AG Modifications to CJ Reform Policies: Part 8

by | Nov 22, 2017 | Blog, Criminal Law, New Jersey

Anti-Drug ProfiteeringA footnote to the now-removed section 4.6.3 of the Attorney General Guidelines regarding Criminal Justice reform reads:

N.J.S.A. 2C:25-26(a), which is part of the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act and was not amended by the Bail Reform Law, provides: When a defendant charged with a crime or offense involving domestic violence is released from custody before trial on bail or personal recognizance, the court authorizing the release may as a condition of release issue an order prohibiting the defendant from having any contact with the victim including, but not limited to, restraining the defendant from entering the victim’s residence, place of employment or business, or school, and from harassing or stalking the victim or the victim’s friends, co-workers, or relatives in any way. The court may also enter an order prohibiting the defendant from having any contact with any animal owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held by either party or a minor child residing in the household. In addition, the court may enter an order directing the possession of the animal and providing that the animal shall not be disposed of prior to the disposition of the crime or offense. The court may enter an order prohibiting the defendant from possessing any firearm or other weapon enumerated in subsection r. of N.J.S. 2C:39-1 and ordering the search for and seizure of any such weapon in any location where the judge has reasonable cause to believe the weapon is located. The judge shall state with specificity the reasons for and scope of the search and seizure authorized by the order.

The use of the term “reasonable cause” is perplexing. The standard for the issuance of a search warrant is probable cause. While our courts recognize the lower standard of “reasonable suspicion”, it does not apply to the issuance of search or arrest warrants. Reasonable suspicion is all that is required for a brief motor vehicle stop or a limited pat-down search of the exterior of an individual who is suspected of concealing a weapon’s clothing. The muddling of the two standards might lend itself to the argument that something less than probable cause is all that is necessary for the issuance of a warrant in cases of alleged domestic violence. That argument flies in the face of the text of our federal and state constitutions, along with hundreds of years of federal and state case law.

Excellent rating
Based on 288 reviews
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred was incredibly helpful during a very stressful time. Even during a pandemic he was fast at responding to any and all questions or problems that I had. He went above and beyond to make sure that I was happy with my results and that my case was being handled properly all the way through. Highly recommend this office!
Toni V
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Muy buen abogado lo rrecomiendo!!
Victor N
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Iv had good lawyers defend me before but Mr.Sisto is beyond the best iv had. He explains everything every step of the way until your court date and excels on getting results , I defenatly recomend his services.
Imer J
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred was extremely helpful and knowledgable. He made the whole process as painless and easy as possible.
Toli C
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Today my life was about to change! With great communication and excellent service he was able to create the impossible!! I am now able to continue to drive for a living!! I highly recommend his services and trust his judgment-HE KNOWS HIS STUFF!!! He saved my life and livelihood today! Mr.Frank Sisto is an absolutely amazing attorney! Thank you again I’ll never forget this day! God Bless
Edward J
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred is a fantastic attorney who is very informative, knows the system well, and is very thorough.
Bob V
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred Sisto's attention to detail, his representation and unwavering advocacy for me made all the difference in my case.
Jill F
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred is an excellent attorney. Even though we did not initiate the official pleading process, he deep dived into researching and sorted out my questions without any consultation fee. I highly recommend him!
Qianru Z
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I have sought out Mr. Sisto for two traffic related cases. His hard work and dedication to getting results for me was very evident from the get go. He was very informative throughout the entire process of working on my cases and during the court sessions as well. Very professional and very friendly. If anyone in the area is looking for a very good and quality representation, Mr. Sisto is a go to.
Brett S
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred Sisto is a professional, knowledgeable, and exceptional attorney. He is very responsive and maintains continuous contact with his clients via phone and email. Fred made sure that we understood the charges and was able to work on getting us the best outcome possible. He even went above and beyond in the court room by assisting with translation from English to Spanish. I highly recommend him to anyone who is in need of legal services and representation. In the future if needed I would definitely use him again as an attorney.
Sara A