E657 VercammenLaw News

1. Spring Will seminars for Senior Clubs and Libraries

Recent Cases

2. Arrest and search based on ordinance violation not permitted, State v. Williams

3. Stop of vehicle to search for drugs suppressed here

1. Spring Will seminars for Senior Clubs and Libraries

We have a busy Spring with Will seminars for Senior Clubs and Libraries.

Contact each Library or Senior center direct for their attendance policies:

Piscataway Public Library - Estate Planning and Probate 2023

February 21, 2023 at 6:00pm. Tuesday

Highland Park Office of Aging - Senior Will Seminar

March 8, 2023 at 2:30pm Wednesday

South Brunswick Library - Estate Planning and Probate

March 9, 2023 at 6:00pm Thursday

Monroe Senior Center - Wills & Estates Update Seminar

March 13, 2023 at 10:30am. Monday

Sayreville Public Library - Wills & Power of Attorney Seminar

March 20, 2023 at 6:00pm Monday

South Plainfield Senior Center - Wills, Estate Planning & Probate Seminar

March 29, 2023 at 10:00am Wednesday

Cranbury Library - Wills, Probate & Estate Planning

March 30, 2023 at 6:00pm Thursday

Stelton Senior Club - Wills & Estates Update Seminar

April 3, 2023 at 12:30pm Monday

Colonia Seniors - Wills, Estate Planning & Probate Seminar

April 4, 2023 at 2:00pm Tuesday

Jamesburg Senior Club - Wills & Estates Update Seminar

April 12, 2023 at 1pm Wednesday

West Windsor Mercer County Library - Wills, Probate & Estate Planning

April 13, 6:30 - 7:30pm Thursday (Virtual Program, GotoMeeting)

Matawan-Aberdeen Library - Wills & Power of Attorney Seminar

April 17, 2023 at 6pm Monday

Woodbridge Library - Wills, Estate Planning & Probate Seminar

April 18, 2023 at 6:30pm Tuesday

South Plainfield Public Library - Wills, Estate Planning & Probate Seminar

April 26, 2023 at 6:30pm. Wednesday

Old Bridge AARP Chapter 4854 - Wills, Estate Planning & Probate Seminar

May 10, 2023 at 1:30pm Wednesday

Metuchen Library - Wills, Estate Planning & Probate Seminar

May 23, 2023 at 6:30pm Tuesday

2. Arrest and search based on ordinance violation not permitted

State v. Williams

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence in a CDS case. Detective received a tip that defendant was distributing narcotics at a specific location. He went to the location, saw a group of men including defendant gambling in violation of a municipal ordinance and stopped the men. When defendant raised his arms, detective saw the top of a plastic bag tied to defendant's belt with the rest of the bag down his pants. Detective believed that was a common way for drug dealers to carry drugs. Detective pulled the bag out and saw bags of crack cocaine. Defendant was issued a summons for illegal gambling but not the other men. Defendant argued an illegal seizure after an invalid arrest. State argued a valid arrest and that the drugs were in plain view. Trial court found defense's witnesses were not credible and the search was incident to a lawful arrest. Defendant argued officers could not conduct a warrantless, custodial search for violating a municipal ordinance and detective exceeded the scope of his search incident to arrest when he reached into defendant's pants. Court found officers were not authorized to arrest defendant for breach of the gambling ordinance and the ensuing warrantless search was not justified. Court remanded for the trial court to consider State's plain view exception argument. Unreported source NJLJ 5/2/22

3. Stop of vehicle to search for drugs suppressed here

State v. McGriff

Defendant appealed from his conviction for possession with intent to distribute and the denial of his motion to suppress the drugs seized from his car following a motor vehicle stop. The stop occurred in connection with the execution of a no-knock warrant on a home and a separate search warrant for a vehicle registered to the home's owner. The warrants were issued following a concerned citizen report that defendant resided at the home and was distributing cocaine in the area. Police conducted two controlled buys of suspected cocaine from defendant through a confidential informant. Police decided to execute the warrants once defendant left the home in his vehicle, conducting a motor vehicle stop while simultaneously executing the no-knock warrant on defendant's residence, out of a concern for officer safety and to prevent anyone inside the home from destroying any drugs. However, defendant eventually left the residence in a different vehicle from the one described in the search warrant. Defendant moved to suppress evidence of the drugs found when he was stopped. The state claimed that the search of the vehicle that defendant was stopped in was authorized by the search warrant for defendant's home, or alternatively, that it was justified because defendant was only about a half-mile from the home during the execution of the no-knock warrant. The trial court ultimately denied defendant's suppression motion, concluding that officers had reasonable suspicion defendant was engaged in additional criminal activity based on his history of distributing drugs. The trial court further noted that defendant had driven away from the police's initial attempt to stop him. On appeal, the court vacated the denial of defendant's suppression motion. The court found that defendant's motor vehicle stop was not authorized by the search warrants, nor did police have reasonable suspicion of further criminal activity by defendant. Unreported source Daily briefing 4/22/22