Drug Offenses

The Brimage Guidelines in New Jersey Drug Cases

November 30, 2015 by Greg Sutphin Leave a Comment

Assorted illegal drugs

In 1998, in State v. Brimage, the New Jersey Supreme Court set forth guidelines governing mandatory prison sentences for conviction of or pleading to certain drug crimes in the state. The court found that prosecutors had too much control over the sentencing of defendants in certain drug cases, often negotiating lesser terms at time of sentencing. The court required that the state attorney general establish guidelines so that there was greater uniformity in sentencing. These guidelines are now generally referred to as the “Brimage guidelines.”

As a rule, the imposition of the Brimage guidelines has dramatically reduced the instances where a defendant obtains a noncustodial disposition, or a shorter sentence, at the time of sentencing. The guidelines are most often applied in specific situations:

Convictions involving school zone drug crimes
Conviction for providing controlled substances to a minor
Second or repeat drug convictions, for either possession or distribution
Drug convictions related to street gang activity

If you have pled to or been convicted on a charge that falls under the Brimage guidelines, the prosecutor in your case must complete a worksheet to determine whether the plea offer, or sentencing is appropriate, as well as whether there is eligibility for parole. New Jersey law does, however, give judges some discretion in sentencing in school zone drug crime convictions, based on evidence involving:

Whether school was open or in session at the time of the arrest
The location of the crime and the reasonable likelihood that children would have witnessed drug-related activity
The defendant’s prior criminal record.

Contact Our Office

We offer a free phone consultation to every prospective client. For a complimentary evaluation of your case, contact the law offices of Gregg A. Wisotsky, Esq., Partner, Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins, PC, online or call us at 973-898-0161. We will come to your home or the hospital to meet with you, if necessary. All major credit cards are accepted.

Alcohol and Drug Awareness

September 2, 2015 by Greg Sutphin Leave a Comment

Understanding the Effects of Alcohol and Drugs

Driving with blurred vision

Even though the number of deaths related to drunk driving accidents has declined significantly in the past 30 years, the staggering loss of life caused by drinking and driving indicates that many who drink or take drugs and then get behind the wheel of a car don’t fully understand the impact these substances can have on their mental and physical faculties. Here is what modern science knows about alcohol and drugs and how they impact users.

What Actually Happens to Alcohol in Your System

The physical process of taking in alcohol involves three steps: absorption, transportation and change. Initially, your body allows the alcohol to enter, or be absorbed, into your bloodstream. Next, the alcohol is carried or transported throughout your body by your blood, traveling to vital organs, such as your liver, kidneys and brain. Your body then seeks to transform, or change, the alcohol into a harmless substance, a process that can put great stress on bodily organs like the liver. According to research, any alcohol that you take in will be in your blood system within just half an hour, though this can vary based on several factors, including how much you had to eat and even your gender.

The Effect of Alcohol or Drugs on Your Ability to Drive

Alcohol is known as a depressant — that means that it slows down activity in your brain, including your response time to anything that happens to or around you. It tends to make users drowsy and can make it difficult for you to concentrate on the road. It often interferes with your ability to gather and assess what you see or hear, and it can cause you to focus on one task (looking at the centerline, for example) so that you miss other important information (such as a red light or stop sign).

Of course, a drug may be a stimulant, rather than a depressant. These substances can have a similar impact on your ability to drive, allowing you to misperceive time and distance. For example, you may not be able to properly judge how much time you must pull out in front of another vehicle, or even how close you are to the side of the road or to other vehicles.

Contact Our Office

Informant’s Tip in Drug Case Was Enough for Probable Cause To Arrest

July 31, 2013 by Greg Sutphin

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.

Instead of waiting for Shah to emerge from his vehicle, police surrounded the car immediately. After finding cocaine in his pants’ pocket, Shah was arrested. The trial judge accepted a motion to suppress the cocaine, finding that the police acted too soon and lacked the requisite probable cause. The court stated, “Defendant’s actions never evolved into probable criminal activity and his arrest was unlawful.”

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.

Do Not Smoke a Joint While Answering Your Door

April 16, 2013 by Greg Sutphin

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.

Here, the Court found that probable cause for arrest was satisfied, not by the tip, but by the officers’ observation of Walker smoking a marijuana cigarette as he answered the door. The exigent circumstances requirement was satisfied when Walker threw his joint and ran back into the apartment as this constituted an attempt to flee and officers were “compelled to act to prevent defendant from disposing of the marijuana cigarette, or eluding the officers.”

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.

Drug Possession with Intent to Distribute

April 1, 2013 by Greg Sutphin

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.

Contact Us Today

Contact Us Today

The Brimage Guidelines in New Jersey Drug Cases

Contact Our Office

Alcohol and Drug Awareness

Understanding the Effects of Alcohol and Drugs

What Actually Happens to Alcohol in Your System

The Effect of Alcohol or Drugs on Your Ability to Drive

Contact Our Office

Informant’s Tip in Drug Case Was Enough for Probable Cause To Arrest

Do Not Smoke a Joint While Answering Your Door

Drug Possession with Intent to Distribute