Current Events

Are New Jersey State Troopers Receiving the Best Training? A Recent Report Raises Many Concerns

November 15, 2022 | By James S. Friedman, LLC

A recent report issued on November 10, 2022 by the New Jersey Office of the State Comptroller found various flaws in the training provided to New Jersey State Police (“NJSP”) officers. Deficiencies in officer training is an issue that must concern everyone. Here are some of the issues discussed in the report.:

Training on such issues as the “Use of Force” policy deviated from the established curriculum, and instructors who were observed during training sessions appeared to have no interest in the training. At least one instructor described sections of courses dealing with issues such as culture and diversity in very negative terms. Another instructor reduced the time allotted to discuss prejudice and discrimination, and omitted a video on hate crimes that was to be shown as part of the course.
Representatives of the NJSP Training Bureau are supposed to observe instructors to determine whether training is being presented appropriately, and to identify areas where training can be improved. Feedback from instructors indicated a lack of consistency in how and/or when such evaluations would be conducted.
There are supposed to be formal eligibility and selection criteria for instructors. Some instructors are being allowed to provide training without first demonstrating that they meet these criteria by, for example, submitting resumes or being interviewed.
NJSP does not ensure that officers who are promoted complete leadership training courses within six months of their promotion. Troopers who are promoted are supposed to complete rank-specific training within that time period.
Academy recruits are not asked for feedback concerning specific courses in the form of course evaluations.
NJSP lesson plans for specific courses fail to adhere to best practices for adult learning.
NJSP has no policy or practice of regularly reviewing lesson plans and course materials.

Credibility, Respect for Precedent, and the US Supreme Court

November 11, 2022 | By James S. Friedman, LLC

We are in the midst of the midterm elections, and abortion was a central issue because of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade. This was obviously on the front burner this election season because of the effect on reproductive and privacy rights. But the overturning of Roe presents another issue that has been touched upon in the media, but may actually be more significant than the elimination of this Constitutional right that has been law for decades.

The basic course in Constitutional Law is a staple of the first year law school curriculum. Indeed, it is probably the favorite of most, if not all, new law school students. It touches on our nation’s history, current events and the operations of our government, and explores issues that are of considerable significance to every American citizen. Anyone who follows world politics knows that no other country has anything like this extremely unique institution. One of the points that is emphasized in this course is the somewhat obvious fact that our Supreme Court does not have an army or law enforcement apparatus that may be called upon to enforce its decisions. The strength of the Court’s decisions and the level of seriousness with which they are viewed and accepted as law is a function of the Court’s credibility. If the Court is not viewed as a credible institution, its decisions could be ignored, and even laughed at. As has been reflected in the media, the current Court has lost a substantial amount of credibility in the eyes of many Americans for several reasons.

First, the importance and role of precedent is a hallmark of American jurisprudence. The law is not supposed to be based on surprises but must instead, at least to some extent, be predictable. Taking a precedent like Roe that has been the law of this country for decades and overturning it as was done is anything but predictable. In fact, there were media reports that Chief Justice Roberts, who was not a fan of Roe, favored a more incremental approach to pulling back on it. Obviously, this was not what happened, and the result was the ongoing scramble among the various states to make decisions concerning the extent to which the right to choose will be protected.

Answers to Questions Raised by the New Marijuana Legalization/Decriminalization Laws

February 26, 2021 | By James S. Friedman, LLC

The new marijuana legalization/decriminalization laws raise many questions that will be answered only with the passage of time and experience. Here are some responses to certain questions that will probably arise very quickly:

What should an officer do if they smell marijuana coming from a vehicle during a motor vehicle stop? First, the officer should take the traditional investigative steps to determine if there is probable cause to believe that the driver is operating the vehicle while under the influence, in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50. If so, the driver may be arrested and the vehicle may be searched. If the driver is not found to be under the influence, the new laws are clear that the odor of marijuana, either burned or raw, by itself does not establish reasonable suspicion to justify a continued stop, nor probable cause to conduct a search of the vehicle or the person, in a marijuana possession case or even in a low-level (fourth-degree) possession with intent to distribute marijuana case. As a result, the vehicle and occupants must be released once the initial reason for the stop has been addressed.

May an officer initiate or continue a pedestrian stop of an individual based on the officer detecting the odor of marijuana? No, the new laws are clear that the odor of marijuana, either burned or raw, by itself does not establish reasonable suspicion to justify or continue a pedestrian stop. In addition, the odor of marijuana by itself does not establish probable cause to conduct a search in a marijuana possession case or even a low-level (fourth-degree) possession with intent to distribute marijuana case. The age of the person being stopped is irrelevant in these situations.

Police Reform in New Jersey – Removing Hurdles to Uncovering Officer Disciplinary Records

July 22, 2020 | By James S. Friedman, LLC

Anyone who has been following the news over the past few months understands that serious instances of police misconduct have occurred (and continue to occur) throughout the country. The manner in which the police have handled George Floyd, Rayshard Brooks, and the protesters in Washington DC and Portland, Oregon, to name some of the more obvious incidents, have all raised serious questions concerning encounters between law enforcement representatives and ordinary citizens. There is talk in Congress and the state legislatures about reforms ranging from defunding the police to clamping down on the influence of police unions on the disciplinary process to making that process more transparent.

The New Jersey Senate Committee on Law and Public Safety held hearings on police reform in June. One of the bills that was debated was S2656, which would make public police internal affairs and disciplinary records. Numerous civil rights and other organizations are supporting the bill.

The bill would remove the Open Public Records Act exception to police internal affairs records and grant the public access to complaints, allegations and charges filed against individual police officers; transcripts and exhibits from disciplinary trials and hearings; dispositions of proceedings; final written opinions and/or memoranda on the disposition and the discipline ultimately imposed, including the agency’s factual findings and analysis of the conduct of the officer(s) that was/were the subject(s) of the hearing; internal affairs records; and video recordings of the incidents underlying the complaint(s), charges, or internal affairs investigation.

Law Enforcement Gang Databases – Garbage in/Garbage Out

July 16, 2020 | By James S. Friedman, LLC

We frequently handle cases where the discovery states that law enforcement has identified our client as being gang-affiliated. Police agencies frequently collect information on individuals who they think are gang-involved and enter it into a database, which is then used to investigate criminal activity. Recent experiences in California, however, demonstrate that these databases should not be trusted.

California has long maintained a database called CalGang. The database, which is not open to civilians and is therefore largely secretive, contains the names and personal information of approximately 80,000 individuals. Most of the people identified in CalGang are not white, and are suspected of being gang-affiliated. CalGang has been a source of problems and complaints for years, and there have been calls to reform it or shut it down.

CalGang plainly illustrates the fact that a database is only as good as the information that is entered into it. A 2016 audit revealed that it contained numerous inaccurate entries, including identifying information for one-year-old children. People were also entered into the database based upon overly subjective criteria including, without limitation, the neighborhood where law enforcement encountered them or the color of their clothing. According to the people who run CalGang, wearing a red hat, shirt or sneakers is enough to make you a gang member. Continue reading ›

Virtual Grand Juries – The Latest Bad Idea to Keep the Criminal Justice System Running During the Pandemic

July 15, 2020 | By James S. Friedman, LLC

Formal criminal proceedings in indictable (felony) matters begin with a prosecutor’s presentation of the State’s case to a grand jury. A grand jury consists of a body of 23 citizens who listen to the State’s witnesses and review any documents or other materials the State wishes to display, and then decides whether the State has shown that there is probable cause to conclude that the defendant committed a crime. Probable cause is a “baseline” showing that a crime was committed and the defendant committed it. This standard is far lower than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” burden of proof standard that the State must satisfy at trial. If the standard is met, the grand jury votes an indictment, which lays out formal charges. The 1947 Constitution provides that “[n]o person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense, unless on the presentment or indictment of a grand jury[.]” Thus, the institution of the grand jury has a Constitutional basis, and the fair and procedurally correct operation of the grand jury has Constitutional significance.

The first instance of a grand jury can be traced back to the Assize of Clarendon in 1166, an Act of Henry II of England. Thus, the roots of the grand jury as an institution of Anglo jurisprudence can be traced back almost a thousand years in our legal history.

There are certain rules that have always been viewed as fundamental to the proper functioning of a grand jury, and secrecy is probably the most important one. The grand jury operates in secrecy for good reason. Secrecy protects defendants. If the defendant is “no-billed” (the panel fails to vote an indictment and formally charge the defendant with an offense), their reputation will hopefully remain intact. Further, the identities of witnesses who testify for the State (which may include undercover officers or confidential informants) are shielded from disclosure. Thus, the fact that the grand jury operates in secrecy benefits both defendants and the State. Continue reading ›

Privacy is in the News – Repeatedly

February 24, 2020 | By James S. Friedman, LLC

Two issues regarding the right to privacy, and its potential impact on criminal cases, appeared in the news recently. These issues have no relationship to each other, but can both be highly relevant to criminal cases.

The first involves a your man who was living alone in a South American country. He was extremely poor and his family was basically gone. Having absolutely no personal resources for even necessities, he became involved with a local gang. To be clear, he was not one of the leaders, or even a major participant in gang activities, acting instead as the occasional lookout. Significantly, he really did not want any part of the gang lifestyle. He eventually fled his home country and sought asylum in the United States. He was afraid to return to his country after leaving, because of his well-founded belief that the gang he was previously involved with may kill him.

Part of the admission process here involved meeting with a mental health therapist whose position was government-related. The therapist took notes of their meetings, which included discussions of his gang-related activities. Without any prior knowledge or consent of the young man or the therapist, these notes came to light in connection with a hearing that was held to determine whether he could be admitted to the United States. The notes supported the conclusion that he was gang-involved in his home country, which will probably end his quest for admission to the United States and force his deportation back to his home country. Continue reading ›

New York (Finally) Levels the Discovery Playing Field

May 12, 2019 | By James S. Friedman, LLC

Discovery in New York State criminal cases has long been completely unfair to defendants. The New York discovery rules have not been substantially revised since 1979. More than a dozen reform bills that have been introduced over the last 40 years have been successfully blocked by the State’s district attorneys’ association which has argued, among other things, that providing information concerning witnesses places them in danger.

What little discovery was available in New York included something called a “People’s Voluntary Disclosure Statement”. This basically useless document, which was just a couple of pages in length, was composed of a set of questions and responses drafted by the district attorney’s office with the goal of providing as little case-related information as possible. Because of the lack of meaningful discovery, motion practice was similarly laughable. Defense attorneys would typically file an omnibus motion at the beginning of the case seeking every conceivable form of pretrial relief without really knowing what was needed for their case. Given the absence of information that could be obtained through meaningful discovery procedures, such a motion could not be tailored to the specific needs of a particular case and did little, if anything, to create a record for appeal.

Most criminal cases do not proceed to trial. In fact, between 95 and 100 percent of all criminal cases nationally resolve by way of plea deal. Under the prior New York rules, district attorneys were able to withhold information from defense counsel until just prior to trial. This created two problems. First, defense attorneys were forced to negotiate and evaluate plea offers with virtually no information. Defendants were, therefore, placed in the unenviable position of making major decisions concerning their cases with little, if any, information regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the People’s case. Additionally, if the defendant decided to proceed to trial, counsel would be forced to work through the majority of their trial prep time without important information that could form the basis for investigation of the underlying facts, effective cross-examination of witnesses, and viable defenses.

Is Bail Reform Reducing Jail Populations to the Greatest Extent Possible?

November 12, 2018 | By James S. Friedman, LLC

Bail Reform went into effect in New Jersey almost two years ago. Its stated goals included, among other things, a reduction in jail populations. At the heart of this issue was the implementation of a screening tool known as a Public Safety Assessment, or “PSA”, which is prepared by Pre-Trial Services. The PSA is basically a scoresheet that evaluates each defendant to determine what, if any, terms of pre-trial release should be imposed by the Court, or if the defendant should be remanded to a county jail. The PSA is used on a State-wide basis. In other words, it is used in all counties for all defendants in the Superior Court.

I have always believed that the PSA is problematic because of its “one-size-fits-all” approach to the State’s defendant population. I also believe that this concern is supported by the fact that the algorithm underlying the PSA does not account for all individual variations that may exist between and among all defendants. Given that we have now had some experience with bail reform and the PSA, this may be a good time to take a hard look at the new pre-trial release procedures to see how well they work within the larger context of our State’s criminal justice system.

We can all agree that every jurisdiction wants to reduce its jail population. Toward that end, New Jersey has not been the only state to adopt some sort of bail reform. States all over the country are doing the same thing for the same reasons. This is not surprising given the national experience over the last several decades. We know that inmate populations have been rising nationally for decades. In 1970, daily local jail populations were at about 157,000 inmates. By 2015, that number exceeded 700,000. Close to 11,000,000 people are admitted into jails annually in this country. Given these staggering numbers, coupled with the costs associated with building and maintaining jails as well as the societal costs stemming from incarceration, we need to constantly ask if enough is being done to reduce our jail populations to the lowest possible levels. Continue reading ›

New Supreme Court Justice Signals Changes in Several Important Areas

October 17, 2018 | By James S. Friedman, LLC

The face of the United States Supreme Court has changed considerably in a relatively short time. Two very conservative judges – Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch – have now joined the bench. At least in some circles, it was believed that Gorsuch’s appointment would not have a monumental impact since he was replacing Antonin Scalia, who was a reliably conservative vote. Now that Kavanaugh has been confirmed and sworn in, there is a solid five-judge conservative voting bloc, As a result, defense attorneys need to be mindful of possible changes in the following areas:

Search and Seizure – The exclusionary rule is a judicial remedy designed to exclude evidence discovered as a result of police misconduct. Essentially, the rule states that when tainted evidence is obtained as a result of wrongdoing by law enforcement, other evidence stemming from the original evidence is “fruit of the poisonous tree”, and must also be suppressed. Justice Kennedy, who Kavanaugh replaced, was not a major fan of Mapp v. Ohio, which applied the exclusionary rule to the states. Kavanaugh’s anticipated opposition to the exclusionary rule may send a message to prosecutors that it is to be overturned. Given Kavanaugh’s history, do not be surprised if prosecutors start arguing that Mapp is to be reconsidered or overruled. In fact, there may now be five votes on the Court that would hold in this way. This momentous change would, in essence, allow law enforcement officers to ignore constitutional protections when collecting evidence.

Gun Rights – The Court previously took relatively few gun cases, but its new conservative majority will probably start reading the Second Amendment more broadly. As a result, there will almost certainly be more cases that address the scope of gun control. In fact, Justices Thomas and Alito, as well as Justice Gorsuch, have previously sought unsuccessfully to rule on more Second Amendment cases. With Kavanaugh now on the bench, the “rule of four”, which allows four of the nine justices to grant cert, would be satisfied thereby adding additional gun control cases to the Court’s docket. Thus, open issues, such as whether the right to bear arms outside the home, may be addressed. The Court may also be asked soon to rule on issues concerning concealed carry permits, and on the validity of laws banning assault rifles. Continue reading ›