NJ Expungement Lawyer
All expungements for criminal convictions in Monmouth County are generally filed at the Monmouth County Superior Court. The Criminal Case Management Office accepts properly filed petitions for NJ expungement Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30. To see if you are eligible for an expungement, and to get the process right away, call to speak with a New Jersey expungement lawyer. If all other conditions are met, both adult and NJ juvenile convictions can be expunged.
Common charges that can be expunged are for certain CDS possession and other drug charges, shoplifting, and assault. My office handles expungements for all NJ towns, including: Manalapan, Marlboro, Englishtown, Freehold, Howell, Millstone, Upper Freehold, Allentown, Matawan, Aberdeen, Tinton Falls, Colts Neck, Neptune, Asbury Park, Keansburg, Keyport, Middletown, Red Bank, Atlantic Highlands, Highlands, Hazlet, Holmdel, Rumson, Fair Haven, Farmingdale, Wall Township, Belmar, Spring Lake, Long Branch, West Long Branch, Eatontown, Oceanport, Ocean Township, Allenhurst, Loch Arbor, Avon, Bradley Beach, Bay Head, and Deal.
New Jersey Expungement Law
New Jersey expungement law is complex and changes periodically. Some specific areas of NJ expungement law are gray. In these cases, your attorney needs to be prepared to carefully research and effectively argue your case. For example, the interaction of New Jersey’s expungement statute and forfeiture of public statute caused confusion, until the NJ Supreme Court clarified the disparity between the two statutes. Consider the following case of In re Expungement Petition of D.H.
A public official pled guilty to a disorderly persons offense that directly involved or touched the official’s public office. As part of her plea agreement, the public official consented to the entry of a statutorily mandated order of forfeiture of public employment, that is, an order whereby the public official forfeited her public employment and was “forever disqualified from holding any office or position of honor, trust or profit under this State or any of its administrative or political subdivisions.” Several years later, the former public official sought relief under New Jersey’s expungement statute, seeking an order that “such conviction and all records and information pertaining thereto be expunged.”
As part of that application, the former public official also sought to avoid the effect of the mandatory order of forfeiture of public employment, asserting, along with her disorderly persons offense conviction, the order of forfeiture of public employment likewise should be expunged. Both the trial court and the Appellate Division concluded that, in the context of a disorderly person offense, the expungement statute must be read broadly enough to include and also expunge the order of forfeiture of public employment. As a result, the trial court ordered that both the public official’s conviction for a disorderly persons offense and the concomitant order of forfeiture of public employment be expunged. The Appellate Division affirmed that judgment.
The Supreme Court disagreed. They noted that the primary task is to harmonize the provisions of the forfeiture of public employment statute, with those of theexpungement statute. In so doing, the c that, in the context of an expungement application and in order to give full expression to the Legislature’s will, a mandatory order of permanent forfeiture of public employment must be severed from—and preserved from the expungement of—the conviction that originally triggered the order of forfeiture. The court affirmed so much of the judgment of the Appellate Division that upheld the entry of an expungement order, but reversed that part of the judgment of the Appellate Division that extended the reach of that order to include the order of forfeiture of public employment under appeal, which order of forfeiture was reinstated. The facts of the case were as follows.
Petitioner D.H. was employed as a detective in the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office from March 1985 through October 1999. During June 1999, D.H. received a telephone call from an executive at a local employer who asked that D.H. conduct a criminal background check on a prospective employee; D.H. did so, using the Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS), a law enforcement computer system containing, among other things, criminal history records. D.H. well knew she was to make inquiries in CJIS only as part of an active investigation. Although she initially asserted she had her supervisor’s permission to do so, she later conceded she had not confirmed that authority in this instance. In the end, D.H. returned the call to the local employer, advising that the person who was the subject of the inquiry indeed had an arrest record.
On July 1, 1999, D.H. was interviewed by representatives of both the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office and the New Jersey State Police concerning her unauthorized use of the CJIS. During the interview, D.H. admitted she had conducted CJIS inquiries that were not part of an active criminal investigation, but instead were on behalf of a private employer’s internal investigations of its employees.
On September 28, 1999, D.H. was charged with a summons alleging that she had committed the disorderly persons offense of the purposeful and unauthorized access of a computer, in violation of Pursuant to a plea agreement, on October 5, 1999, D.H. pled guilty to that charge and consented to the entry of an order of forfeiture of public employment.