Source: https://www.gawlawyers.com/category/drug-offenses/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 17:05:08+00:00

Document:
As a general rule, though New Jersey does allow for medical use of marijuana, the state takes a serious approach to the possession, cultivation, and trafficking of the drug. In Part One of this series, we looked at how New Jersey treats possession and cultivation of marijuana. In this blog, we look at the penalties for sale or trafficking, as well as possession of drug paraphernalia.
As we indicated in Part One of this series, New Jersey identifies all marijuana crimes as Schedule I offenses, considered the most serious drug crimes. The penalties for sale or trafficking are based primarily on the amount sold (you can also be charged with possessing a quantity of marijuana with the intent to sell).
Certain characteristics of the offense can add to the penalties, including trafficking in a school zone, public park, or public housing or selling to a minor or pregnant woman.
New Jersey also penalizes possession of certain items used in the growing, harvesting, processing, selling, storing, or use of marijuana. Objects that may constitute drug paraphernalia include pipes, bongs, roach clips, spoons, cigarette papers, and chillums (cone-shaped pipes). Possession of drug paraphernalia is punishable by incarceration for up to 6 months, a $1,000 fine, or both.
We offer a free phone consultation to every prospective client. For a complimentary evaluation of your case, contact our office online or call 973-898-0161. We will come to your home or the hospital to meet with you, if necessary. All major credit cards are accepted.
From the founding of America, the legal principle of contributory negligence, carried over from English common law, has been applied to personal injury claims. Under the concept, if a person suffering a personal injury was in any way negligent or careless, and thereby contributed to his or her own injury, that fact could be used to complete bar or eliminate any recovery for the injury suffered.
Because of perceptions that the doctrine of contributory negligence was too harsh, and because of the successful efforts of many defense lawyer to find some level of contributory negligence in nearly every personal injury claim, the law has been modified in every state by the new principle of comparative, rather than contributory, negligence.
Under the doctrine of comparative negligence, the finder of fact in a personal injury case (the judge or the jury) must first determine the full amount of damages sustained by an injured party. The judge/jury must then determine if the injured party was negligent in any way and, if so, to what extent.
At that point, the various states take one of two approaches. In many states, the percentage by which the injured party was at fault is simply applied to the total amount of losses, thereby reducing the damage award. For example, if an injured party shows $1 million in losses, but the jury finds that he or she was 25% responsible, the award will be reduced to $750,000. If the plaintiff (the injured party) was found to be 75% responsible, he or she will still receive $250,000.
In states such as New Jersey, however, that have adopted what is known as “modified comparative negligence,” an injured party can receive a damage award only if his or her degree of fault falls below a certain level, typically 50% (the standard in New Jersey). Accordingly, in the above example, if the plaintiff is found to be 51% responsible, there will be no damage award.
The defendant’s prior criminal record.
Cocaine seized as evidence of possession of cocaine and possession of same with intent to distribute should not have been suppressed just because defendant was arrested before he made it out of his car and onto the property of the house where the deal was supposed to have taken place. State v. Dority, 2013 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1157.
In March of 2010, Phillipsburg Police Department arrested a man named William Joe on drug charges. He then offered to cooperate with police and set up a drug deal with a man known as “Shah.” Joe gave a full physical description of Shah and his car and explained to police that they had done a number of drug transactions together in the past.
Phillipsburg Police had Joe call Shah and set up a deal for crack cocaine. As arranged, Shah arrived at Joe’s house in a car exactly as Joe had described. Initially he drove away, scared off by seeing some cops in the vicinity, but with another phone call from Joe, returned to the house. His car had dark window tints, blocking police from being able to see into the interior.
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s decision to suppress the evidence, finding that the facts of the case did support probable cause to arrest Shah. “Information related by informants may constitute a basis for probable cause, provided that a substantial basis for crediting the information is presented.” State v. Jones, 179 N.J. 377, 389.
“’If the nature and details revealed in the tip… imply that the informant’s knowledge of the alleged criminal activity is derived from a trustworthy source,’ then the basis of knowledge is satisfied.” State v. Dority, supra at 8 (quoting State v. Smith, 155 N.J. 83, 94).
The Appellate Court found that Joe’s tip had sufficient detail to constitute a basis of knowledge enough to form probable cause and was strengthened by the fact that the situation occurred almost exactly as Joe had said it would.
Opening the front door to police officers while smoking a marijuana cigarette and then tossing the cigarette back into the house and attempting to close the door can satisfy an exception to 4th Amendment and the New Jersey Constitution’s prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure.
According to State v. Walker, plain clothes police officers arrived at Rashad Walker’s apartment in Newark on the basis of a tip by an informant that Walker was selling drugs from his home. He answered the door while smoking a joint, but when he realized he was speaking to police he tossed his joint back into the apartment and tried to close the door. State v. Walker, 2013 WL 1442179.
One of the officers stopped the door from closing and the rest of the officers stepped inside the apartment. Walker was arrested and searched while standing in his living room. Looking around, the officers found various forms of drugs as well as drug paraphernalia. He was charged with, and later convicted of, two counts of third-degree possession of controlled distributed substances (CDS) with intent to distribute and other charges.
Walker challenged his conviction arguing that the police violated the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I of the N.J. Constitution, arresting him without a warrant in his home. The State defended the conviction, asserting that the tip that lead police to the apartment qualified as probable cause.
“Warrantless home arrests are prohibited ‘absent probable cause and exigent circumstances,’” according to the Court.
This satisfaction of the exigent circumstances requirement “justified a limited entry necessary to arrest defendant…” Then, once the police were inside, because all of the drugs and paraphernalia were in plain view, they were subject to seizure by the police too.
A former record-breaking high school football star, Kenneth “The Moose” Cattouse (27), and his older brother, Anthony Cattouse, Jr. (32), were charged with selling cocaine and heroin in Monmouth County earlier this month. The brothers were arrested after a two-month long investigation by the Narcotics and Gang Investigation Section of the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office. More than $4,700 in cash, 37 bricks of heroin, cocaine, Oxycodone, as well as two vehicles were seized by the prosecutor’s office during the arrest.
Anthony Cattouse was charged with one count of second-degree distribution of heroin, one count of second-degree possession with intent to distribute heroin, six counts of third-degree distribution of heroin and eight counts of third-degree possession of controlled dangerous substances. In addition, he was also charged with six counts of third-degree possession with intent to distribute heroin, one count of third-degree distribution within 1,000 feet of a school and one count of third-degree possession with intent to distribute heroin within 1,000 feet within a school, as well as several other charges. He was being held in jail in lieu of $260,000 bond.
Kenneth Cattouse was charged with one count of second-degree distribution of cocaine, one count of second-degree possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and four counts of third-degree distribution of cocaine. He was also charged with five counts of third-degree possession of cocaine, five counts of third-degree possession with intent to distribute cocaine, as well as several other charges. He was being held in jail in lieu of $180,000 bond.
Two other individuals associated with the Cattouse brothers were also arrested during this incident for similar crimes.
In New Jersey, possessing even small amounts of drugs, such as cocaine, heroin or methamphetamine, can lead to extremely serious charges, including possession of drugs with the intent to distribute. Intent to distribute charges are contingent upon two key factors: (1) the amount or weight of the drugs in one’s possession and (2) the location where one is caught or apprehended of possession. Drug charges and convictions are extremely serious and can result in penalties of up to 20 years in prison and/or $300,000 in fines, depending on the facts of the case.
Several constitutional defenses, however, may be applicable to your case and exercised on your behalf to prevent prejudicial information and evidence from being presented at trial. Such constitutional rights and defenses include the 4th Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure, violation of Miranda Rights under the 5th Amendment, violation of the 6th Amendment right to counsel, and violation of the right to due process of law under the 14th Amendment.
If you are charged with a serious crime, it is important to contact an experienced attorney before speaking to the police about your situation. At Gregg A. Wisotsky, Esq., Partner, Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins, PC, we offer aggressive advocacy for all levels of drug crimes. As drug crime defense lawyers, we have represented clients in Morris County and throughout New Jersey. Call immediately at 973-898-0161.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
in fine