Fred Sisto | Criminal Attorney | Ocean and Monmouth County

Call Us Today
732-898-3232

  • Home
  • Criminal Defense Services
    ▼
    • Drug Crimes
      ▼
      • Drug Manufacturing
      • Intent to Distribute Narcotics
      • Prescription Drug Crimes
      • Leader of Narcotics Trafficking Network
    • Weapons Charges
      ▼
      • Prohibited Weapons and Devices
      • Manufacture, Transport, etc. of Weapons
      • Illegal Possession of a Gun
      • Possession of Weapons for Unlawful Purposes
    • Expungements
    • Theft Attorney
    • Violent Crimes
      ▼
      • Robbery/Burglary
      • Manslaughter
      • Extortion
      • Assault
      • Sexual Offenses
    • Arson
    • DUI / DWI
      ▼
      • Alcohol DUI
      • Drug DUI
      • Refusing a Breath Test
    • Driving with A Suspended License
    • Property Forfeiture
    • Anti-Drug Profiteering
    • Juvenile Delinquency
  • Español / Spanish Speaking Attorney
  • About
    ▼
    • Testimonials
    • Defending Cases In
      ▼
      • Monmouth County
      • Ocean County
  • Blog
  • Contact
    ▼
    • Receive a Call From Fred
  • DUI Checkpoint Alerts
  • Results
  • Payment Options
  • Home
  • Criminal Defense Services
    • Drug Crimes
      • Drug Manufacturing
      • Intent to Distribute Narcotics
      • Prescription Drug Crimes
      • Leader of Narcotics Trafficking Network
    • Weapons Charges
      • Prohibited Weapons and Devices
      • Manufacture, Transport, etc. of Weapons
      • Illegal Possession of a Gun
      • Possession of Weapons for Unlawful Purposes
    • Expungements
    • Theft Attorney
    • Violent Crimes
      • Robbery/Burglary
      • Manslaughter
      • Extortion
      • Assault
      • Sexual Offenses
    • Arson
    • DUI / DWI
      • Alcohol DUI
      • Drug DUI
      • Refusing a Breath Test
    • Driving with A Suspended License
    • Property Forfeiture
    • Anti-Drug Profiteering
    • Juvenile Delinquency
  • Español / Spanish Speaking Attorney
  • About
    • Testimonials
    • Defending Cases In
      • Monmouth County
      • Ocean County
  • Blog
  • Contact
    • Receive a Call From Fred
  • DUI Checkpoint Alerts
  • Results
  • Payment Options
Home >> Bail Reform: Released vs Detained

December 19, 2016 by Fred Sisto

Bail Reform: Released vs Detained

“In any case where there is probable cause to believe the defendant has committed any indictable crime, disorderly persons offense, or petty disorderly offense and the case is not otherwise covered under Section 4.4 (mandatory charging by complaint-warrant) or Section 4.5 (presumption of charging by complaint-warrant), a law enforcement agency shall issue a complaint-summons unless an assistant prosecutor or deputy attorney general consulted in accordance with Section 3.2 of this Directive, or a supervisory officer designated pursuant to subsection 3.3.2 and authorized by the County Prosecutor to overcome presumptions under Section 4 of this Directive, determines that application for a complaint-warrant is reasonably necessary to protect the safety of a victim or the community, to reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance in court when required, or to prevent the defendant from obstructing or attempting to obstruct the criminal justice process, and further determines that there is a lawful basis to apply for a complaint-warrant pursuant to Rule 3:3-1(d) as recently amended.  It is anticipated that the decision to overcome the presumption of charging by complaint-summons established in this subsection will not be overcome when the most serious charge is a petty disorderly persons offense absent extraordinary circumstances suggesting a high risk that the defendant, if released, would commit a new offense, fail to appear in court when required, or obstruct or attempt to obstruct justice.

Rule 3:3-1(d), as recently amended, authorizes a judge to overcome the presumption of charging by complaint­ summons where the judge finds that:

(1)    the defendant has been served with a summons for any prior indictable offense and has failed to appear;

(2)    there is reason to believe that the defendant is dangerous to self, or will pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released on a summons;

(3)    there are one or more outstanding warrants for the defendant;

(4)    the defendant’s identity or  address is not known and a warrant is necessary to  subject the defendant to the  jurisdiction of the court;

(5)    there is reason to believe that the defendant will obstruct or attempt to obstruct the criminal  justice process if released on a summons;

(6)    there is reason to believe that the defendant will not appear in response to a summons; or

(7)    there is reason to believe that the monitoring of pretrial release conditions by the pretrial services program established pursuant to N .J.S.A. 2A:162-25 is necessary to protect any victim, witness, other specified person, or the community .

The Part VII rules governing municipal court practice, which would apply to disorderly persons offenses heard in municipal court, include comparable provisions. Specifically, Rule 7:2-2(e), as recently amended, authorizes a judge or other judicial officer to overcome the presumption of charging by complaint-summons after considering the following factors:

(1)    the defendant  has been served with a summon s for any prior indictable offense and has failed to appear;

(2)    there is reason to believe that the defendant is dangerous to self  or will pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released on a summons;

(3)    there is one or more outstanding warrants for the defendant;

(4)    the defendant’s identity or address is not known and a warrant is necessary to subject the defendant to the jurisdiction of the court;

(5) there is reason to believe that the defendant will obstruct or attempt to obstruct the criminal justice process if released on a summons;

(6) there is reason to believe that the defendant will not appear in response to a summons;

(7) there is reason to believe that the monitoring of pretrial release conditions by the pretrial services program established pursuant to N.J.S.A.2A: 162-25 is necessary to protect any victim, witness, other specified person, or the community.

Rule 3:3-l (e), as recently amended, requires that the defendant be charged by complaint-warrant “where the defendant has been extradited from another state for the current charge.”

It is fundamentally unfair to create what is supposed be an objective risk-based system to determine whether or not arrestees can be released or detained for an extended period on a complaint warrant while at the same time maintaining the discretion to detain on a complaint-warrant when the automated risk assessment produces a result that is at odds with law enforcements subjective desire to detain. Similarly, it is fundamentally unfair for law enforcement to gain the advantage of what was previously an unconstitutional pretrial detention with the understanding that the new system would be objective and fair, while maintaining the ability to employ their subjective desires. It is probably not an accident that this provision is buried in the middle of an 84 page document (at page 33).

Filed Under: Blog, Criminal Law, Law Reform and Amendments

Testimonials

Fred is a stickler for detail and communicates with clients very, very well. He is smart and astute. I would recommend him unconditionally.

Tom O   

I would highly recommend Mr. Sisto. He is very insightful and proficient, yet still down to Earth. Fred is great at communicating and breaking down the facts. But most importantly, he excels at getting results.

Bill K   

Thanks to Fred I have no criminal record whatsoever.

Luke A   

Great!!! , got my case handled in the exact manner that I was told and would recommend to everyone else in need of legal representation.

Raumelis R   
See More Testimonials

Recent Posts

  • Plea Agreements and New Charges (Part 2)
  • Plea Agreements and New Charges (Part 1)
  • Youth and Withholding Imprisonment (Part 2)
  • Youth and Withholding Imprisonment (Part 1)
  • Marijuana and Diversionary Programs (Part 4)
  • Marijuana and Diversionary Programs (Part 3)
  • Marijuana and Diversionary Programs (Part 2)
  • Marijuana and Diversionary Programs (Part 1)

Recent Speaking Engagement

Site Disclaimer

Attorney Referral Fees

Frederick P Sisto has earned Lawyer Legion's recognition for Community Leadership
 
Top Criminal Defense Attorney in Brick

Law Office of Frederick P. Sisto

Point Pleasant Office*:
302 Hawthorne Ave, Suite 1
Point Pleasant Beach, NJ 08742

Brick Township Office*:
223 Drum Point Road, Suite 1
Brick Township, NJ 08723

Sea Girt Office*:
2150 NJ-35,
Suite 225
Sea Girt, NJ 08750

Phone: 732-898-3232
Fax: 201-508-3393
*Office visits by appointment only.

Representing clients throughout all court jurisdictions of New Jersey.

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CRIMINAL TRIAL ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION, NO ASPECT OF THIS ADVERTISEMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY

en English
en Englishes Spanish