Podcasts about new jersey superior court

Nicole Kobis is a Partner and Divorce and Family Law Attorney at Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C. She has over ten-years' experience representing individuals as they navigate the challenges of divorce, including custody, spousal support, child support, equitable distribution, and domestic violence. She served as law clerk in the New Jersey Superior Court, where she gained a unique perspective into the judicial system, providing valuable insights to her clients. Nicole is also frequently appointed by the Court as a Guardian ad Litem for children in contested custody matters and as an attorney for alleged incapacitated individuals in guardianship proceedings. Connect with Nicole and Lindabury McCormick for advice about navigating the divorce process, from filing to finalization. Web: Lindabury.comFB: Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C.IG: @Lindabury_LawLI: Nicole KobisLI: Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C.YT: Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C.X: Lindabury McCormick

Served as a New Jersey Superior Court judge from 1987 to 1995, American syndicated columnist whose work appears in numerous publications, including The Washington Times and Reason and Former analyst for Fox News, commenting on legal news and trials. X @Judgenap Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A Manhattan judge ruled that the businessman greatly exaggerated the value of his wealth to secure favorable terms with banks, which ultimately led him to worldwide fame — and into the White House.“The decision today is a final decision that fraud is proven, The judge made this decision on the basis of Trump's own documents. The evidence is Trump's own documentation,” Andrew P. Napolitano, former New Jersey Superior Court judge and friend of Trump's, told The Post.“These are indisputable facts — the case is based entirely on the documents his lenders and his insurance companies produced.”The 2024 presidential frontrunner will likely appeal the ruling, which could cost him upward of $250 million in penalties that James is requesting — a hefty lift for the less-than-liquid Republican. Trump could potentially have to sell off his assets in order to pay the lofty legal fees, which could hurt his ego more than his pockets, a source familiar with the former president said.

Content Advisory Warning: This week's episode contains disturbing themes of violence, including sexual violence against the LGBTQ+ community. Please use discretion when listening to this episode.   Britney Daniels, nurse advocate and author of Journal of a Black Queer Nurse, is our guest host for this week's episode! A series of gruesome murders in the early 90s causes alarm within the LGBTQ+ community as it becomes apparent that middle-aged homosexual men are being targeted within the New York area. The case would remain unsolved for nearly a decade before a seemingly "average" appearing nurse was declared a suspect. We are excited to feature our guest host Britney as our Good Nurse! Britney shares how her journaling routine led to her becoming a published author, and how she was recognized by a peer as being a good nurse!   Please support our show by supporting our sponsors below! Thank you to Trusted Health for sponsoring this episode. Please go to https://www.trustedhealth.com/gnbn and fill out a profile to help support our podcast and see what opportunities are out there for you! Thank you to our sponsor CBD Stat! If you use CBD oils, please try CBD Stat and get 30% off high-quality CBD available at http://www.cbdstat.care/goodnursebadnurse Thank you to our sponsor Eko! Please visit them at https://ekohealth.com and use promo code GNBN for $50 off your purchase of the new Littmann Cardiology IV stethoscope with Eko technology! Thank you to our new sponsor, UC Irvine! Head to http://nursing.uci.edu/ to take the next step in your nursing career.      Sources for this week's episode can be found below! Richard Rogers, Staten Island Nurse And Last Call Killer, Dismembered Gay Men | Crime News (oxygen.com) What Really Happened With the 'Last Call' Killer Who Terrorized NYC's Gay Nightspots in 1980s and '90s? - A&E True Crime (aetv.com) STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RICHARD W. ROGERS :: 2008 :: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division - Unpublished Opinions Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: US Law :: Justia

Andrew Napolitano is a former judge who served on the New Jersey Superior Court from 1987 to 1995. He is also a legal analyst and commentator known for appearing on Fox News and his syndicated column. Napolitano has written several books on legal and political topics, including "Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws" and "The Constitution in Exile: How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land."In this episode, Susan and Napolitano delve into the technical details and legal aspects of the Donald Trump indictment, including potential testimonies from Allen Weisselberg and Michael Cohen and discuss the perceived unpopularity of the previous decision of DA Bragg not to indict the president when first offered. The duo also speculates on the political ramifications for Trump, the implications of having him take the stand, and how it could affect the election and electability of any Republican facing President Biden. The episode also touches on Trump's ego, his decision to keep classified documents at Mar A Lago, and the prosecution's treatment of the January 6th defendants. The episode concludes by briefly discussing the Alex Murdaugh case and Ukrainian War.All this and more on No Holding Back with Susan Estrich.Sign up to receive updates by email when a new episode drops at: www.noholdingback.fm/Produced by 1985 Productions

Judge Andrew Napolitano, former legal analyst at Fox News and New Jersey Superior Court judge, joined the show. This indictment stinks to high heaven. This is third world tactics at its finest. If it could happen to Trump, it could happen to you. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Former New Jersey Superior Court Judge joins Sid to talk about the six failed votes to elect Kevin McCarthy as the Speaker of the House, how long it could take before a Speaker is finally elected, and his latest column on the FBI. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Andrew Napolitano: Former New Jersey Superior Court Judge makes takes up his weekly spot on Sid and Friends to talk about Sid's mother Naomi and her influence on the show and his recent piece on Christmas. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano does with weekly spot with Sid to talk about his column on "protecting the speech we hate," Kanye West's hate speech on twitter, and Trump being indicted for tax fraud. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Two seasonal antitrust trial lawyers, Barbara Hart and Debra Brookes, share their insights into how minority women thrive as antitrust trial lawyers in the private and public sectors. They address the unique issues that minority women face when practicing antitrust law, advise on how to succeed while handling these issues, and suggest how minority women promote their presence in the world of antitrust litigation. Hosted by: Yi-Hsin Wu, Judicial Law Clerk, New Jersey Superior Court

In this archive episode, Dennis stresses the importance and legality of separating drivers and passengers during interdiction. Recorded on 04/17/2018. Pennsylvania V. Mimms - (1977)https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/434/106/case.html?fbclid=IwAR2UlUeWsXT98SEPMIVa_7tmRu3G-u7U49pcKasF24DE88T_YL577J2XCXY (https://supreme.justia.com/.../federal/us/434/106/case.html) Police may order driver out of the vehicle without criminal activity or RAS. Bare this in mind…..if you do not suspect the vehicle of criminality don't get into the habit of ordering driver out of vehicle. State v Brian K. Smith (1997) – Once the vehicle was stopped, Trooper Long was permitted to request Smith to exit the vehicle for the purpose of investigation of the suspected motor vehicle violation. https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/1997/a3449-95-opn.html?fbclid=IwAR0QU7NVw_7fR6K0D1OWxyjm-tFmrIcAP48aMuiHNapD2yv9-DE_99a-j_o (https://law.justia.com/.../appella.../1997/a3449-95-opn.html) See State of NJ v. Brian L. Smith (1994) that stated that the Mimms test, as applied to drivers, satisfies the NJ constitution as well. https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Flaw.justia.com%2Fcases%2Fnew-jersey%2Fsupreme-court%2F1994%2Fa-28-93-opn.html%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR1pyM1cEa2oMhmhIkcbE_h06cfVHZG8SCMhkwcVxeqvGkO2T0dTSExfYAU&h=AT2R_tB-87Fff7lRVzLP53IGu2xof6XJUWWNAP60GEskLMq_IvTDOd5uvvlsAwCjj8VWlTT3LO5z5dKYX8HdwiE6LbaN_tMV8sT7JYFPJ5R3zbZUjwEG7JaQBMxVtf76b9HL0lPC1a5a5PXovw&__tn__=-UK-R (https://law.justia.com/.../supreme.../1994/a-28-93-opn.html) The court stated that “Instances will surface in which police officers, with less than a reasonable suspicion that a passenger is engaged in criminal activity or is armed and dangerous, may reasonably order a passenger to step out of a car.” The officer does not need to point out specific facts that the occupant is armed and dangerous rather the officer needs only to point out some fact or facts in the totality of the circumstances that would warrant a heightend caution. Examples…. Proximity to traffic. Bad weather; Poor visibility. Suspicious gestures by passenger(s) (Never say furtive movements, explain what you saw in detail). Ability to control the movements of several occupants. Ability to control the actions of bystanders. Suspicion of Criminal Activity. NOT ONLY LIMITED TO THE ABOVE LISTED REASONS. STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS BRIAN K. SMITH, ET AL :: 1997 :: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division - Published Opinions Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: US Law :: Justia Police may not routinely ask passengers out of a vehicle that has been stopped for a traffic violation. HOWEVER, NJ law states passengers can be asked out of the vehicle, when an officer is able to point to some specific fact(s) that would warrant a heightened caution. This can be anything to include R.A.S. (State v. Brian L. Smith 1994). This does not have to include a danger factor. https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/2017/a-9-15.html?fbclid=IwAR26bOyVmaAauWtJ54XX_Xva9JUsVpW06fTymmW7T5BWhbkCh-IRPf2mk8A (https://law.justia.com/.../supreme-court/2017/a-9-15.html)

Welcome to Episode 3 of the Princeton Podcast with Mayor Mark Freda. In this episode, Mark sat down with Bernie Hvozdovic, Princeton's Municipal Administrator. They discussed Bernie's background, his duties as municipal administrator, and the hot topic of town taxes. So without any further introduction, let's join our host, Mark Freda and his guest, Bernie Hvozdovic, for episode 3 of The Princeton Podcast.Bernard Hvozdovic Jr., Esq.The Municipal Administrator serves as the Chief Executive Officer and Administrative Official for the municipality of Princeton and is responsible for management of all of municipal business and carrying out the policies of the Mayor and Council, the Administration, overseeing Princeton's 250(+) employees in a municipality with a population of almost 32,000 residents, responsibilities include but are not limited to:Contract negotiationsImplementing and enforcing administrative proceduresImplementing the policies of Mayor and CouncilPersonnel and personnel policiesPreparation of the annual municipal budget and capital budgetPublic relationsSupervising and coordinating the work of all municipal departments Experience:Bernie served as the Township Manager for South Brunswick Township for 10 years. Prior to being appointed, he practiced as an attorney, often advocating on behalf of municipalities and municipal workers. Administrator Hvozdovic received his Bachelors in Economics from Wake Forest University and went on to Delaware Law School for his JD. Following Law School, Hvozdovic completed a prestigious Clerkship with the Presiding Judge of the Chancery Division-General Equity of the New Jersey Superior Court, New Brunswick. He next worked for a private law firm where he became a Partner, before establishing his own firm. Hvozdovic is certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Civil Trial Attorney. He has tried numerous cases to verdict and has argued before the New Jersey Supreme Court. He is admitted to practice in the State of New Jersey, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, US District Court for the District of New Jersey, and the Supreme Court of the United States of America. After being awarded a Certificate of Completion for the Senior Executives in the State and Local Government Program of John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, he also received a Master's in Public Administration from the Harvard Kennedy School. He continues to provide pro-bono legal services to children/young adults with special needs and adults with Dementia/Alzheimer's. Certifications:Certificate in Management, Leadership, and Decision SciencesCertified by the Supreme Court of NJ as a Civil Trial AttorneySenior Executives In State and Local Government Program

In this archive episode, Dennis explains exigency in regards to a time-sensitive situation regarding contraband. Recorded on 12/01/2017. State V. Nishina (2003) - This allows an officer to conduct an immediate search relying on training and experience, when the officer had probable cause to believe that a suspect is in possession of illegal narcotics and the officer detects the odor of marijuana on the suspects clothing. The courts have ruled this exigent circumstances and ruled that if a search warrant was sought the contraband could very well be consumed, hidden, or sold by the time one was issued. Search like incident to arrest. The odor of marijuana does not create exigency to warrant the entry of a home. State v George Myers 2015 The smell of marijuana itself can suffice to furnish probable cause that a criminal offense has been committed, the smell of marijuana gave Trooper Gore (Who is a police officer just like you) the right to arrest defendant for committing an apparent marijuana offense in his presence "'The "in presence" requirement . . . is satisfied by the trooper's use of his sense of smell in much the same manner as if he had used his sight or hearing or touch[.]'" In any event, subject to any pertinent defenses, possession of any quantity of marijuana is an offense. N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(4). “The distinctive odor of burnt . . . marijuana'" is evidence of such possession. “A strong odor is [not] required"; detection of the "characteristic" "smell of burnt marijuana, by a trained and experienced State Trooper, emanating from the passenger compartment of a legally stopped motor vehicle, created probable cause to believe that a violation of law had been or was being committed." The appropriate charge is 2C: 35-10a4 P.C. on complaint is odor of marijuana STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. GEORGE A. MYERS :: 2015 :: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division - Published Opinions Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia

In this archive episode, Dennis answers some group questions revisiting the defendant's admission. Recorded on 11/27/2017. Defendants' admission brings offense within the presence of the officer. (also see Bauer v. Borough off Cliffside Park 1988.)Bauer v. Borough of Cliffside Park :: 1988 :: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division - Published Opinions Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia The court held that a defendants admission to a police officer of the facts making up the offense alleged will satisfy that the requirement that the disorderly offense occur in the officer's presence. State v. Morse :: 1969 :: Supreme Court of New Jersey Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia Also - A video tape alone (CCTV) does not satisfy the in presence requirement (This is for Non-Indictables or a Non-Crime) for a warrantless arrest, not for a summons complaint.

In this archive episode, Dennis explains how to deal with arrests that have bags to be searched that may contain contraband items. Recorded on 11/29/2017. State V. Oyenusi 2006 – If you have an arrest with bags or items that may contain contraband you must search them contemporaneously with the arrest so close in time and location that they may be considered “connected units of an integrated incident and part of one single transaction.” Must not be remote in time or place. Once the property is not immediately associated with person under arrest a search of the property cannot be done as incident to arrest.(You will need consent or a warrant) Handcuffs first is OK SEARCH BAGS BEFORE YOU TRANSPORT! STATE v. OYENUSI | FindLaw Also see State v. Bradley 1996STATE v. BRADLEY | 291 N.J. Super. 501 (1996) | https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2FLeagle.com%2F%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR2MDyXSkM89GfzkH10ooffndmx4l2uE-dA9tBz0uF6tvRbXq-P_ccHPJI8&h=AT0xpRfHbiyV1fxQZUilc9zHWp4ZtOElwtPVRyHv0Pprt4rX3uEOyZhUKe8To8IayXWkr32ruFuOijr9dhIfzcrJiBaUJdWKyslgB7Fob6jjRo70J-1ffYkM3cAJ7VrvdwLi23qmxtfChgwIJA&__tn__=-UK-R (Leagle.com) State v Mahoney (1988) This is the case that ruled that stationhouse inventory searches are illegal. It is also noted that defendant did not consent to the inventory search nor was he given the opportunity of making other arrangements for the safekeeping of his suitcase and briefcase. State v.Mangold, the Court concluded that "[a]bsent consent or alternative security provisions, an inventory may not be undertaken." Mangold, 82 N.J. at 587.STATE v. MANGOLD | 82 N.J. 575 (1980) | https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2FLeagle.com%2F%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR0M0HMx_H5BWtGwSATZ2Vwn9DK40RzYDP863dXpEJEzglR6E6eGJRHz9RE&h=AT0xpRfHbiyV1fxQZUilc9zHWp4ZtOElwtPVRyHv0Pprt4rX3uEOyZhUKe8To8IayXWkr32ruFuOijr9dhIfzcrJiBaUJdWKyslgB7Fob6jjRo70J-1ffYkM3cAJ7VrvdwLi23qmxtfChgwIJA&__tn__=-UK-R (Leagle.com) State v. Padilla (1999) It is improper to search and inventory the personal property of an arrestee without first affording the arrestee the opportunity to consent to the search or the opportunity to make other arrangements for the disposition of personal property.STATE v. PADILLA | FindLaw State v. Mahoney :: 1988 :: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division - Published Opinions Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia State v. Irelan 2005 This case ruled officers have the right to search a motor vehicle for open containers after an arrest for DWI. (1) the police may lawfully effect a custodial arrest of a motorist when there is probable cause of a DWI violation; (2) incident to the arrest, the police may search the person of the arrestee; and (3) a contemporaneous warrantless search of the vehicle is permissible We hold that these facts are sufficient to support a reasonable well-grounded suspicion that alcohol was consumed in the vehicle, and thus the vehicle contained open containers of alcohol. Therefore, the probable cause prong of the automobile exception is met. This will be allowed for CDS-related DWI's as well. STATE v. IRELAN | FindLaw

In this archive episode, Dennis answers group questions about K9 units and sniffs establishing probable cause. Recorded on 10/23/2017. US v Nurse (D.C. Cir. 1990) If the canine sniff results in a positive alert or indication that the particular piece of property contains contraband or evidence of a suspected crime, this trained Canine's reaction elevates the reasonable suspicion to probable cause, and thus provides the necessary justification for the issuance of a search warrant or for a search under an applicable exception to the warrant requirement. Illinois v Caballes (2005) US Supreme Court As found by the trial judge prior to the appeal, the dog sniff was sufficiently reliable to establish probable cause to conduct a full-blown search of the trunk. United States v Pierce (2010)- The United States Supreme Court has consistently held “That an exterior canine sniff of a car during a lawful traffic stop does not amount to a search under the 4th Amendment. It is also well established that, looking at the totality of the circumstances, a dog's positive alert while sniffing the exterior of the car provides an officer with probable cause.” Illinois v. Caballes - Amicus (Merits) | OSG | Department of Justice Florida v Harris 2013 US Supreme Court The question—similar to every inquiry into probable cause—is whether all the facts surrounding a dog's alert, viewed through the lens of common sense, would make a reason- ably prudent person think that a search would reveal con- traband or evidence of a crime. A sniff is up to snuff when it meets that test… And here, Aldo's did. If a bona fide organization has certified a dog after testing his reliabilityin a controlled setting, a court can presume (subject to any conflicting evidence offered) that the dog's alert provides probable cause to search. The same is true, even in the absence of formal certification, if the dog has recently and successfully completed a training program that evaluatedhis proficiency in locating drugs. After all, law enforce­ment units have their own strong incentive to use effective training and certification programs, because only accuratedrug-detection dogs enable officers to locate contraband without incurring unnecessary risks or wasting limited time and resources. https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourt.gov%2Fopinions%2F12pdf%2F11-817_5if6.pdf%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR3S9IGJ9tlw-cUEkeqlKXeViwjtLu717t4GxDnRQnDgv8pO4hrQwvqexo0&h=AT1i_d8pny0ccA7pr8cqwqj1o9KHUqMrjptXiAvVHq7f6ivaESlYWpz10d5Gyi1HPhCgELEXJDEEfxVq-GDOAwHkCpsJgj445-w_-bMPNE3H0obypRxl9WGO6sdcLYJEBpta3Zy6K0ayKDGo3g&__tn__=-UK-R (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-817_5if6.pdf) State of NJ v. Cancel 1992 We agree that the dog's positive reaction to defendant's suitcase and the discrepancy between her name and the name on her ticket gave the police probable cause to arrest her and obtain a warrant to search the suitcase.(Referring to a US Supreme Court Decision) See Florida v. Royer, *434 460 U.S. 491, 506, 103 S. Ct. 1319, 1329, 75 L. Ed. 2d 229, 242 (1983) (had police used dog to sniff defendant's luggage "a positive result would have resulted in his justifiable arrest on probable cause"). State v. Cancel :: 1992 :: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division - Published Opinions Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: US Law :: Justia 1. GENERAL RULE: A mere inquiry needs NO constitutional justification. A law enforcement officer needs no constitutional justification to approach an individual on the street or in another public place and ask if the individual is willing to answer some questions, and to ask the individual questions if he is willing to listen. See Florida v. Royer, 103 S. Ct. 1319 (1983.); State v. Davis, 104 N.J. 490 (1986). 1. GENERAL RULE: A mere inquiry needs NO constitutional justification. A law enforcement officer needs no constitutional justification to approach an individual on the street or in another public...

In this archive episode, Dennis answers some group questions regarding K9 units and motor vehicle delays. Recorded on 10/13/2017. Illinois v Caballes (2005) US Supreme Court As found by the trial judge prior to the appeal, the dog sniff was sufficiently reliable to establish probable cause to conduct a full-blown search of the trunk. Caballes is the same as (2017) State v. Mark Dunbar (A-94-15; 077839) The Court adopts the federal standard barring unnecessary delays for the purpose of canine sniffs. Officers do not need reasonable suspicion of a drug offense provided that the canine sniff does not prolong the stop beyond the time required to complete the stop's mission. United States v Pierce (2010)- The United States Supreme Court has consistently held “That an exterior canine sniff of a car during a lawful traffic stop does not amount to a search under the 4th Amendment. It is also well established that, looking at the totality of the circumstances, a dog's positive alert while sniffing the exterior of the car provides an officer with probable cause.” Illinois v. Caballes - Amicus (Merits) | OSG | Department of Justice State v Sloan 2008 - Leaving a vehicle to be driven by a passenger or a third party allows you the right to check their driving credentials. (Criminal Wants / Warrants) This also allowed police officers to run warrant checks of passengers without Reasonable Suspicion. The police do not need a reasonable suspicion before they access the NCIC database. An NCIC check by the police is not a search under the federal or state constitutions. HELD: During a motor vehicle stop, the passenger, like the driver, is seized under the federal and state constitutions. Police do not need reasonable suspicion before they may access the NCIC database and, because accessing the NCIC database was within the scope of the traffic stop and did not unreasonably prolong the stop, there was no basis to suppress the evidence found. State of NJ v. Patino (1980) – “The discovery of a small amount of marijuana in the passenger compartment gave rise only to an inference that the occupants were casual users, and this furnished no cause to search the trunk where large “Dealer Sized” quantities of drugs would presumably be stored. “In the absence of other circumstances that suggest participation in drug trafficking or possession of more contraband” such a search could not expand beyond the persons of the occupants or the passenger compartment of the car.” State v. Patino :: 1980 :: Supreme Court of New Jersey Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia Trooper pulls over vehicle and spots plastic bag protruding from under the floor mat containing a 4.6 ounce chunk of a white powdery substance later testing positive for cocaine (Plain View) Both are arrested, read miranda, and agreed to speak, co-defendants lips were quivering when asked about the bag in the trunk and responded that he did not know what the contents were. (364 Plastic Vials used for packaging found) Court said – “These are the very types of circumstances that the Patino court referred to, as providing probable cause to search the entire vehicle including the trunk and the interior of the paper bags in the trunk. Allows an officer, after discovery of contraband, to question a defendant after having read them their Miranda rights. State v. Letman :: 1989 :: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division - Published Opinions Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia State v Guerra 1983 The troopers lawfully stopped the vehicle. They then detected a strong odor of marijuana emanating from the interior of the vehicle. Thus they had probable cause to search the trunk for evidence of contraband. The packages found in the trunk were validly searched. Regardless of the visibility of their contents, the size of the packages and the odor of marijuana that they emitted clearly suggested that they contained...

In this archive episode, Dennis revisits cases where the defendant makes an admission in the presence of an officer. Recorded on 10/11/2017. Defendants admission brings offense within the presence of the officer. (also see Bauer v. Borough off Cliffside Park 1988.)Bauer v. Borough of Cliffside Park :: 1988 :: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division - Published Opinions Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia The court held that a defendants admission to a police officer of the facts making up the offense alleged will satisfy that the requirement that the disorderly offense occur in the officer's presence. State v. Morse :: 1969 :: Supreme Court of New Jersey Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia Most commonly, the “in presence” requirement is satisfied by an officer directly viewing or seeing the offense occur even if the officer uses a telescope or binoculars. Remember – Binoculars are an accepted way of surveillance. Also- A video tape alone (CCTV) does not satisfy the in presence requirement (This is for Non-Indictables or a Non-Crime) for a warrantless arrest, not for a summons complaint. The in-presence requirement only applies to the arrest of a person. This doesn't mean you can't issue a summons in an incident where probable cause exists. R. 7:2-(a)(2) A law enforcement officer may personally serve the summons on the defendant without making the custodial arrest without a finding by a judicial officer of probable cause for issuance. officer using the Special Form should check the box in the shaded area designated "Law Enforcement Use Only.“ Or you can type it up at HQ on a CDR https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.judiciary.state.nj.us%2Frules%2Fr7-2.htm%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR0sE9onlheLJgeLqxNw5GCnq47dc86DyFE9xbRy_ziuWnhZHLyCxQD1uDE&h=AT1I1vWfO6h3qMEVB_UveblCj2SzM6IOiaUQbqpYwgsk2E8h1-GEtedDtN-oICCg3lA2OhK8oPFw0LMfrsheWvItCR2AxiSndHDkOLs8mJpW2CkQYTTh2Sx1ZfLVoPoc9ro0zqWt9dUEkTX5kQ&__tn__=-UK-R (http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/rules/r7-2.htm) Under Chapter 12 of Title 2B Any police officer may issue summonses related to such complaints and may as authorized by the Rules of the Court issue a summons in lieu of an arrest for an offense committed in the officer's presence. Special Form of Complaint and Summons under NJ Court Rule 7:2-1(g) Disorderly / Petty Disorderly Offenses, except for those involving domestic violence and those with a companion indictable manner Local Ordinance Violations Code Enforcement Actions Penalty Enforcement actions (R.7:2-1(h) Boating Offenses Parking and Traffic Offenses where a private citizen is the complainant.

In this older episode, Dennis answers questions on what else to search for inside vehicle trunks as well as charging occupants with drug offenses. Recorded on 07/25/2017. Related Links: Maryland v. Pringle 2003 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_v._Pringle?fbclid=IwAR2YcdnnhR0XOi-Md0_xv8ov1wz0s4I3xShG2r8kEjOt-pqimsk0bfSpcuA State of NJ v. Patino (1980) - https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/1981/88-n-j-211-0.html “The discovery of a small amount of marijuana in the passenger compartment gave rise only to an inference that the occupants were casual users, and this furnished no cause to search the trunk where large “Dealer Sized” quantities of drugs would presumably be stored. “In the absence of other circumstances that suggest participation in drug trafficking or possession of more contraband” such a search could not expand beyond the persons of the occupants or the passenger compartment of the car.” Ask for Consent or Call a K9 Unit for a sniff. State V. Letman (1989) Trooper pulls over vehicle and spots plastic bag protruding from under the floor mat containing a 4.6 ounce chunk of a white powdery substance later testing positive for cocaine (Plain View) Both are arrested, read miranda, and agreed to speak, co-defendants lips were quivering when asked about the bag in the trunk and responded that he did not know what the contents were. (364 Plastic Vials used for packaging found) Court said – “These are the very types of circumstances that the Patino court referred to, as providing probable cause to search the entire vehicle including the trunk and the interior of the paper bags in the trunk. Allows an officer, after discovery of contraband, to question a defendant after having read them their Miranda rights. State v. Letman :: 1989 :: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division - Published Opinions Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia

Episode 171 - Rosemary Podgis, 56, and her husband Alfred, 58, were found in a Pennsylvania Ravine. They had been fatally shot in their Loch Arbour, New Jersey home over the Fourth of July weekend in 1982. The apparent perpetrators arrested by police 5 days later were two 18-year-olds: Scott Robert Franz, Rosemary’s son from a previous marriage, and Scott’s Canadian friend Bruce Anthony Curtis, who had been Scott’s classmate at King’s Edgehill private school in Nova Scotia where the pair had just graduated. The events leading up to the deaths of Rosemary and Alfred Podgis would be extremely important in establishing what led two teens, both with promising futures ahead of them, to kill Scott Franz’s mother and stepfather. Was it cold-blooded murder or, as Bruce would later claim, a tragic accident caused by a faulty firearm? Sources: [Blood Knot: The Trial and Conviction of Bruce Curtis by David Hayes] [State v. Curtis :: 1984 :: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division :: Justia] [Two 18-year-olds, one from Nova Scotia, were held today… - UPI Archives] [A disputed killing in New Jersey | Maclean’s | APRIL 16, 1984] [Curtis’s long trip home | Maclean’s | MARCH 7, 1988] [National Film Board of Canada - Journey Into Darkness: The Bruce Curtis Story] [Dalhousie - The Gazette - Volume 117, Number 22 - February 21, 1985] [Canadians Mount Campaign To Obtain Man in New Jersey Prison] [YouTube - Deadly Betrayal: The Bruce Curtis Story - 1992 NBC Sunday Night Movie] [Crime-Sep-24-1989-947717 | NewspaperArchive] [Scott Franz’s Home - GoogleMaps] [Bruce Curtis and Scott Franz case - MemoryNS] [Shootings of Alfred and Rosemary Podgis - Wikipedia] Support the show: https://www.patreon.com/darkpoutine See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week, your hosts Steve Lowry and Yvonne Godfrey interview Adam Slater of Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman (https://www.mazieslater.com/).   Remember to rate and review GTP in iTunes: Click Here To Rate and Review   Episode Details: New Jersey trial lawyer Adam Slater of Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman shares how he successfully represented Mary McGinnis, a 70-year-old woman who underwent numerous surgeries after C.R. Bard's defective transvaginal mesh products eroded within her body, causing chronic inflammation, severe pain, and debilitating physical injuries. In March 2009, Mary's doctor implanted the Avaulta Solo and Align TO mesh products to treat her pelvic prolapse. Due to recurrent mesh erosion, Mary later endured multiple mesh removal surgeries and a complex vaginal wall reconstruction. Today, she still suffers from severe pain and is unable to sit comfortably or be intimate with her husband. Despite the defense's attempts to blame Mary's pain on pre-existing medical issues or her surgeon's techniques, a Bergen County, New Jersey jury found that the Avaulta Solo and Align TO were defective in its design, and that Bard failed to warn of the defects, and awarded $33 million in compensatory damages to Mary and her husband, Thomas.  In a separate punitive damages phase, Attorney Adam Slater obtained a punitive damages award of an additional $35 million against Bard.. Click Here to Read/Download the Complete Trial Documents   Guest Bio: Adam Slater Adam Slater is certified as a civil trial attorney by the Supreme Court of New Jersey, and a partner in the law firm of Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman, LLC in Roseland, New Jersey.  Mr. Slater specializes in the handling of complex civil litigation including product liability, malpractice, catastrophic injury cases, class actions, and mass litigations. He has obtained many jury verdicts and settlements in excess of $1 million, with a number in the nine figures.  He also has argued appeals in the New Jersey Supreme Court, New Jersey Appellate Division, and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in his own cases and as Amicus, with numerous published decisions. Mr. Slater also has been appointed as lead counsel in numerous mass torts and class actions, including for example the coordinated litigation of more than 10,000 pelvic mesh cases against Johnson & Johnson, Ethicon, and C.R. Bard in New Jersey State Court, the In Re Benicar Federal MDL in the District of New Jersey which resulted in a global settlement for $358 million, the In Re Valsartan, Losartan, and Irbesartan Federal MDL in the District of New Jersey, the New Jersey State Court consolidation of the Allergan breast implant litigation, and a member of the Executive Committee for the Federal MDL of the Allergan breast implant litigation, Federal class actions against Volkswagen and Audi for breach of warranty (settlement with $84 million value), and a Federal class action against Sanofi-Aventis, on behalf of a class of pharmaceutical sales representatives. Mr. Slater filed the first pelvic mesh case in the country against Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson in early 2008, and he was lead trial counsel for the first trial in the United States against Ethicon and Johnson & Johnson, held in the New Jersey Superior Court.  The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiffs, with compensatory damages of $3.35 million, and punitive damages of $7.76 million, and the Judgment was affirmed by the New Jersey Appellate Division, with certification denied by the New Jersey Supreme Court.  Mr. Slater has been trial counsel in numerous other pelvic mesh cases against Ethicon and Johnson & Johnson around the country, including in Philadelphia in December, 2015 ($12.5 million verdict including punitive damages of $7 million), New Jersey in December, 2017 ($15 million verdict including punitive damages of $10 million) the MDL Court in West Virginia (settled during trial), and Missouri State Court (settled during trial).  He also obtained the largest pelvic mesh verdict ever obtained against C.R. Bard, in March 2018, in the amount of $68 million, including punitive damages of $35 million.  Of note, Mr. Slater testified in 2015 to the Scottish Parliament, at the invitation of a Parliamentary subcommittee, with regard to the dangers of pelvic mesh, aiding the successful effort to have pelvic mesh banned in Scotland. Read Full Bio   Show Sponsors: Legal Technology Services - LTSatlanta.com Digital Law Marketing - DigitalLawMarketing.com Harris, Lowry, and Manton - hlmlawfirm.com   Free Resources: Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 1 Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 2

Judge Andrew Napolitano is a former Judge of the New Jersey Superior Court, a law professor, and prolific author. He's the Senior Judicial Analyst at Fox News. He joins the show to discuss Natural Law, and the idea that the role of the courts is predominantly to protect individual rights from government incursion.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Broadcasting from the Arrowhead Building Supply Studios and featuring the www.CallTammy.com Real Estate Listener Line, it's Hour Two of Allman in the Morning! This hour, Jamie discusses the news of the day with Judge Andrew Napolitano. Judge Nap served as a New Jersey Superior Court judge from 1987 to 1995, and is now a senior judicial analyst for Fox News and a syndicated columnist whose work appears in numerous publications.

Broadcasting from the Arrowhead Building Supply Studios and featuring the www.CallTammy.com Real Estate Listener Line, it's Hour Two of Allman in the Morning! This hour, Jamie discusses the news of the day with Judge Andrew Napolitano, who served as a New Jersey Superior Court judge from 1987 to 1995, and is now a senior judicial analyst for Fox News and a syndicated columnist whose work appears in numerous publications.

Broadcasting from the Arrowhead Building Supply Studios and featuring the www.CallTammy.com Real Estate Listener Line, it's Hour Two of Allman in the Morning! This hour, Jamie discusses the news of the day, and speaks with Judge Andrew Napolitano, who served as a New Jersey Superior Court judge from 1987 to 1995, and is now a senior judicial analyst for Fox News and a syndicated columnist whose work appears in numerous publications.

Broadcasting from the Arrowhead Building Supply Studios and featuring the www.CallTammy.com Real Estate Listener Line, it's Hour Two of Allman in the Morning! This hour, Jamie discusses the news of the day, including “the coming death of just about every rock legend,” and we welcome Judge Andrew Napolitano to the show. Judge Napolitano served as a New Jersey Superior Court judge from 1987 to 1995, and is now a senior judicial analyst for Fox News and a syndicated columnist whose work appears in numerous publications.

Kurt is a graduate of Ursinus College in Collegeville, Pennsylvania and Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan.  Kurt's practice is bankruptcy, personal injury, worker's compensation, landlord-tenant, and some wills and related document preparation.He practiced for many years with his mother, Linda, who came to the law practice after raising young children. His family includes mom and retired lawyer, Linda, dad and retired bank CFO, Carl, retired physician, Brent, and attorney sister, Paige, who is now working in government service. No academic slouches here. He had mentors including, of course, Linda and Carl, and the late Judge Michael D. Farren of the New Jersey Superior Court.Kurt believes strongly that lawyers need to remember that clients are human and not just file numbers. The oft used platitudes of check your ego at the door and try not to sweat the details are words that he repeats often. You will know that Kurt's deep appreciation for a referral, no matter the value of the case, is sincere. He also shares a beautiful story of how he was once referred a former girlfriend who is now his wife and best friend of 22 years.This was a great interview with one of the first lawyers I ever met in practice, and it was a sincere pleasure for me to spend time with Kurt.  Enjoy. ⭐️If you or anyone you know might be interested in being a guest of The Bold Sidebar – email Tina George attgeorge@hornlawgroup.net for details. ⭐️ Horn Law Group, LLC 801A Main Street Toms River, NJ 08753 T: 732.736.9300 E:tgeorge@hornlawgroup.net Website:https://hornlawgroup.net/ Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/TheBoldSidebar/ https://www.facebook.com/hornlawgroupnj/ LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/company/horn-law-group/  REINHEIMER & REINHEIMER2494 Moore Road, Suite #4, Toms River, NJ 08753(Tel) 732-349-4650 (Fax) 732-349-4640 Email: info@reinheimer.com 

This week, your hosts Steve Lowry and Yvonne Godfrey interview Barry Eichen of Eichen, Crutchlow, Zaslow ( https://www.njadvocates.com ).     Remember to rate and review GTP in iTunes: Click Here To Rate and Review     Case Details:       A member of the prestigious Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum, Barry Eichen of Eichen Crutchlow Zaslow, LLP shares how he secured justice for New Jersey railroad worker Roger Fuccilli, who died of a lung disease caused by occupational exposure to toxic fumes. After 5 weeks of trial, a New Jersey Superior Court jury returned what is believed to be one of the largest Federal Employers Liability Act verdicts in the country for pulmonary fibrosis. Fuccilli's widow, Catherine, was awarded $19.2 million, including $4.1 million in pre-death pain and suffering and $15.1 million for his wrongful death.     Click Here to Read/Download the Complete Trial Documents     Guest Bio:   NJ medical malpractice lawyer, Barry R. Eichen, grew up in the middle-class neighborhood of South Edison.  His father was a manager at an auto parts store and his mother worked part-time while raising five children.  After graduating from Edison High School, Mr. Eichen worked at night while attending college to help pay for his education.  After graduating from law school, Mr. Eichen opened his own law practice in 1987.  Mr. Eichen is one of New Jersey's most seasoned and well-respected trial lawyers.  In 2012-2013 alone, Mr. Eichen tried eight cases resulting in verdicts totaling more than ten million dollars. Mr. Eichen recently represented the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 2010, wherein he obtained a $51 Million verdict against Johnson & Johnson for overcharging Medicaid recipients. This verdict led to a recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.     In a recent trial against the City Of Newark, Mr. Eichen was able to obtain a verdict in the amount of three million dollars.  The case involved the failure of the City of Newark to repair a pothole that was approximately three feet wide and four feet long. The jury had determined that this was a dangerous condition that the city knew or should have known existed for approximately one year, although there were complaints that the city had neglected to repair said dangerous conditions for a period of one year. While this matter was reversed due to a procedural technicality, Mr. Eichen looks forward to a retrial.     In April of 2007, Barry Eichen obtained a verdict against Ford Motor Company for a defective throttle body which resulted in a brachial plexus injury to the right arm of the plaintiff. After a 4 week trial, the jury awarded plaintiff $10,626,479.89. In August of 2005, Mr. Eichen obtained a $19.2 million verdict on behalf of a railroad worker who was diagnosed with pulmonary fibrosis as a result of various railroads' failure to provide adequate respiratory protection. This was one of the largest FELA verdicts in the Country for pulmonary fibrosis. New Jersey medical mistakes lawyer, Barry R. Eichen, was part of the team that successfully litigated the class action claim against LYMErix a vaccine developed to prevent Lyme disease.     Mr. Eichen has also sat as a member of the Plaintiff's Steering Committee for Phen-Fen and Rezulin Drug Litigation. Currently, Mr. Eichen is a member of the Plaintiff's Steering Committee for the Vytorin/Zetia Drug Litigation as well as the Schering-Plough Intron A Drug Litigation. He also recently settled a Consumer Fraud Class Action against an automobile dealership for overcharging customers documentary fees. He has served as a prosecutor for various townships and has tried over 100 complex cases. His areas of practice include products liability, Federal Employee Liability Act cases (FELA), medical malpractice, employment discrimination, consumer fraud class actions, and other litigation matters. Mr. Eichen has also served on the Board of Governors for ATLA-NJ and has taught seminars at the request of ATLA.     Mr. Eichen was featured in a televised forum “A Jersey Matters Town Hall: The Heroin Crisis,” This one-of-a-kind statewide town hall took place at Monmouth University on March 16th, 2017. WJLP-TV (Me-TV) in association with the Asbury Park Press sponsored the program to discuss the real problem of heroin and opiate addictions and deaths in New Jersey. Click here to watch the program. View segments from the Town Hall forum here.     Barry R. Eichen is currently representing the firm in numerous class action litigation, including Vytorin/Zetia, Intron/Temodar, Countrywide, Baxter and Wellpoint consumer class action cases, as well as, many of the firm's complex medical malpractice cases.     Read Full Bio Here     Show Sponsors:     Legal Technology Services - LTSatlanta.com     Digital Law Marketing - DigitalLawMarketing.com     Harris, Lowry, and Manton - hlmlawfirm.com     Free Resources:   Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 1 Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 2

Yoel Romero, former two-time UFC middleweight interim title challenger has won his lawsuit for negligence against Goldstar Performance Products in New Jersey Superior Court. The suit stems from Dec’s 2015 positive drug test for Ibutamoren, described by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) as “a prohibited substance in the class of Peptide Hormones, Growth Factors, Related Substances and Mimetics under the UFC Anti-Doping Policy.” Instagram @cfr_sports

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Discussion of: (1) all of the marriage equality litigation news since mid-February, including late-breaking developments out of Alabama and from the U.S. Supreme Court; (2) two important precedents set in the area of HIV criminalization in February; (3) a couple of breakthroughs out of the New Jersey Superior Court in a lawsuit filed to hold a faith-based conversion therapy provider liable under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; and (4) the latest bad news for former Michigan assistant attorney general Andrew Shirvell.Visit le-gal.org to learn more about The LGBT Bar Association of Greater New York and to subscribe to Lesbian/Gay Law Notes, the most comprehensive monthly publication summarizing legal and legislative developments affecting the LGBT community here and abroad.