Case Law (Set 3)

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Consent] Wisconsin v. St. Martin When a person is arrested and placed in a patrol car they are not "[whtat]" for purposes of invalidating a consent.

"Present"

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Exigent Circumstances] Similar to exigent circumstances is the "[what] Aid Doctrine" or "Community [what] Function." Police may make entry into a house after a 911 call to make sure no one inside is in need of aid. Difference is that the police do NOT have to have a [what] that someone is in need of aid, the 911 call and the circumstances will provide the justification.

1. "Emergency Aid Doctrine" 2. "Community Aid Doctrine" 3. Reasonable Suspicion

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - The Automobile Exception] State v. Nishina provides a good timeline to analyze an investigatory stop that escalated into a search under the automobile exception. The officer encountered people on school property. This allows the officer to make a "[what]" stop to investigate possible criminal activity. During the stop the officer asked for driving credentials during which time officer smelled burnt marijuana. Search cannot be justified as pat search for weapons but would be justified as a [what] search. When officer saw plastic bag similar to packaged narcotics in center console, under [what] of circumstances the officer had to PC to search the car and [what] circumstances allowing for the search.

1. "Terry" stop 2. PC 3. Totality 4. Exigent

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - The Automobile Exception] US v. Carroll The Carroll Doctrine from the case Carroll v. US is the first mention of the [what] exception. As long as there exists [what] to believe that an automobile contains evidence of a crime it may be searched based on the readily mobile nature of the automobile.

1. Automobile 2. PC

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Impounded Vehicles and Inventory Searches] Inventory searches of automobiles may NOT be used a pre-text to conduct an otherwise unlawful search. They must be conducted pursuant to written policy. In State v. Ercolano, the vehicle was legally parked and towed without the driver's consent. Driver must give his [what] or be given a reasonable opportunity to make arrangements unless there are [what] [what] that require immediate removal of the vehicle.

1. Consent 2. Exigent Circumstances

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Exigent Circumstances] Defendant was stopped for speeding and crossing center line. He refused breath test and was taken to hospital where his blood was drawn over his objection. He didn't apply for warrant. Court held in routine DWI invests the fact that alcohol is leaving blood does not in itself create exigence circumstances. Officers must either have a valid [what], a [what], or be able to justify exigency.

1. Consent 2. SW

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Consent] State v. Sugar After the police obtain a valid consent to search and the search is conducted, they may NOT re-enter the house without first obtaining another [what] or a [what].

1. Consent 2. Warrant

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Search Incident to Arrest] A search incident to arrest is permitted to protect the officers and to prevent the destruction of [what]. The search is limited to the arrestee and the area within the arrestee's immediate [what] subject to the limitations previously discussed.

1. Evidence 2. Control

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Consent] When both occupants are present in a home with no [what] [what] or evidence of abuse, and one objects to the consent to the search given by the other, the objection must be [what] and no search conducted. US. v. Matlock Defendant was arrested and transported away from the scene, the police then asked his roommate who granted consent. Court held that the consent was [what] and upheld the search.

1. Exigent Circumstances 2. Honored 3. Valid

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Exigent Circumstances] Quoting Mincey v. Arizona Police received info of student writing threatening letter to shoot up school. They go to house, speak with mother on porch, and when asked about weapons, she turns and runs inside. Police followed in. The U.S. Supreme Court found that the officers were permitted to make the entry because of the [what] cirumstances...". Officers may enter a residence without a warrant when they have an [what] [what] basis for believing an occupant is imminently threatened with serious injury.

1. Exigent Circumstances 2. Objectively Reasonable

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Exigent Circumstances] Entry may be made into a home when the police believe that someone is inside and [what]. Brigham City, UT v. Stuart. An entry may also be made where a [what] has just occurred. This entry is not to search for evidence but to secure the scene and determine if the [what] are still inside. State v. Faretra

1. Injured 2. Crime 3. Actors

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Consent] Consent must be [what] and [what] given. The person must understand that they are agreeing to and must not be coerced. In addition, in NJ they must understand that they have the right to [what] to consent to the search. However ,police do not have to advise people of the right to refuse entry to their [what].

1. Knowingly and Voluntarily 2. Refuse 3. Home

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Protective Sweeps] State v. Johnnie Davila Protective sweeps are not per se unlawful merely because they don't occur incident to arrest. (1) Were the officers [what] on the property; (2) Did they have a [what] [what] that someone else may be on the location, and; (3) Was it limited in scope and conducted [what].

1. Lawfully 2. Reasonable Suspicion 3. Quickly

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Consent] Illinois v. Rodriguez When police make a warrantless entry into a home based on the reasonable but mistaken belief that the third party still [what] in the residence and had the ability to give [what], the subsequent search will be valid.

1. Lived 2. Consent

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Impounded Vehicles and Inventory Searches] State v. Hill Police cannot normally open and search an illegally parked car to determine [what]. They should issue a [what].

1. Ownership 2. Citation

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - The Automobile Exception] In State v. Guerra, the strong odor of raw unburned marijuana emanating from the trunk of a vehicle will provide sufficient [what] to search the vehicle. In State v. Judge, the odor of burnt marijuana emanating from the interior of the vehicle will provide [what] to search the interior of the vehicle.

1. PC 2. PC

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Exigent Circumstances] State v. Perkins When police have [what] to believe that an act of DV has occurred coupled with a reasonable belief that weapons are present and may pose a threat to a victim, the police may [what] the weapons.

1. PC 2. Seize

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Consent] The police must have a [what] and [what] suspicion that criminal evidence will be found prior to asking for consent to search. This also applies to [what] motor vehicles. The court in State. v. Elders also held that it was appropriate to advise the driver of the next logical step when asking for consent (calling the dog) so long as it was not a threat. The search was found to be improper because the Sup. Ct. felt that it was an investigative stop and the request was not supported by a reasonable suspicion.

1. Reasonable and Articulable Suspicion 2. Disabled

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - The Automobile Exception] State v. Carty In NJ, a [what] and [what] suspicion that criminal evidence will be found is required prior to asking for consent to search.

1. Reasonable and Articulable suspicion

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Exigent Circumstances] O'Connor v. Ortega Dr. Ortega, employed by Napa State Hospital, had his office searched by employer based on complains of work related misconduct. Court held that a government employer does NOT need a [what] or [what] to search offices, desks or filing cabinets.

1. SW 2. PC

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Protective Sweeps] Maryland v. Buie Officers lawfully in a place may conduct a search to determine if others might be present that would pose a danger to officers or others. Buie was arrested in his home. A [what] [what] revealed evidence.

Protective Sweep

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Consent] State v. Ricky Wright Landlord entered apt. to repair leak. While in apt., he observed drugs and paraphernalia in plain view. He called police, who also observed drugs upon their arrival. While police were present the tenant's gf arrived. She granted consent to search and additional evidence was located. Wright was arrested. Supreme Court held that 3rd party intervention of private search doctrine does not exempt LEs initial search of a defendant's home from the warrant requirement as, absent exigency or some other exception to the warrant requirement, the police must get a warrant to enter a private home and conduct a search, even if a private actor has already searched the area and notified LE. Thus, as a result for this case, the lower court erred by upholding the subsequent warrantless entry by police into the apt. because the officer's original search didn't comply with NJ Constitution since no exigent circumstances were relied upon, thus, a [what] was required. The "third-party intervention" ("private search") doctrine doesn't apply to a warrantless search of a private home. "If private parties tell the police about unlawful activities inside a person's home, the police can use that info to establish PC and seek a SW. In the time it takes to get the warrant, POs can secure the apt. or home from the [where], for a reasonable period of time, if reasonably necessary to avoid any tampering with or destruction of evidence.

1. Warrant 2. Outside

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Impounded Vehicles and Inventory Searches] State v. One Ford Thunderbird The inventory search of a vehicle [how many] days after it was impounded was found to have violated the Mangold provisions. The owner should have been contacted and given an opportunity to remove items from the vehicle.

10 Days

Chimel v. California 1. PO's, armed with an Arrest Warrant, not a SW, were admitted to petitioner's home by his wife to await his arrival. 2. Petitioner denied the officer's request to "look around." 3. Officers conducted a search of the entire house "on the basis of the lawful arrest." 4. At trial, petitioner's items taken from his home were admitted over objection that they had been unconstitutionally seized. 5. California appellate courts held that the officers had obtained the warrant in "good faith" and the arrest was lawful. 6. Courts held that the search was justified as incident to a valid arrest. Q1: What is permissible as the scope of a search incident to a lawful arrest under the 4th Amendment? Q2: May police do a protective sweep without making an arrest?

A1: An arresting officer may search the arrestee's person to discover and removed weapons and to seize evidence and may search the area "within the immediate control" of the person arrested, meaning the area, which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. Key Points: 1. For the routine search of rooms other than that in which an arrest occurs, or for searching desk drawers or other closed or concealed areas in that room itself, absent well recognized exceptions, a SW is required. 2. The reasonableness of a search incident to arrest depends upon "facts and circumstances - the total atmosphere of the case." 3. Those facts and circumstances must be viewed in the light of established 4th Amendment principles. 4. The only reasoned distinction is one between: a. Search of the person arrested and the area within his reach. b. More extensive searches. 5. There was no constitutional justification, in the absence of a SW, for extending the search beyond the immediate area. A2: Yes NJ police may conduct protective sweeps when they have a reasonable suspicion that the area to be swept poses a danger. Those protective sweeps are not predicted upon the police effecting an arrest. Moreover, the area to be searched by the police may include the interior of a residence or another building or the outside area (i.e. adjacent lands to the residence known in the law as curtilage) surrounding the residence. State v. Lane

State v. Carty Trooper stops vehicle for speeding at 1700 hrs where Coley is driver and Carty is passenger. Coley couldn't produce license or rental agreement for vehicle. Coley asked to sit in trooper car while he does check of credentials which were valid. Coley is asked for consent to search, which he signed. A pat down is conducted on Coley. Trooper approached passenger, Cart, and tells him to exit so he can search. Carty gets out, trooper asks for consent to pat-down, Carty agrees, and during pat-down a hard object is detected that proved to be cocaine. Carty is arrested. Trooper pat-down justification was officer safety since during search his back would've been turned to them. Q1: During a MV stop, do the police have to have a "reasonable and articulable suspicion" that criminal evidence will be found prior to asking for a consent to search?

A1: Yes A "reasonable and articulable suspicion" is necessary prior to asking for a consent search on a MV stop. A: No Reasonable Suspicion is not necessary prior to asking for consent to search a house (State v. Domicz, Sept. 2006) This requirement is to prevent police from turning routine traffic stops into a "fishing expedition."

Birchfield v. North Dakota Driver arrested for DUI after driving car into ditch. Driver refused to a blood test and was charged with a misdemeanor refusal charge. Q1: In the Birchfield case, did the court rule that a motorist lawfully arrested may be convicted of a crime for refusing to submit to a breath test? Q2: How about refusing a blood test?

A1: Yes A2: No As a general rule, the 4th Amendment does NOT allow warrantless blood draws, incident to a lawful drunk driving arrest.

State v. Nishina Sgt. Joline observed 4 individuals walking on school property which officer considered unusual because of no school activities and no one being allowed on property after dark. When asked where they coming from, they stated from playground behind school. Defendant told Sgt. they were driving around and decided to hangout at playground. Sgt. asks for driving credentials to make sure its not stolen. After getting credentials, Sgt. smelled burnt marijuana from defendant's clothes. Officer patted defendant down and discovered pen of rolling papers. Defendant denies having drugs, Sgt. inspects car and saw plastic bag sticking out of console. Sgt. removes plastic bag which had green vegetation. Defendant arrested, charged with possession of CDS, possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to use and operating a MV with a CDS. Q1: Did Sgt. Joline have a constitutional basis to stop and question the defendant prior to searching him and his car? Q2: Having established that Sgt. Joline had a constitutional basis to stop and question the defendant, was he permitted to conduct a "Terry" search? Q3: Was the search of the defendant's car valid despite the absence of a warrant?

A1: Yes Sgt. Joline possessed the requisite suspicion to stop and question the defendant in the manner that he did under the totality of circumstances. Sgt. Joline reasonably suspected that the defendant had engaged or was about to engage in a criminal wrongdoing based on the following: 1. The encounter took place on a Sunday night when the school was clearly closed. This fact created a duty for the officer to investigate in view of a local ordinance. The ordinance states that no person may, in any manner, enter upon, remain on or use the school property at times other than those designated. 2. The defendant's explanation as to why they were hanging out at the school playground was questionable given the time of the night and the defendant's age. The school serves only up to the fourth grade. 3. In order not to draw attention of his presence at the playground, the defendant parked his car away from school even though the school has its own parking lot. The above info provided Sgt. Joline the reasonable requirement; thus the brief stop and questioning was constitutional. A2: No Under a Terry search, an officer may pat down a persons' outer clothing if he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous person despite having PC to arrest the person for a crime. Under the circumstances, Sgt. Joline did not fear for his safety and such, he was not authorized to conduct a Terry search. A3: Yes Sgt. Joline did not have a practical means of obtaining a warrant once faced with the exigent and well-grounded suspicion that the defendant possessed marijuana; Exigent circumstances clearly were present to justify the warrantless search; thus, the search of the defendant's car was valid.

State v. Slockbower Police arrest Slockbower on outstanding DL warrant. Officers impound vehicle and searched it on the spot. They find gun and ammo in the glove box. Driver was not given opportunity to give permission to have vehicle parked lawfully, nor to have someone take custody of vehicle. Only justification for impoundment was standard procedure for safekeeping. Q: After the lawful arrest of a suspect for a MV offense, can the police routinely impound and inventory the contents of a vehicle involved without permission of the owner?

A: NO The State Supreme Court of NJ concluded that such routine inventories and searches are an invasion of privacy and therefore, unconstitutional.

Brown v. State

A: No The officers could not have relied on exigent circumstances to search Brown's home, while they waited for a warrant. They improperly relied on US Supreme Court case law (Illinois v. McCarthur) to secure the premises from WITHIN to preserve evidence. The NJ State Supreme Court said they should have secured the premises from the OUTSIDE for a reasonable period of time, while awaiting a warrant.

State v. Greeley Greeley was arrested for DUI, and was taken to the PD where 2 breathalyzer tests were conducted (0.12%). Greeley requested a 3rd test be done, and officers advised him that it would have to be done independently at his own expense. Greeley was provided 3 phone calls and was unsuccessful in contacting anyone. Police said oh-well and gave no other options. Greeley placed into holding cell and released after 4 hours. Q: Do the police violate a DWI arrestee's right to an independent blood-alcohol test under NJS 39:4-50.2(c) by refusing to release, except to the care of a relative or friend, the arrestee whose blood-alcohol test results reveal a level in excess of the legal limit?

A: No A PD policy of releasing an intoxicated arrestee should take into account the dangers that the person poses to himself and to the public.

State v. Rice Officers receive info that drugs were being sold out of house. Officers, dressed in plain clothes, placed the house under surveillance. Within short period, they notice people entering and leaving the house quickly. They go to door, announced they were police, and immediately heard scurrying. One of the occupants attempted to push door closed. Officers forced their way inside and found drugs and made arrests. Q: Did officers have the right to enter the defendant's home and execute a warrantless search and seizure?

A: No Although the officers had reasonable suspicion, they never had PC because they never observed a drug transaction taking place. Officers NEVER witnessed a transaction. The fact the defendant's closed the door was not sufficient to establish PC since their right to prevent entry cannot be used to elevate the suspected criminal offense.

State v. Sugar Defendant filed missing persons report regarding his wife. Defendant reported he had dispute with wife and she left in her car and hot returned. Police institute search, and found evidence against defendant. Police obtain written permission from defendant to search his house and property. No evidence was found, and defendant went away to vacation. After a week, police went back to defendant's house to conduct another search. Defendant claimed police never asked permission to re-enter while police claimed otherwise. Police found dead body in its search and later confirmed it was defendant's wife through dental x-rays. Defendant was arrested the following day. Q: After obtaining a proper consent to search, officers searched the house and found no evidence. Can the police return days later to conduct another search based on the original consent?

A: No An additional search based on consent previously given and without the defendant's knowledge is invalid. A valid consent to search must be clear, knowing, voluntary, and exact.

State v. Duran Keaton NJSP called to scene of overturned vehicle in median. Driver was already removed and being treated by EMTs. In addition to his duties, the trooper had to acquire all vehicle and driver information. Instead of asking driver, he went to overturned vehicle to obtain them. Once inside, he observed handgun in backpack, as well as a bag of marijuana near dashboard. He then located Keaton's ID, insurance, and reg. Keaton was arrested and charged with multiple weapons offenses. Keaton appealed and Appellate Division held that the search was violation of 4th Amendment. They stated trooper could only enter vehicle if defendant was "Unable or Unwilling" to produce license/reg. Because his injuries were non-life-threatening trooper should have: 1. Afforded defendant the opportunity on his own, or with the help of another, to retrieve documentation. 2. Recovered documents or info from Keaton at the hospital. 3. Waited until Keaton was released from hospital to obtain the info. Q: Does a police officer have the legal authority to enter an overturned car in order to obtain registration and insurance info for the vehicle, without first requesting permission, or allowing the motorist an opportunity to retrieve the documents himself?

A: No An officer is required to provide a motorist "with the opportunity to present his credentials before entering the vehicle. If such an opportunity is presented, and the motorist is unable or unwilling to produce his registration or insurance info, only then may an officer conduct a search for those credentials."

Georgia v. Scott Fitz Randolph Police called to Randolph house by Mrs. Janet Randolph for domestic dispute. When officers responded, Mrs. Randolph informed officers that her husband used drugs. She led officers to a location in the house where a straw was found. Scott Randolph refused an officer's request to allow a search. Q: With NO exigent circumstances or evidence of abuse, may the police enter a home to conduct a search if one residence gives permission but the other says no?

A: No In 2006 the US Supreme Court said No. The court further said if police search a home after being invited in by one resident over the protest of another, the evidence that is seized may NOT be used in court. Ruling was narrowly crafted to affect ONLY situations in which the objecting tenant is present and there is no evidence of abuse or other circumstances that would justify an immediate entry by police. Court ruled that such a search undertaken over the objection of an occupant who is present and doesn't consent to the search is unreasonable under 4th Amendment.

State v. Holmgren Officer stopped defendants' car for speeding where Holmgren was driving, and Sanders was asleep in back seat. Officer asked for documentation, and was only provided with license. He didn't realize other documentation was in visor above seat, and advised officer it was rented. Rather then check visor, he woke up back passenger and asked if he knew where paperwork was. Sanders stated documents were probably in front bag, referring to duffel bag that officer reasonably and correctly believed belonged to Holmgren. Without Holmgren's consent, the officer went through it and found CDS. Q: If a driver of a vehicle is unable to immediately produce the vehicle's registration of proof of insurance, is PC then established to search the subject's wallet or bag for it?

A: No Inability to produce such papers on the spot, does not authorize a PO to violate a person's reasonable expectation of privacy by conducting a PC search of his or her wallet, purse or bag without consent. The fact a driver cannot immediately show proof of insurance or registration supports a reasonable suspicion that vehicle is stolen. This suspicion authorizes a PO to conduct a limited warrantless search of areas in vehicle where papers might normally be kept by owner.

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Consent] State v. Derek Kaltner Officers were called for a noise complaint. While addressing complaint, they searched the entire house. Decision of the Appellate Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Parrillo's decision. Because the police officers' warrantless search of the home after they were called to address a noise complaint was not [what] [what], the evidence obtained during the search was properly suppressed.

Objectively Reasonable

State v. Younger During early morning hours, officer was dispatched to g-moms, Mrs. Younger, to investigate possible act of DV. Upon arrival, officer determined Mrs. Younger was the apparent victim, and placed defendant in his car to separate him from Mrs. Younger, and for his own protection, as a crowd had gathered. Mrs. Younger told officer that defendant punched her in stomach and struck her in head; and, at the time, officer noticed swelling on her forehead. Mrs. Younger also reported defendant was waiving knife around, threatening to kill her, and that he had a gun in a brown paper bag, which she described as similar to officer's holstered duty weapon. 3 young children were in house as well, one of which also reported to the officer that defendant, her uncle, had a gun. Officer then placed defendant, who was still seated in the patrol car, under arrest for his acts of DV, and returned to speak with Mrs. Younger. Officer explained to Younger the rights of victims in DV cases, and transported defendant to police station, arranging for his partner to search for the gun. When second officer asked Mrs. Younger where gun might be, she led him to the bedroom where defendant had been sleeping. An intensive search of the bedroom uncovered a closed pliable vinyl change purse, about 3x2 inches, lying under plastic bag of clothing. Officer noticed some sort of ID card sticking to it. Although officer knew purse obviously couldn't have contained a gun and that anything sharp or hard might have been inside it could have been felt without opening it, he nevertheless did open it for two reasons: (1) to see whom the ID card belonged, and (2) to see if there was any ammo in the purse. It contained no ammo. It did, however, contain nine glass envelopes of what later proved to be heroin. Q: At Court, will the evidence obtained from the purse be admitted into evidence?

A: No It will be suppressed because the scope of the consent given by the grandmother was limited to a search for a handgun. Court ruled that the search of the change purse was UNCONSTITUTIONAL and exceeded the scope of the consent. Officer knew there could not possibly be a handgun in the change purse. Opening the purse exceeded the scope of the authority conferred upon him by consent. The authority of the owner of premises to consent to a search of a portion thereof occupied by another doesn't extend to the possessions of the occupier that are not in plain view - and clearly not to closed luggage or other containers. The authority granted by the DV Act doesn't constitute a license for the officer to conduct a general and intensive search beyond what is reasonable to locate the weapon the officer believes is on the premises.

State v. One 1994 Ford Thunderbird Ortiz is stopped by trooper for speeding. Trooper detects odor of raw marijuana emanating from inside of vehicle. A consent search led to the discovery of CDS in passenger compartment. $700 is also found on floor of vehicle. Vehicle is impounded and vehicle and trunk are searched at a later date. Detective discovers a shoe in trunk and inside the shoe was $3,910. Q: When a vehicle is seized and is going to be subject to forfeiture can an inventory be conducted that does not include the Mangold provisions?

A: No Mangold must be followed on all inventory searches. The vehicle was properly impounded and the interior searched. The trunk was searched without the owner being given the opportunity to remove personal belongings.

State v. Cushing (Study more) June 24, 2011, police responded to a call about alleged marijuana found in a house within police district. Police went to the address provided and a Lisa Mylroie opened the door and invited them to come inside. Mylroie identified herself as the one who called. She told police the house belonged to her 85 yr. old mother, Betty Cushing, who was not home at the time. Mylroie called police to have defendant, Michael Cushing, removed from house. Defendant is Betty Cushing's grandson. Mylroie told police that she had power of attorney over her mother's household affairs, and that her mom no longer wanted the defendant to live with her due to various reasons. Furthermore, Mylroie explained that she decided to look around the house to find out why her mother's electricity bill was unusually expensive, and found bright lights inside a closet in the defendant's bedroom. When she opened the closet, she found several plants believed to be marijuana. Mylroie then led police to defendant's bedroom where marijuana was, and after seeing bedroom, police called station to obtain a SW. When Betty returned to her house, police asked for her consent to search the entire house, and she signed to search house and yard except defendant's bedroom. Cushing told police that she couldn't' agree to search defendant's bedroom, because it was his room. After search was executed, police seized marijuana, etc. Also seized was Ziploc bag with marijuana. Q: Under the circumstances, will the evidence seized from the defendant's bedroom be admissible in court?

A: No NJ Supreme Court concluded that the police had not obtained a valid authorization to enter and search the defendant's bedroom, therefore the evidence seized is not admissible in court. Ms. Mylroie lacked actually or apparent authority to give consent to enter and search Michael's bedroom. The third party's ability to consent to such a search rests on his or her 'joint occupation' of and 'common authority' over the premises. Officer may, depending on circumstances, rely on the apparent authority of a person consenting to a search. Apparent authority arises when a third party: (1) doesn't possess actual authority to consent but appears to have such authority, and (2) the LEO reasonably relied, from an objective perspective, on that appearance of authority. In this case, the Court determined that defendant had a clear privacy expectation in his room, which both he and his grandmother recognized. The standard for determining whether a PO may rely on a third party's apparent authority is whether the officer's belief at the time was objectively reasonable. That standard was NOT satisfied in this case because the officer's belief that Mylroie had authority to consent to entry and inspection of defendant's bedroom was not objectively reasonable. Third parties derive authority from common and joint use of space.

State v. Padilla Anonymous tip of two Hispanic males and a Hispanic female entering room 107 of a motel. Tip also stated one male carrying gun and wearing a lot of jewelry. Officers approach room to investigate tip, see Hispanic male look out window from the room. Due to the tip about the weapon, the officers draw their weapons. They knock, and female answers. When she opens door, officers ID themselves and ask to enter. Female opens door wider and officers enter. Once inside, officers find CDS and eventually a weapon. Q: Must officers advise people of their right to refuse entry to officers when they are asking for consent to enter a room or dwelling?

A: No Officers need not advise people of the right to refuse entry. The right to refuse warning attaches to the request for a search, not an entry that is not search related. ****RIGHT TO REFUSE ONLY APPLIES FOR A SEARCH --- NOT AN ENTRY!!!****

State v. Pierce Motor vehicle stop for speeding, driver was arrested for suspended DL. Officers ask occupants (Pierce and another) to step out, search the interior of the van and found biker gang jacket with cocaine inside. They place Pierce under arrest. Q: May a police officer indiscriminately search a vehicle compartment when making a warrantless arrest incidental to a MV offense?

A: No Once the driver was removed form the vehicle and secured, the officer's justification for searching the vehicle and passenger's clothing and containers is minimal. The justification for a warrantless search greatly diminishes when the basis for the arrest is a routine traffic violation. Police officers are authorized under the "automobile exception" to make warrantless searches of vehicles they have stopped on the highway whenever they have PC and exigent circumstances. If an officer believes that if a vehicle's driver or occupants pose a threat to the officer, a weapons search is permissible.

State v. Rose Rose was arrested for active warrants in a hotel room where he was placed under arrest in the bathroom about 1 foot away from toilet. Officers take him out in handcuffs, and another goes back and looks under toilet seat cover and finds packet of heroin. Q: Can officers search an area that is no longer in an arrestees "immediate control?"

A: No Police are permitted to search "only the person and the area under his immediate control" incident to arrest. Immediate control is defined as the area "within his reach or grabble area". The police must be kept in the area of the search to keep it under his control.

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - The Automobile Exception] State v. Birkenmeier PC, as always, is determined by the [what] of the [what]. This can include info from an informant as well as observations and independent corroboration of the informant's info.

Totality of the Circumstances

State v. Patino Trooper conducts MV stop. Trooper sees a "very small round cylindrical clear plastic container" half full of green vegetation on floor next to front seat. Trooper arrests occupants for possession of marijuana. When trooper seized container, he discovered hand-rolled marijuana cigarette next to container. Trooper proceeded to search the trunk and seized over 3 pounds of cocaine. Q: Did the trooper have PC to search the trunk of the vehicle after the discovery of a marijuana cigarette in the front seat?

A: No Presence of a small amount of marijuana for personal use does NOT provide PC to suspect that there's a larger amount being transported. There was no other circumstances that led the officer to believe defendant had prior history of illegal activity, erratic driving, suspicious gestures, or other incriminating activity.

State v. Eckel Parents report car stolen from daughter and bf. MV stop conducted as they back out of driveway, Eckel was arrested for a warrant and secured in back of patrol car. Girlfriend asks if she can give him a kiss and clothes, and officer says he will do it. He reaches for the clothes on the floor of the passenger side and finds weed. He continues to search in the back of the passenger seat and inside shorts finds more CDS (Cocaine, etc.). Both were arrested, and the rear seat juvenile taken out of vehicle. Q: May the police conduct a warrantless search of an automobile as an incident to arrest after the occupant has been removed from the vehicle and is secured in police custody?

A: No The "search incident to arrest" exception cannot be invoked in cases where the occupant of a vehicle has been arrested, removed and secured elsewhere.

State v. Andre Johnson Defendant was asked to leave residence with a duffel bag he claimed was not his. Officers searched the bag and retrieved a .45 caliber handgun that was supposedly used in a previous DV threat. Q: Did the officers have a right to search the bag defendant Johnson was carrying, or should they have gotten a telephonic warrant?

A: No The NJ Supreme Court ruled that the officer had no right to search the bag. If the officer believed there was a need to act quickly, he could have maintained the status quo in the apartment and applied for a telephonic search warrant. Must confirm property is abandoned before searching, otherwise get a telephonic warrant for exigent circumstances. This goes for abandoned properties too. Confirm they are abandoned.

State v. Wilson Early morning, officers observe vehicle being operated by McDonald Jr. with Wilson as passenger. Officers know of arrest warrants for Wilson. Vehicle stops, both males get out, and officers arrest Wilson. As Wilson removes hands from pockets a bag of marijuana falls out. Cocaine falls out of left sleeve. Wilson cuffed and placed in patrol unit. McDonald shows valid license. One officer opens passenger door of vehicle where Wilson was sitting and discovers more CDS in a map pocket. Q: May police search a vehicle that an arrestee was RECENTLY in for contraband?

A: No The area was no longer within his immediate control so it could not be searched. There was no PC to believe the vehicle contained CDS to bring it under the vehicle exception. Plain view cases officers must be legally in the viewing area. In this case, the CDS in the vehicle was only viewable after the officer opened the vehicle door without consent.

Collins v. Virginia During two traffic invests with orange and black motorcycle, officer learns motorcycle was likely stolen and in possession by Ryan Collins. Officers finds pics of orange and black motorcycle on defendants facebook. Officer drives to house and parks on street. In same location on facebook, officer spots the motorcycle under tarp. Without a SW, officer walked up to driveway, removed tarp, confirmed stolen motorcycle by license plate and VIN. Officer took photo of motorcycle, replaced tarp, and returned to his car to wait for Collins. When Collins returned, he was arrested. Q: Does the automobile exception allow and give authority to LEO's who have no warrant the right to enter the curtilage of someone's home in order to search an unoccupied vehicle parked in the driveway?

A: No The courts consider the curtilage or area immediately surrounding and associated with the home to part of the home for Fourth Amendment purposes. The automobile exception does not justify an intrusion on a person's separate and substantial 4th Amendment interest in his home and curtilage.

State v. Bryant 1. Police were dispatched just before 3am to a DV call by a woman who said that she had been attacked by her BF, defendant Charles Bryant Jr. The woman said she was outside in her car, but did not mention her name or that of the attacker, but did give an address of their apartment. 2. Two officers went to the address supplied by the woman, knocked on the door and the defendant answered. Once inside, one officer questioned the defendant while the other conducted a protective sweep of the house. All this was done without knowing the name of the woman who called and the defendant's name. 3. While conducting the protective sweep, the officer discovered what he believed to be marijuana sticking out of a box just above eye-level in the closet inside the bedroom. The marijuana was seized and the defendant was arrested and removed from the apartment. Q: Under the circumstances mentioned above, will the evidence seized from the warrantless search be admissible in court?

A: No The evidence seized will be inadmissible in court. The police lacked reasonable and articulable suspicion that another part was present, much less that another part posed a danger to their safety. The protective sweep was thus insufficient to establish an exception to the warrant requirement, and any evidence found as a result of that sweep even if it was found in plain view must be excluded and suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. Key Points: 1. Protective sweeps are appropriate when necessary for officer safety reasons so long as the sweep is narrowly confined to a cursory visual inspection of those places in which a person might be hiding. 2. In State v. Davila, the NJ Supreme Court extended the protective sweep doctrine to non-arrest settings. The Davila court held that when relying on the protective sweep doctrine, the State has the burden of providing the following: (1) LEO's are lawfully within the private premises for a legitimate purpose, which may include consent to enter; and (2) the officers on scene have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger. 3. In State v. Bryant, the NJ Supreme Court concluded that the officer's sweep was, at most, based on a subjective hunch. The officers who entered the apt. had no info regarding the name or description of the assailant, the number of parties involved, or whether there were weapons involved. There were no visual or auditory signs suggesting that another person was in the apartment. Nor was there any evidence that the officers were suddenly surprised once inside the apartment., that defendant appeared overly nervous, or that his behavior suggested the presence of another person. 4. The officers might have obtained the info they needed by asking Bryant preliminary questions, such as: "Were you just in an argument with your girlfriend?", and "Is there anyone else here in the apartment?" Had the officers asked those, or similar, questions and waited for Bryant's response, their fears could have been allayed or a reasonable and articulable suspicion formed. The officer's failure to pose these basic questions, or wait for a response to the other officer's questions, reduced his actions to, at best, nothing more than acting on a hunch.

State v. De La Paz Police received tip from informant that house in a 10-feet wide, 25-feet long alleyway was packaging and distributing drugs. There were no doors from the alleyway but windows with blinds. The one window on the pointed out residence was partially open from the bottom and about 6 feet in the air. Police looked through the window and saw the suspects packaging marijuana from a big plastic bag into little plastic bags. Police decided to enter through window after not getting assistance from narcotics division. Police crouched down and after two minutes of suspects being alerted, resumed packaging. After failing to open window, police knocked on front door, arrested suspects, and seized the evidence. Q: Under the circumstances, will the evidence seized from the house be admitted in court?

A: No The evidence seized will most likely be suppressed in court because no exigent circumstances existed to justify the warrantless entry of the police. The exigent circumstances presented were impermissibly self-created, arising from unreasonable investigative conduct. Court stated they should have got a telephonic SW.

State v. Hill Officers receive a call of a suspicious blue vehicle parked in front of a residence. They arrive on scene to find blue car parked illegally. While checking license plate, officers illuminate the interior and notice unzipped handbag on drivers seat. Officers open car, look inside for ID and find CDS. Officer returns back, sets up surveillance, and followed the vehicle after the driver went back to vehicle. They stop the vehicle, and bring the vehicle and driver back to police station. They search the bag and place defendant under arrest. Q: Can officers search a vehicle for the purpose of seeking ownership of an unattended automobile parked not parallel to the curb, containing an unzipped bag in the driver's seat, here upon he discovers illegal drugs?

A: No The officer should have cited the vehicle.

Mincey v. Arizona Narcotics raid conducted on Mincey's apartment. One officer killed, Mincey and two others wounded. 4-day warrantless search was conducted on house (ripping up carpets, opening dressers/drawers/etc.). Same night of raid, detective went to hospital and read Miranda warnings to Mincey who was barely conscious, encumbered by tubes, needles, breathing equipment, etc. repeatedly asked the interrogation stop until he can get a lawyer. Mincey was indicted on murder, assault, and CDS charges. Arizone Supreme Court reversed murder and assault charges but affirmed CDS violations, holding that the warrantless search of a homicide scene is permissible under 4th and 14th Amendments and that Mincey voluntarily gave statements. Q: Do exigent circumstances surrounding the investigation of a serious crime permit the creation of a "murder scene exception" to the written warrant requirement?

A: No The seriousness of the offense under investigation does not in and of itself create "exigent circumstances of the kind that under the 4th Amendment justify a warrantless search." Therefore, the murder scene exception created by the Arizona Supreme Court is inconsistent with the 4th and 14th Amendments. Consequently, the warrantless search of Mincey's apartment was NOT constitutionally permissible simply because a homicide had recently occurred there. Since there was no emergency threatening life or limb, all persons in the apartment were located prior to the search, and that there was no indication that evidence would be lost, destroyed, or removed prior to obtaining a warrant, it was not a good search. Statements from Mincey in the hospital should not be used against him in a trial because they were not "the product of his free and rational choice", and that he did not want to answer his interrogator but weakened, shocked, isolated, etc.. his will was simply overborne. While statements made by a defendant in circumstances violating the strictures of Miranda v. Arizona, are admissible for impeachment if their "trustworthiness.. satisfies legal standards," any criminal trial use against a defendant of his involuntary statement is a denial of due process of law.

State v. Ercoland Prosecutors office established PC to arrest defendant in reference to a bookmaking invest. A search warrant was obtained, and after execution officers waited at house for defendant. After arresting defendant for gambling activity police impounded "for safekeeping" his car parked legally out front. Officers stated the reason they towed car was: 1. It was new. 2. The thoroughfare was a busy one. 3. The driver was not the owner. Incriminating evidence was found in inventory of vehicles contents. Q: After a driver has been validly arrested, are the police justified because of the concern for the safety of an automobile to impound the vehicle and inventory the contents?

A: No Unless the driver gives consent or is given a reasonable opportunity to make other arrangements for the custody of the vehicle, he is protected against unreasonable searches and seizures unless exigent circumstances evidence a substantial police need. Police may impound a vehicle after a driver is arrested when: 1. The driver consents to the impoundment. 2. The vehicle constitutes a danger to people or property if not removed, and the driver cannot arrange for alternate means of removal. 3. The vehicle is a fruit of a crime or its instrumentality and if not impounded immediately, the vehicle will be removed by a third party (based on PC). 4. A belief based on PC that the vehicle contains evidence which will be lost or detroyed if not immediately impounded.

State v. Bradley Male arrested at casino for trying to get $1000 cash advance with fake ID. He was arrested with his bag not on him, but somewhere else. Q: Is a search of property authorized when LEO's take custody of and exercise exclusive control over luggage not immediately associated with the person of the arrestee and there is no longer a danger that the arrestee may gain access to the property? (Not a motor vehicle setting)

A: No When there is no longer any danger that the arrestee might gain access to the property to seize a weapon or destroy evidence a search of that property is no longer an incident of the arrest. Arrest and search should occur as a single transaction. A search may be conducted of the person as well as the area in the person's immediate control.

State v. Lewis Officer Da'Elia meet with very reliable informant who states he just left house of defendant where they were distributing drugs and they were about to leave. Da'Elia and and seven other officers proceed to apt., knocked on door, and when defendant saw him in uniform, attempted to close door. Pilino stuck foot in door with it partially open, observed on kitchen table paraphernalia and CDS. They enter apartment, arrest Lewis, and conduct a search of the apt. CDS was seized in kitchen and bedroom, and under bed was a gun. Q: Is removal rather than destruction of evidence sufficient by itself as an exigent circumstance to justify a warrantless entry?

A: No Where removal rather than destruction of evidence (drugs) is an issue. Exigent circumstances exist only in cases where the physical layout of the premises makes effective surveillance impossible and procuring a warrant would give the subjects the opportunity to escape with the evidence.

State v. Birkenmeier Det. Friedhoff meets with confidential informant who previously provided info that led to two major drug and weapons seizures and 2 arrests. Informant provides name, address, and physical description of defendant, Birkenmeier, along with the make, model and license tag number of his vehicle. Informant stated Birkenmeier was involved in a large-scale "distribution of marijuana" operation, selling "large quantities of marijuana from his residence," and making "frequent trips into Long Branch" to distribute the product. April 5th, 3pm, the informant called Friedhoff and reported Birkenmeier would be making large marijuana delivery in afternoon; that he would be leaving his residence at approximately 4:30pm; delivering approx. 30 pounds of marijuana, using a laundry tote bag to transport the marijuana. Based on info, Friedhoff organized surveillance of residence. As predicted, at 4:30pm, defendant was observed leaving his residence with large laundry tote, placing bag on passenger side of vehicle matching the description provided by informant. Defendant entered the vehicle and, also as predicted by informant, headed into Long Branch. Detectives stopped defendant on Woodgate Bridge in Long Branch, and removed him from his vehicle. Friedhoff approaches vehicle and observed a large laundry tote bag on passenger side and smelled "a very strong odor of marijuana." Inside bag, Friedhoff discovered 3 white plastic gags, containing various zip-lock bags that, in turn, contained approx. 35 lbs. of marijuana. Based on discovery, defendant was placed under arrest, and advised he was subject of narcotics invest. During questioning, defendant admitted that he possessed 20 or more lbs. of marijuana back at his residence, and provided the detective with oral consent to search home. At his home, defendant turned over to Friedhoff a duffel bag containing approx. 20 lbs. of marijuana. Q: When did the officers have PC and exigent circumstances, to search the passenger compartment of Brikenmeier's car?

A: The Court ruled that once the officer "observed the laundry tote bag on the front seat" and "detected a very strong odor of marijuana," at stage 6, PC and exigent circumstances existed for the automobile exception and the search of the passenger compartment. Informant provided PARTICULAR info. Court determined that, "the confidential informant's tip, once corroborated by the observations made by the police, provided sufficient Reasonable Suspicion to detain and conduct an investigatory stop of defendant, and therefore, the initial stop of defendant's car was proper." Finally, once the police lawfully discovered the marijuana in the passenger compartment of car, there was sufficient basis to support the request for defendant's consent to search his home, which consent, by defendant's own admission, was freely and voluntarily given.

State v. Holland - Study, don't understand 'Independent Source' Officer responding to 911 call from neighbor. Ofc. notices strong odor of marijuana from defendants half of duplex. Backup arrives, and all agree the def. half of duplex is the odor. Officers knock on door, defendant runs towards the rear of the house and exits, dropping a small piece of marijuana. Def. was arrested. Police enter the house to secure their own safety and determine if others were part of crime. Officers notice drug paraphernalia and CDS. Officers also discover two "grow rooms" for marijuana. Officers didn't seize anything but they did secure for their protection, a gun from basement stairway. Same day, Sgt. notifies detective of what they saw, detective applies for a SW based on officers observations. Judge issues warrant, and police seize the objects. Defendant is indicted on several drug offenses. After the appeal, the Appellate Division rejected officers' claims for a "protective sweep" because no evidence to support a reasonable belief of danger. Q: What factors must be established to justify the application of the "independent source" doctrine under the NJ Constitution?

A: To justify application of the said doctrine, the State must demonstrate that: 1. PC existed to conduct the challenged search without the unlawfully obtained information, relying on factors wholly independent from the knowledge, evidence, or other information acquired as a result of the prior illegal search; 2. The police would have sought a warrant without the tainted knowledge or evidence that they previously had acquired or viewed, and; 3. The initial impermissible search was not the product of flagrant police misconduct.

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Exigent Circumstances] State v. Shareef Edmonds Police must have an [what] [what] basis to believe someone may be in danger in order to enter a house and search. For example, there must be evidence to corroborate a 911 call reporting a dangerous incident to support a search under either the community care-taking or emergency aid doctrines. Polices officers answering a DV 911 call weren't authorized to conduct a warrantless search of the house, once it was clear the occupants weren't in danger.

Objectively Reasonable

US v. Clark Around 10:30pm, PO's observe van driving down highway at night without headlights. Officers observe driver, Roberts, on cell phone with obstructed view. Between 10:32 - 11:05pm ,officers initiated a traffic stop on van and asked Roberts for his credentials. From 11:06 to 11:48pm, Roberts explained he could not locate the reg. because the van belonged to his mother. From 11:49 to 12:21am, officers stated to Roberts that the stop was for 3 traffic violations. Officers also asked Roberts if his DL was suspended and inquired if vehicle belonged to Robert's mom which Roberts affirmed did. From 12:22 - 12:30am, officers ran a background check on Roberts and the van's LP, confirming that Roberts had an active license and that the plate was registered to the vehicle and belonged to a woman sharing Robert's last name and address. Officers discovered Robert's criminal record for drug offenses but found no outstanding arrest warrants. Officers returned, asked Roberts about his travel history and plans, and after, asked him to step out of vehicle for further questioning about his criminal history. Officers also asked the passenger defendant, Clark, to step out. After noticing odor of marijuana coming from passenger side of van, officers conducted a pat-down on Clark, discovering a marijuana cigarette and loaded revolver. Q: In the scenario presented, was it reasonable or unreasonable for the officers to extend the duration of the traffic stop?

A: Unreasonable The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled it was Unreasonable. They found that the officers inappropriately extended the traffic stop. As a result, the handgun and marijuana recovered were suppressed. AGAIN: To prolong a traffic stop beyond its necessary point, officer must have acquired Reasonable Suspicion during the mission to justify further investigation.

State v. Oyenusi Babatunde Oyenusi was arrested outside his residence where he was carrying two white plastic bags. Officers arrested him, and then looked inside the bags, which were not sealed or otherwise secured. Q: Can a PO conduct a warrantless search of the contents of a container in the possession of a recently arrested subject, even if the subject no longer has access to the container when the search is conducted?

A: Yes AN officer may conduct a warrantless search of the contents of a container in the possession of a recently arrested subject, even if the subject no longer has access to the container when the search is conducted, so long as the search is conducted contemporaneously with the arrest.

Missouri v McNeely Driver was arrested for DWI after seen speeding and crossing center line. He was transported to hospital where he refused drawing of blood. Officer ordered technician to draw blood, which was well above the legal limit. Q: Is the warrantless, non-consensual drawing of blood in routine DWI investigations an unreasonable search?

A: Yes Absent exigent circumstances beyond the dissipation of alcohol in the blood stream, a warrant or consent MUST be obtained to draw blood. The drawing of blood is a warrantless search that must be supported by PC or exigent circumstances.

State v. Guerra - Can still do? Troopers stop vehicle on NJ turnpike with tail light out. While checking driver's credentials, he noticed strong smell of raw unburned marijuana emanating from trunk. Trooper asks for consent and is denied. Trooper takes defendants out of vehicle, and obtains telephonic SW. Trooper recovered 175 pounds of marijuana in bags. Q: Is strong odor of raw unburned "marijuana" emanating from the trunk of a MV sufficient PC to conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle, including contents therein?

A: Yes Although the telephonic SW was invalid because it lacked exigent circumstances, it found the trooper had enough PC to conduct the search.

State v. Stanton Officer receives anonymous tip of drug sales and several guns from room 23 at Horizon Motor Inn. Officer knew of outstanding bench warrant for suspect, but took no immediate action due to manpower. After midnight, tip was followed up by four officers. They knocked on doors, and identified themselves as officers as someone pulled back drapes, and they noticed white powdery bag on top of microwave. They enter, and seize weapons and CDS. Q: At court, will the evidence seized be admissible?

A: Yes At court, the evidence will be admissible; although the exigent circumstances which justified entry into the motel room were police-created, they arose as a result of reasonable police investigative conduct, and therefore the officers were lawfully in the viewing area. The police-created exigency was prompted by reasonable investigative LE behavior.

California v. Carney DEA agent had information that mobile home being used to exchange marijuana for sex. Agent watched respondent approach youth and bring the youth back to vehicle. Once the youth left, they stopped him and stated he received marijuana for sexual contacts. Agents advise youth to go back and knock on door. When respondent stepped out, without a warrant or consent, one agent entered and noticed marijuana. Respondent was charged with possession for sale. Q: Does the "automobile exception" to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement apply to a fully mobile motor home located in a public parking lot?

A: Yes Based on PC, the warrantless search of a fully mobile motor home, is proper under the automobile exception. 1. The vehicle is readily mobile. 2. Reduced expectation of privacy for vehicles capable of traveling on highways. 3. A motor home lends itself easy to use as an instrument of illicit drug traffic.

State v. Cancel Police stop Cancel at Newark Int. Airport after she picked up her suitcase. Police use K9s to sniff all suitcases that came from Arizona flight. Dog hit on Cancel's bag. When stopped by PD, defendant was asked for her luggage and ticket. Receipt matched tag in suitcase, but ticket did not match her name. Police asked Cancel if they could inspect suitcase, informing her if she refuses she would be detained until SW is gained. Cancel consented and gave police the combo to suitcase lock. Cancel's suitcase contained 39 lbs. marijuana. Cancel was paid $1000 to bring marijuana into NJ. Police arrested Cancel. Cancel attorney argued search was unlawful because police's threat to detain her before SW. The K9 reaction, discrepancy between Cancel name and and name on ticket - gave police PC to arrest and get SW. Q: At Court, will the marijuana be admissible?

A: Yes Because the dog's positive reaction to the suitcase and the discrepancy between the woman's name and the name on her ticket gave the police PC to arrest her and obtain a warrant to search the suitcase; therefore, the woman's consent was lawfully obtained. The federal Supreme Court, in US v Place, supra, held that using a drug detection dog to sniff for narcotics in a public place is NOT a search. When notifying a subject of what 'step would be next' it needs to be done in the context of "Fair prediction of events to follow," - NOT - "A deceptive threat made to deprive her of the ability to make an informed consent. In other words, if it's going to happen regardless, you can inform them, but you can't trick them into consenting.

State v. Yanovsky At midnight, Troopers Donato & Levy clocked defendants on stationary radar traveling 75mph in a 65mph zone. Troopers pull defendants over. Before exiting police car, Donato determined by NCIC lookup that car was NOT stolen. Vehicle had OHIO dealer license plate. Driver, Yavonsky, produced valid DL but was unable to produce reg. or insurance. Upon questioning, Yavonsky stated he didn't' know the ID of the vehicles owner, but that a friend who worked for a dealer had lent him and Krylova the car to go to NY for 3 days, and now returning to Ohio. Upon visual inspection of interior of vehicle, Donato didn't observe any luggage. Inconsistent with 3-day trip, Donato inquired about it. Yavonsky exited vehicle, opened hatch back and pointed out leather carry-on bag, measuring approx. 2 ft. by 3 ft., and a plastic trash bag containing articles of clothing. Donato continued his questioning, separating two defendants and perceiving some unspecified inconsistencies in their responses to him about where they were and amount of time there, and what they were doin in NY. Donato requested and obtained Yavonsky a consent to search the vehicle. About half hour after stop, Donato began the search. After searching plastic bag with clothing, he asked who owned leather bag. Both defendants denied ownership, he opened it. It contained clothing and toiletries, and a manila envelope that had a heat-sealed bag containing 1000 ecstasy tablets that Donato seized. Q: At Court, will the evidence be suppressed?

A: Yes During a routine MV stop, officers are not permitted to ask for consent to search in the absence of a reasonable articulable suspicion that the search would yield evidence of illegal activity. Therefore, reasonable articulable suspicion is a necessary prerequisite under the NJ Constitution to requesting a consent to search after a routine stop for a traffic violation.

State v. Carroll Middle of August afternoon, Ofc. Timek observed brown Buick sedan parked in front of Endicott Hotel. Timek recognized driver as Carroll, a suspected new drug dealer in area. Carroll goes into Hotel empty-handed, and comes out with blue plastic bag. He placed bag on passenger seat and drove away. When Timek noticed car was missing license plate and middle brake light not working, he got into pursuit with vehicle along with Ofc. Lasko. During pursuit, Timek noticed Carroll trying to push bag through driver side window but was unsuccessful. Carroll continued pursuit between 40-50 mph, "jumped a curb", and then steered into parking lot, where he crashed into parked vehicle. Carroll quickly exited, and attempted to flee on foot. Timek confronted Carroll in p-lot, shouting at him to turn around and put hands in air. In response, Carroll assumed "combative stance," raising hands and "clenching his fists." Timek tried to place him under arrest, and struggled with him for about 30-40 seconds until Lasko arrived. They handcuff Carroll, pat him down for weapons, and remove him from the immediate area of Buick, estimated to be one car length from the vehicle. Timek reached into Buick to retrieve plastic bag which was in plain view on the floor of front passenger seat. Inside, was a large white rock which was suspected cocaine, and other CDS/Parerphanlia. He also retrieved ID info and key on front seat. Shortly after, the officers learned Buick was stolen. Based upon events, officers obtained warrant to search room at Hotel. They uncovered CDS, etc. etc. Q: After the driver of a vehicle has been arrested, removed and secured elsewhere, may the "automobile exception" still be used to support a warrantless search of a vehicle?

A: Yes Even though the driver is removed from the vehicle and arrested, the "automobile exception" may still be used to support a warrantless search. In addition, the court held that the evidence found in defendant's hotel room was admissible as "the fruit of a constitutional search and seizure that led to the issuance of a valid warrant predicted upon PC."

State v. Finesmith Facts before the Court in Finesmith involve a search under a warrant where police sought criminal evidence contained on a laptop PC. Police suspended initial search when they couldn't find PC. However, police later developed additional info as to where laptop was. With new info on hand, police returned to residence 2 hours later, re-entered and secured laptop. Q: Under the procedure of Reasonable Continuation, may the police temporarily suspend a residential search undertaken through the authority of a SW and later return to the scene and re-enter a residence for the purpose of continuing the search for evidence?

A: Yes In order to do this, the police must establish that the second search was a continuation of the original search and that the subsequent decision to conduct a second entry was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.

State v. Cope 1. July 5th, 2006, at approx. 6:20pm, Sgt. Brintzinghoffer, together with five other PO's, went to defendant Demetrius Cope's apt. in Burlington Twp. to execute a warrant for his arrest. Sgt. Brintzinghoffer knew that defendant had a number of prior criminal convictions and had info that he might be armed with a weapon. 2. Defendant Cope resided in a 2nd floor apt. which has a back porch close to the living room. The apt. is accessed by a door on the first floor. Three officers positioned themselves behind the building to observe the defendant's back porch. Sgt. Brintzinghoffer, with two other officers, knocked on the front door. After knocking, Sgt. Brintzinghoffer heard a "commotion" - movement of something and "multiple people inside the apartment." The Sgt. announced he had a warrant, and seconds later an officer guarding the back called out that defendant had run into the apt. from the back porch. Sgt. Brintzinghoffer then banged on the door and a female voice responded "hold on." The Sgt. responded that he had an arrest warrant for the defendant and that the door will be kicked unless the defendant answered. 3. April Grant, the defendant's adult daughter, opened the door, Sgt. Brintzinghoffer and one other officer climbed the stairs, which opened into the apartment's living room. The officers found defendant lying on a couch. Defendant was handcuffed and placed under arrest. 4. Sgt. Brintzinghoffer then conducted a protective sweep of the bedroom, bathroom, and back porch to ensure that no one could launch a surprise attack against the officers. A sliding glass door separating the living room from the porch was open. When Sgt. went to the porch, he noticed a camouflage rifle bag on the floor next to a storage bin which the Sgt. feared someone might be hiding in. Sgt. picked up the bag and knew by its weight and feel that a rifle was inside. When the Sgt. opened the bag, he found an assault-type rifle, a "banana-clip," and "numerous rounds of ammo, other magazines, and speed loaders." The contents of the bag along with the rifle were seized as evidence. Q: After the subject was arrested in the living room, was it lawful and proper for the officers to conduct a protective sweep of the subject's apartment and porch?

A: Yes It was appropriate for the officers to determine that no individuals posed a safety risk to the officers. At court, the evidence will be ADMISSIBLE. Key Points: 1. To justify the warrantless home search in this case, the State relies on the protective-sweep doctrine. 2. A protective sweep of a home incident to a lawful arrest is a reasonable search under both the 4th Amendment and Article I, paragraph 7 of our State Constitution. 3. A 'protective sweep' is a quick and limited search of premises, incident to an arrest and conducted to protect the safety of police officers or others. 4. It is narrowly confined to a cursory visual inspection of those places in which a person might be hiding. 5. The rationale for a protective sweep is officer safety. 6. A protective sweep incident to an in-home arrest is permissible under the following circumstances: a. First, the police may sweep the spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack might be launched even in the absence of PC or reasonable suspicion. b. Any wider sweep must be justified by specific facts that would cause a reasonable officer to believe there is an individual within the premises who poses a danger to the arresting officers. c. Second, the sweep must be narrowly confined to a cursory visual inspection of those places in which a person might be hiding. d. Last, the sweep should last no longer than is necessary to dispel the reasonable suspicion of danger, or to complete the arrest and depart the premises.

State v. Vanderveer Sherriff's executing ARREST warrant for N.R. at his home. Warrant was for failure to pay child support. Officers see N.R. on porch with defendant Vanderveer. N.R was placed under arrest. While on the porch, Officer detected strong odor of burnt marijuana coming from where N.R. and defendant were standing. Officer was familiar with marijuana smell from training and prior experience. Officers searched and found no contraband on N.R. but found cocaine from defendant when he emptied his pockets. Officers arrested Vanderveer. Q: Was the warrantless search conducted by Officer McDonald on the defendant valid?

A: Yes Its validity was based on Officer's McDonald's detection of the marijuana odor as PC for the search.

State v. Hamlett Detective Narenberg directed Ofc. Heintz to stop a Malibu with PA tags after NOT providing a reason why. Heintz located vehicle, witnessed 2 MV violations, and stopped the car. Heintz asked defendant for documentation and defendant said car was rented by his GF, Ms. Boyd. Unable to produce documentation, he gave Heintz an expired ID card. Heintz didn't believe driver was under influence but saw empty bottle of vodka and odor of marijuana. Defendant was given the opportunity to call Ms. Boyd. Even though defendant's cell was in plain view, he witnessed defendant quickly open and close center console. Other officers arrived on scene and ordered defendant not to make any sudden movements. Defendant used his cell phone and advised officers Boyd was on her way with no ETA. After phone call, Heintz requested info on rental agreement to which Defendant stated he didn't know. Due to not being able to produce documentation, Heintz ordered him out of car, patted him down for weapons, and placed him on curb. In effort to avoid prolonging the stop, Heintz searched the vehicle's credentials in the side visor and glove compartment, and open compartment near gear shifter. He then opened center console where he found CDS. Defendant was arrested, and search of person revealed more CDS. Q: Based on the facts presented, was Officer Heintz justified in initiating a search for the defendants credentials, and seizing the evidence?

A: Yes Officer Heintz was acting lawfully in initiating the search for credentials, as well as seizing evidence in plain view.

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Exigent Circumstances] Police cannot create exigent circumstances. In State v. Rice, because the police did not have [what] to believe a crime was being committed they could not make entry into a home based on exigent circumstances.

PC

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Exigent Circumstances] The strong odor of burnt marijuana provides [what] to search an individual. State v. Vanderveer

PC

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - The Automobile Exception] State v. Wilson Once a person leaves a vehicle, the automobile exception will no longer apply if there is NO [what] to believe that the vehicle is connected to criminal activity.

PC

State v. Mangold Van skidded off road, hit a tree, and was impeding traffic. While waiting for tow truck, officers began to inventory the contents of the vehicle in accordance with departmental policy. Neither occupant were asked for permission to enter vehicle or if they needed anything removed prior to tow. Officers found a cooler, opened it, and found marijuana. Both defendants were arrested. While search incident to arrest on Labianca they found more marijuana. Q: In the absence of criminal activity, lawful arrest, or a search warrant, must police officers give the occupants of a vehicle an opportunity to remove property prior to the impoundment of the vehicle involved in an accident?

A: Yes Owners of property must be given an opportunity to remove their property prior to impoundment of a vehicle. The trial judge, as well as the State Supreme Court, ruled that the search was unconstitutional. Once a vehicle is impounded, a search must be based on South Dakota v. Opperman, which is based on the notion that the reason for the inventory is to: 1. Protect property while in police custody; 2. Protecting the police and impound personnel from false claims, and; 3. Safeguarding police from potential danger.

State v. Elders Two troopers encounter 2 cars stopped on roadway, one of which had broken down and was in process of being repaired by occupants. Based on extensive on-scene questioning, troopers developed reasonable suspicion that evidence of a crime might be hidden in one or both of vehicles. Troopers sought to obtain consent from purported "owner" of vehicles at the scene. When he refused to sign the standard consent for, trooper explained that in the absence of consent, he would request that a drug-sniffing dog be brought to scene to continue invest. Upon hearing this, the "owner" signed consent to search. Search uncovered distribution levels of CDS. All occupants were arrested. Q: What is necessary for the police to ask for consent to search a vehicle which is disabled on the roadway?

A: Yes Police must have reasonable and articulable suspicion that contraband or criminal evidence will be found therein. Due to police immediately questioning subjects on scene, which such actions are wholly inconsistent with community caretaking activities by police which should completely be divorced from gathering evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Beyond that, the justices agreed that the consent that the police obtained for the search was NOT based upon reasonable suspicion but, at best, a hunch.

Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart Officers arrive to a loud party at 3am. They hear shouting from inside and proceed down driveway. They observe two juveniles drinking beer in the backyard. They enter backyard, and saw through a screen door and windows an altercation taking place between 4 adults restraining a juvenile. Juvenile punches 1 adult in face where he is seen spitting blood in sink. They continue to restrain the juvenile by pushing him against fridge and having fridge move. Officers then open the screen door, announce their presence to no avail. They enter the kitchen, announce again and the incident ceases. All adults were arrested. Q: Can the police go into a home without a warrant when they believe that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury?

A: Yes Police officers may go into a home without a warrant to provide emergency aid to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury.

State v. Altariq Laboo String of robberies by 3 individuals. Each incident there was a gun and among items taken were two cell phones. Judge permitted using a mobile electronic tracking device. Officers tracked cell phone to 3-family house in high crime area. People started gathering, officers enter. They go to 2nd floor apartment. Officers knock on door and ID themselves. Ofc. hears voice saying "shut-up, shut-up, 5-0," which was described as layman terms for police. He also heard scurrying in the apt. Knowing they were in high crime area, and that the robberies contained armed suspects, and believing teenage female was in apt, officers "shouldered" the door, and entered with guns drawn. Officers found items on table that were from robbery. Def. Moon ran into bedroom where officers found silver handgun on bed. Stolen cell phone was found on one of the two teenage girls after Ofc. dialed number from his cell phone. Q: Under the circumstances presented, was a forced entry by the police into an occupied apartment without a warrant justified as reasonable, based on PC and exigent circumstances?

A: Yes The Court held that although the exigency was to some degree created by the police themselves, their actions were reasonable and supported by ample PC to believe that evidence related to the crimes could be located within the department. Urgent circumstances arose when police heard "Shut-up, Shut-up, 5-0," creating the need for the officers to act to avoid further potential danger to themselves or the public.

State v. Witt Witt charged in indictment of 2nd degree unlawful possession of a firearm and 2nd degree possession of a weapon by a convicted person. Police initiate stop because WItt didn't dim headlights when necessary, and a search of vehicle uncovered handgun. Officer testified that when he pulled vehicle over Wiit appeared intoxicated and asked to exit car. Witt failed sobriety and balance tests and was arrested. Defendant was placed in back of patrol car. Q: Is the exigent-circumstances standard set forth in Pena-Flores unsound in principle and unworkable in practice?

A: Yes The NJ Supreme Court returns to the standard articulated in State v. Alston, for warrantless searches of automobiles based on PC: The automobile exception authorizes the warrantless search of an automobile only when the police have PC to believe that the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of an offense and the circumstances giving rise to PC cause are unforeseeable and spontaneous.

State v. Faretra Officer flagged down by civilian stating someone just broke into his garage. They stop Louis Gillick who was carrying a cardboard box filled with car radios. Gillick was brought back to the garage and ID'd by second witness. Gillick placed under arrest and officer inspected garage. Garage front door was pushed in, and found inside was "a large number of car parts from new model cars". It appeared to be a chop shop. He wrote down 3 VIN's on the doors and relayed to dispatch. All doors belonged to stolen vehicles. Q: Can police enter a private residence without a warrant under the "exigent circumstances" exception where the residence has recently been or is being burglarized?

A: Yes The police may enter private premises when they reasonably believe that the premises has recently been or is being burglarized. Police may enter when they reasonably believe that a crime is taking or has taken place for the limited purposes of: 1. Rendering aid to a possible victim. 2. Seeking or apprehending the perpetrators. 3. Taking any necessary steps to secure the premises.

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - The Automobile Exception] In State v. Letman, A large amount of CDS was found in the car. This gives [what] to believe that distribution of CDS is occurring and provides [what] to search the trunk. Contrast to State v. Patino, where small amounts of consistent with personal use will not provide [what] to search the trunk.

PC / PC / PC

State v. Nelson State PD receive tip from ATF that silver vehicle with particular reg. driven by African American male would be transporting large quantity of marijuana along NJ Turnpike. Trooper spotted vehicle, and pulled it over for traffic violations. Upon approaching vehicle, trooper noticed several air fresheners throughout cabin of vehicle. Driver, Nelson, was sweating heavily, and was visibly nervous. Trooper asked him where he was going, and changed his story repeatedly. Vehicle contained no personal belongings except 2 large bundles in the cargo hold. Defendant told trooper the bags contained shoes from store he was closing. Defendant admitted he'd been previously arrested for possession of marijuana. Based on belief vehicle contained narcotics, trooper requested permission to search vehicle, which was denied. Trooper then called K9. Trooper made request at 7:21pm K9 arrived at 7:58pm. K9 alerted trooper to presence of narcotics at rear hatch, defendant was arrested, and vehicle was towed and impounded. After obtaining SW, troopers found 80 lbs. of marijuana in vehicle. Q: In this case, was the prolonged traffic stop of the trooper justified?

A: Yes The NJ Supreme Court ruled that even though the defendant's traffic stop was prolonged to wait for the canine unit, the troopers had developed articulable reasonable suspicion to support prolonging the stop; 1. Initial tip from ATF; 2. Moving violations observed; 3. Defendant's nervous behavior; 4. Defendant's conflicting trip itinerary; 5. Lack of any personal belongings in the vehicle; 6. Large bags in the cargo hold; 7. Defendant's admission of prior narcotics arrests; 8. Overwhelming smell of air freshener Nelson's traffic stop was prolonged, but troopers developed reasonable articulable suspicion to prolong stop.

State v. Hemenway June 28, 2012, the victim D.S. filed complaint against defendant, Hemenway under the Prevention of DV Act, seeking a TRO. Complaint listed following predictive offenses: assault, terroristic threats, criminal mischief, and criminal trespass, and identified "dating relationship" as the jurisdictional basis. Attached to complaint was narrative statement of incident that prompted D.S. to seek judicial relief. D.S. appeared before Family Part judge to testify at an ex parte hearing in support of her app. for TRO. Family Part judge elicited a testimonial evidence from D.S. who stated defendant is in possession of handguns, knives and switchblades. D.S. stated the weapons are being kept by defendant in his home and 3 vehicles. Court entered a TRO and authorized issuance of a warrant to search and seize the weapons from defendant's home and 3 vehicles. June 29, 2012, 2 POs were at defendants' residence to serve the TRO and a warrant to conduct the searches for firearms. Defendant refused officer's order to enter and tried to call his attorney twice using 2 cell phones. Officers didn't allow defendant to call his attorney for their safety and removed defendant's cellphones. Defendant was arrested for obstructing the execution of the DV warrant. Officers entered apt, and observed what appeared to be marijuana and cocaine. Based on discovery of the CDS, a detective applied for and received telephonic SW for residence and vehicles. Police searched and recovered drugs, bullets, and cash, but no handguns or switchblades. Trial court denied Hemenway's motion to suppress, concluding that the telephonic criminal SW app. set forth PC for the issuance of a warrant to search Hemenway's residence and that the DV warrant provided an adequate and independent basis for the search of the vehicles. Hemenway appealed, challenging the validity of the DV and telephonic SW's. Appellate Division affirmed the denial of motion to suppress. NJ Supreme Court then heard case. Q: In this case, was the search of the defendant's residence illegal?

A: Yes The NJ Supreme Court ruled that the search was violative of the 4th Amendment and Article 1, Paragraph 7 of the NJ State Constitution. All evidence seized must be suppressed as a result of the Family Court issuing the SW for weapons based on a deficient record and without making the necessary findings to justify the warrant's issuance. The fruit of the unlawful search of the home were used to form the factual basis for the issuance of the criminal SW. DV SW's for firearms now require a judge to find PC. The beneficent goal of protecting DV victims must be accomplished while abiding by well-established constitutional norms. Before issuing a warrant to search for weapons under the Act, a court must find that there is: 1. PC to believe that an act of DV has been committed by the defendant; 2. PC to believe that a search for and seizure of weapons is necessary to protect the life, health or well-being of a victim on whose behalf the relief is sought, and; 3. PC to believe that the weapons are located in the place to be searched. Transposed into the context of a DV SW for weapons, PC requires that the issuing court only have a well-grounded suspicion.

State v. Zalcberg Large MV collision with serious injuries. After jaws of life were applied, they noticed alcohol bottle in the console and the defendant smelled like alcohol. Defendant was incapacitated. Defendant was taken to hospital, where an hour went by to gain access to defendant. At this time, officer ordered nurse to withdraw blood. Q: In this case, did the officers have sufficient exigent circumstances to bypass the warrant requirement?

A: Yes The NJ Supreme Court ruled that the totality of the circumstances" demonstrated an objective exigency, relaxing the need for a warrant and rendering the officer's warrantless blood draw constitutional. In Mithcell v. Wisconsin, the US Surpeme Court held that "when a driver is unconscious and cannot be given a breath test, the exigent circumstances doctrine generally permits a blood test without a warrant."

State v. Johnson Supreme Court held that "where the subject is not in custody and the state attempts to justify the search on the basis of consent, it has the burden of showing the consent was voluntary." While knowledge of a right to refuse consent is one factor, it is NOT an indispensable element of an effective consent. Supreme Court of NJ may impose higher standards on searches and seizures to give individuals greater protection than the 4th Amendment. This is based on Article I, Paragraph 7 of State Constitution. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, house, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated." Q: Under NJ law, must the State prove that the person knew that he had a right to refuse consent in order for consent to be valid?

A: Yes The State has the burden of showing that the consent was voluntary and that the person knew that he had knowledge of the right to refuse consent. 'Consent' contemplates the exercise of a choice. 'Choice' entails the opportunity to evaluate the options.

State v. Ravotto Driver involved in a 1-car accident where vehicle was overturned and wrapped around a chain-link fence. Driver was lying inside the car. When asked by officer if he was alright he said he was alright and alone in the car. When ambulance arrived, he stated they should hurry up cause there is '3 of us in here'. When he came out, he stated he was joking. Officer stated he smelled alcohol on his breath. With no injuries and refusal of medical treatment, they forced him on to stretcher and hospital. While vigorously resisting he was taken to a hospital for withdrawal of blood while trying to punch a doctor attempting to take blood. No warrant was obtained for the blood. Before taking the blood, a kit had to be delivered from PD HQ which took an hour. Defendant offered to take breathalyzer test because he was afraid of needles. Defendant was restrained for 6 hours and then released, and received no other medical treatment. Q: Applying the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Was the use of force by police unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances?

A: Yes The State's taking of blood from a suspect constitutes a search. Under State and Federal Constitutions, the force used by police to extract defendant's blood was UNREASONABLE under the Totality of the Circumstances.

State v. Martin Friendly's robbed at gunpoint at 1:25am. Suspects leave in wood-paneled wagon, which was parked outside store for several hours prior to robbery. Twenty minutes later vehicle was in p-lot of housing project. Victims were brought to vehicle, and both ID'd it as the car. Looking into car, officer sees paint-stained white glove matching description of glove worn by robbers. They tow vehicle back to station, and search vehicle.

A: Yes The police were given the description and were actively looking for it. The subjects who committed the robbery were also still at large. The vehicle was an instrumentality used to commit the crime. Therefore the court ruled it was proper and justified under the automobile exception. Beyond the development of PC, the existing exigent circumstances made it reasonable for the officers to remove vehicle to police station before conducting the search that, for constitutional purposes, would have been permissible at scene.

Illinois v. Caballes Trooper Gillette stopped Caballes for speeding on interstate highway. When Gillette called in stop, 2nd trooper (Graham), member of state's Drug Interdiction Team, overheard the transmission and immediately headed for the scene with his narcotics-detection K9. Upon Graham's arrival, defendant's car was on the shoulder of the road and defendant was sitting in Trooper Gillette's patrol car. As Gillette wrote out a warning for the MV violation, Graham walked his dog around defendant's car. Dog alerted on the trunk. Based on alert, officers searched trunk, found marijuana, and placed Caballes under arrest. Entire incident lasted 10 minutes. Q: If a motorist is pulled over for a routine lawful traffic stop, are the police allowed to have a police canine sniff around the motorist's vehicle?

A: Yes The US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution does not protect motorists' vehicles from the "nosy" inquiries of drug sniffing dogs during routine traffic stops. Dog sniff was sufficiently reliable to establish PC to search trunk. A dog sniff that revealed location of an illegal substance that no person has the right to possess, doesn't violate 4th Amendment. [State v. Mark Dunbar] An officer may NOT conduct a canine sniff in a manner that prolongs a traffic stop beyond time required to complete the stop's mission, unless he possesses reasonable articulable suspicion to do so. [Florida v. Jardines] Anonymous tip led officers to drug-house. They put K9 near house that alerted them to drugs. SW was applied for and defendant was arrested when he ran out rear door. Supreme Court suppressed evidence because they equated the use of dog as unlawful search. While use of a dog is generally lawful, and smelling air is not a search, they should have first obtained a Warrant.

State v. Castro Officers respond to vice-principal seeing 18-year old Castro swallowing packet of cocaine when being caught in bathroom giving it to another student. Castro took off from school after being caught. Officer goes to check on Castro at home. Cousin says he's not home. Later Officer saw and heard movement on first floor, and went to area where he saw and heard the noise when he spotted Philip. Philip dropped and kicked white plastic or cellophane ball under baseboard which had white powder inside. Officer testified his purpose was to contact ambulance and get him assistance. Q: Was there a sufficient exigency created by the information imparted at the school to justify Officer Monteiro's immediate action?

A: Yes The court held that there was a reasonable basis to believe that the defendant had been using and probably swallowed an unknown amount of cocaine before taking off from school. There was visual confirmation by Vice-Principal Belz and by the other participating student. There was nothing to dispute Officer Monteiro's statement that his primary concern was to ensure Phillip's safety and not to arrest a suspected drug possessor.

State v. Alvarez Officer approached by woman stating drug related info on the 4th floor of nearby Hotel. Officer immediately proceeded to Hotel where he was told had been "foot traffic" and numerous phone calls to and from that room. Detective scans desk register and found that room 402 was registered to Alvarez who he knew from prior CDS invests. Backup officers respond and they proceed to 4th floor. They hear a male voice say "if we sell one more ounce, we have enough to re-up." Officer knocks on door and ID's himself as the maid in a falsetto voice. When door opens, they go inside and observe in plain view CDS and paraphernalia. They seize contraband and arrest occupants immediately. Q: Were the police justified to make a warrantless entry and search of the defendant's hotel room based on existing PC and exigent circumstances?

A: Yes The fluidity of the ongoing investigation of the distribution of narcotics made the obtaining of an adequate search warrant more difficult to time in the flow of events. The officers had a reasonable belief that the occupants of the room were engaged in criminal conduct and were acting in good faith. Exigent circumstances existed and were not impermissibly created by police. Because the woman complaining about the drugs was not part of the underworld, she was trustworthy. Additionally, the "foot traffic" to and from the room, the numerous telephone calls, and seeing Alvarez, who they knew from previous CDS invests, was part of the room all built up PC. They had every right to be in hallway. When they overheard them talking about drugs and re'ing up it helped build case. They could easily be spotted in a hallway as its not easy to do surveillance like a house.

State v. Letman Trooper stops vehicle for speeding through construction zone on NJ turnpike. Driver was Murray and passenger was Letman. Trooper scans interior of vehicle with flashlight and sees clear plastic bag protruding about one third of way from underneath the left portion of the floor mat on passenger side. Visible inside protruding bag was white powdery substance, which was suspected and later confirmed to be cocaine. Murray stated he didn't know what was in container. Letman stated that it had been there when he entered car. Trooper stated in suppression hearing that defendant's nervousness was more apparent than in a regular MV stop. Trooper places both under arrest, read Miranda, and asked Murray if there was anything else in car. Murray stated he had placed bag in trunk, but didn't know of contents. Murray's lips were quivering and sweat in his brow. Trooper returned to vehicle, removed keys from ignition, and opened trunk where he found plastic bags used for distributing cocaine. Q: When in the course of a lawful motor vehicle stop, police discover several ounces of cocaine in the passenger compartment, and the occupants who appear visibly nervous deny any knowledge, may a LEO have PC to search the vehicle trunk?

A: Yes The officer clearly had PC to open the trunk of the vehicle after seizing the 4.2 ounces of coke. Under the automobile exception to the warrant clause, the police are permitted to stop and search a readily movable vehicle when there is PC to believe that vehicle contains criminally related objects. Both defendants denied knowledge of the plastic bag. After Miranda, Murray responded to question and stated he placed bag in trunk with unknown contents. He also appeared extremely nervous.

State v. Guerrero Three officers conducted surveillance near housing project in unmarked vehicle. Officers see white car stop at the curb, a young man approaches and exchanges a small packet for what appeared to be cash. They did not pull car over. A blue Blazer stopped in front of the projects, facing same way as police car. Same young man went to Blazer and exchanged small packet for what appeared to be cash. Officers stop Blazer and passenger leaned over as if he was reaching under the front seat. After searching vehicle and suspect, packet of marijuana was found in defendants right shoe. Q: When all elements of a narcotics transaction have taken place, are the police justified in carrying out a warrantless search where PC and exigent circumstances are present?

A: Yes The officers had PC to believe the subject had engaged in a narcotics transaction and there was no time in which to procure a warrant because the evidence could have been consumed, hidden or sold by the time a warrant was issued. It plainly fit the definition of exigent circumstances.

Illinois v. Rodriguez Fisher reported Rodriguez assaulted her earlier in the day in Chicago apartment. Fisher exhibited signs of severe beating, and told police she would take them to apt. where he was sleeping to make arrest. Although Fisher claimed she had clothes in apt, it was never clear she lived there at the time. Police didn't obtain a SW, nor an arrest warrant for Rodriguez. Fisher opened door, led officers into apt, and officers observe what appeared to be cocaine and other drug paraphernalia in plain view. They found Rodriguez asleep in bedroom where they also found suspected cocaine. Rodriguez was arrested and charged. Q: May the police conduct a warrantless entry into a suspect's residence when the police believe the third party resides in the residence, but later finds that the third party no longer resided there?

A: Yes The requirement is that officers reasonably believe that the third party had lawful access to the residence. US v. Matlock established that a third party can consent to a warrantless entry and search by LEOs if the third party lawfully resides in said residence and has common authority over the place to be searched. As long as officers REASONABLY BELIEVE the third-party lives there at the time of entry, its a good entry.

State v. Judge - Can still do? Defendant stopped for speeding by NJSP. Trooper detected smell of burnt marijuana while waiting for driver to give license. Trooper searched and found no marijuana on defendant but found smoking pipe having marijuana residue on the two passengers who were with defendant. Trooper searched vehicle and found plastic on the console and a gym bag at the back seat containing two smaller bags of marijuana. Defendant later signed consent form to search trunk where another gym bag was found containing more marijuana. Q: Did the State Trooper have PC for the search of the vehicle's interior?

A: Yes The smell of burnt marijuana, emanating from a MV legally stopped, by a trained and experienced LEO created PC for the officers to believe that a law was violated or was being violated.

Schmerber v. California Driver was in serious car accident, was sent to hospital, and officer noticed signs of DUI at scene and at the hospital. Officers places Schmerber under arrest and at officers directions, physician took blood sample despite Schmerbers refusal from council advice. Report indicated intoxication. Q: Can a PO that has lawfully arrested a driver for driving while intoxicated, who was involved in a serious accident with injuries compel that driver to submit to a blood test?

A: Yes There was PC for the arrest and the same facts as established PC justified the police in requiring the petitioner to submit to a test of his blood-alcohol content. In view of: 1. The time required to bring petitioner to a hospital 2. The consequences of delay in making a blood test for alcohol. 3. In the time needed to investigate the accident scene, there was no time to secure a warrant. Test was reasonable since: 1. It was an effective means of determining an intoxication. 2. Imposed virtually no risk, trauma or pain. 3. It was performed in a reasonable manner by a physician in a hospital.

State v. Frankel Dispatch receives a 911 call with no answer, just static. Officer is dispatched to a house where there is no vehicles outside and house looks empty. A white sheet is behind the screen door which blocked view of inside. Officer knocks, and defendant peaks from behind the sheet. When asked if anyone was in the house, defendant was extremely nervous and tripping over his words. He could not see what he was doing behind the sheet. He asks defendant to step outside and pats him down for weapons. Defendant denied making 911 call, and was shocked when asked by officer to enter house. Defendant began to become anxious and panic. Defendant allowed officer into foyer. They told defendant they were going to walk through to make sure nobody needed help and advised him they wouldn't look through drawers or personal property. Officers walked into rooms, opened closets. One closet found tray of marijuana and marijuana growing in bathroom in basement. Defendant was arrested and left with other officer. Q: Are the police justified to enter the defendant's home under the care-taking function to investigate reports of an emergency?

A: Yes Under the so-called "emergency aid doctrine" the right of police entry is separate and apart from the question of whether there is probable criminal activity within the premises. To justify a warrantless search under the emergency aid doctrine the state must satisfy the following two-pronged test: 1. There must be a reasonable and objective basis to believe that an emergency exists. 2. There must be a nexus (connection) between the search and the emergency.

Illinois v. McCarthur Tera McArthur asks to be escorted to her trailer to retrieve belongings where her husband, Charles, is staying. Tera informs officers that Charles has dope hidden under couch. Officers knock, Charles comes out on the porch, they ask for consent to enter, which is denied. Officer remains with Charles and would not let him back in without being escorted. They go in several times but officer monitors his movement. At 1700 hours, warrant is obtained, trailer is searched, and CDS recovered. Q: May officers who have PC to believe that evidence of a crime or contraband is hidden in a home prevent the resident from entering and, if they allow entry, may they enter with the resident to ensure evidence is not destroyed?

A: Yes When officers have PC to believe a home contains evidence of a crime, they MAY secure it for a reasonable amount of time while they obtain a warrant. The accompaniment of the resident was a reasonable restraint to safeguard the evidence.

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - The Automobile Exception] California v. Carney A fully mobile home (RV) falls within the [what] exception.

Automobile

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Exigent Circumstances] State v. Kaltner Appellate Division ruled that a police raid of an animal house residence during a raucus party was unreasonable. Police called to frat house for noise complaint, that had about 150 people there. Police invited in to common area by a party-goer. They then spread out and looked for residence occupants, and when they got to 3rd floor bedroom found drugs. This does NOT constitute a reasonable search under the [what] act. Evidence was suppressed.

Caretaking Act

State v. Lamb (Study more) Police investigating a shooting. Suspect was ID'd and police went to suspect's home. Step-father denied police entry. Later, suspect's gf confirmed he was there. Step-father agreed to leave the house and was escorted away. Suspect was arrested. His mother remained and granted permission to search. Handgun and ammo were located.

Court found the consent to be valid. A tenant has a right to grant consent. Question here is whether the consent was valid over the objection of a co-tenant. The court looked at Rudolph and Fernandez cases. Relying on Fernandez, the court found the consent valid since neither the defendant nor his step-father were removed from the scene to avoid the objection to the search.

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Exigent Circumstances] Exigent circumstances also do not exist at a crime scene so as to create a "[what] [what] exception". Mincey v. Arizona

Crime Scene

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Exigent Circumstances] State v. Dontae Hathaway Warrantless search of a casino hotel room where police believed an armed robbery had recently occurred didn't violate 4th Amendment; viewing the events as the appeared to a reasonable police officer, police acted within scope of [what]-[what] exception to warrant requirement. The perilous and dangerous circumstances required prompt action, based on the info at hand.

Emergency-Aid exception

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Exigent Circumstances] Destruction of evidence may provide [what] circumstances to allow a warrantless entry. However, removal rather than destruction of evidence will not establish such [what] circumstances. State v. Lewis

Exigent / Exigent

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Exigent Circumstances] Police respond to motel in reference to narcotics info. After surveillance, they knock on door and when door opens they see handgun. They enter room and recover handgun and drugs. The 3rd circuit held that the entry was lawful based on [what].

Exigent Circumstances

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Exigent Circumstances] State v. Walker Tip received from informant of subject selling CDS from apt. Undercover & clothed officer go to door, and knock. After the door opens, subject throws blunt into living room and tries to close door. Officers enter and make arrest / recover CDS. Entry was lawful because of the [what] that developed, not because of the informants "10 previous corroborated cases".

Exigent Circumstances

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - The Automobile Exception] State v. Alston The NJ Supreme Court has returned that for warrantless searches of automobiles based on [what]: The automobile exception authorizes the warrantless search of an automobile ONLY when the police have [what] to believe that the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of an offense and the circumstances giving rise to [what] are UNFORESEEABLE AND SPONTANEOUS.

PC / PC / PC

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Impounded Vehicles and Inventory Searches] State v. Slockbower Police may NOT routinely impound and inventory the contents of a vehicle without the [what] of the owner. The police must demonstrate a substantial need to impound the vehicle.

Permission

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Exigent Circumstances] State v. Castro Emergency aid doctrine also applied to situation where police had info from school that a student had just observed [what] cocaine and the officer sought to provide medical attention to that student.

Ingest

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Impounded Vehicles and Inventory Searches] State v. Mangold In the absence of criminal activity, lawful arrest, or SW, police must give the occupants of a vehicle an opportunity to remove items from the vehicle prior to a [what] search.

Inventory

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Exigent Circumstances] Police may make entry onto private property to fight a fire and [what] its cause. Michigan v. Tyler

Investigate

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Exigent Circumstances] State v. Patrick Defranco During invest into sexual assault, investigator asked SRO to obtain telephone number of teacher. The SRO contacted school and obtained number. Teacher sought to have the number suppressed as illegal search. We held that a defendant school teacher, who had previously sexually assaulted a student, did not have a [what] [what] of privacy in his cell phone number when, at an earlier time, he had given his prior number to the student, did not seek to hide the new number from him, and had disclosed the number to the school for inclusion in its Staff Directory and to multiple parents and students in connection with a school trip that defendant was chaperoning. As a consequence, we affirmed the trial court's decision to deny defendant's motion to suppress the transcript of a telephone call between him and student that was intercepted by the police as a means for corroborating the student's claim of sex assault while a juvenile.

Reasonable Expectation

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - The Automobile Exception] Automobile Exception will still apply even when occupants are [what].

Removed

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - The Automobile Exception] State v. Minitee Defense argued that once exigent circumstances were [what] and there was no longer reason to sustain a warrantless search, for instance, when the car is towed from the scene to secure it. NJ Supreme Court upheld the search because the weapon had NOT been located and the defendants were still at large when the search took place.

Removed

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Search Incident to Arrest] In Riley v. California, it was determined that Cell Phones are like laptops, and thus require a [what] prior to searching a cell phone. Therefore, phones may NOT be searched incident to arrest.

Search Warrant

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Consent] Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington [What] searches of non-violent offenders admitted to incarceration in a county jail facility is permitted.

Strip

Fernandez v. California (Study more) Robber occurred and suspect was observed running into Apt. Police went to apt and door was answered by a woman who appeared bloody and beaten. Police requested entry to search for others, as defendant appeared and refused entry. Police arrested defendant for assaulting female. Police later returned and obtained consent from female. They found evidence related to robbery. Defendant motioned to suppress evidence.

Supreme Court differentiated this case from Randolph. They court said that essentially: If a person is not present to object to the search and the removal was not done to circumvent the objection, then the search would be permissible.

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Search Incident to Arrest] In State v. Lentz, suspect was arrested for arrest warrant and was a suspect in a shooting. They arrested him and placed bags over his hands to preserve evidence, which later tested positive for gun residue on his hands. Although search didn't occur at same time or place as arrest, under [what] of circumstances, the delay and proximate location were objectively reasonable, and the search itself, which was minimally intrusive in nature and limited in purpose, was objectively reasonable in scope.

Totality

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - The Automobile Exception] US v. Kennedy Does a person that possesses a rental car but is not an authorized driver have an expectation of privacy in that vehicle? The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals looked at this issue, and stated Kennedy was given the car by his GF who had rented the car. He was NOT on the rental agreement. After his arrest, police located car and called rental company. They requested the car be impounded. Police started inventory search but found incriminating evidence. They stopped search, obtained a SW and found more evidence. Kennedy challenged search. 3rd Circuit Court join the majority of circuits in concluding that the lack of a cognizable property interest in the rental vehicle and the accompanying right to exclude makes it generally [what] for an unauthorized driver to expect privacy in the vehicle. They held that society generally doesn't share or recognize an expectation of privacy for those who have gained possession and control over a rental vehicle they have borrowed without the permission of the rental company.

Unreasonable

[Yellow Pages - Exception to Written Warrant Requirement - Consent] State v. Gene Hinton After an eviction proceeding, a warrant of removal was issued. Police later entered apt. and recovered evidence. Court found that when a [what] of [what] has been executed the tenant no longer has a Reasonable Expectation of privacy.

Warrant of Removal