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

Under New Jersey law, there is no exception to the warrant requirement that will justify a search of a motor vehicle for driving credentials. Absent a specific recognized exception to the warrant requirement (such as a search incident to arrest or consent search), police may not conduct vehicle searches to locate a motorist's driver's license, registration, insurance card, or other necessary driving documents. This was the holding by the New Jersey Supreme Court in State v. Lark, 163 N.J. 294 (2000). Typically, in a credentials case, the police are confronted by a motorist who cannot produce his or her license, registration, or current insurance card. The police have a duty and responsibility to determine if the motorist is properly licensed, that the vehicle is not stolen, and that the vehicle is properly insured. The police are entitled to detain the motorist for this purpose. If the driver conceals their identity and there is no other alternative, the police may take the driver into custody. Presumably, the police could then impound the vehicle and conduct an inventory search (one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement).

Prior case law suggesting that police could conduct motor vehicle document searches as an aid to the motorist, so long as the search was limited to those areas where driving credentials are normally kept, such as a visor, center console, or glove compartment, has been overruled.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The New Jersey Supreme Court has also recognized the existence of the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement. Most of these scenarios concern fact patterns where individuals are driving extremely slow late at night leading officers to believe something is wrong. In these situations, it is reasonable for officers to believe that something is wrong with the car, something is wrong with the driver, or that the vehicle could constitute a hazard to other motorists. Each of these situations is justified under the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement.

In State v. Washington, 296 N.J. Super 569 (App. Div. 1997), the observations of the arresting officer involved a vehicle that was weaving within the lane of travel and proceeding at a speed which was nine miles per hour below the posted speed limit. The court ruled that the traffic stop of the vehicle was justified based on the community caretaking exception. The court noted that the objective basis upon which to consider traffic stops under this exception is based upon the totality of the circumstances. Although weaving within the lane may not technically be a motor vehicle violation, the driving conduct offers sufficient justification for the officer to conduct a motor vehicle stop. Vehicles operated in this manner may constitute a danger to other motorists. In addition, there may be something wrong with the driver or the vehicle itself.

Apart from the drunk driving context, New Jersey case law has held that the community caretaking exception will also justify a limited search based on concerns for public safety. In State v. Diloreto, 180 N.J. 264 (2004), the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the police were justified in performing a pat-down search of a purportedly missing and endangered person. The justification for the search was based on the officers concerns that the endangered person might seek to injure himself or the police.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The United States Supreme Court first created the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement in the case of Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973). This case involved a drunk driving investigation by members of a local police department in Wisconsin. The defendant in this case was a Chicago police officer who had been involved in an accident. The vehicle he was using had become disabled as a result of the accident and had been towed away. During their investigation of the accident, the police officers became aware of the defendant's status as a member of the Chicago P.D. They conducted two searches of the vehicle believing that the officer was required to carry a gun with him at all times, even when he is off duty. The first search was conducted at the scene and the second was conducted at the garage where the vehicle had been towed. The purpose of these searches was to recover the weapon as a matter of public safety. The local police maintained standard procedures for these types of searches. During the course of their search for the gun, the police discovered evidence that tied the defendant to a homicide.

The USSC upheld the search as valid under the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement. Ordinarily, the search with be administrative in nature and will involve a vehicle that is disabled or has been abandoned on the highway. The search is not based upon an effort to find evidence of a crime, but rather to perform an administrative function per established departmental procedures, such as accounting for and safeguarding property or determining ownership of the vehicle in question.

• 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

In the New Jersey Supreme Court case of State v. Pierce, the Court limited the application of the Belton rule. State v. Pierce, 136 N.J. 184 (1994). The Court held that the Belton rule of permitting searches incident to a lawful arrest during a motor vehicle stop would not apply in New Jersey in those situations where the underlying reason for the arrest was a violation of the motor vehicle laws. Fearing that the statute could be used by police to effect arrests on the slightest pretext and use the opportunity to search vehicles under the Belton rule, the justices declared that searches under Belton shall not apply to warrantless arrests for motor vehicle offenses. Finally, in State v. Eckel, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that, under the New Jersey Constitution, Belton would no longer apply. State v. Eckel, 185 N.J. 523 (2006). With this decision, New Jersey police officers lost the option of searching a motor vehicle incident to the arrest of one of the vehicle's occupants.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Search incident to a lawful arrest is another exception to the requirement that police obtain a warrant before executing a search. New Jersey law on this exception has been interpreted to provide New Jersey drivers with more protection under the state constitution than they would receive under the US Constitution.

In Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), the US Supreme Court ruled that when police effect an arrest, they are entitled to conduct an immediate search of the person so arrested in order to remove any evidence that could be used to resist arrest, effect an escape, or cause injury to the arresting officers or others. The court also held that the object of the search incident to an arrest could include evidence: fruits and instrumentalities of crime that may be secreted on the arrestee's person. The scope of the search was not limited by the Court to the person of the individual being arrested, but included the area within the immediate control of the person ("within the person's wingspan").

Twenty years after the Chimel decision, the Court created a bright line rule for searches incident to arrest in the context of a motor vehicle stop. In New York v. Belton, the US Supreme Court held that when a police officer effects a lawful arrest of the occupant of a motor vehicle, the officer may, incident to that arrest, search the passenger compartment of the vehicle. New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981). A motor vehicle may contain weapons which the arrestee may use to resist arrest or to injure police. The vehicle may also contain evidence that the arrestee may attempt to destroy or conceal. The police are permitted to search any closed containers within the passenger compartment to which the arrestee may have access. However, the Court was careful to exclude the trunk of the vehicle which may not be searched incident to arrest. Boxes, luggage, bags, and clothing are subject to search if they are within the passenger compartment.

The search of the vehicle should occur immediately after the arrest. It is acceptable that before the search is conducted, the defendant is secured in restraints and placed in a police car where they will not have access to evidence and cannot threaten the safety of the officers while they effectuate the valid search.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The search of the interior of the vehicle under the "Terry" stop and frisk exception to the warrant requirement is limited. The object of the search is weapons or other objects that could harm the police officer or others. Accordingly, when searching the interior passenger compartment of the vehicle, the police may only search those areas where a weapon may be placed or hidden. A limited protective search for hidden weapons under the seats, within seat cushions, in the glove compartment, under car mats, and other readily accessbile areas in the vehicle are justified. On the other hand, searches of the trunk or locked containers within the vehicle are not justified under this exception to the warrant requirement because these hidden weapons are not readily accessible to suspects.

The New Jersey Supreme Court adopted the Michigan v. Long analysis in State v. Lund, 119 N.J. 35 (1990). The protective search is judged by whether a reasonably prudent person would be warranted in the belief that his or her safety or that of others was in danger. The measure of reasonabless is held to an objective standard.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The discovery of evidence during a lawfully executed traffic stop or warrantless search under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement is not necessarily limited to what the police officer sees. New Jersey has also adopted the "plain smell" doctrine. In the typical plain smell case, the officer will effect a motor vehicle stop and detect some odor that will provide him or her with probable cause to believe that an offense has been or is being committed. Common examples are the smell of marijuana (burning or otherwise) coming from inside the vehicle or the odor of alcohol on the breath of the operator or passengers within the vehicle. If the officer's conduct in performing the search meets the three requirements under the plain view exception (as discussed in a previous article), a suspicious odor may provide sufficient probable cause to invoke a more thorough search under the automobile exception. Briefly, the three requirements under the plain view exception in New Jersey are

1) at the time of the viewing of the evidence, the officer was in a location where he or she had a legal right to be;

2) the officer discovered the evidence inadvertently, meaning that he or she did not know in advance where the evidence was located and did not intend to beforehand seize it; and

3) there was probable cause to associate the items seen in plain view with evidence of criminal activity.

If these three prongs are met, a suspicious smell is sufficient to create probable cause for a warrantless search of a motor vehicle under the automobile exception.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There are several exceptions to the requirement that the police obtain a warrant to search an area such as a house or a vehicle. One of these exceptions that I have previously discussed is the plain view doctrine. Another exception to the requirement that the police obtain a warrant is the automobile exception. Article 1, paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution has often been interpreted by the New Jersey Supreme Court to provide more protection in various aspects of arrest, search, and seizure law than does the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. This is the case with regard to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. Under federal law, the Court requires merely that probable cause exists to believe that a vehicle contains evidence of a crime. Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938. If this is the case, there is sufficient justification to conduct a search without a warrant.

This view is not shared by the New Jersey Supreme Court. In State v. Cooke, the court ruled that Article I, paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution requires a finding of both probable cause and exigent circumstances in order to support a warrantless search under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. The exigent circumstances must make it impractical that the police obtain a valid search warrant.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As I said in my previous article, New Jersey has yet to drop the inadvertence requirement from the plain view analysis as was done by the United States Supreme Court in Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990). This issue was first presented to the Appellate Division in State v. Damplias, 282 N.J. Super 471 (1995). However, the court declined to rule on whether the inadvertence requirement (the second prong of the test) is still an essential element under Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution. The court simply noted that the test for inadvertence has two prongs: 1) Did the police know in advance where the evidence was located? 2) Did the police intend beforehand to seize the evidence? If the answer to both questions is yes, then the discovery of the evidence is not inadvertent and the plain view exception does not apply. However, if the answer to the first prong is yes and the answer to the second prong is no, the the inadvertence requirement is satisfied. Seven years later, the New Jersey Supreme Court had an opportunity to clarify the issue but declined to do so. In State v. Johnson, 171 N.J. 192 (2002), the Court avoided the question and declined to rule on whether the inadvertence prong is still a requirement under the State Constitution. The Court simply held that, to the extent that the inadvertence requirement still exists in the wake of the Horton decision, it was satisfied in the Johnson case. Accordingly, it appears that the inadvertence prong is still part of the analysis in New Jersey with regard to the plain view exception to the warrant requirement.  

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a drinking and driving prosecution, almost all evidence discovered during a lawful, warrantless search of a motor vehicle is legally admissible against the defendant under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. The plain view doctrine was established by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971). The original plain view exception required proof of three elements: 1) the police officer had to be lawfully in the viewing area. Basically, the officer must have a legal right to be in the place from which he or she makes the observations. 2) the officer was required to discover the evidence inadvertently, meaning that the officer did not know where the evidence was in advance. 3) the criminal nature of the item must be immediately apparent.

The original test has been modified by the United States Supreme Court in subsequent decisions. In Texas v. Brown, the immediately apparent requirement was modified as the police must have probable cause to associate the item seen in plain view with criminal activity. Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (1983). In 1990, the Court again modifed the test as the inadvertent aspect of the discovery of evidence was not a necessary condition. Basically, they did away with the second prong of the test.

As modified, the New Jersey Supreme Court has accepted the three requirements governing the plain view exception as described in Brown. As modified, the plain view exception in New Jersey will require proof that:

1) at the time of the viewing of the evidence, the officer was in a location where he or she had a right to be.

2) the officer discovered the evidence inadvertently, meaning that he or she did not know in advance where the evidence was located and did not intend beforehand to seize it; and

3) there was probable cause to associate the items seen in plain view with the evidence of criminal activity.

Interestingly enough, New Jersey has yet to drop the inadvertent requirement from plain view analysis as was done by the United States Supreme Court in Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990).

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks