Some examples of disorderly persons offenses include possession of 50 grams or less of marijuana, shoplifting items with a retail value of less than $200, and lewdness, among others. A conviction can mean a range of penalties, up to a $500 fine and six months in prison. Additionally, a conviction could show up on future background checks affecting employment and professional licensing.

There are ways to fight such charges, have them downgraded, or seek alternative penalties that can save time and money and, in some cases, keep a person's record clean. And in cases where the accused has already pleaded guilty or has been convicted in court, expungement may be available.

Before pleading guilty to a disorderly persons offense in Municipal Court, it is worth consulting an attorney on your range of options. Doing so could save a great deal of time and money in the long run.

A violation for possession of 50 grams or less of marijuana is considered a disorderly persons offense allowing jurisdiction in municipal courts. Even though the matter may be handled at the municipal level, it is important to understand the consequences.

Such a conviction can result in fines of up to $1,000, penalties and fees of over $500, up to six months in jail, and suspension of driving privileges for up to two years. In addition, if the violation occurs within 1,000 feet of a school, there is a mandatory 100 hours of community service on top of any sentence handed down by the court.

There are ways to fight such a violation. As with all criminal cases, the State has the burden to prove its case. And while it may not be possible to win an acquittal in all cases, it is important to understand the range of sentencing options that a municipal court judge may impose.

It is also important to keep in mind that it may be possible to expunge prior convictions from your record. Depending on the circumstances, a person may petition the court to have his or her record expunged. If granted, all records would be removed; however they could still be used in the future for a limited number of purposes including bail or parole hearings, or sentencing.

As states have become more efficient at sharing information, motor vehicle agencies are getting better at flagging drivers with unresolved violations in other parts of the country. That means somebody who moved out of New Jersey twenty years ago leaving an unpaid ticket may suddenly have a problem renewing his or her license elsewhere.

Making matters worse, drivers with unresolved New Jersey tickets may not even be aware of the tickets if the municipality sent a notice of court hearing to the driver's old address after he or she moved out of state. Often times the violations are so old, drivers are at a loss to remember whether they received any notice.

Unpaid tickets can result in a suspended license in New Jersey. A suspension in New Jersey must be cleared up before a driver can obtain or renew a license in another state. The good news is, depending on the circumstances this may be a relatively easy matter to resolve. And with a competent legal representation, you may not even need to travel to New Jersey for court appearances.

The case, State v. Ciancaglini, involved a Monmouth County woman who was previously convicted of DWI in 1979, and of failing to submit to a breathalyzer test in 2006. She was again convicted of DWI in 2008.

The municipal court sentenced her as a third-time offender to six months in jail, a $1,006 fine, ten-year loss of license and vehicle registration, 12 hours at an Intoxicated Driver Resource Center, and other fees.

On appeal, the Law Division held that she should have been sentenced as a first time offender because the 1979 conviction occurred more than ten years ago and the conviction for refusal to take a breathalyzer test did not qualify as a prior conviction for DWI. The Law Division sentenced her as a first time offender to 30 days in jail, a $500 fine, 12 months license revocation, and 12 hours at an Intoxicated Driver Resource Center.

The Appellate Division disagreed and reinstated the original sentence.

The woman was placed under arrest and charged with underage possession of alcohol, having an open container of alcohol in a vehicle, and making an improper U-turn.

According to police, the bag contained several smaller bags of marijuana. The driver and two passengers were arrested and charged with possession of marijuana.

An officer must monitor a driver suspected of DWI prior to administering the breath test as a way to guard against inaccurate results. The New Jersey Supreme Court mandated that specific procedures be followed in administering the test in its 2008 ruling in State v. Chun. Today's ruling said that the 20-minute period required by State v. Chun was meant to make sure a defendant did not do anything that could affect the test results. However, the requirement should not be read so literally as to unduly restrict the state from using the test to prosecute DWI cases.

The ruling came out of a Morris County case in which Joel Ugrovics was arrested for DWI. He blew above the legal limit for blood alcohol content and pleaded guilty in Riverdale Municipal Court, but later appealed to Superior Court which overturned the conviction. The Appellate Division reinstated the guilty plea and remanded to the lower court.

The officer pulled over the driver for a routine traffic stop after observing him allegedly weaving in and out of lanes. When the officer approached the car, the driver sped off allegedly forcing the officer to jump out of the way. The officer caught up with the driver and arrested him in Paterson.

In addition to being charged with aggravated assault on a police officer, the driver was faces charges of eluding arrest, being a fugitive from justice, speeding, reckless driving and failure to pull over.

While the campaign resulted in 137 drunk driving arrests in Bergen County and 95 drunk driving arrests in Passaic County, it also produced 1,973 speeding tickets in Bergen county and 374 tickets for seatbelt violations in Passaic County.

The State Division of Highway Traffic Safety funded the crackdown, paying for law enforcement overtime during a two-week period ending on September 7.

A drunk driving conviction could result in fines, license suspension, and even imprisonment. While speeding tickets are a less serious offense, they could have important consequences. Depending on how fast a driver is traveling, speeding tickets can result in a penalty of between two and five points. A driver who accumulates 12 to 15 points in two years is subject to a 30 day license suspension.

With unemployment soaring, jobs that are hard to come by, and more companies performing background checks than ever before,many are looking to expunge their records or set aside convictions. Even those who have jobs may consider expunging past convictions now. Waiting until the next job search could mean lost time.

Depending on a person's background, the Court may expunge a conviction, erasing it from that person's record. The process involves petitioning the Court in the county where the offense took place. Several factors affect whether a person is eligible for expungment, including the nature of the crime and the length of time since the last offense.

For those who are being weighed down by mistakes in their past, expungement offers the opportunity to make a fresh start. And in a job market as competitive as this one, erasing a conviction could be a big step toward finding employment.

Since the unsafe driving law went into effect in 2000, it has offered drivers in some circumstances a way to avoid having points assessed for moving violations. In some cases, drivers may have the opportunity to plead guilty to Operation of a Vehicle in an Unsafe Manner. The penalty involves payment of a fine and court fees without any points. However, the wording of the statute has been the subject of much confusion. It prohibits drivers from taking advantage of the exemption three times where each offense is within five years of the prior offense, raising questions about how the five-year limitation should be measured.

Last year, the Appellate Division took up the issue in State v. Patel. In that case, the driver had three offenses within five years of each other. On her fourth offense, she was assessed points. She argued that she should be allowed the exemption on the fourth offense because although it was within five years of her third offense, it was not within five years of her first and second offenses. Thus, she only had two offenses within the last five years. The Appellate Division disagreed and held that five years must pass from the prior offense before the exemption becomes available again.

Also in that opinion, the Court stated that points will be assessed upon a third unsafe driving offense within five years of the prior offense. After five years have passed from that offense, the driver would once again become eligible for the exemption.

The Defendant appealed that ruling to the New Jersey Supreme Court. The Supreme Court agreed with the Appellate Division's opinion that the Defendant should be assessed points because her fourth offense was within five years of her prior offense. Even though more than five years had passed from the first two offenses, each offense occurred within five years of the one prior.

However, the Court disagreed with the Appellate Division over the availability of the exemption on the third conviction. The opinion stated that the exemption applies to the third offense, no matter when the third offense takes place.

The opinion offers a mixed bag for drivers. The good news is that a driver qualifies for the exemption on a third offense no matter when it takes place. The bad news is that when a driver has three offenses each within five years of the last, he or she must wait five years after the third offense before the exemption will again be available.