Do I need to get an attorney for a first offense marijuana possession misdimeanor?

You do not get to pick between the programs. The issue is not whether or not you had the drugs on your person. It is whether the police had a rightful reason to search you and find it. That is only something an attorney can review and determine based on the discovery. If the officer didn't have a right to find what you had on your person, than they can's use what was found. i.e., no more drug charge if no drugs on person. That means that you could have your charge dismissed instead of entering into a diversionary program subject to probation and peeing in a cup. It is up to you if you get an attorney or not. You are 18 and can decide.

You are resigned to entering a program (regardless of the legality of the search) as long as it stays off your record. That is not an unreasonable thought. I would caution that there may be other considerations. Often the possession charge comes with a companion charge of possession while operating a vehicle and that carries a 2 year license suspension. Sometimes there will be other charges (underage drinking, paraphernalia) and a plea of guilty on those gives you a record. You can hope for the best and maybe it works out. The more prudent thing to do is measure twice, cut once.

You do not have a choice. PTI is a diversionary program in the Superior Courts for crimes. (NJ does not have felonies and misdemeanors we have crimes and disorderly person offenses). CD is a diversionary program in Municipal Court. The question in your case, as you post it, is whether the search was Constitutional. A CD gives up the right to challenge that. If you do this by yourself make sure you enter without a plea of guilty, if not there are problems if you are a non-citizen and also the court can suspend your driver's license.

No you did you research so you are clearly now prepared to know what to do if anything pops up and about all the collateral consequences of programs and know everything you need to. What could a professional with years of training and experience possibly do to help you?

A conditional discharge or PTI is generally an option of last resort that is used only if you cannot win your case. I know you think you may be guilty and the fact that your putting these statements on the web will of course only hurt your case as they can be used against you in court, but avenues still exist to possible win your case and not have to use your one time get out of jail card. Just because you did the crime does not mean that they can prove you guilty these are two different things in our legal system. For example the drugs may be tested and for some reason your lab results are missing or the lab results show no THC. Things can happen that if you take a CD and don't get a lawyer you will be giving up. You say you will never get in trouble again, but remember you can get in trouble just by being with the wrong person. For example your friends says he needs to make a withdrawal at the bank, you wait for him in the car. Meanwhile your so called friend robs the bank and you drive away. You did nothing but drive the car but now you have a robbery charge. Get the Drift. Get a Lawyer you made need this one day, most people never expect or plan on getting in trouble but somehow do. Good Luck whatever your decision is.

Get a lawyer, at least to examine everything for you and give you your best option - which could be fighting the search or anything else. Do you never want to get a school loan, for example?

You need to speak to an attorney because the search of your person involve 4th Amendment issues an attorney can raise. Conditional discharges are costly. You might be able to avoid those costs if you can get the marijuana suppressed as evidence against you. You really should speak to a criminal defense attorney about your case before you just go into court and plead guilty, even if it is under a CD. As far as your criminal record is concerned, the arrest will still show up, as will the conditional discharge.

In criminal cases, the State routinely retains scientists and analysts to perform tests on a suspect’s blood to detect the presence of drugs or alcohol. The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause generally bars the admission of an absent witness’s out-of-court testimonial hearsay as a substitute for live in-court testimony when the accused has not had the opportunity to cross-examine the absent witness. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 50-62, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 1363-71, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177, 192-99 (2004). The purpose of the Confrontation Clause is not to foster expedient trial procedures, but to ensure that testimonial evidence is tested in the crucible of cross-examination -- however time consuming or difficult that process may be. See Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. at 61, 124 S. Ct. at 1370, 158 L. Ed. 2d at 199. Thus, chemical analysts who provide out-of-court “testimony” through laboratory reports must be made available for cross-examination. Bullcoming, supra, 564 U.S. at ___, 131 S. Ct. at 2716, 180 L. Ed. 2d at 622. Curtailing confrontation rights is not the answer to the uncertainty in federal jurisprudence. The admission of testimonial statements from witnesses absent from trial violates the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause unless the witnesses are “unavailable,” and “the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine” them. Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. at 59, 124 S. Ct. at 1369, 158 L. Ed. 2d at 197. A statement is “testimonial” if the primary purpose of making the statement is to establish a fact as evidence in a later criminal prosecution. Bullcoming, supra, 564 U.S. at ___ n.6, 131 S. Ct. at 2714 n.6, 180 L. Ed. 2d at 620 n.6 (quoting Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 822, 126 S. Ct. 2266, 2273, 165 L. Ed. 2d 224, 237 (2006)). Applying that test in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 310-11, 129 S. Ct. 2527, 2532, 174 L. Ed. 2d 314, 321 (2009), the Court held that a laboratory report identifying a substance as cocaine was testimonial evidence and therefore its admission at trial, without the testimony of the analyst who prepared it, violated the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. The report in Melendez-Diaz was created for the specific purpose of serving “as evidence in a criminal proceeding.” Bullcoming, supra, 564 U.S. at ___, 131 S. Ct. at 2709, 180 L. Ed. 2d at 615. Bullcoming presented a variation of the theme in Melendez-Diaz. In Bullcoming, the Court held that the in-court testimony of a scientist who did not conduct or participate in any laboratory tests relevant to the case, but who read into evidence the actual analyst’s test results contained in a certified report, violated the Confrontation Clause. Id. at ___, 131 S. Ct. at 2713, 180 L. Ed. 2d at 619. In Bullcoming, the defendant was arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI). Id. at ___, 131 S. Ct. at 2710, 180 L. Ed. 2d at 616. A blood sample was taken from him at a hospital and submitted for testing at a state laboratory. Ibid. A forensic analyst operated a gas chromatograph machine to test Bullcoming’s blood sample and determined his blood alcohol content (BAC). Id. at ___, 131 S. Ct. at 2711, 180 L. Ed. 2d at 617. The Supreme Court made the following observations about the operation of the gas chromatograph machine: “‘[T]he analyst must be aware of, and adhere to, good analytical practices and understand what is being done and why.’” Id. at ___ n.1, 131 S. Ct. at 2711 n.1, 180 L. Ed. 2d at 617 n.1 (quoting David T. Stafford, Chromatography, in Principles of Forensic Toxicology 92, 114 (B. Levine ed., 2d ed. 2006)). Although the gas chromatograph machine produces a printed graph, securing “an accurate BAC measurement . . . is not so simple or certain.” Ibid.