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

If a vehicle is to be impounded in New Jersey, does a driver or passenger have the right to remove personal possessions from the vehicle before the impoundment or inventory search? According to the New Jersey Supreme Court, occupants of an impounded motor vehicle maintain the right to make suitable arrangements for their personal possessions prior to an inventory search of an impounded motor vehicle. In State v. Mangold, the Court held that police have an affirmative duty to provide the vehicle's occupants a reasonable opportunity to remove personal effects from an impounded motor vehicle prior to an inventory search. This assumes that the owner or other responsible individual is present at the time of the lawful impoundment. If this is the case, absent consent by the owner or other responsible party, the impounded vehicle may not be subject to an inventory search. In such cases, the owner or other responsible person will be presumed to have assumed the risk for any claims of loss or theft arising from the impoundment.

The rights afforded to the owners and operators of motor vehicles that are subject to an inventory search following an impoundment are based on Article 1, paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution and are intended to afford people in New Jersey enhanced protection. Both the initial impoundment and the subsequent inventory search must be lawful. Also, the enhanced protections under the New Jersey Constitution apply even when the vehicle is impounded for the purpose of civil forfeiture.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The New Jersey view on impounding vehicles and inventory searches concerns the procedures surrounding the impoundment of a motor vehicle. New Jersey police must give the driver of the car a reasonable opportunity to make arrangements for the care of the vehicle before the police may impound it and conduct an inventory search. This rule applies regardless of whether the driver is to be taken into custody for a violation of law or the driver simply receives a ticket for the violation. Unless the driver gives his or her voluntary consent to the impoundment, the police must first give him or her an opportunity to make arrangements for the care of the vehicle.

Typically, if the driver is stopped by the police and is unable to continue his operation (because he is driving on a suspended license or because there is a bench warrant out for his arrest) the police must give the driver an opportunity to make arrangements for the care of the vehicle. The driver can arrange for a substitute driver to take the vehicle and the police may permit the operator to safely and legally park the vehicle rather than having it impounded.

Certain statutes provide police with authority to impound motor vehicles. For example, N.J.S.A. 39:3-4 authorizes police officers to remove any unregistered vehicle from a public highway. Also, police may remove from the roadway any disabled or unattended vehicle that blocks traffic. This statutory authority comes from N.J.S.A. 39:4-136. As long as the proper procedures are followed for a valid impoundment and inventory search, this is a valid exception to the warrant requirement.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As part of the community caretaking function, police departments frequently impound motor vehicles for reasons other than law enforcement. Motor vehicle accidents may leave vehicles in a spot where they block traffic or constitute a dange to the driving public. Also, improperly parked vehicles are sometimes removed from the highway for public safety reasons. Motor vehicles are also impounded by the police for law enforcement purposes. The vehicles may be unregistered or uninsured. They may contain evidence of a crime or the car itself may be connected to illegal activity. Police routinely conduct an inventory search of a motor vehicle after it is taken into custody.

The inventory search is conducted for multiple reasons. First, the police have an obligation to protect the owner's property while the vehicle remains in police custody. Police departments also need to protect themselves against unwarranted claims or disputes over lost, damaged, or stolen property. The US Supreme Court has viewed inventory searches as a result of a lawful impoundment of a motor vehicle to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. This is, therefore, another valid exception to the warrant requirement and constitutes a valid warrantless search under the Constitution.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

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

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

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

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

For a 4^th Amendment violation to occur, there must be government conduct. This usually occurs through police actions. Also, some items are so public in nature that they do not carry a reasonable expectation of privacy. Generally, garbage, bank accounts, and odors emanating from your luggage are public in nature and do not implicate 4^th amendment protection. If the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area and item searched, then the police need a warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate supported by probable cause and particularity in order to conduct a lawful search. However, there are a few exceptions to the warrant requirement that are considered lawful searches and will not be excluded in a court of law.

The first exception to the warrant requirement is known as “Exigent Circumstances”. These scenarios occur when the police are in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon or when there is evanescent evidence: evidence that burns up in your body such as blood alcohol level or balloons filled with drugs. Another important exception to the warrant requirement is a search incident to arrest. Due to concerns for officer safety and the preservation of evidence, the law allows a search incident to arrest of the individual so long as the arrest is lawful and the search is contemporaneous in time and place with the arrest. Moreover, the search is limited in geographic scope to within the wingspan of the arrested individual. A third important warrantless search exception deals with automobiles. If the officer has probable cause to believe that the car contains evidence of a crime then they are permitted to search the entire car. A fourth exception to the warrant requirement is the famous “Plain View” doctrine. The officers must have lawful access to the place from which the item can be plainly seen, lawful access to the object itself, and the criminality of the object must be readily apparent. A fifth exception to the warrant requirement occurs when an individual consents. This consent must be voluntary, not the product of police coercion. The person must have the authority to consent to the area or item searched. A sixth exception to the warrant requirement deals with Terry stops. Under the famous Terry decision, officers have a right to stop an individual if they have reasonable suspicion necessary to determine if criminal activity is afoot. If when stopping them the officer reasonably believes that the individual is armed and dangerous, officers are permitted to frisk the individual for weapons. If you detect contraband without manipulating the object, then the officer is permitted to seize this contraband as evidence of a crime. These exceptions are the main exceptions to the warrant requirement and permit law enforcement officers to conduct lawful searches absent the existence of a warrant supported by probable cause.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks