Kearny Nj Cyber Harassment Lawyer
We have been systemically seeing an increase in defendants charged with cyber harassment rather than just regular harassment if the alleged actions involve social media posts or emails. In a recent case our office defended a client against cyber harassment charges related to a business deal gone wrong. Our client was a business professional with a long history in the insurance industry. The case arose when our client signed up for a course to obtain additional certifications in the his field of insurance practice. However, after reading up on the company providing the insurance course he decided to withdraw after reading several negative reviews. The only problem was he had already paid a down payment fee for the course and, as no surprise, the company did not want to refund the money. This started a war of words and several email exchanges of our client calling them crooks for what they had done and threatening to put them on blast on social media and other public forum sites for business reviews. In response to these emails, the representative from the company went to the police and filed a charge for cyber harassment under 2C:33-4.1 which is a crime of the fourth degree. Ironically, the company ended up refunding the money to our client before we even went to court, which arguably was because they were never entitled to keep it in the first place.
Cyber-harassment Charges in Hudson County, NJ
The biggest problem for defendants facing cyber harassment is that it turns a simple internet argument into a fourth degree indictable crime (felony) punishable by up to 18 months in state prison. Moreover since its an indictable crime you will be required to appear in the Hudson County Superior Court – and that’s exactly what happened in this case. After our client was charged and served with the complaint we appeared in superior court for an initial appearance referred to as CJP (Criminal Judicial Processing). Appearing in CJP can be an integral part of handling any indictable case because it is the process where the prosecutor’s office screens the cases by reviewing the facts and determining whether they will keep the case at the superior court or consider remanding it back down to municipal court as a lesser charge. At the time we appeared in CJP, we were able speak with the prosecutor about the disputed facts of the case and how the alleged victim had actually taken advantage of our client. After an extensive conversation, the prosecutor agreed to downgrade our client’s charges and sent the case back down to Kearny municipal court to be further litigated in the coming weeks. A few weeks later, and prior to appearing in Kearny, we followed up with the municipal court to ensure that the alleged victim had been subpoenaed so any issues and disputed facts could be addressed by both parties when we appeared. However, once we arrived in court it became obvious that the victim had not shown up even though he was noticed to be there. Based on his disregard of the court’s subpoena, we made a motion before the judge to dismiss the case for lack of prosecution which was granted. Then after the dismissal, while still in court, we immediately applied our client for an expedited expungement to erase the arrest from his record.
State v. K.M. decided May 24, 2018
At William Proetta Criminal Law, our DUI defense attorneys pride themselves in beating driving while intoxicated charges in New Jersey. DWI defense is a niche area of law that requires a great deal of skill and experience pertaining to standardized field sobriety testing (SFST’s) and the Alcotest (New Jersey’s Breathalyzer). New Jersey has the reputation as being one of the toughest DUI state’s in the entire country. This is because New Jersey does not allow any form of plea bargaining for defendants who have been arrested for drunk driving. Moreover, unlike other states, New Jersey requires a mandatory suspension of your driver’s license for upwards of 1 year even for a first time offender. To make matters worse, our state does not allow for a jury trial on DWI charges so your fate will be left in the hands of the municipal court judge. This means that the best defense is an aggressive offense to attack the State’s case against you and pinpointing weaknesses in the proofs that can be used to create leverage and establish a reasonable doubt.
In the last month alone, our lawyers have achieved some amazing results for our clients, which includes 5 DWI dismissals for five separate clients. This is an impressive feat no matter how you look at it and something that very few of the most experienced New Jersey DUI attorneys can claim, if any. The five DUI dismissals in question even included a client charged with a 2nd offense DWI and another arrested for a Drug DUI. Moreover, it bears mentioning that our attorneys achieved other noteworthy results this past month, including securing a client no jail time on a 3rd offense DWI where she faced a mandatory 6 months incarceration and successfully arguing for a suppression of a 0.19% BAC for another client which secured him a 90 day loss of license where he faced a mandatory suspension of 7 months to 1 year and an ignition interlock device in his vehicle during the time of a suspicion and 6 – 12 months following his suspension.
These results are extraordinary but they are not uncommon for our New Jersey DWI attorneys. If you or your loved one has been arrested for a DWI in New Jersey and you would like to learn more about how we may be able to help you, then contact our office today at (201) 793-8018 for a free consultation with an experienced DUI lawyer.
State v. K.M. (DWI 2nd Offense) Dismissed
State v. I.T. (Drug DWI) Dismissed
State v. N.G. (DWI 1st Offense) Dismissed
State v. M.P. (DWI 1st Offense) Dismissed
State v. R.C. (DWI 1st Offense) Dismissed
State v. V.M. (DWI 3rd Offense) No Jail
State v. K.A. (DWI 1st Offense) 0.19% Reading Suppressed
Our Hudson County criminal defense lawyers recently defended a client who had been arrested outside his residence after committing an alleged car burglary. The whole incident happened after a police officer had allegedly spotted our client peering into car windows and attempting to enter various vehicles parked along the road. The police had been watching this area because in recent weeks there had been several car burglaries with no forced entry reported by residents. After watching him try to gain entry into a second vehicle, the police officer stopped him for questioning. Our client was adamant that he had done nothing wrong and the police was mistaken it what he had witnessed. However, our client was admittedly very intoxicated and a heated exchange between him and the police took place leading up to his arrest. After assessing the evidence, the police decided to charge him with a third degree felony for Burglary under 2C:18-2a and Conspiracy to commit the Burglary under 2C:5-1a(1). These charges carried a sentence of up to 3 – 5 years in state prison and, although our client was a professional, he had already exhausted his Pre-Trial Intervention years earlier while in college so he was not eligible for a diversion program.
Based on the above facts, our client could absolutely not afford a felony conviction or the possibility of incarceration because he would no doubt lose his job. This meant that we had to challenge the evidence against our client in order to achieve a dismissal or substantial downgrade. We first appeared in Hudson County Superior Court where we were able to secure a substantial downgrade of the burglary charge down to a disorderly persons offense of trespass. From there the case was remanded to the municipal court to be prosecuted. Once the case was transferred back to municipal court, we were able to have the case further downgraded to a local town ordinance after speaking with the prosecutor and arresting officers. This was a huge win for our client because the ordinance did not result in a criminal conviction on his record and was only punishable by fine.
State v. G.R. decided on August 16, 2017
The whole incident happened after a marked police car actually witnessed our client crash into 2 parked cars while driving her Honda civic on Kennedy Boulevard. The police officer immediately radioed in the accident and called an ambulance to the scene to assess the condition of the occupants. After a short investigation the police were able to determine that our client (the driver) and the 2 passengers did not have any visible signs of injury and all refused medical attention. This turned out to be great news because any reported injuries would have most likely resulted in upgraded charges of Assault by Auto for drunk driving that results in an accident with injuries.
The police then began to investigate the cause for the accident and soon became suspicious that our client had either been drinking or taking drugs. Based on their suspicions the police began conduct several standardized field sobriety tests including the HGN, Walk &Turn, and One Leg Stand. Based on the results of these tests, our client was arrested for DWI. In the report, the police noted that her eyes were bloodshot and glassy and she was swaying, had to grasp for support and had her feet wide apart for balance. Once back at the station our client agreed to take the Alcotest breathalyzer which resulted in a reading of 0.08% which is right above the legal limit. To make matters worse, she was also charged with a DWI in School Zone based on the area where the accident took place, which could have resulted in a 1 – 2 year loss of her license even as a first time offender.
Soon after the incident we were contacted by our client and her family to help her with this matter. Our Union City DWI lawyers immediately went to work by entering a “Not Guilty” plea against the charges she faced and requested all the evidence the prosecutor planned to use against her. After a thorough review of the evidence it became clear that there may be a way to challenge the accuracy of her breathalyzer reading in order to show that it very well could have been a 0.07% in actuality which would get it down below the legal limit. In order to bolster the argument we sent the evidence to an independent expert to review. The expert agreed and wrote up a report that detailed the issue, which in turn, was handed over to the state prosecutor. Based on the arguments that were detailed above, the prosecutor conceded that there was no way to prove his case against our client beyond a reasonable doubt if it were to proceed to trial. In turn, the court found our client not guilty of the DWI and DUI in a school zone. However, based on the accident our client did plead guilty to careless driving which carried only a 30 day loss of her license. If you or your loved one has been charged with a DWI or school zone offense then feel free to give our office a call to discuss the details of your case to learn how we may be able to help you just like the true story above.
State v. C.P. decided on November 20, 2017
Non-U.S. Citizen Avoids Conviction for Criminal Sexual Contact
Our office recently defended a client who was charged with Criminal Sexual Contact under 2C:14-3, a 4th degree indictable crime. Our client had allegedly groped a female passenger on a public bus as she slept next to him. The complaint alleged that the woman woke up in the middle of the defendant molesting her breasts and crouch. Witnesses, who included the bus driver, locked the defendant on the bus until the police could come. The victim claimed that this wasn’t the first time she had problems with our client during the daily bus rides.
Client Secures a Petty Disorderly Persons Offense After Being Denied PTI
Our client was adamant that the incident did not happen the way the charges alleged and would not plead guilty to the felony charge. To complicate things further our client was not a U.S. citizen and here on a work visa, so a felony conviction could result his deportation from the country. In order to avoid a felony conviction, we applied our client for Pre-Trial Intervention but the County Prosecutor’s Office denied his admission based on the nature of the crime and the victim’s strong opposition against it. We then began to challenge that state’s evidence against our client in preparation of future litigation down the line. Based on the issues our attorneys were able to raise, the prosecutor agreed to downgrade the fourth degree felony Criminal Sexual Contact to a petty disorderly persons offense of Disorderly Conduct with no probation or incarceration. Our client consulted with an immigration attorney and felt confident that the downgraded charge would not affect his immigration. In the end, our client was able to walk out of court with no felony convictions and only paying a few hundred in fines.
State v. A.K. decided on May 10, 2017