Ken Vercammen's NJ Laws email newsletter February 8, 2004  #147



    In  this issue: 

1.  Police Can Hold DWI Defendant Until Relative or Friend Arrives.     

2. Expert Can Testify re Drug Distribution

3. Before Questioning Begins, Police Must Inform The Suspect That Criminal Complaint or Warrant Has Been Filed, Issued.

4. New  Probate articles added February 8 on www.njlaws.com    

________________________________

1. Police Can Hold DWI Defendant Until Relative or Friend Arrives.  State v. Greeley  178 NJ 38 (2003). 

  The police departmentıs policy of refusing to release an intoxicated person except to the care of a relative or friend does not impermissibly encroach on that personıs statutory right to an independent test of his or her blood alcohol level.  Reading the statute in conjunction with N.J.S.A. 59:5-6, respecting release by the police of intoxicated persons, compels the conclusion that the Legislature did not intend to confer an absolute right of release upon DWI arrestees. N.J.S.A. 59:5-6 provides immunity to police officers for injuries sustained by a driver arrested on DWI charges subsequent to release, but only if the person is released ³in a position of relative safety and refuge.² Reading the two statutes together, the Court finds that the Legislature has manifested an overarching concern regarding the release of intoxicated persons and has chosen to limit the circumstances in which police properly may release such persons. The policy of releasing an intoxicated DWI arrestee only to a responsible friend or relative provides a reasonable opportunity to secure an independent BAC test. If an arrestee fails in an attempt to arrange for an escort by a friend or relative, police do not violate his rights by detaining him until he becomes sober enough to no longer present a danger to himself or others.  





2. Expert Can Testify re Drug Distribution.  State v. Summers 176 NJ 306 (2003). 

                                                                                                                                                                               Here, where a jury convicted defendant of multiple drug charges, including possession and  distribution of a CDS, the stateıs expert witness, a police detective, did not intrude on the juryıs fact-finding role by expressing the view that the unnamed man in a hypothetical question asked by the prosecutor, which was modeled on the identical facts adduced at trial, had possessed the CDS for distribution and not for personal use; the Appellate Division majority correctly upheld defendantıs conviction, finding no violation of the standard in State v. Odom, 116 N.J. 65 (1989), for evaluating an expertıs testimony when such a question is presented -- that the hypothetical was detailed in form did not itself render it impermissible under Odom, nor did the fact that it was declarative and embraced ultimate issues that the jury had to decide.  Source: 172 N.J.L.J. 1316                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 3. Before Questioning Begins, Police Must Inform The Suspect That Criminal Complaint or Warrant Has Been Filed, Issued.  State Int of A.G.D.  ___ NJ ___ A-11(October 9, 2003).

   Prosecutors and their representatives may interrogate a suspect without defense counsel's consent before an indictment has been obtained but after the State has filed or issued a criminal complaint or arrest warrant against the suspect.  However, the State's failure to inform a suspect before questioning that a criminal complaint or arrest warrant has been filed issued against him makes his waiver of his right against self-incrimination invalid.  Source:  12 N.J.L. 1969          



4. New  Probate articles added February 8 on www.njlaws.com    

RULE 4:80. APPLICATION TO SURROGATE'S COURT FOR PROBATE OR ADMINISTRATION

http://www.njlaws.com/application_to_surrogates_court.htm



RULE 4:86. ACTION FOR GUARDIANSHIP OF A MENTALLY INCAPACITATED PERSON,

Alzheimer OR FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A CONSERVATOR

http://www.njlaws.com/ACTION_FOR_GUARDIANSHIP.htm



RULE 4:87. Probate Accountings, ACTIONS FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS

http://www.njlaws.com/probate_accountings.htm                                                                                                                                                                                           

_________________________

Thank you for reading our newsletter!     God Bless America    USA #1

Kenneth Vercammen, Esq.  

2053 Woodbridge Ave.

Edison, NJ 08817

NEW PHONE   732-572-0500

New (Fax)  732-572-0030

website: www.njlaws.com



      Editor's Note and Disclaimer:  All materials Copyright 2003-2004. You may pass along the information on the NJ Laws Newsletter and website, provided the name and address of the Law Office is included.

   Always schedule an office appointment with an experienced attorney when you have a legal matter. The Rules of Court limit an attorney's ability to discuss matters over the phone. If you have legal questions, you should schedule an in- office consultation.  



      Removals handled by webmaster lonekeep.com.  To remove, email back & type in subject remove. Removals are performed by the webmaster once per month.