DRUG CRIMES

The law defines drug crimes as possession, sharing, or selling of any illegal drug (e.g. marijuana, cocaine, heroin, LSD, methamphetamine, ecstasy, etc.) or any prescription drug without the prescription bottle (e.g. valium, barbiturates, etc.). The drug laws in the state of NJ are quite harsh. Those convicted of drug crimes face the following:

Individuals have constitutional rights to be protected from unlawful searches and seizures or from unlawful questioning. Frequently, police violate these rights and a vigorous defense will expose the errors made in the arrest or prosecution. These mistakes could lead to an outright dismissal of charges and/or a plea deal for a much less severe sentence. Our team of lawyers has successfully defended the following:

In all these cases, our attorneys were able to suppress evidence that led to the dismissal of all charges against our client. *

Even minor drug convictions can result in the loss of your driver's license for six months to two years, so it is important to have an experienced attorney argue your case. With over 100 years of criminal litigation experience, the lawyers of Helmer, Paul, Conley & Kasselman, P.A. create a formidable team unmatched in New Jersey. We know the strengths and weaknesses of our adversaries and their cases, and we will fight to uphold your rights.

Avoiding/Shortening Jail Time with Court-Ordered Treatment Programs

Most of the people in our jails and prisons are there because of alcohol or drug-related offenses. Many crimes are committed by addicts who are under the influence and unable to practice sound judgment. Others break the law in order to get money to buy drugs.

Drug court is a form of probation that is an alternative to incarceration. The court helps those in the program deal with their addiction. While strict, the program helps people avoid prison or shorten their prison sentence to 16 months of intensive supervised probation. A skillful attorney can usually have a person out of prison and on probation within a few months of sentencing.

Call us at 856-547-7888 for an appointment. Initial consultations are free.

Select Case #1 (names omitted to protect client's privacy):

JUDGE STIFLES EVIDENCE IN DRUG ARREST

By AISLING SWIFT Staff Writer
Published: March 26, 2001

[A man], 24, of Vineland, claims he was not selling drugs and was the victim of an illegal search.

A Superior Court judge has suppressed evidence seized by an Atlantic City detective, prompting the prosecution to consider dropping charges against a Vineland man arrested outside the Studio Six nightclub.

After hearing contradictory testimony that questioned whether [the man], 24, was the target of an illegal search and seizure, Judge Michael Connor on Friday suppressed the evidence against him, ruling the state had not met the burden of proof.

Defense attorney Yaron Helmer said the prosecution indicated it would drop charges, but Assistant Atlantic County Prosecutor Janet Gravitz declined comment, saying the case would be reviewed by her office.

[The man], who was arrested Nov. 5 outside the Atlantic City nightclub, is charged with four third-degree counts: possession of ecstasy and cocaine, and possession of both within 1,000 feet of a school zone.

Each charge carries a three- to five-year prison sentencing range.

[The man] passed a lie detector test administered by a polygraph expert used by the State Police and Atlantic County Prosecutor's Office.

Although lie detector tests are not admissible as evidence in court, they often are used by investigators or defense attorneys to test truthfulness or to urge the prosecution to drop charges.

Gravitz knew [the man] had passed the lie detector test, but because it is not admissible, Connor was not aware.

"From Day One, he insisted that he did not have drugs on him and insisted that they were found in the car," Helmer said after Connor suppressed the evidence.

[The man's] version of events, which disputed that of Detective Louis DePaul, was supported by a Camden County woman who happened to see the arrest as she sat in her car smoking, waiting for a friend.

"She just happened to be in the right place at the right time," Helmer said.

The woman came into Studio Six and heard [the man's] girlfriend crying that her boyfriend had been arrested on charges he was selling drugs. She told the girlfriend she had seen the arrest and search and that what the detective was saying was not true. She provided the girlfriend with her phone number in case she was needed as a witness.

On Friday, the witness, a mother from Somerdale, said she watched [the man] put some coats into the trunk of the car and walk toward Studio Six with his friend . . . when he was stopped and searched in the middle of the parking lot. The search took place away from the car, which was parked at the far end of the lot.

But she said the detective found nothing in Rodriguez's pockets or wallet and also let [his friend] go.

The detective then grabbed the car keys and went to the car, which belonged to [the man's] girlfriend. He opened the trunk and pulled out coats and then found less than a half-ounce of cocaine and ecstasy.

That account would constitute an illegal search, without consent. [The man], his girlfriend and [his friend] gave a similar account.

But DePaul, who said he made hundreds of arrests and drug-surveillance operations, testified that he received a tip that morning.

DePaul claims he was in the parking lot when he saw [the friend] give money to [the accused man].

As he approached them, he testified, [the friend] popped something into his mouth. He said he searched [the accused man's] pockets and found cocaine, ecstasy and $322.

DePaul maintains he made the arrest next to the car, while the trunk was open, which disputed the others' testimony.

DePaul's report contained nothing about a search of the trunk, although he testified he searched the trunk and found nothing.

On cross-examination, Helmer asked DePaul whether he had discussed his testimony moments before with the prosecutor.

DePaul admitted he had.

Helmer pointed out police communications reports show DePaul arrested [the man] 18 minutes after his initial call, which supports [the accused man's] version of events.

Helmer repeatedly questioned if DePaul had conducted an illegal search of the trunk, but DePaul maintained it was legal and that communications reports often are incorrect.

He also testified he could not remember whether he had questioned [the friend] or taken him into custody.

Connor found DePaul believable, but also found the Somerdale woman and [the friend] credible. Because the prosecution had the burden of proving the case, he found the state had not met its requirement.

Copyright (c) 2001 The Press of Atlantic City

return to top

Select Case #2 (names omitted to protect client's privacy):

Judge says police search was illegal, seized cocaine cannot be used as evidence

By Renee Winkler, Courier Post

WOODBURY - The Gloucester County Prosecutor's office cannot use about $91,000 of cocaine confiscated during a traffic stop as evidence in a pending drug trial, a judge ruled Friday.

Superior Court Judge Martin Herman said the seven pounds of cocaine was discovered illegally because New Jersey State Troopers did not give the defendant who speaks no English, his rights in Spanish.

[The defendant], 36, of Manhattan was stopped by troopers in Deptford shortly after midnight February 4th, 1997 as he drove from New York to Virginia. Troopers said they found the cocaine hidden in a secret compartment behind the glove box.

Yaron Helmer, [the man's] attorney, said his client was stopped by state troopers after he slowed abruptly after spotting them patrolling the New Jersey Turnpike. A check of his driver's license and the car tags showed no outstanding warrants, Helmer said.

While they were waiting for a computer check of those records, Helmer said, " The cops said 'It's cold out. Wait in the back of our car." Then they explained his right to withhold consent to search, presented him with the consent form and watched him sign it."

Herman said the officers had forms in Spanish inside their patrol car but chose not to use them.

[The man], a native of the Dominican Republic who drives a van for a transport company in New York City, told police he was paid $5000 to drive the car to Virginia.

To prove [the man's] inability to communicate in English, Helmer produced a half dozen witnesses, including neighbors, who said he needed help reading mail in English and understanding such official documents as a driver's license application. Helmer also conducted a conference telephone interview with teachers of [the man's] children, who said he brought an interpreter for parent teacher conferences.

Helmer said an investigator from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, called to participate in the interrogation of [the man] after his arrest, was told by the state troopers to bring an interpreter.

[The defendant] has been free on $50,000 bail posted by a bail bondsman, since April 25, 1997.

*Past performance does not indicate that there will be success on any given case. Each case is different and is determined on its own merits.

Attorneys

Paralegals

return to top