DUI Lawyers in Toms River, NJ

Toms River, NJ (June 4, 2025) – Emergency crews were called to the scene of a motor vehicle accident Monday morning that resulted in at least one person being injured. The crash took place at approximately 9:25 a.m. on June 2 on the Exit 83 northbound ramp from Lomell Lane.

According to reports, at least one individual was transported to an area hospital following the incident. The nature and extent of the injuries have not yet been publicly disclosed. First responders worked swiftly to assist the injured, clear the roadway, and ensure the safety of other motorists in the area.

Details regarding the circumstances leading to the accident or the number of vehicles involved have not been released. Authorities are continuing to investigate the crash to determine the cause and whether any other factors contributed to the collision.

Traffic in the surrounding area was temporarily impacted as emergency personnel managed the scene and helped restore normal flow. Motorists were advised to use alternate routes during the cleanup and investigation.

We hope those injured in this accident recover quickly.

Car Accidents in New Jersey

Throughout New Jersey, motor vehicle accidents are a daily concern, particularly on busy ramps and highways where congestion and merging traffic can heighten risks. Thousands of accidents are reported statewide each year, with many leading to serious injuries. Statewide safety efforts focus on improving road designs and promoting defensive driving to reduce these numbers.

It’s helpful to understand some of the most common injuries resulting from vehicle crashes:

Following a car accident, it’s essential to seek legal guidance by contacting a car accident attorney. A knowledgeable attorney can handle negotiations with insurance companies and ensure that you receive fair compensation for your injuries, lost wages, and medical expenses. Time is critical, as acting swiftly helps preserve evidence and protect your rights.

At Metro Law, we have spent nearly 40 years helping accident victims get the justice they deserve. Led by Robert A. Solomon, our team offers personalized service and free consultations, making it easy for you to get the help you need without stress. We are available for evening and weekend appointments and are committed to fighting for your recovery. Call us today at 800-469-6476 to speak with a member of our dedicated team — your well-being is our top priority.

There's been a lot of media hype over the cancellation of the Bruce Springsteen tribute band No Surrender from their gig May 30 at Riv's Hub in Toms River over comments Bruce Springsteen made in England about President Trump. Each side telling their side to different outlets.

Last night, the two sides spoke on The Steve Trevelise show on New Jersey 101.5.

No Surrender band leader Brad Hobicorn, along with keyboard player Chad Goldfarb and guitar/harmonica Ralph Notaro were in studio performing the songs "No Surrender" and "My City Of Ruins" live to promote their new gig at The Headliner on Friday, June 6, when Tony Rivoli, owner of Riv's Toms River Hub, who cancelled the original date, called in to clear the air on his end.

Listen to the on-demand show here:

Toms River restaurant owner speaks with band he canceled

"I have no issues whatsoever. My issue was never with the band," said Rivoli. "Unfortunately, it just morphed into something that's actually ridiculous."

The two have talked since then.

Hobicorn replied: "As I saw things going out of control — because I was feeling it as you were — so the whole thing was let's just move on, you do what you do to run your business as to what you see fit, and I do what I do to protect my band and their livelih ood and we move forward and that's it."

Rivoli then responded with another possible date for the ban, perhaps in fall or winter.

"These are my weak months now, the summertime. We don't do great in the summertime because everybody wants to be out there drinking. We start getting some football all the way through until about this time of the year. I would love to have you guys play. I never had an issue with you or your band and you were always a gentleman with me, Brad."

The call ended with Rivoli congratulating the guy on the success they are having and Hobicorn responded with how hard the band has worked to get here, but this whole event elevated things.

See "No Surrender" Friday, June 6 at The Headliner in Neptune.

LOOK: Every Kid Wanted to Go to These Famous TV and Movie Locations

Before Google Earth and instant streaming, your imagination had to do the traveling, and TV and movies were your passport. From pirate coves to suburban streets, these were the places every kid dreamed of visiting.

The post above reflects the thoughts and observations of Steve Trevelise. Any opinions expressed are his own.

The national nonprofit organization describes the symptoms of overdosing on the mixture of drugs – and how to help those affected.

Pink cocaine – an illicitly manufactured mixture of drugs dyed pink with food coloring also known as 2C, tusi or tucibi – emerged as a popular party drug in Europe and Latin American and is gaining popularity in the United States.

Since January 2024, America’s Poison Centers National Poison Data System® has documented 18 pink cocaine exposures reported by U.S. Poison Centers in four states. Nearly all patients (83%) received medical treatment. Seven were hospitalized, three with life-threatening symptoms. Additionally, one unconfirmed death has been reported associated with pink cocaine use.

“Pink cocaine is dangerous because you never know what's actually in it,” said Diane Calello, executive and medical director of the New Jersey Poison Control Center at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School.

“Pink cocaine is a drug often associated with the nightlife and club scene,” said Calello, adding the powdered substance, which rarely contains just cocaine, typically is a mixture of several substances such as ketamine, methamphetamine, ecstasy (or molly), fentanyl and xylazine, a veterinary tranquilizer.

“Since the contents and strength of the ingredients can significantly vary from batch to batch, a person cannot know how their body will react to each dose of the drug. Pink cocaine has a significant potential for dangerous drug interactions. Effects may include cardiac arrhythmias, seizures, cardiac arrests and other life-threatening consequences.”

Find out what's happening in Toms Riverfor free with the latest updates from Patch.

What’s in Pink Cocaine?

Despite its name, pink cocaine usually contains little or no cocaine. Initial versions contained the synthetic stimulants 2C or 2-CB. More recently, pink cocaine refers to an evolving mixture of stimulants, hallucinogens, opioids and other psychoactive substances. Pink cocaine, usually in powder or pill form, typically is swallowed or inhaled. It isn’t usually injected.

Testing of pink cocaine powders in the U.S. reveals most contained:

Other tested batches of pink cocaine contain stimulants such as methamphetamine and cocaine, strong hallucinogens such as MDA (Sally) and DMT, the anesthetic lidocaine and opioids including oxycodone and tramadol. Additionally, some mixtures may contain fentanyl.

What Are the Symptoms of Pink Cocaine Overdose?

Because the combination of drugs in each batch may not be known, symptoms may include:

Additionally, known symptoms of stimulant overdose may occur, including:

Poison centers offer the following precautions to protect against poisoning:

The move may be a pretext for blocking the church's plan to build a homeless shelter. If the town proceeds, it will face near-certain litigation under the federal and state constitutions.

The New York Times reports that the town of Toms River, New Jersey is planning to use eminent domain to condemn a church, raze it, and build a park and pickleball courts on the spot. The planned condemnation may be motivated by a desire to prevent the church from opening a small homeless shelter on part of its land:

Leaders of Christ Episcopal Church in Toms River, N.J., were preparing for a Cinco de Mayo festival late one night when the news began to spread: The mayor planned to use eminent domain to seize their church and its 11 acres of land.

Under his plan, the church, which was founded in 1865, would be replaced by 10 pickleball courts, a soccer field and a playground with a nautical theme, according to an engineer's drawing. The first vote by the Township Council, Toms River's governing board, was the next afternoon.

The proposal represented a curious new twist in an ongoing battle in the large Jersey Shore community. An affordable housing nonprofit that rents space from the church had asked to create a small homeless shelter on the very land the mayor now wanted to turn into a park. The request was unpopular with neighbors, and the organization was awaiting approval from a zoning board.

The mayor, Daniel T. Rodrick, called the timing a "coincidence." But opponents have condemned the park plan as a thinly disguised way to block the shelter.

The effort to buy or take the land is all but certain to face legal challenges. But it has unleashed an emotional debate over property rights, religious liberty and the limits of a community's responsibility to care for poor people….

"I am outraged," said Rabbi William Gershon of Congregation B'nai Israel, a conservative synagogue that has been in Toms River for 75 years. "If you can do it to them, you can do it to any of us."

Rabbi Gershon said members of the town's interfaith council were united in their opposition to the effort, which he considers an attempt to use "political levers to cudgel a community, almost vindictively."

Rabbi Gershon is right. This sort of use of eminent domain is abusive and unjust. As the NY Times article notes, there is substantial public opposition to the taking. The Mayor of Toms River (who supports the taking) has postponed the final town council vote on it until July 30.

If the town decides to proceed with the condemnation, it will likely be challenged in court under the state and federal constitutions, as not being for a "public use." Unfortunately, US Supreme Court precedents, such as the notorious ruling in Kelo v. City of New London (2005), hold that almost anything that might benefit the public in some way qualifies as a "public use," even if the land is going to be transferred to a private party (see my critique of this position in my book The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. City of New London and the Limits of Eminent Domain).

However, Kelo does allow courts to strike down "pretextual" condemnations where the official rationale for the taking is really a pretext for a scheme to benefit a private party. What qualifies as a pretextual taking is anything but clear! Lower courts have developed at least five different approaches for addressing such issues. For details, see my recent amicus brief urging the Court to revisit Kelo. But if the plan to condemn the church really is motivated by neighbors' complaints abut the potential homeless shelter, there is at least a plausible argument that the taking here is pretextual. That would be even more true if the plan provides for transferring some or all of the condemned property to a private owner.

New Jersey is within the jurisdiction of the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In Carole Media v. N.J. Transit Corp., 550 F.3d 302 (3d Cir. 2008), that court ruled that a key criterion for identifying a pretextual taking is whether there is a private beneficiary (usually the new owner) whose identity is known in advance.

I won't go into detail here. But New Jersey courts applying their state constitutional public use clause are much less deferential than federal courts applying Kelo and other Fifth Amendment public use precedents. Just ask Donald Trump, whose effort to use eminent domain condemn a widow's home to build a parking lot for one of his casinoes got struck down by a New Jersey court in CRDA v. Banin (1998) [I had a very small role in working on that case as a law student clerk at the Institute for Justice, which represented the property owners].

Whether the Toms River Church condemnation can be successfully challenged in court is likely to depend on facts such as how detailed and extensive the development plan is, whether some or all of the property will be transferred to a new private owner (public use challenges are much more likely to succeed if the answer is "yes"), and the extent of evidence of pretextual motivation.

I intend to reach out those involved to learn the answers to these questions, and - if possible - offer assistance to the Church in fighting this condemnation. If readers have relevant contacts, please let me know.

TOMS RIVER — The second-largest shore town in Ocean County must build hundreds of housing units despite local officials insisting that they don't have room for so many new homes.

Retired Judge Julio L. Mendez ruled against Toms River and said the township must build all 670 housing units required by its prospective need under its fourth round of affordable housing obligations, the Asbury Park Press first reported.

Prospective need refers to the housing that must be built over the next 10 years.

The requirement of 670 housing units for Toms River was handed down by the state Department of Community Affairs last year.

However, township officials had argued Toms River's prospective need was only 114 units based on land capacity. Court documents said it was the largest difference that any township had proposed.

Not enough space in Toms River

Mayor Dan Rodrick has previously said Toms River, which already has 36,291 households, doesn't have enough space for new mass development.

He felt the number of required housing units could only go lower during the court battle, Rodrick said to the Asbury Park Press last month.

New Jersey 101.5 has reached out to Rodrick for comment on the recent decision.

Problems in calculating housing need

In his decision, Mendez wrote that the calculations Toms River used to reach its lower number were "very problematic."

Mendez, who used the supporting report of a special adjudicator, ruled to uphold the DCA's original number of 670 housing units.

The retired judge has the authority to make the decision through the state's Affordable Housing Dispute Resolution Program.

RELATED: Fury in NJ as state forces affordable housing construction

Last month, the Toms River township council voted unanimously to withdraw from the program.

NJ towns that need to build the most affordable housing

These 33 municipalities have the greatest number of affordable housing units that should be built, according to calculations by the Department of Community Affairs.

The "present need" refers to existing but deficient housing occupied by low- and moderate-income households. "Prospective need" refers to the housing that would have to be built in the next 10 years to accommodate the estimated growth of low- and moderate-income households. The state used a formula that considers a municipality's income and land capacity.