On June 6, 2023, the New Jersey Appellate Division issued State v. Johnson, a valuable published opinion that clarifies the procedures that must be followed under the “vehicle registration search” exception to the warrant requirement. The vehicle registration search exception the warrant requirement authorizes police to enter a lawfully stopped vehicle to conduct a [...]
Last fall Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco announced the Department of Justice’s more aggressive approach to corporate compliance. In her policy speech this week, she highlighted a series of new policies and warned cooperating companies not to slow walk their disclosures, told prosecutors to speed up their investigations and expanded self-reporting programs throughout the [...]
A Federal Restitution Order Leads to Garnishment of the Defendant’s Bank, Retirement and Stock Accounts
Courts uphold federal government’s ability to seize a convicted defendant’s 401(k) accounts to satisfy an Order of Restitution after a conviction at trial or a guilty plea.
In the past, federal agents and prosecutors have sought subpoenas and search warrants that authorize the seizure of every electronic device at the location to be searched – computers, servers, external hard drives and cell phones. This policy has resulted in an exponential growth in seized data.
It’s 6 a.m. or 8 p.m., your doorbell rings and two people are standing outside holding up their badges and credentials. They say they are Special Agents with the FBI or IRS and would like to talk with you for just a few minutes about something important. They ask if they could come in [...]
I have written a number of times about modern technology being used in criminal investigations, from cellphone towers tracking our phones, to Alexa and other smart home devices used to record internet searches and conversations, to security cameras used to spy on their homeowners. Recently, the New York Times and other media outlets reported that Google has the ability to track which cellphones are in the area of a crime scene at a particular time. Once law enforcement narrows down which phones they are interested in, they obtain a warrant for the particular cellphone owner’s information.
Police and prosecutors around the country routinely seize and forfeit cars, boats, money, computers, guns and homes that were “used in, or facilitated, the criminal activity charged.” While many cases involve significant crimes and the forfeitures are justified, too often the person is charged with fairly low-level drug sales and their car is seized if it was used to transport the drugs during the sales. The federal and state governments argue that forfeitures are simply part of the cost of the criminal’s conduct and work as a separate fine on the illegal activity. These fines and forfeitures are often used to supplement local and state budgets, including those of the very agencies that seized and forfeited the property.
Much has been written and tweeted about this past week concerning this topic. Politics aside for the moment, what does the government need to demonstrate to a court that a place should be searched, or a person’s phone calls should be intercepted?
The police stop you for an alleged driving infraction – speeding, failure to stay in lane, tinted windows – and while talking with you the officer smells the odor of marijuana. The officer asks you to step out of the car, searches the car and finds drugs. You contact a criminal defense attorney to defend you and explore the possibility of a motion to suppress the search. If you are the driver of a personal vehicle or the owner, you have what is known as an expectation of privacy and “standing” to suppress the search. However, if you are a passenger of the vehicle, or the driver of a rental car that was rented by a friend or family member and you are not listed on the rental agreement, you may lack standing to challenge the search of the vehicle.
On December 19, 2016, the New Jersey Assembly and Senate unanimously passed a much-needed civil forfeiture reporting bill that, if signed into law by Governor Christie, would shed light on a much-criticized practice in which law enforcement agencies reap huge profits by seizing property “connected” to criminal activity, even in cases where no one has been charged with or found guilty of a crime.