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

In determining whether the state has met the two pronged test under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, the first issue that must be proven is probable cause (prong one of the analysis). The state will be required to show that the police officers conducting the search possessed a well-grounded suspicion that the vehicle contained either contraband or evidence of a crime. The state must then establish prong two, that there were exigent circumstances that made it impractical to secure a search warrant. Exigent circumstances have been described by the New Jersey Supreme Court as unforeseen and spontaneous circumstances giving rise to probable cause. State v. Alston, 88 N.J. 211 (1981). The events surrounding the incident may occur swiftly. Immediate police action is required or else the evidence may be lost. The vehicle itself may be moved. There may be other suspects waiting to become involved in the criminal enterprise. The police may be unable to immediately leave their positions or secure additional officers to guard the vehicle in question. All of these may lead to the exigent circumstances necessary to establish the second prong of the analysis under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.

The New Jersey Supreme Court recognizes that the term "exigent circumstances" is inexact and incapable of precise definition. In determining whether exigent circumstances exist, examine the facts of the case and look for elements of rapidly unfolding, unpredictable events which may cause the loss or destruction of evidence and make it impractical for the police to obtain a search warrant. If both prongs of the test are met, the scope of the warrantless search under the automobile exception is defined by the object of the search and the place where there is probable cause to believe it may be found. This may involve searches of the trunk, the interior of the vehicle, and any closed containers that may be inside the vehicle.

• 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