Life is getting rougher on the cheating husband or wife, and divorce cases may just see an uptick. Technology has made it easier for a private investigator to catch a disloyal spouse in the act (of doing something disloyal), and the New Jersey Courts say that using a G.P.S. or global positioning system is legal.

A New Jersey judge recently ruled that it is not a violation of a person's right to privacy for a private investigator or suspicious spouse to install a GPS tracking device in a person's car. Private investigators can now freely employ this tactic to determine the whereabouts of cheating spouses, as well as to track debtors, suspects of insurance fraud, and more.

It is very likely the court would not have ruled this way if the police implanted, placed or installed the GPS device. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects Americans from unlawful searches and seizures. The law stipulates that police must obtain a search warrant based on probable cause before invading an individual's privacy. The reason that this right governs the police but does not extend to the private investigator is because the United States Constitution only protects Americans from those acting on behalf of the government, such as the police. It does not protect Americans from private citizens. The police would not be able to implant a GPS tracking device on your vehicle that they could use to track you without a warrant.

If you were charged criminally and the police have searched your private residence or workplace without a warrant you should contact a criminal lawyer immediately. Further, if you are the subject of any legal action based upon information gathered from such a GPS device, it would also be in your best interests to consult a lawyer to determine the strongest legal strategy.

A man has been arrested for stealing over half a million dollars worth of jewelry from properties along the Navesink, among them, Jon Bon Jovi's wife's jewelry! Police have reported that the Beachwood man, only 21 years old, robbed a large handful of mansions and estates on Navesink River Road, and ultimately was caught by tripping an alarm in one of them. Also among the burglary victims is former head of American Eagle Outfitters, George Kolber, and a Middletown ophthalmologist.

The Defendant, Nicholas Tracy, is charged with three counts of second-degree theft and four counts of third-degree burglary. He is in jail with a hefty bail set at $100,000.00, and he was not given the option to post 10% as an alternative. This young man is in very deep, hot water and some would say gutsy, in foolish, wrongheaded, stupid sort of way for a 21 year old. It is unknown as to whether or not he was aware of the fact that he was stealing from the home of one of New Jersey's all time most beloved celebrities. The details of the reports don't seem to suggest that this inconvenient coincidence contributed to his getting caught.

Celebrity status of a victim aside, the Defendant stole a significant amount of worth of valuables in this case. Burglary, in its simplest definition, means breaking into the dwelling of another with the intent to commit a crime. Here, breaking into another's home to "steal" items fits the definition. One factor weighing in the Defendant's favor would be if he did not yet unload or sell the jewelry. If he still had the stolen property in his possession, then making restitution to the victims would be easier. Restitution is basically where the defendant makes a payment or returns stolen items to the victims or true owners. Many times, restitution is the key to resolving the case in a more favorable manner for the defendant. If a defendant is able to return an expensive item, such as jewelry, he is more likely to receive a lesser sentence. If he has already pawned the times, usually for less than they are worth, if the items were pawned for cash, and if he spent the cash with no way to repay it, the legal penalty will tend to be more severe.

His defense attorney should do whatever he can to sway the Court, and the victims, that he is a young man who has lost his way, and that with some support, he can alter his path, (hopefully) repay the members of the wealthy community he targeted, learn his lesson without posing any further threat to society. The details would have to support this position in some way, but any attorney would consider using his relative youth as a legal strategy. Of course, he is not a minor, and this young adult would have to be extremely remorseful for his crime.

One pound of most things is not a lot. A person can lose a pound in a day fairly easily, and gain one as well. But 585 grams, just over ½ of a kilogram or approximately one pound, when it comes to a controlled substance, is all it takes to get yourself in very, very hot water. Two nineteen year old men are certainly in some trouble for allegedly being found with an open container of alcohol, underage drinking, and interestingly, exactly 585 grams of marijuana while in their car in Brick, New Jersey.

Let's be clear: when it comes to pot, there are really only two options. The first is possession of under 50 grams, in which the charge is a disorderly persons offense (non-indictable, although you will be arrested, booked, and arraigned). The second is possession of over 50 grams. This one, considered intent to distribute, is, according to N.J.S.A 2C:35-10, a crime of the fourth degree, and can carry with it a fine of up to $25,000.00. It gets even better: possess drugs within 1,000 feet of a school zone, and if you're not imprisoned (as defined by the penal code), you'll have a mandatory 100 hours of community service you'll have to complete.

When it comes to determining whether or not there was intent to distribute, the factor most largely examined by the court is the amount of the drug that was seized by police. Someone caught with 30 grams of pot is more likely to convince a judge that it was for personal use than say, someone caught with 585 grams (about one pound). Some even try to argue that their 200+ grams of marijuana in the freezer bag in their desk drawer is for personal use, and that they just prefer to "stock up". Your personal preference of keeping a full stash is simply not persuasive or relevant for legal purposes.

In a Court of law, even with an attorney, that approach will not work. In fact, the New Jersey law allows an individual to possess a relatively large amount of marijuana, 50 grams. It's extremely unlikely that someone who possesses over two ounces of pot would have it and keep it to avoid the inconvenience of seeing their distributor or dealer once a week.

The bottom line? Possession of pot in excess of 50 grams will get someone in a whole lot more trouble than an amount under 50. So if police find you in possession of any pot/marijuana or any controlled substance, call a lawyer, obtain legal counsel, retain an attorney immediately. A good attorney will examine the details of your case, including method of arrest, search, seizure, and measured amount of controlled substance, among other aspects that might affect your welfare and determine the most appropriate legal strategy for your defense.

Police have reportedly just made the second largest drug bust in upstate New York, finding a young co-ed with a LOT of heroin. Keri Blakinger, a 26 year old senior at Cornell University, was arrested holding over 6 ounces of heroin, in a Collegetown hotel-motel. It is suggested that she was holding 500 uncut doses or $150,000.00 worth of the drug. Her former boyfriend has a history of drug charges in the area. Columbia, Brown and the other Ivy League universities all have drugs on or around their campuses, but this large amount is thankfully not common. It is unfortunate that the opportunities afforded to someone who earns an Ivy League degree will be lost on this student, and a tragic waste. Instead, she will be tested by the legal and, likely, penal system instead of the educational system.

Though the college student is described as holding $150,000.00 worth of heroin, the New Jersey laws regarding drugs or narcotics use weight in ounces rather than "street value" to measure the severity of the crime committed. If Keri had been in a New Jersey jurisdiction, she would be subject to various drug offenses. If the amount a defendant is charged with holding is greater than 5 ounces, the crime constitutes a first-degree crime, and carries with a possible 10-20 years in prison. The crime "intent to distribute" does not actually mean that the state would be required by the Court to prove that the person was a real "drug dealer" by trade or day-to-day profession. The way the law is written, it assumes that if someone has so much of a drug, he or she must be planning on selling it. It isn't something that people typically stockpile for use alone.

If you are, or anyone close to you is accused of possessing any amount of illegal drug, an experienced attorney should be retained in order to determine the best possible strategy to protect your rights. A skilled defense attorney can examine the facts and identify where the state's case might be fall short in terms of sufficient evidence and of burdens of proof, as required by law.

Braylon Edwards, it was reported recently, upon being pulled over in the early morning hours for having overly tinted windows, was charged with drinking and driving. In response, he first suggested that perhaps he might just leave the car and head on home (really?), then questioned the legality of police procedure which stopped him for the windows only to discover that he had been drinking, without performing a field sobriety test.

Putting Edwards' off the cuff analysis aside, there are two issues here regarding his legal situation. Firstly, he is on probation in Ohio connected to aggravated disorderly conduct charges. It is unknown whether his Ohio probation will be affected by a DUI arrest in New York. In New Jersey, for example, the DUI charge is under Title 39, which governs motor vehicles. It is not a violation of the criminal code unless there is an injury. Thus, it would be doubtful that it could be a legal setback his most recent charges occurred in New Jersey. DUI is a serious offense, however, and has been treated with appropriate gravity by the Courts in recent years, so it is possible that Edward's actions could have some impact on his probation where discretion is permitted.

Secondly, the overly tinted windows caused the police to stop Edwards. The police cannot arbitrarily pull over drivers, however if a car has very tinted windows, which are illegal, they can lead to a police stop, and the noticeable odor of alcohol provides the police officer probable cause to inquire about the driver's level of intoxication, and subsequently, to request that a driver step out of the vehicle.

If you are trying to stay out of trouble, drive a vehicle that will stay under the radar, and attract no attention. Perhaps professional athletes are not familiar with this approach to life. According to reports, should he receive up to a year in prison, he may find it harder to go unnoticed among fellow inmates. Further, spontaneous legal analysis of police behavior is ill-advised, and best left to the skilled attorney that you should immediately consult should you find yourself in any similar situation.

A car is parked on the side of a highway with the internal light on and its occupants in a heated discussion of some sort. A police officer appears at the driver's side to check on the situation and make sure they do not need help. After being assured by both driver and passenger that they are fine and in no need of help, the officer smells what he believes to be alcohol on the driver's breath, and requests that he exit the vehicle for the purposes of a field sobriety test. Is this test respectful of the driver's constitutional rights? Is this test a warranted attempt to protect all the other vehicles on the road?

An experienced lawyer would tell you that according to the New Jersey courts, the oral aroma or odor of alcohol alone is not sufficient to sustain the probable cause necessary for questioning and sobriety testing. The New Jersey Appellate Division, in State v. Hawkins, A-7400-97T5F (1999), held that the smell of alcohol on an individual's breath is insufficient to provide probable cause for the officer's belief that the driver was operating his vehicle under the influence of alcohol in the absence of any untoward driving or other indication of insobriety. In the Hawkins case, the defendant was stopped for a community caretaking reason when the officer heard a scream emit from the vehicle. There was no evidence of unsafe or illegal operation of the car. The only indication to the officer that the defendant had consumed alcohol that evening was the odor on his breath.

The New Jersey Appellate Division again addressed this issue in State v. Jones, 326 N.J.Super. 234, 245-6 (App.Div. 1999), stating that, "The nervousness of the driver, considering the fact of the stop itself, along with his consumption of alcohol, is expected. The mere smell of alcohol and admission of consumption may not, by itself, warrant a sobriety test...However, justification of the search under these facts would have the effect of permitting a search...of every motor vehicle which is stopped for a minor motor vehicle violation, where the driver admits to having consumed one bottle of beer. Such a search goes beyond the bounds permitted and does not pass constitutional muster." In the Jones case, the driver was stopped by the police officer for failing to use a traffic signal when changing lanes on the New Jersey Turnpike. After the vehicle was stopped and the officer was speaking to the driver, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol on the driver's breath.

So not only must the police officer witness actual operation of a vehicle, he must witness a more than minor moving violation just prior to pulling you over, in order to be paired with detection of alcoholic breathe to create sufficient probable cause for a field sobriety test. Failing to signal before a lane change is too minor. What exactly constitutes a sufficiently serious moving violation for a police officer to legally request to administer a field sobriety test to a driver? Must it be obviously erratic and unsafe driving? What is clear is that alcohol on your breath is not enough. And that passes the sniff test. Reasonably, three sips of a beer could make your breath smell like alcohol, and simultaneously, you might have 6 beers in an hour, chew a couple of Altoids and not emit any oral alcoholic odor. What constitutes a serious enough moving traffic violation to make coincidental alcoholic breath sufficient probable cause to request a field sobriety test is a different legal question for a different post. Either question should be considered by a skilled attorney when defending any DUI/DWI charges, and should be contacted as soon as possible following such an incident.