Disorderly arrests at Anchor Tavern and legal representation

Disorderly arrests at Anchor Tavern and legal representation

Kenneth Vercammen’s Law Office represents people charged with criminal charges, underage drinking and juvenile offenses. We provide representation throughout New Jersey. Criminal charges can cost you.  If convicted, you can face high fines, jail, probation and other penalties.  Don't give up!  Our Law Office can provide experienced attorney representation for criminal violations. We also help represent persons who are injured at bars and restaurants.

Our website www.njlaws.com provides information on criminal offenses we can be retained to represent people.

 Disorderly conduct 2C: 33-2. a. Improper behavior. A person is guilty of a petty disorderly persons offense, if with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof he

(1) Engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or

(2) Creates a hazardous or physically dangerous condition by any act, which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.

b. Offensive language. A person is guilty of a petty disorderly persons offense if, in a public place, and with purpose to offend the sensibilities of a hearer or in reckless disregard of the probability of so doing, he addresses unreasonably loud and offensively coarse or abusive language, given the circumstances of the person present and the setting of the utterance, to any person present.

"Public" means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access; among the places included are highways, transport facilities, schools, prisons, apartment houses, places of business or amusement, or any neighborhood.

Other relevant laws:

  2C: 12-1. Assault. a. Simple assault. A person is guilty of assault if he:

     (1) Attempts to cause or purposely, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or

     (2) Negligently causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon; or

     (3) Attempts by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.

    •         Simple assault is a disorderly persons offense unless committed in a fight or scuffle entered into by mutual consent, in which case it is a petty disorderly persons offense.

    

Resisting Arrest:

     It is a criminal offense in the State of New Jersey (2C: 29-2) for a person to purposely prevent a law enforcement officer from effecting a lawful arrest.

    •    A crime of the fourth degree.

Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution

A person commits an offense (2C: 29-3) if with purpose to hinder the detention, apprehension, investigation, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of another for any crime or motor vehicle violation.

    •    Depending on the circumstances, a crime of the third degree, fourth degree, or a disorderly persons offense.

2C: 33-15 Underage Possession/Consumption Alcohol

2C: 33-15. Possession, consumption of alcoholic beverages by persons under legal age; penalty

a. Any person under the legal age to purchase alcoholic beverages who knowingly possesses without legal authority or who knowingly consumes any alcoholic beverage in any school, public conveyance, public place, or place of public assembly, or motor vehicle, is guilty of a disorderly persons offense, and shall be fined not less than $500.00.

b. Whenever this offense is committed in a motor vehicle, the court shall, in addition to the sentence authorized for the offense, suspend or postpone for six months the driving privilege of the defendant. Upon the conviction of any person under this section, the court shall forward a report to the Division of Motor Vehicles stating the first and last day of the suspension or postponement period imposed by the court pursuant to this section. If a person at the time of the imposition of a sentence is less than 17 years of age, the period of license postponement, including a suspension or postponement of the privilege of operating a motorized bicycle, shall commence on the day the sentence is imposed and shall run for a period of six months after the person reaches the age of 17 years.

        If a person at the time of the imposition of a sentence has a valid drivers license issued by this State, the court shall immediately collect the license and forward it to the division along with the report. If for any reason the license cannot be collected, the court shall include in the report the complete name, address, date of birth, eye color, and sex of the person as well as the first and last date of the license suspension period imposed by the court.

    The court shall inform the person orally and in writing that if the person is convicted of operating a motor vehicle during the period of license suspension or postponement, the person shall be subject to the penalties set forth in R.S.39: 3-40. A person shall be required to acknowledge receipt of the written notice in writing. Failure to receive a written notice or failure to acknowledge in writing the receipt of a written notice shall not be a defense to a subsequent charge of a violation of R.S.39: 3-40.

     If the person convicted under this section is not a New Jersey resident, the court shall suspend or postpone, as appropriate, the non-resident driving privilege of the person based on the age of the person and submit to the division the required report. The court shall not collect the license of a non-resident convicted under this section. Upon receipt of a report by the court, the division shall notify the appropriate officials in the licensing jurisdiction of the suspension or postponement.

c. In addition to the general penalty prescribed for a disorderly persons offense, the court may require any person who violates this act to participate in an alcohol education or treatment program, authorized by the Department of Health and Senior Services, for a period not to exceed the maximum period of confinement prescribed by law for the offense for which the individual has been convicted.

d. Nothing in this act shall apply to possession of alcoholic beverages by any such person while actually engaged in the performance of employment pursuant to an employment permit issued by the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, or for a bona fide hotel or restaurant, in accordance with the provisions of R.S.33: 1-26, or while actively engaged in the preparation of food while enrolled in a culinary arts or hotel management program at a county vocational school or post secondary educational institution.

e. The provisions of section 3 of P.L.1991, c.169 (C.33: 1-81.1a) shall apply to a parent, guardian or other person with legal custody of a person under 18 years of age who is found to be in violation of this section.33: 1-81. Underage drinking and Misrepresenting age to induce sale or delivery to minor; disorderly person

  

    Underage drinking and misrepresenting age to induce sale or delivery to minor

     33:1-81.  It shall be unlawful for:

      (a) A person under the legal age for purchasing alcoholic beverages to enter any premises licensed for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages for the purpose of purchasing, or having served or delivered to him or her, any alcoholic beverage; or

    (b) A person under the legal age for purchasing alcoholic beverages to consume any alcoholic beverage on premises licensed for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages, or to purchase, attempt to purchase or have another purchase for him any alcoholic beverage; or

    (c) Any person to misrepresent or misstate his age, or the age of any other person for the purpose of inducing any licensee or any employee of any licensee, to sell, serve or deliver any alcoholic beverage to a person under the legal age for purchasing alcoholic beverages; or

    (d) Any person to enter any premises licensed for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages for the purpose of purchasing, or to purchase alcoholic beverages, for another person who does not because of his age have the right to purchase and consume alcoholic beverages.

    Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed and adjudged to be a disorderly person, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not less than $500.00. In addition, the court shall suspend or postpone the person's license to operate a motor vehicle for six months.

    Upon the conviction of any person under this section, the court shall forward a report to the Division of Motor Vehicles stating the first and last day of the suspension or postponement period imposed by the court pursuant to this section.  If a person at the time of the imposition of a sentence is less than 17 years of age, the period of license postponement, including a suspension or postponement of the privilege of operating a motorized bicycle, shall commence on the day the sentence is imposed and shall run for a period of six months after the person reaches the age of 17 years.

    If a person at the time of the imposition of a sentence has a valid driver's license issued by this State, the court shall immediately collect the license and forward it to the division along with the report.  If for any reason the license cannot be collected, the court shall include in the report the complete name, address, date of birth, eye color, and sex of the person as well as the first and last date of the license suspension period imposed by the court.

    The court shall inform the person orally and in writing that if the person is convicted of operating a motor vehicle during the period of license suspension or postponement, the person shall be subject to the penalties set forth in R.S. 39:3-40.  A person shall be required to acknowledge receipt of the written notice in writing.  Failure to receive a written notice or failure to acknowledge in writing the receipt of a written notice shall not be a defense to a subsequent charge of a violation of R.S. 39:3-40.

    If the person convicted under this section is not a New Jersey resident, the court shall suspend or postpone, as appropriate given the age at the time of sentencing, the non-resident driving privilege of the person and submit to the division the required report.  The court shall not collect the license of a non-resident convicted under this section. Upon receipt of a report by the court, the division shall notify the appropriate officials in the licensing jurisdiction of the suspension or postponement.

    In addition to the general penalties prescribed for an offense, the court may require any person under the legal age to purchase alcoholic beverages who violates this act to participate in an alcohol education or treatment program authorized by the Department of Health for a period not to exceed the maximum period of confinement prescribed by law for the offense for which the individual has been convicted.

33:1-81.1.  Hearing; attendance by parent or guardian; subpoena

    In any hearing for a violation of section 33:1-81 of the Revised Statutes the court in its discretion may require the attendance at such hearing of a parent or guardian, if there be no parent, of the minor charged with such violation if such parent or guardian is a resident of the State and may, in its discretion, compel such attendance by subpoena.

33:1-81.1a.  Violations by parent, guardian, notification, fine

     A parent, guardian or other person having legal custody of a person under 18 years of age found in violation of R.S. 33:1-81 or section 1 of P.L. 1979, c.264 (C. 2C: 33-15) shall be notified of the violation in writing.  The parent, guardian or other person having legal custody of a person under 18 years of age shall be subject to a fine in the amount of $500.00 upon any subsequent violation of R.S. 33:1-81 or section 1 of P.L. 1979, c.264 (C. 2C: 33-15) on the part of such person if it is shown that the parent, guardian or other person having legal custody failed or neglected to exercise reasonable supervision or control over the conduct of the person under 18 years of age.

Providing Alcohol to Persons Under 21

It is a criminal offense in the State of New Jersey (2C: 33-17a) to serve alcohol to anyone under the legal age of 21.

A fine of up to $1,000 and/or up to 6 months imprisonment.

Allowing Alcohol Possession or Consumption by Persons Under 21 at Private Premises

It is a criminal offense in the State of New Jersey (2C: 33-17b) to make your home or property available for the purpose of allowing minors a place to consume alcohol.

(Exemptions:  Any underage person or persons who possesses or consumes alcoholic beverages in connection with religious observance, ceremony or right or consumes or possesses an alcoholic beverage in the presence of and with the permission of the parent, guardian, or relative who has attained the legal age to purchase and consume alcoholic beverages.)

    •    A fine of up to $1.000 and /or up to 6 months imprisonment.        

Possession, Use or Being Under the Influence, or Failure to Make Lawful Disposition

It is a criminal offense in the State of New Jersey (2C: 35-10) for any person knowingly or purposely, to obtain, or to possess actually or constructively, a controlled dangerous substance or controlled substance analog.

    •    Depending on the circumstances, a crime of third degree, fourth degree, or a disorderly persons offense.

Drug possession by motor vehicle operator

No person shall operate a motor vehicle on any highway (39:4-49.1) while knowingly having in his possession or in the motor vehicle any controlled dangerous substance.

    •    A fine not less than $50.00 and loss of driving privilege for a period of 2 years from the date of his conviction.

No consumption of alcoholic beverages in motor vehicles

A person shall not consume an alcoholic beverage while operating a motor vehicle.  A passenger in a motor vehicle shall not consume an alcoholic beverage while the motor vehicle is being operated. (39:4-51a)

    •    A fine of $200.00 for the first offense, $250.00 for the second offense or community service for a period of 10 days.

Prohibition of possession of open, unsealed alcoholic beverage container

All occupants of a motor vehicle located on a public highway, or right of way of a public highway, shall be prohibited from possessing any open or unsealed alcoholic beverage container. (39:4-51b)

    •    A fine of $200.00 for the first offense, $250.00 for the second offense or community service for a period of 10 days.

   Mandatory Forfeiture or Postponement of Driving Privileges

Every person convicted of or adjudicated delinquent for a violation of certain offenses (2C: 35-16) shall forfeit his right to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State for a period to be fixed by the Court at not less than 6 months or more than 2 years which shall commence on the day the sentence is imposed.

CONCLUSION

    If charged with any criminal offense, immediately schedule an appointment with a criminal trial attorney. Don't rely on a real estate attorney, public defender or a family member who took a law class in school. When your life and career is on the line, hire the best attorney available.

 KENNETH  VERCAMMEN & ASSOCIATES, PC

ATTORNEY AT LAW

 2053 Woodbridge Ave.

Edison, NJ 08817

(Phone) 732-572-0500

Office space for rent

Office space for rent

PROFESSIONAL OFFICE SPACE IS AVAILABLE IN EDISON LAW OFFICE

2053 Woodbridge Ave.

Edison, NJ 08817

 Excellent space for an Attorney, Financial Planners, Accountant, Insurance Agents, and other Business Professionals as a 2nd location or location to meet clients in Edison.

  The offices are located on the 1st floor of the building.

2 rooms office   

office room # 6 approx 12.4 x 9.4        

and front room appr 8 x 9 -office room # 5

plus use of reception room  16.6 x 7.2

and use of storage area in basement 

   Previously used by Robert Blackman, late former Judge and Prosecutor of Edison

         

$500 per month [was $600]

Call 732-572-0500

    Owner of building is local attorney, Kenneth Vercammen who handles Municipal Court, Estate Planning & Probate, and Criminal Law. 

In the Matter of Helmer (D-17-17)

In the Matter of Helmer (D-17-17) 

RPC 3.4(g) provides that “a lawyer shall not present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in a civil matter.” The Complaint asserted multiple grounds for the charged violation including Helmer’s entering into a retainer arrangement in which his fee was partly contingent upon payment of restitution; his meeting with Branco, Walters, Matlock, and NFI’s general counsel to press for a criminal prosecution after a declination; Helmer’s participation in drafting the indictment; his testimony before the grand jury; and his influencing Branco and Walters to seek high bail, have the indictment sealed, and arrest Land and Pessiki during a civil mediation session. 

RPC 8.4(a) provides that “it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct.” RPC 8.4(d) states that “[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.” The Complaint asserted that Helmer’s “actions to collect money utilizing the criminal process on behalf of NFI . . . would have impacted the administration of justice in the criminal, civil and bankruptcy cases.” 

    Victims can pursue restitution in both the civil and criminal arenas. One challenge practitioners face is to refrain from presenting or threatening “to present criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in a civil matter.” RPC 3.4(g). Heightened care is needed to navigate potential pitfalls in that area. In this case, though, the core issue is not whether private counsel could pursue restitution through the criminal process but rather the manner in which he sought to do so. Helmer’s conduct here pushed the envelope. Although he actively encouraged a criminal prosecution and advocated for restitution for his client, to place primary responsibility on Helmer for what occurred overlooks the role and decision-making authority of the prosecution team. 

The burden of proof in disciplinary matters is clear and convincing evidence. R. 2:15- 15(a). In addition, when a violation of RPC 8.4(d) is the sole basis for discipline, a particularly high level of proof is required. The proceedings in this matter did not follow best practices and were troubling in a number of respects. Nonetheless, the Court did not find clear and convincing evidence that Helmer’s conduct violated RPC 8.4(d).

New Jersey Intoxication Defense to criminal charges

New Jersey Intoxication Defense to criminal charges

New Jersey Intoxication defense is a defense to crimes requiring either “purposeful” or “knowing” mental states.

The state has the burden of disproving this defense beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Self-induced intoxication is not a defense, unless it negates an element of the offense. 

Self-induced intoxication is not a defense to offenses, which only require proof of a culpability - responsibility - of either negligence, recklessness, or recklessness manifesting extreme human indifference to human life. 

Hence, evidence of intoxication is admissible as a defense to murder to disprove that a defendant acted purposely or knowingly but not as a defense to aggravated manslaughter, nor manslaughter to show that he was unaware of a risk of which he should have been aware had he been sober. 

Intoxication should not be charged as a defense unless there is reliable evidence that the defendant ingested drugs or alcohol and there was an incapacitation of judgment due to such substances. 

Some of the factors which are important in determining whether the intoxication may have sufficient grounds to be raised as a defense is the quantity consumed, period of time involved, actor’s conduct perceived by others, any odor of alcohol or other intoxicating substance, the results of any test to determine blood alcohol content and the actor’s ability to recall significant events. 

The jury must determine whether the intoxication prevented the defendant from acting knowingly or purposely.

Intoxication, which is not self, induced is an affirmative defense, which the defendant has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence. 

If a defendant voluntarily ingests a large amount of illegal intoxicants or legal intoxicants, he cannot assert the defense that he unexpectedly reacted violently to those drugs due to an unknown underlying pathological condition. 

  The NJ Supreme examined the intoxication defense in State v. Baum(A-107-13) (073056)

Argued November 10, 2015 Decided February 8, 2016

SOLOMON, J., writing for a unanimous Court.

In this appeal arising from a prosecution for aggravated manslaughter and death by auto, the Court considers the trial court s jury instructions, and whether the instruction on mental disease or defect effectively negated defendant s diminished capacity defense by blending the law on self-induced intoxication and mental disease or defect.

While driving from his residence to his mother s home on the night of April 20, 2006, defendant Eugene Baum struck and killed two teenage girls who were walking in a bike lane of a major thoroughfare in Kinnelon. The responding officers found two beverage containers in defendant s car, one of which contained a liquid that was 7.7 percent ethyl alcohol (15 proof). Defendant could not maintain his balance, his speech was slurred, and he smelled strongly of alcohol. He told the police that he thought he had hit a deer, but was not sure.

At the time of the incident, defendant s blood alcohol level was determined to be between .327 and .377, four times the legal limit. Defendant had taken a prescribed anti-depressant the night before, and Librium that morning to control his symptoms of alcohol withdrawal. Although he knew that Librium would intensify his intoxication, defendant stated that he consumed more than two alcoholic beverages, but did not know how much he actually consumed, before driving to his mother s home. Defendant stated that he drank because he is an alcoholic, and has struggled with alcoholism for approximately seven years.

Defendant argued at trial that he lacked the mental capacity to act recklessly because of his intoxication, which he claimed was involuntary due to his mental diseases or defects of alcoholism and depression. Defendant presented expert testimony confirming his chronic alcoholism, and concluding that the Librium in his system severely impaired his ability to think or reason and that his drinking was automatic behavior rather than the product of conscious thought. The State s expert testified that alcohol consumption is a conscious, goal-directed behavior. At the charge conference, defense counsel argued that it would be improper for the court to characterize defendant s intoxication as self-induced because the net effect of that statement would be to negate diminished capacity. Counsel requested that the court separately and distinctly outline for the jury the concepts of self-induced intoxication and diminished capacity. The trial judge stated that he would give the self-induced intoxication charge following the mental disease or defect instruction, and defense counsel did not object.

The jury found defendant guilty of two counts of first-degree aggravated manslaughter and two counts of second-degree death by auto. Defendant was sentenced to two consecutive twenty-year prison terms subject to eighty-five percent parole ineligibility. The Appellate Division affirmed defendant s conviction, but remanded for resentencing based on a reevaluation of the aggravating factors relied on by the sentencing court. The panel found that the court s instruction regarding mental disease or defect properly incorporated the exculpatory significance of defendant s expert testimony on the relationship between defendant s intoxication and mental disease. This Court granted limited certification. 220 N.J. 37 (2014).

HELD: The jury instructions, taken as a whole, are neither ambiguous nor misleading because they did not blend, and explicitly distinguished, the concepts of mental disease or defect and self-induced intoxication, in charges that reflected an accurate statement of the law. The sequence of instructions given by the court, addressing the diminished capacity defense followed by the self-induced intoxication instruction, did not negate the diminished capacity defense.

1. Appropriate and proper charges are essential for a fair trial. The trial court must give a comprehensible explanation of the questions that the jury must determine, including the law of the case applicable to the facts that the jury may find. Erroneous instructions on material points are presumed to possess the capacity to unfairly prejudice the defendant. Because defendant objected to the proposed diminished capacity instruction, the Court applies a harmless error standard. The Court must therefore determine whether the charge as a whole sets forth accurately and fairly the controlling principles of law, or whether it is misleading, and, if so, whether this error was clearly capable of producing an unjust result. (pp. 12-14)

2. The Criminal Code allows evidence of a mental disease or defect to negate an essential mental element of the crime, and is therefore relevant to the State s burden in proving the offenses charged. A diminished capacity defense requires evidence demonstrating: a) a mental disease or defect that interferes with cognitive ability sufficient to prevent or interfere with the formation of the requisite intent or mens rea; and b) that the claimed deficiency did affect defendant s cognitive capacity to form the requisite mental state. Whether a condition constitutes a mental disease or defect is a question for determination by the jury after the court finds that the evidence of the condition in question is relevant and accepted in the psychiatric community so as to be reliable for use in litigation. (pp. 14-16)

3. Evidence of intoxication may be used to disprove that a defendant acted purposely or knowingly. However, voluntary or self-induced intoxication, defined in N.J.S.A. 2C:2-8(e)(2), is immaterial to recklessness as an element of an offense. (pp. 16-17)

4. Defendant s state of mind was at issue in light of the requirement that the State show recklessness on the charge of aggravated manslaughter under N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(a)(1), and knowing and voluntary conduct under the death by auto charge. Defendant contended that he could not have had the requisite mental state because he was involuntarily intoxicated due to the mental diseases or defects of alcoholism and depression. Defendant asserted that his intoxication should have been considered as evidence of his mental diseases or defects to establish a diminished capacity defense. The State argued that defendant s intoxication and driving on the shoulder of the road was evidence of defendant s recklessness in causing the victims deaths. (pp. 18-19)

5. The Court finds no error in the jury charge. The trial court s instruction on self-induced intoxication mirrored the definition in N.J.S.A. 2C:2-8(e)(2), which includes the language regarding a knowing introduction of intoxicants that defendant sought. The trial court further stated that defendant had offered evidence that his intoxication was not self-induced and that his alleged use of the intoxicants was not voluntary; as a result, the court also provided the jury with the definition of a voluntary act. The court s diminished capacity charge was consistent with the Model Jury Charge. The trial court s caveat regarding self-induced intoxication, included in the diminished capacity defense charge, did not improperly blend the law of self-induced intoxication with that of mental disease or defect. These instructions, and the twice-stated distinction between the statutory definition of self-induced intoxication and defendant s denial of self-induced intoxication, were proper to allow the jury to determine the issues. (pp. 19-24)

6. The Court also rejects defendant s claim that giving the self-induced intoxication instruction immediately after the mental disease or defect instruction effectively negated his diminished capacity defense. By carefully constructing the intoxication charge to accommodate defendant s requests, the trial judge properly conveyed the concept that if defendant s intoxication was due to a mental disease or defect that deprived him of the ability to knowingly introduce intoxicants into his body, this will negate a necessary element of the offenses. In light of the content of the charge as a whole, the sequence of instructions was not clearly capable of producing an unjust result. (pp. 24-26)

The judgment of the Appellate Division is AFFIRMED.

CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, ALBIN and PATTERSON join in JUSTICE SOLOMON S opinion. JUSTICE FERNANDEZ-VINA and JUDGE CUFF (temporarily assigned) did not participate.

SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY

A- 107 September Term 2013

Expungement for Drug Court Grads

High Court Got it Right on Expungement for Drug Court Grads

The court’s opinion does a service, not only in clarifying the standard for expungement under the 2016 statute but also in explaining the valuable work done by drug courts.

https://www.law.com/njlawjournal/2019/02/04/high-court-got-it-right-on-expungement-for-drug-court-grads/

In a unanimous Jan. 8, 2019, decision written by Chief Justice Rabner, the New Jersey Supreme Court held out a lifeline to drug offenders who successfully complete the rigorous regimen implemented by the drug courts of this state. Matter of Expungement of Arrest/Charge Records of T.B., J.N.-T. and R.C. That lifeline could not be more important in the opportunity it offers drug court graduates to have their entire criminal histories expunged even when those histories are significant, thereby affording offenders a true fresh start to find employment and live a law-abiding life.

In reversing the Appellate Division, the court’s key holdings, based on a relatively new 2016 law commonly known as the drug court expungement statute, N.J.S.A. §2C:35-14(m), are: (1) the new law “favor[s] expungement for successful graduates;” (2) successful drug court participants are entitled to a rebuttable presumption that expungement of their third or fourth degree drug sale offenses “is consistent with the public interest,” shifting the burden to prosecutors to present proof of disqualifying convictions and other factors bearing on the public safety; (3) applications for expungement by drug court graduates may be heard only by drug court judges who are familiar with the participants and with drug court requirements; and (4) unlike other applicants for expungement, drug court graduates need not include with their expungement applications copies of all relevant transcripts and reports of prior convictions, documents that are often difficult and expensive to obtain especially when they relate to old convictions. On this last point, the court said that these documents can be required “on a cost-effective basis” if a judge hearing a specific expungement application thinks them necessary.

The opinion traces the history of expungement statutes in New Jersey. It was not until 2010 that a third- or fourth-degree conviction for selling drugs could be expunged, and then only if expungement was “consistent with the public interest,” a standard the court held was the applicant’s burden to meet under the general expungement statute. In re Kollman, 210 N.J. 557 (2012). Moreover, to meet that burden under Kollman, the applicant had to provide all transcripts of plea and sentencing hearings and pre-sentence reports as part of an expungement application, sometimes a difficult and expensive proposition.

The 2016 law made significant changes, applicable to drug court graduates. It allows expungement of the applicant’s entire criminal record “for any offense enumerated in Title 2C … upon successful discharge from a term of special probation … if the person satisfactorily completed a substance abuse treatment program [i.e., drug court program] and was not convicted of any crime during the term of special probation.” Convictions of certain serious crimes such as murder, robbery, kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, and first- and second-degree drug sale crimes are excluded. Moreover, the statute provides a simpler application process and requires the applicant to pay no fees. Rather, drug court graduates need only “bring [the] matter to the attention of the Drug Court judge prior to graduation.” It is then up to the prosecutor, who would by then be familiar with the applicant through his drug court participation, to raise any objection. If a criminal record is expunged and the applicant is later “convicted of any crime,” the full criminal record “may be restored” and no future expungement may be granted.

The opinion is enlightening in its description of New Jersey’s drug courts and the positive effect they are having on a population largely disadvantaged by addiction. As described, drug court participants are sentenced to a term of special probation of up to five years, requiring frequent drug testing and regular court appearances. The program involves “rigorous” supervision and participation by judges, probation officers, prosecutors, public defenders, and treatment providers. More than 5,400 persons have successfully completed drug court since it was established statewide in 2002. Of those, 90 percent were employed when they graduated, and all must have been free of drugs for one year. Drug court graduates experience much lower rates of recidivism than do other former offenders.

It is notable that the three applicants in this case all had significant criminal records and yet expungement, according to the decision, is presumed to be in the public interest. T.B.’s record included 13 arrests and convictions, some for drug offenses. J.N.-T.’s record included eight convictions for third-degree offenses including burglary and drug offenses. R.C.’s record, dating from 1996, consisted of five arrests and three Superior Court convictions, including for drug offenses.
https://www.law.com/njlawjournal/2019/02/04/high-court-got-it-right-on-expungement-for-drug-court-grads/
       Expungement Services to Apply to Remove/Erase Criminal Arrests and Convictions/ Retainer for Legal Services
Please read and fill out interview form at end

 $1,900 if paid within 7 days    ________________________
Credit card or Check payable to Vercammen PC.
   [Fee is less if we handled case previously or is charge was dismissed outright in Municipal Court within one month] This is for regular expungement, not the complicated Early Pathway Expungement of Indictable Convictions
Also you need to provide a separate check or money order for court fees:
 -Check for $75.00 payable, Treasurer, State of NJ
-Check payable Postmaster Edison $70.00 for certified mail
This cannot be paid by credit card.

Please fill out blank lines on your computer or by hand and email or return to office to start Expungement. Then provide check or credit card info to fee.
You need to provide Superior Court & us  with the Certified disposition if your prior offense was in Municipal Court. The Certified disposition should be provided to the Superior Court. To obtain the certified disposition, simply contact the Municipal Court. They will charge a fee of approx $10.00.
  If you are unable or unwilling to do this, our fee to drive to the court to obtain the Certified disposition is an additional $300.
If your prior charge was in Superior Court, provide the Order of Dismissal if dismissed, or Judgment of Conviction JOC if a guilty plea.
If PTI Pre-trial intervention, provide copy of Order of Dismissal.

FILL OUT:

1. Petitioner's name is _____________.
any other name used___________________.
Current address ___________________________________
CITY _____________________________ STATE _______ ZIP __________

CELL-PHONE ________________________________ rev 1/28/19

OTHER PHONE-DAY __________________________

E-MAIL ADDRESS ______________________________________________

REFERRED BY: _______________________________________________

2. Petitioner's date of birth is _______,

Social Security Number is ________

3.  Petitioner was charged  on [DATE]  ________________ for violation of the following:
N.J.S.A. 2C:  ______________

type of offense   _________________

Town ___________________                    

Summons/ Warrant/ Complaint #  ____________________
[Leave out traffic tickets ex 39:4-49.1.   Traffic tickets cannot be expunged]
The original complaint number was ___________

4.  This matter was in ___________   County  .

5. This matter was heard in the   ______________ Municipal Court on __________

6. On [DATE] ______, I plead guilty of the following offense: ________________________.

I was fined _____, costs of ______ and ______.

 Or

on ________________, charges were dismissed

7. The following are all other charges against me since I was 18 year old, even if the charge was dismissed or it was a Municipal Ordinance:
[IF NONE, WRITE NONE]
[OTHER PRIOR CHARGES] Petitioner was charged  on   ________________ for violation of the following:
N.J.S.A. 2C:  ______________

type of offense   _________________
Summons/ Warrant/ Complaint #  ____________________

Other prior offenses:
This matter was in ___________  County , town ______________

Disposition/ result ___________________________________
[If none, write none, don’t leave blank]

The client must provide a written disposition to the court for all prior criminal charges, even criminal charges you were not arrested or fingerprinted. This is required by the Superior Court. All charges since you were 18 years old. The Law Office can obtain the a Certified Disposition for Municipal Court cases, or a Judgment of Conviction for Superior Court charges at a fee of $400 per court. It is usually more cost effective for the client to obtain the court records themselves.
If you do not list every charge against you since you were 16, the court or prosecutor will move to dismiss your petition. It will cost you additional costs and fees if you do not list every offense since you were 16. This even includes municipal ordinance tickets for drinking in public, etc
Details on expungement at http://www.njlaws.com/expungement.html
What we will do:
-Telephone consultation with client;
-Office consultation with client;
-Opening of file and client may have free client case folder, Municipal Court brochure, MVC Points brochure, and Website brochure;
-Review documents supplied by client and court;
-Review of necessary statutes and case law;
-Preparation of VERIFIED PETITION FOR EXPUNGEMENT OF RECORD PURSUANT TO N.J.S.A. 2C:52-6(a)
-Preparation of CERTIFICATION  STATEMENT TO ACCOMPANY PETITION
- Preparation of ORDER FOR HEARING FOR EXPUNGEMENT PURSUANT to N.J.S.A. 2C:52-6(a)
- Preparation of proposed ORDER FOR EXPUNGEMENT

   Prepare letter to Client with Petition, Statement to Accompany Petition of no pending charges, Order for Hearing, Proposed Order for Expungement

Client signs Petition Statement to Accompany Petition of no pending charges

Attorney calls Superior Court and confirm address for Expungement Unit.

We Mail to Superior Court Expungement Unit-
Orig. and one Petition
Statement to Accompany Petition
Order for Hearing
Proposed Order for Expungement
2 self-addressed stamped envelopes
Follow up Court Order for hearing (takes approx 30 days)
Expungement Services to Remove Bill  

Upon receipt of signed Order for hearing, Prepare Certified Mail Green cards for documents to be served on law  enforcement and court. -
-Preparation of letter with Order for hearing and proposed Order for Expungement to NJ Attorney General
    Department of Law & Public Safety
    Expungement Section- PO Box 080
    Trenton, NJ 08625

- Preparation of letter with Order for hearing and proposed Order for Expungement to NJ Superintendent of State Police
Expungement Unit
River Road, PO Box 7068
West Trenton, NJ 08628
- Preparation of letter with Order for hearing and proposed Order for Expungement to County Prosecutor;
- Preparation of letter with Order for hearing and proposed Order for Expungement to Chief of Police;
- Preparation of letter to client with Order for hearing and proposed Order for Expungement to Municipal Court Administrator;

When all the green cert. mail cards come in we put date mailed to Law Enforcement. on form 6 (Cert.) and mail to Court . After receipt of all certified mail Green cards, Preparation of CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE OF ORDER FOR HEARING
We make copies of cert. mail green cards and letter before mailing out original green cards to court.

Misc phone calls to and from client
-Call Superior Court Expungement Unit to confirm they received green cards and no need to appear on hearing date if no objection.

If Expungement granted and receipt of signed Order for Expungement,
Preparation of letter with signed Order for Expungement to:
-NJ Attorney General by regular mail
       Department of Law & Public Safety
- Preparation of letter with signed Order for Expungement to
  NJ Superintendent of State Police
- Preparation of letter with signed Order for Expungement to County Prosecutor;
- Preparation of letter with signed Order for Expungement to Chief of Police;
- Preparation of letter with signed Order for Expungement to Municipal Court Administrator; and any other public entity requested by the court. Please note a Judicial Expungement granted by the Superior Court Judge does not change databases set up by private entities or credit agencies.
Preparation of End of Case Letter to client with original signed Order for Expungement and client questionnaire.

Please note we do not open a file and do not handle the case until all fees are paid in full up front.
Any other work not listed above will require additional fees or costs.
 The client must provide disposition or copies of complaint for all prior Municipal court criminal charges, even criminal charges you were not arrested or fingerprinted. This is required by the Superior Court. For Municipal court cases, contact the Municipal Court and request a Certified Disposition. The Municipal Court may charge you a $10.00 fee. For Superior Court, the county Criminal records can provide you with a Judgment of Conviction [if you plead guilty] or an Order of Dismissal [if PTI]
All charges since you were 18 years old must be listed.
If you are not 100%  sure of your prior charges including town ordinances you may want to order a criminal history CCH on yourself when the expungement is started. The fee to obtain your criminal history is less than $75. For a Criminal History Contact www.bioapplicant.com/nj or call Morpho Trak at 1-877-503-5981. The law office cannot obtain a criminal history. Our Private investigator can do obtain a criminal history for you for an extra $900.
If the expungement is granted mail the expungement Order to the Law Enforcement entities. We recommend to all clients to also send a follow up letter and copy of Order for Expungement by Certified Mail to all above Courts and Law Enforcement so they have a copy for their records. The Law Office can handle sending the Order for Expungement by Certified Mail, return receipt request for additional fee of $250. You should also serve a copy on the credit reporting agencies that may list the arrest.
If the Court grants the expungement petition, the NJ police departments and NJ courts will be required to remove information from their records. The Court order does not pertain to online private companies or websites, which may contain old information. The Federal Government and immigration still has access to expunged /erased records.
If there are objections to the Expungement Petition by the Prosecutor or other entities and a hearing is required, additional fees will apply. They fee you paid does not include appeals if the court denies your petition.
Please note that a court ordered expungement applies to government and police records. It does not apply to private internet sites.