law enforcement agencies to be sealed from the public for a criminal conviction or juvenile adjudication that solely includes the following offense(s): 

• N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(12)(b)– distribution of marijuana in a quantity of one ounce or less or hashish in a quantity of five grams or less; or 

•      N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(12)(b) and a violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7 on or within 1000 feet of school property and/or a violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35- 7.1 on or within 500 feet of a public housing facility, public park, or public building; or 

     •      N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(3)(b) – possession of marijuana in a quantity of more than six ounces or hashish in a quantity of more than 17 grams. 

This Directive also promulgates three revised forms and two new forms for use effective immediately

Additionally, the Supreme Court has amended Rule 1:38-3 (“Court Records Excluded from Public Access”) and Rule 1:38-11 (“Sealing of Court Records”) by order dated February 5, 2021 to conform to the statutory requirements to seal these records from public access upon criminal conviction or juvenile adjudication. 

System enhancements have been made in the Judiciary’s computerized systems to indicate the cases that have been ordered sealed from public access pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:52-5.2. Information concerning these modifications has been previously sent to Judiciary staff under separate cover. Modifications have also been made to remove information concerning sealed cases in the Public Safety Assessment (PSA) risk factors in accordance with N.J.S.A. 2C:52-5.2(d), which provides that these records shall not be considered whenever the Pretrial Services Program conducts a risk assessment on an eligible defendant for the purpose of making recommendations to the court concerning an appropriate pretrial release decision under N.J.S.A. 2A:162-15 et seq. Additionally, cases that have been ordered sealed pursuant to this statute will not be listed in the “Court History” section of the Presentence Investigation Report in accordance with N.J.S.A. 2C:52-5.2(d), which prohibits use of this information for sentencing purposes in any other case. 

..

Operationally, the municipal courts have not been part of the comprehensive enforcement program (CEP). Currently, there is no provision in the system to move cases through the CEP and civil judgment process for municipal court matters. Therefore, the municipal courts will continue their current collection process for cases that are ordered sealed. 

More info at

https://www.njcourts.gov/attorneys/assets/directives/dir_08_21.pdf

 

8 Process to obtain Certification of Expungement in Pot cases See https://www.njcourts.gov/notices/2021/n210830a.pdf?c=ptW

9  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 servers the information that MPD made does not absolve MPD of its obligation to produce that information pursuant to a proper OPRA request made to MPD. 

10 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). 

This is to advise that 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. 

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 & Associates, PC. 

 

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

     Municipal Court and criminal law attorneys may also be interested in the ABA’s CRIMINAL LAW FORMS book

Award winning book from the American Bar Association

Solo & Small Firm Division Author: Kenneth Vercammen 

 Use Criminal Law Forms to help represent persons charged with criminal and traffic offenses. Detailed instruction and valuable insight is offered beginning with the initial contact with the client, to walking into the courthouse, and managing the steps that follow. Two hundred and ten modifiable forms help make criminal lawyers more efficient and productive, while also reducing the chance for mistakes. Criminal Law Forms helps lawyers face the challenges of:

•       Criminal defense

•       DWI cases

•       Juvenile offenses

•       Domestic violence

•       Traffic violations

•       Auto Accidents

•       And much more

Regular price $139.95, GP SOLO Member Price $129.95 To order contact ABA Customer Care, 1-800-285-2221 (PC: 5150457)  

ISBN:

978-1-61438-879-1

 

http://apps.americanbar.org/abastore/index.cfm?section=main&fm=Product.AddToCart&pid=5150457

 Kenneth Vercammen is 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.  

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 2013 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 Review. 

         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. He is the voice of the Solo and Small firm attorneys who juggle active court practice with bar and community activities. In his private life he has been a member of the NJ State champion Raritan Valley Road Runners master’s team and is a 4th degree black belt. 

KENNETH VERCAMMEN

ATTORNEY AT LAW

2053 Woodbridge Ave.

Edison, NJ 08817

(Phone) 732-572-0500

 

Criminal Articles from NJLaws Website and BeNotGuilty.com website

http://criminalarticle.blogspot.com

Criminal Law- Recent Cases

http://njcriminallaw.blogspot.com/

Cut & paste all reported and sometimes unreported criminal case squibs from NJ Judiciary.

Criminal Statutes and Criminal Jury Charges 

http://criminal-jury.blogspot.com/

Drug & DWI Law 

http://drugarrest.blogspot.com

 

Motor Vehicle Articles and NJ Title 39 Motor Vehicle laws http://njmotorvehicle.blogspot.com/

 

Municipal Court and Police Phone number and Directions 

http://njpolice.blogspot.com/  

 

New NJ Statutes , Recent cases and Court Rules

http://njstatutes.blogspot.com

 

Traffic Law & Municipal Court- Articles from BeNotGuilty.com 

http://traffic-law.blogspot.com/