In This Issue
1. Upcoming events
2. Statute of Limitations in 1983 Civil Rights Suit Begins on Arrest.
3. No Legal Malpractice When Conviction Reversed.
4. DWI Stop Suppressed Where Police Did Not See Reasons to Believe Defendant Was Intoxicated.
_________________________
Greetings Kenneth Vercammen, We switched effective June 1, 2007 to an improved newsletter email service. We have been informed some your email addresses may be lost in the transfer process. Therefore, if you don't receive your next newsletter by June 15, please send us an email to advise us. Thank You. To unsubscribe, follow Constant Contact's button at the bottom.
_________________________
1. Upcoming events
June 11
ICLE Mun Ct - Handling Cases in the Busiest Courts MayFair Farm, West Orange. Call (732) 249-5100
_________________________
2. Statute of Limitations in 1983 Civil Rights Suit Begins on Arrest.
Wallace v. Kato U.S. Supreme Court (Decided February 21, 2007) 05-1240.
The statute of limitations on a 1983 claim seeking damages for a false arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment, where the arrest is followed by criminal proceedings, begins to run at the time the claimant becomes detained pursuant to legal process. Source: 187 N.J.L.J. 783. This case limits Civil Rights Suits.
_________________________
3. No Legal Malpractice When Conviction Reversed.
Newton v. Office of Essex County Public Defender (Appellate Division Decided February 20, 2007) 04-2-6533. Unpublished.
The Law Division judge properly dismissed plaintiff's legal-malpractice complaint, rejecting his argument that he was inadequately represented by counsel in his criminal proceedings, leading to an allegedly defective plea and an improper sentence. Inter alia, the judge justifiably relied on Alampi v. Russo, which denied recovery in a legal-malpractice case arising out of a guilty plea that was not vacated or reversed in the criminal appellate process. Source: 187 N.J.L.J. 785
_________________________
4. DWI Stop Suppressed Where Police Did Not See Reasons to Believe Defendant Was Intoxicated.
State v. Stongvila (Appellate Division Decided January 30, 2007) A-3582-04T3. Not Approved For Publication.
Conviction after a trial de novo of refusing to submit to a Breathalyzer test in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2 reversed; a police officer was working undercover outside a liquor store; a liquor store employee told the officer that the defendant seemed to be intoxicated and was rude, loud, and boisterous while he was in the store; the officer saw the defendant leave the store, walk to his car, and drive away but did not see anything that indicated that the defendant was intoxicated; nonetheless, the officer asked his dispatcher to have a patrol car follow the defendant, and another officer stopped the defendant based solely on the dispatcher's report of a possible intoxicated driver; the State's evidence was insufficient to support the reasonable suspicion required to justify an investigatory stop, and the stop was illegal; furthermore, there was no probable cause for the request to submit to a Breathalyzer test because the request was based on evidence that was obtained after the illegal stop and that would have been suppressed if the State had proceeded on a charge of driving while intoxicated. Source: Facts-on-Call Order No. 20866
_________________________
This newsletter is produced to be sent electronically. If you know someone who would also like to receive this email newsletter, please have them email us at newsletter@njlaws.com.
Free T- shirts and soda can holders available for all current and past clients. Please come into office.
Our law blog- http://njlaws1.blogspot.com/
Thank you for reading our newsletter! God Bless America USA #1
We appreciate continued referrals. We want to take the time to extend to our friends and clients our sincere gratitude because it is good friends and clients that make our business grow. Client recommendation is a very important source of new clients to us. We are grateful for the recommendation of new clients. We will do our best to give all clients excellent care. We shall do our best to justify all recommendations.
"Celebrating more than 21 years of providing excellent service to clients 1985-2007" Former Prosecutor
_________________________
Editor's Note and Disclaimer:
All materials Copyright 2007. You may pass along the information on the NJ Laws Newsletter and website, provided the name and address of the Law Office is included.
KENNETH VERCAMMEN & ASSOCIATES, PC
ATTORNEY AT LAW
2053 Woodbridge Ave.
Edison, NJ 08817
(Phone) 732-572-0500
(Fax) 732-572-0030
website: www.njlaws.com
Admitted to practice law in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, US Supreme Court and Federal District Court
