VOLUNTEER LEGAL INTERNS NEEDED- PUBLIC DEFENDER OF METUCHEN

VOLUNTEER LEGAL INTERNS NEEDED- PUBLIC DEFENDER OF METUCHEN

The Public Defenders provide Indigent individuals charged with criminal or serious motor vehicle charges with free or limited cost legal defense. The Public Defender of Metuchen welcomes persons to serve as volunteer interns. Volunteer Law Clerk interns will attend Wednesday evening and every other Friday morning court sessions.

Volunteer to help indigent people charged with criminal and motor vehicle offenses of magnitude. In additional to time in court, you will be given projects to provide information to the public on updated criminal laws and statutes. Help people less fortunate than you who are down on their luck. This is an unpaid internship helping indigent persons.

Court times: WEDNESDAY 1pm PM [approx]- 8:30 PM, every other Friday 9-12, plus hearing preparation work.

Volunteer Internship Description:

-Interview Clients facing charges in Municipal Court including Drug Possession, Drunk Driving, Assault, Driving While Suspended and other criminal and traffic offenses

-Make demands for Discovery on Prosecutor and review police reports

-Attend hearings and learn from experienced trial attorneys

-Prepare Motions to Suppress Evidence and Motions to Compel Discovery

-Conduct appropriate Legal research

-Acquire skills in Criminal Law and Procedure by active participation

-Participate in Public Relations activities and help organize seminars

- Update Lists of Prosecutors, Judges and Attorneys for publication of

NJ Municipal Court Law Review

- Revise criminal and traffic law Articles and submit to Law Journals and criminal law websites.

- Learn how to add criminal statutes and criminal articles to legal blogs and websites. http://criminal-jury.blogspot.com/

Program lasts 12 weeks. Minimum time commitment September- May is 10 hours per week. Must be over 18 years old and have a car. You can work more hours if you want and more than 12 weeks.

For Summer- College graduates and Law students only. Minimum Volunteer time commitment in summer- 18 hours per week. Send cover letter and resume. After sending resume, call to schedule interview

We are committed to excellence and service to clients and the community. Applicants must have attention to detail. We attempt to give assignments which will be meaningful and memorable but, nevertheless, expect that the volunteers will pitch in on whatever needs to be done.

Interested persons must mail or fax a cover letter indicating the internship they are applying for and resume. If no personal cover letter by student, the resume will not be considered.

PUBLIC DEFENDER OF METUCHEN

Att: Kenneth Vercammen, Esq.

2053 Woodbridge Ave.

Edison, NJ 08817

(Phone) 732-572-0500

(Fax) 732-572-0030

Municipal Court College Seminar December 6, 201

Municipal Court College Seminar

December 6, 2010 Monday

5:30 PM to 9:00 PM

New Jersey Law Center, New Brunswick

A guide to handling municipal court matters in your practice.

This information-packed program is designed for attorneys who do not concentrate in municipal court law, including general practitioners seeking to expand into this practice area & not, novice attorneys looking to create a niche practice. Seasoned municipal court lawyers are certainly more than welcome to join us and brush up on their skills.

You’ll “go back to school” to attend 6 half hour segments and panel discussions that will provide you with a working knowledge of municipal court law basics. You’ll quickly be able to represent clients in a wide range of matters you would normally have had to refer to others. Gain confidence in your ability to handle municipal court law matters. Make an investment in your legal career and register today!

Gain insight and information that will help you represent clients in every aspect of municipal court law, including:
• Initial interview getting retained and dealing with the prosecutor
• Driving while suspended
• Drug cases and DRE
• Assault and miscellaneous
• DWI - Blood
• DWI – Alcotest

KENNETH A. VERCAMMEN, ESQ.

Past Chair, NJSBA Municipal Court Section Past GP Solo Section Attorney of the Year 2006 NJSBA Municipal Court Practitioner of the Year K. Vercammen & Associates (Edison)

JOHN E. HOGAN, ESQ.

Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer, PA (Woodbridge)

JOHN MENZEL, ESQ.

Law Offices of John Menzel (Point Pleasant)

NORMA M. MURGADO, ESQ.

Chief Prosecutor (Elizabeth) Assistant Prosecutor (Woodbridge) Murgado & Carroll, Esq. (Elizabeth)

STEPHEN D. WILLIAMS, ESQ.

Law Offices of Stephen D. Williams (Flemington)

Who should attend:
• Judges & Prosecutors
• General practitioners
• Criminal law practitioners
• Municipal Court law practitioners
• Litigators
• New attorneys
• Members of law enforcement

New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education 
The non-profit continuing education service of: 
The New Jersey State Bar Association Rutgers - The State University of New Jerseys Seton Hall University 
One Constitution Square, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901-1520 
Phone: (732)214-8500 • Fax: (732)249-0383 • CustomerService@njicle.com

NJ CLE INFORMATION: This program has been approved by the Board on Continuing Legal Education of the Supreme Court of New Jersey for 3.5 hours of total CLE credit. Of these, 3.5 qualify as hours of credit toward certification in civil trial law, criminal trial law, workers’ compensation law and/or matrimonial law.

Includes seminar, 400 page book, CD with over 1,000 pages of forms, dinner, coffee, desert Tuition ranges between $145- $189 depending on NJSBA membership Call Phone: (732)214-8500 Seminar # S962-21594

Tuition fees	Reg. Fee
General Tuition (REG)	$189.00
NJICLE Season Tickets (STX)	1 Season Ticket(s)
MEMBERS, NJSBA (NJB)	$155.00
MEMBERS, NJSBA YLD (YLD)	$145.00
Recent admittees (past 2 years) (YL)	$165.00
Paralegals (PAR)	$129.00
Law Students (with Student ID) (STU)	$0.00
Full Time Judges (JUD)	$0.00

This program has been approved for 3.5 credits (50 minute hour)

DOOR REGISTRATIONS: $209

Advance registration closes at noon of the day preceding the program. After that time you may still register, space permitting, for the Door Registration Fee.

CAN'T ATTEND?

2010 MUNICIPAL COURT COLLEGE Up to 12 of your 24 New Jersey MCLE credits can be earned via Audio CDs, Webinars & MP3s. Order your audio package and earn New Jersey MCLE credits at your convenience.

http://KennethVercammen.com/MUNICIPAL.COURT.COLLEGE.html

KENNETH VERCAMMEN & ASSOCIATES, PC

ATTORNEY AT LAW

2053 Woodbridge Ave.

Edison, NJ 08817

(Phone) 732-572-0500

(Fax) 732-572-0030

website: www.njlaws.com

STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. ALNESHA MINITEE AND DARNELL BLAND A-5002-06T4/A-6213-06T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. ALNESHA MINITEE AND
STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. DARNELL BLAND A-5002-06T4/A-6213-06T4 (consolidated)08-16-10


In these back-to-back appeals concerning the warrantless
search of a motor vehicle, we harmonize the seemingly
inconsistent holdings in State v. Martin, 87 N.J. 561 (1981) and
State v. Pena-Flores, 198 N.J. 6 (2009), by finding that the
exigent circumstances that existed at the scene only permitted
the police to seize the vehicle. Under our State's
Constitution, once impounded, the police were required to obtain
a warrant before searching the vehicle.

State v. Wendell Mann (A-56-09)

State v. Wendell Mann (A-56-09)8-4-10

The trial court fairly concluded that the police had
reasonable and articulable suspicion to support an
investigatory stop of defendant and that the seizure
of drugs from both locations was lawful.

State in the Interest of A.S. (A-58/59-09)

State in the Interest of A.S. (A-58/59-09) 7-29-10

Upon consideration of the totality of the
circumstances, A.S.’s confession was not knowingly,
intelligently, and voluntarily given. In addition,
the confession by far was the most damning piece of
evidence against A.S. and thus the court cannot say
that there was no reasonable possibility that its
introduction into evidence contributed to the
delinquency adjudication, and so, in the particular
circumstances presented in this case, the Court is
constrained to reverse A.S.’s conviction and remand
for new proceedings.

State v. Richard Clarke (A-11-09) State v. William T. Dolan (A-12-09

State v. Richard Clarke (A-11-09) State v. William T. Dolan (A-12-09)7-21-10

An informal hearing is sufficient for the Drug Court to give full and fair consideration to a defendant’s application for admission into the Drug Court program. However, because it is not clear whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard for admission under the “second track” of the requirements, each case is remanded for further proceedings.

State v. Eugene Basil (A-34-09)

State v. Eugene Basil (A-34-09) 7-20-10

The on-scene identification by a citizen informant and
corroborative discovery of the weapon gave officers
probable cause to arrest defendant and, therefore,
defendant’s volunteered statement to police should not
have been suppressed as the product of an unlawful
arrest. In addition, the members of the Court being
equally divided, the judgment of the Appellate
Division is affirmed, holding that the non-appearing
witness’s testimonial hearsay statement was
inadmissible under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation
Clause. The admission of the statement had the clear
capacity to cause an unjust result and was not
harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt

State v. Alice O’Donnell (A-54-09)

State v. Alice O’Donnell (A-54-09) 7-20-10

The judgment of the Appellate Division, which upheld
the trial court’s denial of defendant Alice
O’Donnell’s motion to suppress evidence, is affirmed
substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge
Skillman’s opinion.

State v. Alice O’Donnell (A-54-09)

State v. Alice O’Donnell (A-54-09) 7-20-10

The judgment of the Appellate Division, which upheld
the trial court’s denial of defendant Alice
O’Donnell’s motion to suppress evidence, is affirmed
substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge
Skillman’s opinion.

State v. German Marquez (A-35-09)

State v. German Marquez (A-35-09)
7-12-10 S

In this case involving a conviction for refusing to
submit to a chemical breath test, the Court holds that
New Jersey’s implied consent law, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2,
and refusal law, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.4a, require proof
that an officer requested the motorist to submit to a
chemical breath test and informed the person of the
consequences of refusing to do so. The statement used
to explain to motorists the consequences of refusal
must be given in a language the person speaks or
understands. Because defendant German Marquez was State v. German Marquez (A-35-09)

In this case involving a conviction for refusing to
submit to a chemical breath test, the Court holds that
New Jersey’s implied consent law, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2,
and refusal law, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.4a, require proof
that an officer requested the motorist to submit to a
chemical breath test and informed the person of the
consequences of refusing to do so. The statement used
to explain to motorists the consequences of refusal
must be given in a language the person speaks or
understands. Because defendant German Marquez was
advised of these consequences in English, and there is
no dispute that he did not understand English, his refusal conviction is reversed.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. TAMESHA CAMPBELL A-1866-09T4

07-09-10 STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. TAMESHA CAMPBELL A-1866-09T4

We reverse an interlocutory order denying a motion for a
jury trial after a mistrial holding that the declaration of
mistrial nullified defendant's prior waiver of her Sixth
Amendment right to trial by jury.

STATE VS. ENDER F. POMPA (A-0139-08T4 )

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ENDER F. POMPA A-0139-08T4 7-2-10

Following his conviction of various drug offenses,
defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress in
excess of thirty pounds of marijuana seized by police without a
warrant from a closet in the sleeper cabin of defendant's
tractor trailer. The court held that the closely regulated
business exception permitted a warrantless administrative
inspection of certain areas of the tractor trailer, but
concluded that the search turned unlawful when it progressed
into unregulated areas without the exigent circumstances
required by State v. Pena-Flores, 198 N.J. 6, 28 (2009).

Kenneth Vercammen Law Office 25th Anniversary Party Friday, July 30, 2010

Kenneth Vercammen Law Office
25th Anniversary Party
Friday, July 30, 2010


"Celebrating 25 years of providing excellent service to clients and the community"
1985-2010
Happy Hour, Open House, Client & Community Appreciation Social. Open to the public 4-7 PM

Food, Refreshments, T- shirts and special gifts

The Law office is located at 2053 Woodbridge Avenue, Edison, NJ 08817 near the Nixon Post Office, approximately 1/2 mile from Route 1/ Wick Plaza, and 1 mile from Middlesex County College. There is 50 parking spaces nearby on Russell Ave. and Lillian St. around the corner from Kim’s Kafe, on Woodbridge Ave. near the Green Derby Tavern, and across the street on School House Lane.
Visit our website at www.njlaws.com for Directions and other details or call and we will fax directions or email at KenV@njlaws.com

Kenneth Vercammen, Esq. at (732) 572-0500(Law office)
Fax form to 732-572-0030 or email
kenvnjlaws@verizon.net

-Yes, We will be attending the party

Name: _____________________________
email: _____________________________
http://www.kennethvercammen.com/25th.party.html

State v. Tysen R. Privott (A-7-09)

State v. Tysen R. Privott (A-7-09) 6-29-10

Based on the totality of the circumstances, there were
specific and particularized reasons for the officer to
conduct an investigatory stop and to frisk defendant
Tysen R. Privott. However, the officer’s conduct in
lifting defendant’s shirt exceeded the scope of a
reasonable intrusion that is permitted as part of a
Terry stop.

State v. Pablo Carvajal (A-5-09)

State v. Pablo Carvajal (A-5-09) 6-2-10

The State satisfied its burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that the duffel bag was
abandoned. Carvajal denied having any ownership or
possessory interest in the bag, and the police
attempted to identify other potential owners.
Carvajal therefore had no standing to challenge the
warrantless search of the bag.

STATE v. RILEY JEFFERSON (A-1945-06T4)

STATE v. RILEY JEFFERSON a/k/a SYNCERE RILEY JEFFERSON (A-1945-06T4) 5-21-10

(1) In the absence of a warrant or a recognized exception
from the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, the police
could not lawfully enter defendant's home to conduct a Terrytype
detention and investigation of defendant.
(2) A police officer's wedging herself in the doorway to
prevent defendant from closing his front door was entry into the
home.
(3) The police failed to show either "hot pursuit" exigent
circumstances or a community caretaking exception from the
warrant requirement.
(4) Although the police entry was unlawful, defendant had
no right to resist physically, and the search of his person
incident to arrest was lawful.
(5) Consent to search defendant's apartment, given by
defendant's wife, was tainted by the unconstitutional police
conduct and was not shown to be voluntary.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. ORION T. BRABHAM A-3571-07T4 4-30-10

STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. ORION T. BRABHAM A-3571-07T4 4-30-10

Defendant primarily objects to the denial of his motion to
suppress statements he made to New Jersey law enforcement
officers after he was incarcerated for a parole violation in New
York. Accepting the judge's factual findings, we conclude that
the statements, which the judge found were made during a meeting
defendant requested to negotiate a plea, should have been
excluded pursuant to N.J.R.E. 410.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. GERMAINE A. HANDY A-1838-07T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. GERMAINE A. HANDY A-1838-07T4 4-12-10

This appeal required us to determine whether evidence found
during the search incident to defendant's arrest should have
been suppressed because the dispatcher who incorrectly informed
the arresting officer that there was an outstanding arrest
warrant acted unreasonably under the circumstances, even though
the conduct of the arresting officer himself was reasonable.
The warrant at issue, which was ten years old at the time, had
the same birth month, but a different birth day and year. The
first name on the warrant was a variant spelling of defendant’s
first name. We concluded that suppression is required and,
consequently, reversed the convictio

State v. Danny Mai (A-98-09) 5-6-10

State v. Danny Mai (A-98-09) 5-6-10

The officers presented sufficient facts in the
totality of the circumstances that would create in a
police officer a heightened awareness of danger that
would warrant an objectively reasonable officer in
securing the scene in a more effective manner by
ordering the passenger to exit the car. Those same
circumstances authorize a police officer to open a
vehicle door as part of ordering a passenger to exit.
Thus, the seizure of the weapon was proper under the
plain view doctrine, and the seizure of the holster
and loaded magazine from the passenger was lawful as
the fruits of a proper search incident to an arrest.

State of New Jersey v. J.G. (A-44-08)

State of New Jersey v. J.G. (A-44-08) 4-7-10

The cleric-penitent privilege applies when, under the
totality of the circumstances, an objectively
reasonable penitent would believe that a communication
was secret, that is, made in confidence to a cleric in
the cleric’s professional character or role as a
spiritual advisor.

US Supreme Court Cases dealing with criminal law and procedure

US Supreme Court Cases dealing with criminal law and procedure
By Kenneth Vercammen Past Vice Chair ABA Criminal Law Committee General Practice, Solo and Small Firm Division

1. No specific words required for Miranda warnings Florida v. Powell 175 L.Ed 1009 __ S. Ct. ___ (Dec. 7, 2009)

In a state prosecution for possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, a reversal of defendant's conviction on Miranda grounds is reversed where the police satisfied Miranda's requirements by informing defendant that he had "the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of their questions," and that he had "the right to use any of his rights at any time he wanted during the interview.
Advice that a suspect has “the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of [the law enforcement officers’] questions,” and that he can invoke this right “at any time . . . during the interview,” satisfies Miranda.

2 US Supreme Court Rules Lab Report Not Admissible in Criminal Case. Melendez-Diaz v. Mass 129 S.Ct. 2527 (2009)
Defendant's drug conviction is reversed, where the trial court's admission of the prosecution's certificates by laboratory analysts, stating that material seized by police and connected to Defendant was cocaine of a certain quantity, violated petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him.
3 Police May Interrogate Even if Public Defender Assigned. Montejo v. Louisiana 129 S. Ct. 2079 (2009)

Michigan v. Jackson, which forbids police from initiating interrogation of a criminal defendant once he has invoked his right to counsel at an arraignment or similar proceeding, is overturned. Source: New Jersey Law Journal June 1, 2009

4. School Officials Cannot Search Child’s Underwear for Drugs. Safford Unified School. Dist. No. 1. v. Redding 129 S.Ct. 2633 (2009)

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging an unlawful search of a student, the denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where the search of Plaintiff's underwear violated the Fourth Amendment because the facts did not give school officials reasonable suspicion to search her underwear.


5. 
US v. Stevens, No. 08–769
 U.S. Supreme Court, April 20, 2010 The Third Circuit's reversal of defendant's conviction under 18 U.S.C. section 48 for selling videos depicting dog fighting is affirmed where section 48 was substantially overbroad, and therefore invalid under the First Amendment, because section 48 explicitly regulated expression based on content and was thus presumptively invalid

5. Padilla v Kentucky ___ S. Ct. _____ No. 08–651. Argued October 13, 2009 —Decided March 31, 2010
Petitioner Padilla, a lawful permanent resident of the United States for over 40 years, faced deportation after pleading guilty to drug-distribution charges in Kentucky. In post conviction proceedings, he claims that his counsel not only failed to advise him of this consequence before he entered the plea, but also told him not to worry about deportation since he had lived in this country so long. He alleges that he would have gone to trial had he not received this incorrect advice The US Supreme Court held Because counsel must inform a client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation, Padilla has sufficiently alleged that his counsel was constitutionally deficient

6. Police can Enter Home Under Emergency Aid Exception Michigan v. Fisher 130 S. Ct 546 U.S. Supreme Court December 07, 2009
 No. 09–91

In an assault prosecution, grant of petitioner's motion to suppress evidence that he pointed a rifle at an officer when he entered his house is reversed where the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment because he was responding to a report of a disturbance and encountered a tumultuous situation in the house, which justified a warrantless search under the emergency aid exception

Some Drug distribution convictions may be expunged under new expungement law

Some Drug distribution convictions may be expunged under new expungement law

2C:52-2. Indictable Offenses.

a.In all cases, except as herein provided, wherein a person has been convicted of a crime under the laws of this State and who has not been convicted of any prior or subsequent crime, whether within this State or any other jurisdiction, and has not been adjudged a disorderly person or petty disorderly person on more than two occasions may, after the expiration of a period of 10 years from the date of his conviction, payment of fine, satisfactory completion of probation or parole, or release from incarceration, whichever is later, present a duly verified petition as provided in section 2C:52-7 to the Superior Court in the county in which the conviction was entered praying that such conviction and all records and information pertaining thereto be expunged.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding paragraph, a petition may be filed and presented, and the court may grant an expungement pursuant to this section, although less than 10 years has expired in accordance with the requirements of the preceding paragraph where the court finds:

(1)less than 10 years has expired from the satisfaction of a fine, but the 10-year time requirement is otherwise satisfied, and the court finds that the person substantially complied with any payment plan ordered pursuant to N.J.S.2C:46-1 et seq., or could not do so due to compelling circumstances affecting his ability to satisfy the fine; or

(2)at least five years has expired from the date of his conviction, payment of fine, satisfactory completion of probation or parole, or release from incarceration, whichever is later; the person has not been convicted of a crime, disorderly persons offense, or petty disorderly persons offense since the time of the conviction; and the court finds in its discretion that expungement is in the public interest, giving due consideration to the nature of the offense, and the applicant's character and conduct since conviction.

In determining whether compelling circumstances exist for the purposes of paragraph (1) of this subsection, a court may consider the amount of the fine or fines imposed, the person's age at the time of the offense, the person's financial condition and other relevant circumstances regarding the person's ability to pay.

Although subsequent convictions for no more than two disorderly or petty disorderly offenses shall not be an absolute bar to relief, the nature of those conviction or convictions and the circumstances surrounding them shall be considered by the court and may be a basis for denial of relief if they or either of them constitute a continuation of the type of unlawful activity embodied in the criminal conviction for which expungement is sought.

b.Records of conviction pursuant to statutes repealed by this Code for the crimes of murder, manslaughter, treason, anarchy, kidnapping, rape, forcible sodomy, arson, perjury, false swearing, robbery, embracery, or a conspiracy or any attempt to commit any of the foregoing, or aiding, assisting or concealing persons accused of the foregoing crimes, shall not be expunged.

Records of conviction for the following crimes specified in the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice shall not be subject to expungement: Section 2C:11-1 et seq. (Criminal Homicide), except death by auto as specified in section 2C:11-5; section 2C:13-1 (Kidnapping); section 2C:13-6 (Luring or Enticing); section 1 of P.L.2005, c.77 (C.2C:13-8) (Human Trafficking); section 2C:14-2 (Aggravated Sexual Assault); section 2C:14-3a (Aggravated Criminal Sexual Contact); if the victim is a minor, section 2C:14-3b (Criminal Sexual Contact); if the victim is a minor and the offender is not the parent of the victim, section 2C:13-2 (Criminal Restraint) or section 2C:13-3 (False Imprisonment); section 2C:15-1 (Robbery); section 2C:17-1 (Arson and Related Offenses); section 2C:24-4a. (Endangering the welfare of a child by engaging in sexual conduct which would impair or debauch the morals of the child); section 2C:24-4b(4) (Endangering the welfare of a child); section 2C:24-4b. (3) (Causing or permitting a child to engage in a prohibited sexual act); section 2C:24:4b.(5)(a) (Selling or manufacturing child pornography); section 2C:28-1 (Perjury); section 2C:28-2 (False Swearing); section 2C:34-1b.(4) (Knowingly promoting the prostitution of the actor's child); section 2 of P.L.2002, c.26 (C.2C:38-2) (Terrorism); subsection a. of section 3 of P.L.2002, c.26 (C.2C:38-3) (Producing or Possessing Chemical Weapons, Biological Agents or Nuclear or Radiological Devices); and conspiracies or attempts to commit such crimes.

Records of conviction for any crime committed by a person holding any public office, position or employment, elective or appointive, under the government of this State or any agency or political subdivision thereof and any conspiracy or attempt to commit such a crime shall not be subject to expungement if the crime involved or touched such office, position or employment.

c.In the case of conviction for the sale or distribution of a controlled dangerous substance or possession thereof with intent to sell, expungement shall be denied except where the crimes involve:

(1)Marijuana, where the total quantity sold, distributed or possessed with intent to sell was 25 grams or less;

(2)Hashish, where the total quantity sold, distributed or possessed with intent to sell was five grams or less; or

(3)Any controlled dangerous substance provided that the conviction is of the third or fourth degree, where the court finds that expungement is consistent with the public interest, giving due consideration to the nature of the offense and the petitioner's character and conduct since conviction.

d.In the case of a State licensed physician or podiatrist convicted of an offense involving drugs or alcohol or pursuant to section 14 or 15 of P.L.1989, c.300 (C.2C:21-20 or 2C:21-4.1), the court shall notify the State Board of Medical Examiners upon receipt of a petition for expungement of the conviction and records and information pertaining thereto.