New Jersey Criminal and DWI Lawyer & Attorney : John Marshall Law Firm : Drunk Driving, DUI : Monmouth County, Middlsex County, Union County, New Jersey

Although it does not seem logical, many drunk driving arrests every year are conducted inside the home. Normally these home arrests take place either as a result of the suspected drunk driver being followed to his or her home by the police or because the drunk driver attempted to conceal their offense by leaving the scene of an accident. Whatever the underlying reason for an arrest within the home, all of these arrests are conducted by the police without an arrest warrant. Therefore, when the defendant moves to suppress the evidence, the burden will be on the State to show that the entry into the defendant's home was predicated on one or more of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement. In the drunk driving context, these exceptions normally involve the following:

Consent: This consent must be given voluntarily and knowingly. The burden is on the State to show the defendant knew he had a right to refuse consent.

Hot pursuit: In Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967), the United States Supreme Court recognized the right of police, who have probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed by a fleeing suspect, to pursue that person into his or her home in order to make an arrest. The underlying offense/crime must be serious in nature. In New Jersey, drunk driving and disorderly persons offenses are not generally considered serious enough for the purpose of making a warrantless home entry during hot pursuit.

Exigent Circumstances: Police may enter a home without a warrant to make an arrest if, (1) the police have probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime and (2) the police must be confronted with exigent circumstances that require the immediate entry into the home in order to prevent escape, loss of important evidence, or to prevent death or bodily injury to a person. The exigent circumstances require the police take immediate action and make it impractical to seek a warrant.

Seizure outside the home: An officer may seize a suspect, either by arrest or detention, outside the suspect's home. If the suspect attempts, thereafter, to enter his own home, the police may follow the suspect into the home for the purpose of continuing the seizure or completing the arrest.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Now that we have examined the requirements of a consent search in New Jersey, we must now consider the scope of the consent search once consent is validly given. A police officer conducting a motor vehicle search by consent may search the vehicle as thoroughly as if he or she had a search warrant within the confines of the consent. State v. Santana, 215 N.J. Super 63 (App. Div. 1987). The person granting consent may limit the search both in terms of area and time. Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991). The consent to search may also be withdrawn at any time by the person so consenting. However, should the officer uncover something during the course of a consent search, which gives the officer probable cause to believe evidence of a crime or contraband can be found in the vehicle, the search may continue under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement which I have previously discussed.

If the consent gives the officer permission to search the trunk of the vehicle, the trunk may be searched. However, it must be explicitly understood between the officer and the person giving consent that a search of the trunk is within the scope of the consent given. In State v. Leslie, 338 N.J. Super 269 (App. Div. 2001), the search of the defendant's trunk was not explicitly stated in the consent and the drugs recovered from the trunk during the search were suppressed. An express, valid consent may also permit the search of closed containers and other areas not easily accessible in the vehicle.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The State is required to prove two elements during a hearing on a motion to suppress evidence, where the issue is one of consent. First, the State must prove by clear and convincing testimony that consent was freely, knowingly, and voluntarily given. This evidence should include proof that the defendant knew that he or she had the right to refuse to grant consent for the search. This can be shown through a written consent to search form, video evidence, or direct testimony from the police officer. The proofs only require knowledge to refuse consent on the part of the defendant, not that the police actually informed the defendant of this important right.

The second element of proof in the motor vehicle context is the requirement that the police justify the reason they sought consent to search in the first place. The request must be based upon a reasonable and articulable suspicion that evidence of a crime or contraband could be found within the motor vehicle. This can be proven through direct or circumstantial evidence. The conclusions made by the officer at the time of the request for consent must be based on a totality of the circumstances. The information available to the officer and the rational inferences to which they create must lead the officer to suspect that criminal evidence exists in the vehicle. Absent clear proofs on both of these issues, the incriminating evidence that was obtained through a consent search must be suppressed.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

New Jersey law differs significantly from federal law on the issue of motor vehicle searches undertaken by consent of the driver. Article 1, paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution provides more protection to individuals than the comparable provisions of the 4th amendment to the US Constitution.

In Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, the US Supreme Court ruled that when a subject of a search is not in custody and the prosecutions seeks to justify the search on the basis of the subject's consent, the 4th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution require that the State demonstrate that the consent was voluntarily given. The State must also show that the consent was not the product of threats, coercion, or duress. While the subject's knowledge of his or her right to refuse consent is a factor that the court may consider on the issue of voluntariness, the prosecution is not required to demonstrate such knowledge as a prerequisite to establishing voluntary consent.

This is not the law in New Jersey. Under our state constitution, the prosecution must prove not only the voluntary nature of the consent, but also that the defendant knew of his or her right to refuse to give consent to the search.

Furthermore, in the motor vehicle context, there is an additional requirement that must be met under New Jersey law. In order to seek the consent of a subject to conduct a search of a motor vehicle during a routine traffic stop, the law enforcement officer must have at least an articulable suspicion that evidence of a crime or a contraband may be found in the vehicle. This additional requirement in the motor vehicle context is also a product of an appellate decision interpreting Article I, paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution to provide greater protection against unreasonable searches and seizures than the 4th amendment provides.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks