Newsletter NJ Laws by Kenneth Vercammen, Esq.: E675 VercammenLaw News

1. Estate Planning for people you like

2.Recent cases Statement to Rutgers Police suppressed where Miranda not correctly given

3. Weapon search DVSW was invalid due to procedural inadequacies

4.Aunt granted FRO against niece

1. Estate Planning for people you like

Without an estate plan of your own, your estate will pass pursuant to New Jersey Interstate Law. New Jersey Law may not reflect your wishes. This is why every family should have a customized estate plan created by a law firm that confuses on this unique area of the law. We offer a complete range of estate planning services to meet your particular needs.

Striving to protect the people you love, the assets you own, and the dreams you hold dear.

Sleep Better at Night AND Feel Better About Yourself Knowing You’ve Done the Right Thing When You Let Our Firm Help You Plan Your Estate for Your Family’s Protection.

2. Recent cases Statement to Rutgers Police suppressed where Miranda not correctly given State v. Bullock

Defendant’s statements in the courtyard and station house were both properly suppressed. Under the totality of the circumstances, the courtyard statements must be suppressed because the Miranda warnings given in the courtyard were lacking and could not have apprised defendant of his rights such that any waiver and agreement to speak to police was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made. By the time defendant arrived at the police department and was given full Miranda warnings, he had already admitted to the very crime that the officers were investigating. Defendant had “let the cat out of the bag” with his admissions, see State v. Carrion, 249 N.J. 253, 275-76 (2021), so the psychological pressure of having already confessed was not cured by the administration of Miranda warnings prior to the interview at the station. A-34-21

3. Weapon search DVSW was invalid due to procedural inadequacies State v. Marable

The court granted defendant's motion to suppress evidence from the warrant less search because complainant could not consent to search of defendant's bedroom and found the search warrant for the safe was fruit of the poisonous tree. State appealed the suppression motion granted to defendant and the orders invalidating a domestic violence search warrant and dismissing a weapons charge. Complainant filed a complaint with police alleging defendant family member threatened to shoot her and kill himself, requested a TRO and asked police to remove defendant from the home. Municipal court judge granted a TRO, a warrant to seize weapons and an arrest warrant.

Complainant gave police the keys to the house and defendant was arrested while sleeping in his bedroom. Police seized a locked safe from the bedroom, received a criminal search warrant for the safe and found a handgun and bullets in it. Defendant was indicted on terroristic threats and weapons charges and moved to suppress all evidence from his bedroom and the safe and argued the DVSW was invalid because State failed to produce a recording of the TRO hearing or contemporaneous notes from the municipal judge who issued the DVSW. Trial judge found the DVSW was invalid due to procedural inadequacies, granted defendant's motion to suppress evidence from the warrantless search because complainant could not consent to search of defendant's bedroom and found the search warrant for the safe was fruit of the poisonous tree. Court agreed with trial court and found trial court properly dismissed the weapons charge.

source https://www.law.com/njlawjournal/almI/1678822675NJA346721/

4. Aunt granted FRO against niece D.M.L. v. K.A.C.

Defendant appealed the FRO entered against her. Plaintiff and defendant were aunt and niece. They began living together in 2021. Plaintiff's adult daughter also lived in the residence and plaintiff had health issues that required a caregiver to assist her with daily activities. Plaintiff's other niece dropped off her two dogs at the house in July 2021 and defendant became enraged because she did not want the dogs there. Defendant struck a table with a broomstick while yelling at plaintiff and her daughter. The incident continued outside the house and defendant pushed plaintiff in the face. Plaintiff's caregiver corroborated plaintiff's testimony. An earlier argument between defendant, plaintiff and daughter had occurred because defendant believed they had called the Division of Child Protection on her and she placed a candle in a hallway near plaintiff's bedroom. Defendant denied the allegations. Trial court found plaintiff, daughter and caregiver were credible, a predicate act of harassment had been committed and that an FRO was necessary to prevent further abuse. Court found sufficient evidence in the record supported trial court's findings and noted the candle outside the bedroom posed a risk due to plaintiff's physical limitations.

source:https://www.law.com/njlawjournal/almI/1677789042NJA180521/