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
Especially given the situations we had to work under right now with COVID-19, I am glad to have had Fred Sisto represent me. The outcome was much better than anticipated, and he always ensured to maintain proper communication, including not going any further until you 100% understood what's going on, and made a point to keep me updated as much as possible with any of the incoming changes due to quarantine (which was confusing for me at first). Always has your best interests in mind, and an all-around great attorney and person.
Mel C
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Thank you very much for your information on DUI check points. It is a great asset to the community . 5 stars for sure!
James P
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred always publishes where local DWI Checkpoints are going to be! He is also a very prominent Attorney in the Ocean County areas of Point Pleasent and Now a new Brick office!
Michael K
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Realmente es un gran abogado, me ayudo muchísimo en todo este proceso y sobre todo que habla español que es una de las cosas importantes para mi. Por que lo hizo mas entendible y facil cada una de las cosas que tenía que hacer y su amabilidad y paciencia para poder explicarme qué tenía que hacer. Además que mi caso fue un éxito gracias a él ya cada uno de sus conocimientos y a su apoyo en todo momento. Lo recomiendo 100%.
Luis A
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
My boyfriend used Fred Sisto twice and had nothing but positive results. Fred was professional, courteous, and punctual. His office was also very attentive and understanding when he had to speak with them regarding his case. I would recommend using Fred to anyone in the monmouth or ocean county region if they had any criminal case regarding the possession of marijuana
C
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred was great and very reasonable. He was extremely easy to get ahold of or very quick to return my calls. I was able to get my charge dropped altogether. I highly recommend Fred!
Jasmine C
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred was very professional, competent, and a pleasure to deal with I cant thank him enough I highly recommend his services
Mildred T
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Recently I encountered some legal matters in the state of New Jersey during my visit and it would have became serious if it was not taken care of. Mr. Sisto and I discussed the case through the phone and exchanged documents through email. Since I was unable to travel back and forth due to restricted time, I have asked Mr. Sisto to handle the case on my behalf. I was very pleased with the result and would recommend Mr. Sisto for any legal matters.
Nam N
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Exquisite business ethic couldn't ask for a better service from a lawyer superior job def recommend to friends family and even strangers
Lukas A
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred is fast, attentive and excels at what he does. He provides reasonable and professional advice when your are dealing with complex and stressful legal situations. He is straight to the point and does not wast time. I would use him again and definitely recommend.
1093Nj