Many companies provide workers with cell phones for company business. And they expect that their workers respect its proper use. But companies should afford their workers the same respect in terms of privacy.

In a recent report, a woman was fired for deleting an app her employer used to track her movements. She sued for invasion of privacy–a concept covered in Business Law class. Her employer used the phone to follow her off-hours, akin to a “‘prisoner’s ankle bracelet.’”

But the employer is not all wrong. As a traveling saleswoman, her employer had an interest in knowing her whereabouts, however, where they crossed the line was continuing to monitor her off-hours. Employees were not permitted to disable any GPS tracking on the phone and they had to keep it on 24/7.

Under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, the government is prohibited from invading someone’s privacy without probable cause and a warrant. The present case deals with the private sector, however. The woman probably had no right to delete the app, because it is company property since it is on a company phone; however, she still could have disabled the phone off-hours and not be in any trouble. Under California law, where she lives, employers are prohibited from following her in this manner when she is off-duty. Many other states have the same prohibitions.

One convenient way (and perhaps the woman in this case could have used) of stopping someone from using a cell phone as a GPS tracker is to put the cell phone in the refrigerator. Apparently, that will block the signals coming in and going out.

The Securities and Exchange Commission charged three software company founders with insider trading and forced them to disgorge $5.8 million in illegal profits, penalties and interest.  Insider trading occurs when people in high levels of management trade company securities based on non-public information.

Lawson Software’s co-chairman, Herbert Richard Lawson, tipped his brother and a family friend (both retired from the company in 2001) about the probable sale of the company to Infor Global Solutions, a privately held software provider.  While negotiations were occurring, the media learned of a possible merger.  Lawson Software’s stock price began to climb based on analyst reports of a possible bidding war with more than one company considering acquiring Lawson Software.  The reports were predicated on an article indicating that Lawson Software conducted a “market check” through its financial advisor to see if there were any other companies interested in a merger.

But Infor Global was the only company interested in buying, as the market check produced “little-to-no interest.”  Lawson Software notified the public that Info Global offered to pay $11.25 per share, however, the media was still reporting incorrectly that other companies were interested in acquiring the company and that the merger would likely be for $15-16 per share.  Those companies listed in the media reports were actually the same companies that declined purchasing Lawson Software in the market check investigation.

The SEC charged defendants both knew the reports were false and Infor Global would not increase its offer any more than $11.25.  But in face of that knowledge, Lawson, his brother and his friend sold shares of the company for approximately $1 over Infor Global’s price, pocketing millions.  Defendants agreed to disgorge the profits and “to the entry of final judgments enjoining them from future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.”

An associate director in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement stated, “Richard Lawson conveyed material information that was contrary to what was being publicly reported, and his brother and friend made a windfall when they subsequently sold their company shares at inflated prices.”  He further stated, “When news surfaces about the possibility of a merger and details of the media reports are incorrect, it is illegal for insiders who know the true facts to trade and profit.”

Posted by Patrick Osadebe 

Do you think the lawyers in America get paid as much as they deserve? How much do you think a lawyer makes in a year? According to a survey conducted in 2014 by the Association of Law Placement, the highest starting salary of one of the largest firm in the US with about 700 plus employee is $160,000. This number may seem to be high based on our present economy situations but the results are accurate.

From the survey, only 27% of firms actually responded and one third actually start their employees with $160,000. According to James Leiplod who is the current NALP executive director, he stated that “it is fair to say that law firm starting salaries are flat.” In contrast to that statement, the starting salaries was much higher before the economic recession and the figure is basically a reflection of changes in large firm market.

Different firms may have different starting salaries based on size and experience but according to the survey, the median starting salary is about $125,000, which has been unchanged since 2012.

Patrick is a business administration major with a concentration in finance at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Jessica Page.

In 2008 and 2009, there was a huge salmonella outbreak traced to peanut butter produced by the Peanut Corporation of America. Nine people died from this incident and 700 were reported ill. The $30 million company was shut down and liquidated after the incident and the CEO, Stewart Parnell, was indicted and prosecuted. In late September, he was sentenced 28 years in prison.

What’s intriguing about this article is the comparison to the GM faulty ignition case. In this particular incident, the defect caused 124 deaths and over 200 injuries. GM has recently settled for $900 million and a three year prosecution agreement. The major difference between the two cases though – indictment of employees. Preet Bharara, one of the best federal prosecutors in Manhattan, explained, “it is unusually difficult to prosecute auto industry executives” and because of the national auto safety laws, there is a call for punishing the corporation as a whole, rather than any one individual.

The main conviction in the salmonella case is the fact that Parnell committed fraud by “knowingly introducing tainted peanut butter paste into interstate commerce.” The fact of the matter is though, there were GM executives who knew about the faulty ignition but failed to report it within the five-day span. The company itself was fined as a corporation for this matter, but there was not specific indictment of GM executives. The real issue at hand is how much harder it is to prosecute auto executives when it comes to cases of product liability. There is currently a bill that many senators are working to pass that would make this process easier and hold executives accountable, if they were knowledgeable of the faulty auto product or provided false statements to consumers, as GM did. This could change future product liability cases within the auto industry and as Senator Blumenthal stated, “one sentence like Parnell’s [within the automotive industry] would change auto safety dramatically and enduringly.”

Jessica is a finance and marketing major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2016.

A district court judge has ordered Apple to unlock a cell phone used by one of the shooters in the California massacre. Apple is fighting the order, claiming that doing so could make it easier to for anyone to hack into phones.

Apple has secret keys that can open up the software that it will not give to the FBI. The FBI also wants Apple to create a program that will permit it to hack into phones at anytime. The problem lies with a toggle in “Settings” that will make the phone delete all information on it if someone fails to put in the right passcode more than 10 times. This would make it impossible for the FBI to use a program that can guess random codes.

The case has Fourth Amendment implications for various reasons, including conscripting a private entity to become a government agent.

In class, we discuss the Fourth Amendment as it pertains to a variety of searches and seizures by government actors. Even though the New Jersey analog is practically identical to the federal Fourth Amendment, the New Jersey Supreme Court has interpreted more protections for privacy than the United States Supreme Court has under the federal amendment.

In a recent case, the New Jersey Supreme Court overturned a prior 2009 decision requiring police officers conducting an automobile search to have probable cause and exigent circumstances, such as time constraints and safety concerns, and obtain a warrant from a judge prior to the search. The court held  officers now merely have to have probable cause to conduct the search–a retreat to the federal standard.

From time to time, courts will break with stare decisis when circumstances permit. The decision in this case, however, drew criticism from two of the Justices and the defense bar. Justice LaVecchia wrote in her dissent, “‘One can only wonder why the State and the majority of this Court find it appropriate to turn from the progressive approach historically taken in this State to privacy and constitutional rights of motorists.’”

But the court held the old standard was “unworkable.” Police were required to get a telephonic warrant in these circumstances; yet, many of them resorted to merely getting the owner of the vehicle to sign a “consent form” for the search instead of calling a judge.

Justice Barry T. Albin, writing for the majority held the standard applied in the 2009 decision “does not provide greater liberty or security to New Jersey’s citizens and has placed on law enforcement unrealistic and impracticable burdens.” The court found that the 2009 standard had the “unintended consequence” of causing an “‘exponential increase in police-induced consent automobile searches,’” suggesting officers may be pressuring drivers to volunteer for searches instead of taking the time to obtain a warrant.

“‘The heavy reliance on consent searches is of great concern given the historical abuses associated with such searches and the potential for future abuses,’” Justice Albin wrote.

Many companies provide workers with cell phones for company business. And they expect that their workers respect its proper use. But companies should afford their workers the same respect in terms of privacy.

In a recent report, a woman was fired for deleting an app her employer used to track her movements. She sued for invasion of privacy–a concept covered in Business Law class. Her employer used the phone to follow her off-hours, akin to a “‘prisoner’s ankle bracelet.’”

But the employer is not all wrong. As a traveling saleswoman, her employer had an interest in knowing her whereabouts, however, where they crossed the line was continuing to monitor her off-hours. Employees were not permitted to disable any GPS tracking on the phone and they had to keep it on 24/7.

Under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, the government is prohibited from invading someone’s privacy without probable cause and a warrant. The present case deals with the private sector, however. The woman probably had no right to delete the app, because it is company property since it is on a company phone; however, she still could have disabled the phone off-hours and not be in any trouble. Under California law, where she lives, employers are prohibited from following her in this manner when she is off-duty. Many other states have the same prohibitions.

One convenient way (and perhaps the woman in this case could have used) of stopping someone from using a cell phone as a GPS tracker is to put the cell phone in the refrigerator. Apparently, that will block the signals coming in and going out.

In Heien v. North Carolina, the Supreme Court held that where a police officer makes a stop based upon a reasonable mistake about a law, the stop is justified.

In this case, an officer stopped a vehicle because one of its two brake lights was out, based on a misunderstanding that the North Carolina law permitted only one working brake light. The officer stopped Heinen’s vehicle because one light was not working and then proceeded to a consensual search of the car. The search turned up a bag of cocaine located in a duffle bag in the trunk. Heinz was arrested and convicted of attempted drug trafficking. The question presented to the Court was whether a police officer’s reasonable mistake of law can give rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary to uphold a seizure of an automobile and the occupants in it under the Fourth Amendment.

The North Carolina statute reads that a car must be:

equipped with a stop lamp on the rear of the vehicle. The stop lamp shall display a red or amber light visible from a distance of not less than 100 feet to the rear in normal sunlight, and shall be actuated upon application of the service (foot) brake. The stop lamp may be incorporated into a unit with one or more other rear lamps. N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §20–129(g) (2007).

The Court concluded that the statute required only one stop lamp to be working. However, the officer was under a different impression of the law at the time. A nearby statute requires that “all originally equipped rear lamps” be functional. N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §20–129(d). The officer made the stop under a mistake in law. Nevertheless, the Court held that even if an officer reasonably misunderstood the law, as long as the officer conducts a search or seizure reasonably under the Fourth Amendment he is acting justifiably.

“To be reasonable is not to be perfect, and so the Fourth Amendment allows for some mistakes on the part of government officials, giving them ‘fair leeway for enforcing the law in the community’s protection.’” Reasonable mistakes of fact are permissible. For example, when someone consents to the search of a home, the search will be considered valid even if the officer mistakenly believes that the person consenting is the owner.

Reasonable mistakes of law are also permissible. “Reasonable suspicion arises from the combination of an officer’s understanding of the facts and his understanding of the relevant law. The officer may be reasonably mistaken on either ground.” Even laws that police enforce that are later declared unconstitutional by a court does not rebut an officer’s reasonable assumption that the laws were valid at the time.

Heinen argued that there is no margin of error for an officer’s mistake of law. He argued the legal maxim: “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” If persons cannot get out of trouble by claiming they were mistaken about the law, then neither can the police.

But the Court concluded the law protects against only “reasonable mistakes,” and therefore, “an officer can gain no Fourth Amendment advantage through a sloppy study of the laws he is duty-bound to enforce.” The Court further concluded Heinen’s reliance on the legal maxim is misplaced. A person cannot escape criminal liability by claiming he did not know the law, but neither can the government impose criminal liability by a mistaken understanding of the law. The Court explained:

If the law required two working brake lights, Heien could not escape a ticket by claiming he reasonably thought he needed only one; if the law required only one, Sergeant Darisse could not issue a valid ticket by claiming he reasonably thought drivers needed two. But just because mistakes of law cannot justify either the imposition or the avoidance of criminal liability, it does not follow that they cannot justify an investigatory stop.

In this case, Heien did not appeal his brake-light ticket. Instead, he appealed a cocaine-trafficking conviction, as to which he did not claim the police made either a mistake of fact or law.

Criminal law is certainly an important part of the study of business law, and Fourth Amendment questions always seem to come up in class.  Students are very interested in learning about when the police can search a person’s car, office or home, or when and where can they arrest someone. Generally, police need a warrant either to search a person’s property or to arrest, unless it falls within a constitutional exception.

Most students do not know that there is a difference between an arrest warrant and a search warrant.  An arrest warrant is an order by the court directing a sheriff, constable or police officer to find and arrest a person who is wanted for a crime.  In contrast, a search warrant permits a law enforcement officer to search a person’s place of residence or other location for evidence of a crime.  An arrest warrant, however, does not permit the police to search a home or building for a person where the police reasonably believes the person named in the arrest warrant may be found without the consent of the owner.  The question then becomes whether there are any other times police may enter certain areas of a third-party home and search for a person even though they are only acting pursuant to an arrest warrant.

In the New Jersey Appellate Division decision, State v. Craft, 425 N.J. Super. 546 (App. Div. 2012), Judge Graves held that exigent circumstances permitted the police to enter a bedroom of a third-party home to arrest defendant for a shooting even though they were operating solely under the authority of an arrest warrant.  The facts are as follows.

The Newark Police Department’s Fugitive Apprehension Team is responsible to dispatch officers to certain addresses where fugitives may be found based on certain intelligence.  James Craft was wanted for a shooting.  Officers arrived at the location noted in the arrest warrant.  It was a three-family dwelling located on South 13th Street.  The police believed that defendant was residing there with family on the second-floor.

The front door to the residence was open, and the police proceeded to the second floor.  The officers were in plain clothes, but at least one of them was wearing a badge around his neck. Defendant’s mother opened the door and permitted the police to enter.  The officers told defendant’s mother that they had a warrant to arrest her son. Defendant’s mother told the police that her son was not there, but offered to call him on her cell phone.  Upon dialing the number, the police heard a phone ringing behind a bedroom door. The officers believed it was defendant’s cell phone ringing and that he would most likely be in the bedroom.

When they opened the bedroom door, they found defendant attempting to escape.  The police testified they saw defendant drop a handgun as he climbed through the window.  They also discovered five vials of cocaine in plain view on the top of a dresser.  Defendant was arrested and charged.  The trial court suppressed the evidence finding that the “coincidence of a phone ringing” was insufficient evidence to justify entry into the bedroom without a search warrant and that the police did not have an “objectively reasonable belief” that “defendant both resided at and would be found at” his mother’s apartment.

On appeal, the court reversed, holding that “there was no constitutional violation by the police, and it was error to suppress the items that were seized. The arrest warrant provided probable cause for defendant’s arrest; the officers entered the apartment with [defendant’s mother’s consent]; and [the police] had reason to believe defendant was present in an adjoining room when a cell phone began ringing after [defendant’s mother] called her son.  In addition, the officers knew the arrest warrant was for ‘a shooting’ and, therefore, defendant was potentially dangerous.  Under these circumstances, there was a compelling need for immediate action to apprehend defendant, and it was impracticable for the officers to obtain a search warrant.  Thus, their entry into the bedroom was objectively reasonable, and the items seized were in plain view.”

Here, the exigency to protect persons inside the home from being shot by a potentially armed individual excused the police from failing to consider the possible “coincidence” of the phone ring. According to one of the officers, upon hearing the phone ring at the time defendant’s mother dialed, he reasoned since people generally stay close to their cell phones, he would find defendant next to his.  As a result, the search into the bedroom was reasonable.

Posted by Cynthia Mihalenko.

JBS’s plan to list shares on the New York Stock Exchange are uncertain now due to their legal issues. The company, located in Brazil, is the world’s largest meatpacker. Plans for a global reorganization were in place to try and boost their company’s value. JBS is already in the U.S. market, as they own Pilgrim’s Pride and Swift & Company. The new company they would reorganize into would be called JBS Foods International and would be based in Ireland.

Current developments have both JBS’s Chief Executive Wesley Batista and his brother, Chairman Joesley Batista, suspended from managing their companies until the investigation is over. JBS has not announced a new replacement and this has also fueled speculation that JBS’s plans for global reorganization are on hold. Company spokespeople have denied they are changing their plans and also denying any wrongdoing by the Batistas. One investigation is the overbilling in government contracts where some funds were paid as bribes to politicians. Another investigation is whether the company received favorable treatment from Brazil’s National Economic Development Bank. Analysts at some of Brazil’s banks have expressed concern that the legal problem could delay the reorganization as Guilherme Figueiredo, a fund manager at Sao Paulo base investment firm M. Safra states that “Our feeling is that the new (corruption probe) will at least delay the NYSE listing.”

Investors are rightfully fearful of JBS, now that it is under this investigation. No one wants to invest in a company if their CEO cannot be trusted. However, the Wall Street Journal interviewed several analysts and they knew of a large pool of talent that the company could tap into if they needed someone to take over should Wesley Batista step down. This should help alleviate some of the investor’s concerns.

Cynthia is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Ali Paladino.

Recently, on September 1, 2016, the electric car maker Tesla Motors was called out for attempting to sell their vehicles directly to their customers in Missouri. The judge ruled Tesla’s efforts to rule out the middleman, car dealerships, violated state law.  The Missouri Revenue Department “gave the California-based manufacturer a license for a University City dealership in 2013 and a franchise license for a Kansas City dealership in 2014.” Both of these licenses allowed Tesla motors to sell their vehicles directly to their customers, disregarding any use of dealerships.

The court ruled this was not suitable, and Missouri Automobile Dealers Association agreed. The Association sued the State claiming that “it had given Tesla special privileges,” in their attempts to disregard using franchised dealerships to sell their vehicles. The court ruled that Tesla’s action was not technically unconstitutional, but held the licensing was not allowed. Tesla argued the ruling against them was going to damage the company and suppress their ability to compete with other motor vehicle companies. The company also argued the order was an “attempt” to “limit consumer choice in Missouri.” Yet, Tesla appears to be determined to try and continue to sell to their customers directly in the hopes that this will improve their bottom-line. Doug Smith, head of the Dealers Association, however, does not agree with Tesla’s actions and believes that it is not fair to other manufacturers. He believes all manufacturers should be “treated the same in Missouri.”

I have to agree with Doug Smith. I do not think Tesla should have the right to sell directly to their customers and completely bypassing dealerships, only because it puts the company on a different playing field than other motor vehicle companies. I do not believe that is fair.

Tesla has looked at other ways to get around laws in other states in order to improve their sales; however, I do not agree with this either. In this situation, the law stands blurry and unclear and it is intriguing to see how far Tesla will go in attempts to get around the law.

Ali is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Shakil Rahman.

Americans pride themselves on the idea that their country is the land of the free, where people of different parts of the world could have the equal opportunity to live as they wish, pray freely, and be free to live without being persecuted for their beliefs. It is stated in the constitution and laws are created to make sure people’s rights are not infringed upon or people are discrimination for their beliefs. But there are times when the people seem to be discriminated against because of their beliefs and it spills into the national spotlight.

Abercrombie & Fitch are multimillion dollars clothing store and in one of their stores a Muslim woman named Samantha Elauf applied for a job but she was rejected. When inquired about why she was being rejected, the company replied that the company’s dress code is “classic East Coast collegiate style” and since she wore head scarf, a headwear named Hijab that Muslim women wear, which went against the dress code, she was not hired. Ms.Elauf filed a discrimination lawsuit against Abercrombie & Fitch and the case went to the Supreme Court after being going through trial court and appeals court. The defendant claimed that since the plaintiff did not specifically state that the head scarf was worn for religious reasons they did not discriminate the plaintiff. The Supreme Court justices voted 8-1 for the plaintiff stating that the company should have understood that the head scarf had a religious significance, since it is of common knowledge and therefore the plaintiff was being discriminated and that is prohibited by the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The lawsuit against the company is based around the claim that the company rejected the applicant’s application for a job due to dress code violations knowing that it had religious significance. The reasoning given by the company was that the applicant did not specifically ask for religious accommodation, therefore there was no discrimination. While it is true that the applicant did not request religious accommodation, head scarves are commonly used for religious reasons in various religions and being ignorant of the fact is not valid argument. Therefore, when the company rejected Ms.Elauf’s application due to her wearing a head scarf, they were discriminating her based on her religious practices. Being ignorant of law is not sufficient excuse either, since the company is supposed to know the laws of the land it is conducting its business in.

In the modern world where globalization has brought the world, and the business world, laws are created to make sure that people are not discriminated for their personal life choices. But sometimes the laws are not interpreted in the same manner by people. For instance, for this lawsuit, the trial court granted the Plaintiff $20000 for the lawsuit, but the appeals court saw the same case and decided that there were no signs of discrimination and overturned the ruling, only for the ruling to be overturned by the Supreme Court. Interpretation of the law is an important part of the business world that must be done in a prudent manner by the courts but also by companies and individuals in order to avoid situations where a wrongdoing does not occur due to ignorance.

Shakil is a student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University.

Snow shoveling always has been a means for young people to learn how to run a business. They learn how to advertise, interact with customers, work for a competitive wage, and learn something about service to the community. All businesses are at the service of others; and, snow shoveling, like delivering newspapers, or running a lemonade stand, give young people a way of learning responsibility.

Governor Christie just signed into law (before a major snowstorm) making it legal for residents to offer snow shoveling services without first applying for a permit. Last year, Bound Brook, New Jersey police stopped two entrepreneurial teens for going door-to-door and offering to shovel snow for a small fee. The police told the boys they were not allowed to solicit businesses without a permit. In Bound Brook, the license costs $450. The case made national headlines.

Republican State Sen. Mike Doherty sponsored the “‘right-to-shovel’” bill, stating it “was incredible that some towns wanted teens to pay expensive licensing fees just to clear snow off driveways.”

“The bill removes only licensing requirements for snow shoveling services, and only applies to solicitations made within 24 hours before a predicted snow storm. Towns with laws prohibiting door-to-door solicitation will be able to enforce those laws in all other circumstances.”

Posted by Daniella Bucci.

The Real Housewives of NJ stars and Montville residents Joe and Teresa Giudice were each sentenced in Newark federal court to 41 months and 15 months in prison, respectively. The couple pleaded guilty in March to conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and three types of bankruptcy fraud. The conspiracy consisted of both Joe and Teresa agreeing to commit the fraud. This white collar offense is inchoate, that is, was complete when the agreement was made. The bankruptcy fraud consisted of the couple failing to disclose assets and used bankruptcy as a screen to get out of the debt they were buried in. It is not surprising that the couple, who each grew up in modest homes,  landed in debt, as we were all exposed to their lavish lifestyle on Bravo TV where they tried to keep up with the Joneses.

The Giudice’s also admitted that they hid assets from bankruptcy creditors and submitted phony loan applications to get some $5 million in mortgages and construction loans. The couple had applied for these loans for over 7 or 8 years, resulting in the banks suffering major losses, one of which faced a $414,000 loss. On top of that, Joe Guidice also pleaded guilty to failing to file a tax return for 2004, and admitted that he didn’t file taxes on income of approximately $1 million between 2004 and 2008. Last but not least, the couple that once believed they were invincible failed to reveal $75,000 worth of assets on a probation form. Teresa, currently serving her time in Danbury Federal Prison in Connecticut, is set to be released on December 23rd of this year. Joe will be sentenced to his 41-month sentence in March.

Daniella is a graduate student in accounting at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

In a recent NJ.com article, expert lawyers in DUI laws revealed how they attack drunk driving charges.  Normally, defense lawyers rely on plea bargaining when a client is charged with a crime. Plea bargaining involves an agreement between a prosecutor and defendant where the defendant will plead to a lesser charge in return for dismissal of other charges or to the original charge in lieu of a lighter sentence. Sometimes it may involve a quid pro quo to the prosecutor for information leading to other crimes. But New Jersey does not allow plea bargaining in DUI cases. As a result, defense lawyers have no choice except to work to dismiss the DUI case entirely or prove the evidence results in a downgrade to a lesser charge.

According to the article, oftentimes, defense lawyers will find a technicality. For example, lawyers will challenge a blood draw (which now under both state and federal law must be preceded by a warrant) by demanding an explanation as to how it was performed. The results can be suppressed if the draw was not done by a physician or nurse, or the area was cleaned with alcohol instead of iodine. Some of the sample must be made available to the defense to conduct their own independent tests; failure to do so may result in suppression.

Blood results corroborated by field sobriety tests is stronger evidence of DUI; however, in cases involving injuries to a driver, field tests are foreclosed, leaving only the blood tests. If challenged, again, the case can be dismissed. Issues can arise from the accident scene itself, which can also result in a dismissal. As stated, warrants are necessary in order to perform a blood draw. According to William Proetta of Edison, a defense lawyer that was interviewed, “[I]f a person doesn’t consent or is unconscious, you need to call in a telephonic warrant. If emergency workers are asking the driver questions, without having Mirandized him, an attorney would argue those statements can’t be used against him.” Telephonic warrants are faster to obtain and are encouraged by the courts.

Breath tests using an Alcotest have a different set of procedures–all of which can be challenged in a suppression motion. Repair and calibration records may be subpoenaed, and failure by the State to do so may result in a dismissal. Officers conducting the test must get two successful readings and change the mouth pieces between each reading. The person must be observed for 20 uninterrupted minutes and cannot regurgitate or vomit, as this will produce a false reading. No cell phones or electronic devices can be present in the room.

Lawyers say there are many other ways to challenge the results. They recommend that people pulled over for a DUI not refuse the test, because refusal is a separate charge. The challenge becomes a little trickier in that they have to show the officer read the driver “the wrong statement” when asking if they will take the test. Also, the driver has to clearly say “No.” not once, but twice, to be considered refusal and ambiguous answers, such as, “‘I don’t know.’” or “‘I want a lawyer.’” are not enough.

Defense lawyers will employ experts, often former police officers who are trained in the Alcotest, to testify as to what the officers should have done. Also, discovery challenges are commonplace. If the prosecutor fails to produce discovery within 30 days, that can result in a dismissal. Dashcam video must produced as well; but that can be a double-edged sword. It can be used to impeach an officer’s testimony, or in the alternative, prove that the defendant in fact could not stand or was slurring his or her words.

A DUI can be proven by an officer’s observations as well, without the aid of other evidence. According to Ernesto Cerimele, a DUI defense lawyer in Newark,

If the officer’s report says the driver reeked of alcohol and admitted to drinking several beers, that still counts . . . . Even if the blood or Alcotest evidence is thrown out, if the officer’s observations of the driver and the ‘totality of the circumstances’ point to a driver being intoxicated, he can still be found guilty. The harder cases to defend against are frequently those where the officer fully documents everything he heard and observed in his police report.

Finally, the case can be dismissed if a trial is delayed beyond 60 days, pursuant to New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts’ guidelines. Based on hardship, inequity and the right under the Sixth Amendment to a speedy trial, a defense lawyer can move for dismissal if the prosecution does not have his or her case ready in time. In one case cited by the article, a prosecutor was given an extra 30 days to produce discovery and failed. That resulted in an immediate dismissal by the judge.

It is now legal for Tesla and other manufacturers of zero-emission cars to sell directly to customers in New Jersey. Tesla’s business model includes selling its battery-driven cars from its boutique stores. One of them is located in Short Hills Mall, Short Hills, NJ.

Customers are free to learn about the vehicles through interactive displays and test drives. Tesla does not want to sell its cars through franchises because they sell mostly gas-powered vehicles. Since most of their revenue comes from gas-powered sales, franchises would not be encouraged to sell zero-emission cars.

Posted by Daniel Lamas.

Just recently, on May 12 in Philadelphia, an Amtrak train derailed and killed eight people and sent over 200 to the hospital. A question everyone is asking is why the train was going that fast and why it curved. Brandon Bostian, who was the engineer, has agreed to be interviewed and many feel that he will be able to answer some important questions.

Bostian claims that he has no recollection of the accident and denies a lot of claims made about the way he operated the train. It was proven that Bostian was going 106 miles per hour when the train should have only been going at 50 miles per hour. Bostian has refused to talk about that part of the case, as he has a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, and has only said that by the time he tried to pull the safety brakes, it was too late. Bostian has already gotten a lawyer and is prepared if he is sued. Even though there are not yet any charges against Bostian, he knows that he must prepare himself for what is to come. Mayor Michael Nutter said, “He doesn’t have to be interviewed if he doesn’t want to at this particular stage. . . . That’s kind of how the system works.”

Daniel is a business management and merchandising major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.