STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANGELIQUE STUBBS ET AL.

 STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANGELIQUE STUBBS ET AL.
AND STATE VS. JULES L. STUBBS ET AL.
 A-1199-10T2/A-2942-10T2(CONSOLIDATED)

Husband and wife, Jules and Angelique Stubbs, were
convicted of various CDS-related offenses. As to the wife,
we remand for a hearing as to the admissibility of the form
United States Currency Seizure Report, which she signed,
pertaining to $4831 in cash seized from defendants' home
along with a substantial quantity of drugs. The State
argued that the wife, by signing the form, claimed
ownership of the cash, which demonstrated she joined in her
husband's drug-related activities. We conclude the form
must be viewed as an adoptive admission under N.J.R.E.
803(b)(2); and, since the form was a statement of a
criminal defendant, N.J.R.E. 803(b), the State as proponent
was required to show, in a preliminary hearing pursuant to
N.J.R.E. 104(c), that the statement was admissible. To do
so, the State must show the wife was aware of and
understood the contents of the allegedly adopted statement,
and she unambiguously assented to it. We order a new trial
for the wife only if the trial court determines on remand
that the form was not properly admitted as an adoptive
admission. 11-07-13

State v. William O’Driscoll (A-7-12; 070438)

State v. William O’Driscoll (A-7-12; 070438)

The police officer’s errors in the reading of the standard statement informing defendant of the consequences of refusing to provide a breath sample were not material in light of the statutory purpose to inform motorists and impel compliance. The officer’s misstatements could not have reasonably affected defendant’s choice to refuse to provide a breath sample, and do not require reversal of defendant’s conviction for refusal. 9-18-13

State v. Sowell (A-27-11; 068245)

The expert’s opinion regarding the exchange of narcotics was improper because it related to a straightforward factual allegation that was not beyond the understanding of the average juror, and because the expert referred to facts not contained in the hypothetical question. Under the plain error standard, however, defendant’s conviction is affirmed based on the overwhelming evidence of his guilt. 1-14-13

PROFESSIONAL OFFICE SPACE IS AVAILABLE IN EDISON LAW OFFICE

PROFESSIONAL OFFICE SPACE IS AVAILABLE IN EDISON LAW OFFICE

2053 Woodbridge Ave.

Edison, NJ 08817

Excellent space for an Attorney, Financial Planners, Accountant, Insurance Agents, and other Business Professionals as a 2nd location or location to meet clients in Edison.

The offices are located on the 1st floor of the building.

2 rooms office  

office room # 6 approx 12.4 x 9.4       

and front room appr 8 x 9 -office room # 5

plus use of reception room  16.6 x 7.2

and use of storage area in basement

         

$600 per month  [was $700]

Call 732-572-0500

    Owner of building is local attorney, Kenneth Vercammen who handles Personal Injury, Elder Law, and Criminal Law. 

The investigation of a home based on dog sniff was an illegal “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

FLORIDA v. JARDINES

certiorari to the supreme court of florida

---

No. 11–564. Argued October 31, 2012—Decided March 26, 2013

---

Police took a drug-sniffing dog to Jardines’ front porch, where the dog gave a positive alert for narcotics. Based on the alert, the officers obtained a warrant for a search, which revealed marijuana plants; Jardines was charged with trafficking in cannabis. The Supreme Court of Florida approved the trial court’s decision to suppress the evidence, holding that the officers had engaged in a Fourth Amendment search unsupported by probable cause.

Held: The investigation of Jardines’ home based on dog sniff was an illegal “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 3–10.

(a) When “the Government obtains information by physically intruding” on persons, houses, papers, or effects, “a ‘search’ within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment” has “undoubtedly occurred.” United States v. Jones, 565 U. S. ___, ___, n. 3. Pp. 3–4.

(b) At the Fourth Amendment’s “very core” stands “the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreason-able governmental intrusion.” Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505. The area “immediately surrounding and associated with the home”—the curtilage—is “part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes.” Oliver v. United States, 466 U. S. 170. The officers entered the curtilage here: The front porch is the classic exemplar of an area “to which the activity of home life extends.” Id., at 182, n. 12. Pp. 4–5.

(c) The officers’ entry was not explicitly or implicitly invited. Offi-cers need not “shield their eyes” when passing by a home “on public thoroughfares,” California v. Ciraolo, 476 U. S. 207, but “no man can set his foot upon his neighbour’s close without his leave,” Entick v. Carrington, 2 Wils. K. B. 275, 291, 95 Eng. Rep. 807, 817. A police officer not armed with a warrant may approach a home in hopes of speaking to its occupants, because that is “no more than any private citizen might do.” Kentucky v. King, 563 U. S. ___, ___. But the scope of a license is limited not only to a particular area but also to a specific purpose, and there is no customary invitation to enter the curtilage simply to conduct a search. Pp. 5–8.

(d) It is unnecessary to decide whether the officers violated Jardines’ expectation of privacy under Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347. Pp. 8–10.

73 So. 3d 34, affirmed.

Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Kagan, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Ginsburg and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy and Breyer, JJ., joined.

US Supreme Court requires warrant before taking of blood in DWI Missouri v McNeely

US Supreme Court requires warrant before taking of blood in DWI Missouri v McNeely __ S. Ct. ___ Decided April 17, 2013 Docket No. 11–1425

Respondent McNeely was stopped by a Missouri police officer for speeding and crossing the centerline. After declining to take a breath test to measure his blood alcohol concentration (BAC), he was arrested and taken to a nearby hospital for blood testing. The officer never attempted to secure a search warrant. McNeely refused to consent to the blood test, but the officer directed a lab technician to take a sample. McNeely’s BAC tested well above the legal limit, and he was charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI). He moved to suppress the blood test result, arguing that taking his blood without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The trial court agreed, concluding that the exigency exception to the warrant requirement did not apply because, apart from the fact that McNeely’s blood alcohol was dissipating, no circumstances suggested that the officer faced an emergency. The State Supreme Court affirmed, relying on Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, in which this Court upheld a DWI suspect’s warrantless blood test where the officer “might reasonably have believed that he was confronted with an emergency, in which the delay necessary to obtain a warrant, under the circumstances, threatened ‘the destruction of evidence,’ ” id., at 770. This case, the state court found, involved a routine DWI investigation where no factors other than the natural dissipation of blood alcohol suggested that there was an emergency, and, thus, the nonconsensual warrantless test violated McNeely’s right to be free from unreasonable searches of his person.

Held: The judgment is affirmed.

358 S. W. 3d 65, affirmed.

Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, II–B, and IV, concluding that in drunk-driving investigations, the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant.  

(a) The principle that a warrantless search of the person is reasonable only if it falls within a recognized exception, see, e.g., United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218, applies here, where the search involved a compelled physical intrusion beneath McNeely’s skin and into his veins to obtain a blood sample to use as evidence in a criminal investigation. One recognized exception “applies when ‘ “the exigencies of the situation” make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that [a] warrantless search is objectively reasonable.’ ” Kentucky v. King, 563 U. S. ___, ___. This Court looks to the totality of circumstances in determining whether an exigency exits. See Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U. S. 398. Applying this approach in Schmerber, the Court found a warrantless blood test reasonable after considering all of the facts and circumstances of that case and carefully basing its holding on those specific facts, including that alcohol levels decline after drinking stops and that testing was delayed while officers transported the injured suspect to the hospital and investigated the accident scene.  

(b) The State nonetheless seeks a per se rule, contending that exigent circumstances necessarily exist when an officer has probable cause to believe a person has been driving under the influence of alcohol because BAC evidence is inherently evanescent. Though a person’s blood alcohol level declines until the alcohol is eliminated, it does not follow that the Court should depart from careful case-by-case assessment of exigency. When officers in drunk-driving investigations can reasonably obtain a warrant before having a blood sample drawn without significantly undermining the efficacy of the search, the Fourth Amendment mandates that they do so. See McDonald v. United States, 335 U. S. 451. Circumstances may make obtaining a warrant impractical such that the alcohol’s dissipation will support an exigency, but that is a reason to decide each case on its facts, as in Schmerber, not to accept the “considerable overgeneralization” that a per se rule would reflect, Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U. S. 385. Blood testing is different in critical respects from other destruction-of-evidence cases. Unlike a situation where, e.g., a suspect has control over easily disposable evidence, see Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U. S. 291, BAC evidence naturally dissipates in a gradual and relatively predictable manner. Moreover, because an officer must typically take a DWI suspect to a medical facility and obtain a trained medical professional’s assistance before having a blood test conducted, some delay between the time of the arrest or accident and time of the test is inevitable regardless of whether a warrant is obtained. The State’s rule also fails to account for advances in the 47 years since Schmerber was decided that allow for the more expeditious processing of warrant applications, particularly in contexts like drunk-driving investigations where the evidence supporting probable cause is simple. The natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood may support an exigency finding in a specific case, as it did in Schmerber, but it does not do so categorically.  

(c) Because the State sought a per se rule here, it did not argue that there were exigent circumstances in this particular case. The arguments and the record thus do not provide the Court with an adequate framework for a detailed discussion of all the relevant factors that can be taken into account in determining the reasonableness of acting without a warrant. It suffices to say that the metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream and the ensuing loss of evidence are among the factors that must be considered in deciding whether a warrant is required.  

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Scalia, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Kagan, concluded in Part III that other arguments advanced by the State and amici in support of a per se rule are unpersuasive. Their concern that a case-by-case approach to exigency will not provide adequate guidance to law enforcement officers may make the desire for a bright-line rule understandable, but the Fourth Amendment will not tolerate adoption of an overly broad categorical approach in this context. A fact-intensive, totality of the circumstances, approach is hardly unique within this Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. See, e.g., Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U. S. 119–125. They also contend that the privacy interest implicated here is minimal. But motorists’ diminished expectation of privacy does not diminish their privacy interest in preventing a government agent from piercing their skin. And though a blood test conducted in a medical setting by trained personnel is less intrusive than other bodily invasions, this Court has never retreated from its recognition that any compelled intrusion into the human body implicates significant, constitutionally protected privacy interests. Finally, the government’s general interest in combating drunk driving does not justify departing from the warrant requirement without showing exigent circumstances that make securing a warrant impractical in a particular case.

Eligibilities issues for Drug Court and Reasons for Rejection

Eligibilities issues for Drug Court and  Reasons for Rejection
(5)the person did not possess a firearm at the time of the present offense and did not possess a firearm at the time of any pending criminal charge; and [NOT ELIGIBLE IF FIREARM]

(6)the person has not been previously convicted on two or more separate occasions of crimes of the first or second degree, other than those listed in paragraph (7); or the person has not been previously convicted on two or more separate occasions, where one of the offenses is a crime of the third degree, other than crimes defined in N.J.S.2C:35-10, and one of the offenses is a crime of the first or second degree; and

(7)the person has not been previously convicted or adjudicated delinquent for, and does not have a pending charge of murder, aggravated manslaughter, manslaughter, kidnapping, aggravated assault, aggravated sexual assault or sexual assault, or a similar crime under the laws of any other state or the United States; and [NOT ELIGIBLE IF PRIOR CONVICTION]
........

(9)no danger to the community will result from the person being placed on special probation pursuant to this section.

NJAC 10A:31-25.17 Orientation

NJAC 10A:31-25.17 Orientation
TITLE 10A. CORRECTIONS  
CHAPTER 31. ADULT COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES  
SUBCHAPTER 25. WORK AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING RELEASE PROGRAM
N.J.A.C. 10A:31-25.17 (2012)
   (a) When the inmate has been accepted into the Work Release Program and the appropriate applications and plans have been completed, the County Work Release Administrator shall provide an orientation to the inmate.

(b) The orientation shall ensure that the inmate is made aware of and has a clear understanding of the rules, regulations and conditions governing the Work Release Program.

(c) The County Work Release Administrator or designee shall also ensure that the employer is made aware of the rules and regulations and of the employer's responsibilities concerning the Work Release Program.

(d) The County Work Release Administrator shall make periodic evaluations of the extent of family needs and of job and vocational training sites to ensure that the rules and regulations governing the Work Release Program are not being violated.

 
HISTORY:

Amended by R.2000 d.332, effective August 7, 2000.

See: 32 New Jersey Register 1894(a), 32 New Jersey Register 2945(a).

NJAC 10A:31-25.16 Custody status

NJAC 10A:31-25.16 Custody status
TITLE 10A. CORRECTIONS  
CHAPTER 31. ADULT COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES  
SUBCHAPTER 25. WORK AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING RELEASE PROGRAM
N.J.A.C. 10A:31-25.16 (2012)
   Inmates approved for outside employment, family care or vocational training under a Work Release Program shall be classified as minimum custody and housed separately from other inmates serving terms in ordinary confinement, if possible.

NJAC 10A:31-25.14 Family Need Release Plan

NJAC 10A:31-25.14 Family Need Release Plan
TITLE 10A. CORRECTIONS  
CHAPTER 31. ADULT COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES  SUBCHAPTER 25. WORK AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING RELEASE PROGRAM
N.J.A.C. 10A:31-25.14 (2012)

   (a) A detailed Family Need Release Plan (Form CWR-6 Family Need Release Plan) shall be prepared by the County Work Release Administrator with a copy to the inmate outlining the following:

1. The nature of need;

2. The location of where family need is to be served;

3. The dates and times of leaving and returning to the adult county correctional facility;

4. The times of arrival and departure from the family need site;

5. The mode of transportation; and

6. Other pertinent data including responsibility for paying costs, such as transportation, meals, etc.

 
HISTORY:

Amended by R.2000 d.332, effective August 7, 2000.

See: 32 New Jersey Register 1894(a), 32 New Jersey Register 2945(a).

NJAC 10A:31-25.12 Statement of disbursements

NJAC 10A:31-25.12 Statement of disbursements
TITLE 10A. CORRECTIONS  
CHAPTER 31. ADULT COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES  
SUBCHAPTER 25. WORK AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING RELEASE PROGRAM
N.J.A.C. 10A:31-25.12 (2012)  
   (a) An inmate participating in the Work Release Program shall receive a statement on Form CWR-4, Statement of Disbursements, itemizing deductions made from each pay check within two weeks of the county's receipt of the paycheck.

(b) The statement shall report all income and expenses and accurately reflect the statement of the inmate's account for the period covered.

 
HISTORY:

Amended by R.2000 d.332, effective August 7, 2000.

See: 32 New Jersey Register 1894(a), 32 New Jersey Register 2945(a).

NJAC 10A:31-25.11 Disbursement of wages

NJAC 10A:31-25.11 Disbursement of wages 
TITLE 10A. CORRECTIONS  
CHAPTER 31. ADULT COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES  
SUBCHAPTER 25. WORK AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING RELEASE PROGRAM
N.J.A.C. 10A:31-25.11 (2012) NJAC 10A:31-25.11 Disbursement of wages 

   (a) An inmate participating in the Work Release Program shall submit his or her salary, wages or stipend, in the form that it is paid (cash or check), to the County Work Release Administrator who shall, in accordance with N.J.S.A. 30:4-91.4 and applicable provisions of related State statutes, make payments from these earnings for:

1. Money advances made to purchase or redeem work clothes, travel clothes and/or work tools;

2. The cost of work transportation and cash advanced for miscellaneous daily expenses while outside the adult county correctional facility;

3. Payment of cost for board which shall be charged for each day that the inmate is participating in the Work Release Program;

4. Court costs and fines;

5. Medical and dental fees;

6. Prescription or nonprescription drugs or medicine fees;

7. Legally ascertained support of dependents after written notice to the appropriate welfare board; and/or

8. Payment on debts and legal obligations acknowledged by the inmate in writing and filed with the County Work Release Administrator on such forms as the Administrator shall specify.

(b) Every effort shall be made to secure full payment of advances as soon as possible. Except in the most unusual situations, full repayment shall be obtained no later than the second full pay.

(c) Any balance of earnings remaining after payment of items in (a) above shall be retained as required by N.J.S.A. 30:8-49(4), and paid to the inmate when he or she is discharged.

(d) Staff from each county shall develop a written system whereby each inmate participating in the Work Release Program shall pay a fair percentage of his or her earnings for board. The daily per capita rate for the payment of board shall not include any part of the costs arising from the administration of the Work Release Program.

 
HISTORY:

Amended by R.2000 d.332, effective August 7, 2000.

See: 32 N.J.R. 1894(a), 32 N.J.R. 2945(a).

In (a), inserted N.J.S.A. reference in the introductory paragraph, inserted 5 and 6, and recodified former 5 and 6 as 7 and 8.

Amended by R.2006 d.59, effective February 6, 2006.

See: 37 N.J.R. 3201(a), 38 N.J.R. 995(a).

NJAC 10A:31-25.10 Work Release Plan

NJAC  10A:31-25.10 Work Release Plan
TITLE 10A. CORRECTIONS  
CHAPTER 31. ADULT COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES  
SUBCHAPTER 25. WORK AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING RELEASE PROGRAM
N.J.A.C. 10A:31-25.10 (2012)
   (a) The County Work Release Administrator and the inmate shall prepare a detailed Work Release Plan (Form CWR-3 Approved Work Release Plan). The plan shall include information concerning the job, transportation and a statement authorizing the County Work Release Administrator to make disbursements from earnings.

(b) The information concerning the job placement shall include, but is not limited to:

1. The name of employer;

2. The address of employer;

3. The telephone number of employer;

4. The location of work site;

5. The hourly or other rate of pay;

6. Work days and hours;

7. A plan for overtime or shift work, if necessary; and

8. An evaluation of the job offer by the County Work Release Administrator.

(c) Each Work Release Plan shall contain a written detailed Transportation Plan. The Transportation Plan shall include, but is not limited to:

1. The dates and times of leaving and returning to the adult county correctional facility;

2. The times of arrival and departure from the job;

3. The method of transportation (for example, facility vehicle, public, private conveyance);

4. The daily cost of transportation;

5. The routes of travel; and

6. A procedure to be used when there are unexpected changes in travel arrangements, such as extended work conditions, delays caused by breakdowns, etc.

(d) If the Transportation Plan calls for the use of a private conveyance as the method of transportation, the County Work Release Administrator should ensure that the appropriate licensing, vehicle registration and insurance coverage are provided. Copies of these documents shall be contained in the inmate's file.

(e) The Transportation Plan should be flexible so as to allow for normal problems anticipated in daily travel. Generally, travel time to and from a job should not exceed one hour each way.

(f) The final section of the Work Release Plan shall include information on the disbursement of wages.

(g) When the Work Release Plan is completed and reviewed by the County Work Release Administrator, the inmate shall be asked to read and indicate his or her acceptance of the provisions of the Work Release Plan by signing it.

(h) The employer shall receive a copy of the approved Work Release Plan by certified mail, return receipt requested, along with a copy of the court's order placing the inmate in outside employment. The inmate shall also receive a copy of the Work Release Plan.

 
HISTORY:

Amended by R.2000 d.332, effective August 7, 2000.

See: 32 New Jersey Register 1894(a), 32 New Jersey Register 2945(a).

NJAC 10A:31-25.9 Notice to inmate

NJAC 10A:31-25.9 Notice to inmate
TITLE 10A. CORRECTIONS  
CHAPTER 31. ADULT COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES  
SUBCHAPTER 25. WORK AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING RELEASE PROGRAM
N.J.A.C. 10A:31-25.9 (2012)  

   Form CWR-2 Notification of Admission to Work Release with Specified Conditions shall be used by the County Work Release Administrator to notify the inmate of the court's decision on the inmate's application.

NJAC 10A:31-25.8 Job site evaluation

NJAC 10A:31-25.8 Job site evaluation
TITLE 10A. CORRECTIONS  
CHAPTER 31. ADULT COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES  
SUBCHAPTER 25. WORK AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING RELEASE PROGRAM
N.J.A.C. 10A:31-25.8 (2012)
   (a) The County Work Release Administrator shall be responsible for evaluating all prospective places of employment of inmates in accordance with N.J.S.A. 30:4-91.3 et seq.

(b) Whenever possible, work release employment shall be related to prior vocational training, work experience and/or the institutional training of the inmate.

(c) The following shall initially be taken into account when evaluating the job site:

1. Working conditions of employees;

2. Potential hazards to health of employees;

3. Credibility of the employer;

4. Verification of a fair rate of pay, not less than minimum wage;

5. Coverage of an appropriate workers' compensation plan;

6. Availability of transportation;

7. Duration of the offered employment and benefits; and

8. Proximity to the adult county correctional facility.

(d) Inmates shall not be placed in Work Release Program assignments which will result in the displacement of workers employed in the community.

(e) Representatives of local union central bodies or similar labor union organizations shall be consulted about the placement of inmates with an employer, when appropriate.

(f) If suitable private outside employment cannot be found for an inmate, the inmate may be employed by the county at a fair wage and reasonable hours of work.

 
HISTORY:

Amended by R.2000 d.332, effective August 7, 2000.

See: 32 New Jersey Register 1894(a), 32 New Jersey Register 2945(a).

NJAC 10A:31-25.7 Application for admission to the Work Release Program

NJAC 10A:31-25.7 Application for admission to the Work Release Program
TITLE 10A. CORRECTIONS  
CHAPTER 31. ADULT COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES  
SUBCHAPTER 25. WORK AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING RELEASE PROGRAM
N.J.A.C. 10A:31-25.7 (2012)
   (a) The County Work Release Administrator designated by the governing body of the county or the County Board of Freeholders in accordance with N.J.S.A. 30:8-44 shall be responsible for advising county sentenced inmates that an application may be submitted to the County Work Release Administrator, who shall submit the application to the court for approval or disapproval to participate in the Work Release Program for purposes of employment, vocational training or to care for the offender's family. At any time, a work release order may be revoked by the court that granted the order.

(b) An inmate sentenced by the court to an adult county correctional facility, who desires an opportunity to participate in the Work Release Program by being released to the community for employment, vocational training or meeting family needs shall be required to complete and submit Form CWR-1 Application and Agreement for Assignment Under the Work Release Program to the County Work Release Administrator for submission to the court.

(c) The County Work Release Administrator shall review and evaluate the information collected on each application and make a recommendation to the court concerning admission to the Work Release Program. The basic information shall include, but is not limited to:

1. Prior criminal history;

2. Detailed information concerning present offense;

3. Detailed information regarding untried criminal charges pending and the current status of these charges;

4. Psychological and psychiatric evaluations, when available;

5. Record of violent or assaultive conduct;

6. Record of violation of financial or public trust;

7. Data on family relationships including responsibility to assist in family maintenance;

8. Work history;

9. Personal health;

10. Record of substance abuse; and

11. Information on job opportunities or vocational programs to meet the inmate's needs.

(d) The following facts and circumstances shall be viewed as negative factors when considering an inmate's application for the Work Release Program:

1. A record of association with organized crime;

2. A record of serious emotional or personality disorders;

3. A record of violent or assaultive behavior;

4. Previous violations of financial or public trust;

5. A high degree of public notoriety which would cause adverse reaction if the inmate were released to the community;

6. Indications that release to the community would be contrary to punitive intention of sentence; and

7. A history which indicates a record of convictions for offenses related to controlled dangerous substances (CDS).

 
HISTORY:

Amended by R.2000 d.332, effective August 7, 2000.

See: 32 New Jersey Register 1894(a), 32 New Jersey Register 2945(a).

Amended by R.2006 d.59, effective February 6, 2006.

See: 37 N.J.R. 3201(a), 38 N.J.R. 995(a).

NJAC 10A:31-25.6 Inmates ineligible for Work Release Program

NJAC 10A:31-25.6 Inmates ineligible for Work Release Program TITLE 10A. CORRECTIONS  
CHAPTER 31. ADULT COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES  
SUBCHAPTER 25. WORK AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING RELEASE PROGRAM
N.J.A.C. 10A:31-25.6 (2012)    (a) The following shall make an inmate ineligible for participation in the Work Release Program:

1. Untried detainers for criminal offenses or immigration detainers;

2. Current convictions involving arson offenses;

3. Previous convictions for arson offenses, even if the current conviction is for an offense(s) other than arson; and/or

4. The applicable provisions of related statutes of the State of New Jersey, such as, but not limited to, Michael's Law at N.J.S.A. 39:4-51.

(b) Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 30:8-44.1, no person confined to an adult county correctional facility shall be eligible to participate in any work release or vocational training release program if he or she has been convicted of any of the following:

1. Any crime involving a sexual offense or child molestation as set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:14-1 et seq.;

2. Any crime endangering the welfare of children or incompetents which concerns sexual conduct which would impair or debauch the morals of the child or an incompetent, as set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4 and N.J.S.A. 2C:24-7;

3. Any crime involving the manufacture, transportation, sale or possession, with the intent to sell or distribute, of a "controlled dangerous substance" or a "controlled dangerous substance analog," as defined in the "Comprehensive Drug Reform Act of 1986," P.L. 1987, c.106 (C.2C:35-1 et al.); or

4. Any crime involving the use of force or the threat of force upon a person or property including: armed robbery, aggravated assault, kidnapping, arson, manslaughter and murder.

 
HISTORY:

Amended by R.1995 d.421, effective August 7, 1995.

See: 27 New Jersey Register 1728(a), 27 New Jersey Register 2928(a).

Amended by R.2000 d.332, effective August 7, 2000.

See: 32 New Jersey Register 1894(a), 32 New Jersey Register 2945(a).

In (b), substituted a reference to adult county correctional facilities for a reference to county correctional facilities.

Amended by R.2006 d.59, effective February 6, 2006.

See: 37 N.J.R. 3201(a), 38 N.J.R. 995(a).

NJAC 10A:31-25.5 Placement in a Work Release Program

NJAC 10A:31-25.5 Placement in a Work Release Program

TITLE 10A. CORRECTIONS  
CHAPTER 31. ADULT COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES  
SUBCHAPTER 25. WORK AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING RELEASE PROGRAM
N.J.A.C. 10A:31-25.5 (2012)    A person convicted and sentenced to an adult county correctional facility may be placed in a Work Release Program by order of the court in which such person was convicted, or by the assignment judge of the county in which the sentence was imposed at the time such person is sentenced or at any time thereafter during the term of the sentence.

NJAC 10A:31-25.4 Responsibility for designating County Work Release Administrator

NJAC 10A:31-25.4 Responsibility for designating County Work Release Administrator

TITLE 10A. CORRECTIONS  
CHAPTER 31. ADULT COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES  
SUBCHAPTER 25. WORK AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING RELEASE PROGRAM
N.J.A.C. 10A:31-25.4 (2012)
   (a) Upon adoption of a resolution to implement a Work Release Program, the governing body of the county or the County Board of Freeholders shall designate a County Work Release Administrator who may be the Sheriff, adult county correctional facility Administrator or other persons who shall be responsible for administering the Work Release Program.

(b) The governing body or Board of Freeholders shall promptly notify the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections of the action and name of the designated County Work Release Administrator.