Seizure of Drugs Found During Illegal Stop Upheld

In Utah v. Edward Strieff, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ability of police to obtain a conviction based upon drugs found in his vehicle during an illegal stop. Justice Clarence Thomas provided the decision of the Court holding that an individual’s Fourth Amendment Rights are not violated if an officer, in the process of an illegal stop, finds a warrant for the Defendant’s arrest and the search incident to arrest leads to the discovery of evidence. A residence in Salt Lake City was being monitored following an anonymous report of drug activity. After an officer watched random individuals come and go from the residence, he stopped Streiff and discovered that Streiff had an outstanding warrant for a prior traffic violation. The stop was later determined to be unlawful as the officer lacked probable cause to stop the vehicle and there was no reasonable suspicion with regard to any particular individual. Based on the warrant the officer took Streiff into custody and conducted a search incident to arrest. During the search, the officer found Streiff to be in possession of methamphetamines and drug paraphernalia. Streiff filed a motion to suppress the narcotics based upon the unlawful stop and the matter was litigated through the courts and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to this case based on the Fourth Amendment rights involved. The United States Supreme Court was divided 5 to 3 on the issue. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent indicating her belief that the ruling will have a disproportionate effect on “people of color” although Edward Streiff is a white male. Sotomayor further indicated she believed the decision greatly increase the power of police going so far as allowing them to conduct random stops to check for warrants even if they had no belief any crime was afoot. Sotomayor included that the 8 million open warrants in the U.S. mean many are subject to prosecution based on evidence seized as a result of illegal and pretextual stops and included that such stops “corrode all our civil liberties and threaten all our lives” referring to those “black and brown” people most often targeted. The majority opinion of the court was that the evidence was not “fruit of the poisonous tree” as established in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) as it fell under the “attenuation doctrine” set forth in Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006) to the exclusionary rule established in Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914). Weeks held that evidence resulting from an unlawful search could not be used by the prosecution. The court, in Hudson v. Michigan, held that evidence from an illegal search could be admissible when the connection between the unconstitutional conduct of the police and the discovery of the evidence is “sufficiently remote” or there are “intervening circumstances.” Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 593. The reasoning offered in Streiff was that the discovery of the warrant was sufficient to break the causal link between the illegal stop and the discovery of the controlled dangerous substances (CDS) thereby rendering the methamphetamines a product of the warrant rather than the illegal stop. The court did leave room for future litigation with regard to good faith actions on the part of the officer finding that in the case of Streiff the officer was at worst negligent. Sotomayor’s dissent indicated that good faith must be rejected when the sole purpose of the stop was to search for evidence which would prove drug activity was going on in the residence. Drug charges can destroy your future and you are subject to greater consequences each time you are convicted of a drug charge. If you are facing drug charges for possession or distribution, you should consult an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately. For more information about controlled dangerous substance (CDS) charges, distribution, possession, driving under the influence charges, paraphernalia or CDS in a motor vehicle visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Handgun In Plain View? Prove it!

Jarrell Williams was convicted of second-degree unlawful possession of a weapon (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5b) after an officer allegedly saw a handgun in plain view on the floor of his vehicle during a motor vehicle stop. At all times during the proceedings, Williams maintained that he was unaware that the vehicle, recently purchased by his mother, contained a handgun. Williams also maintained that the gun was not in plain view on the floor of the vehicle near the driver’s seat. The facts collectively presented at trial in State v. Williams are that 4 men, including the defendant, entered the vehicle and smoked marijuana then the defendant pulled the vehicle out of the driveway just as two plain clothed police officers came down the street at which point Williams immediately pulled over and turned off the vehicle. The officers claimed that the location and actions of the defendant and the vehicles’ other occupants gave rise to suspicion and the officers turned around. Seeing the officers’ vehicle turn around, all 4 occupants exited the vehicle before the officers engaged them in conversation. Conflicting accounts of the vehicle’s ownership were offered by occupants and Officer Brown approached the vehicle, with its doors open, to verify the registration. The officer’s testimony was that he observed a marijuana cigarette and plastic bag and, upon going to retrieve same, noticed the pistol on the floor in front of the driver’s seat. The 6th Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1 of the New Jersey Constitution establish and protect a defendant’s right to present a complete defense including confrontation of witnesses. Several cases including State v. Garron, 177 N.J. 147 (2003), State v. Budis, 125 N.J. 519 (1991), State v. Sugar, 100 N.J. 214 (1985), State v. Crudup, 176 N.J. Super. 215 (App. Div. 1980) and State v. Guenther, 181 N.J. 129 (2004) have upheld this right but within the constraints of N.J.R.E. 611(a) and N.J.R.E. 401 which afford the court discretion of control over the trial. The N.J. Appellate Division ultimately decided that the jury should not be placed in the position of determining the constitutionality of a search and seizure but that Defense counsel’s line of questioning was not in danger of placing them in that position and was instead intended to determine whether the officer had a predetermined purpose in offering the statements he had made and was an attempt to introduce motive on the part of the officer to testify in a certain manner. The NJ Appellate Division determined that the defendant’s right to cross-examine the officer was violated and that, due to the possible influence this may have had on the decision of the jury, the matter was remanded for a new trial. Weapons offenses are subject to severe punishment including incarceration for 5-10 years for many such offenses. If you are charged with unlawful possession of a weapon, it is critical that you obtain experienced criminal defense counsel to represent you. For more information about possession of a handgun without a permit, unlawful possession of a weapon, possession of a weapon while on parole or probation, possession of a weapon during a drug related offense or other serious weapons charges visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of counsel.

DUI Dismissed On Speedy Trial Violation

In State v. Cahill, the defendant faced a driving under the influence (DUI) charge after being found guilty of assault by auto charges stemming from the same event. It was established that Michael Cahill consumed alcohol at a bar, later drove from the bar, swerved to avoid an obstacle in the road, crossed two lanes of traffic and collided with a police car causing injuries to the officer. Following a conviction and sentencing in the death by auto matter, the Superior Court judge remanded the driving while intoxicated charge to municipal court for disposition. A full 16 months later, Michael Cahill received notice from the municipal court that his matter had been scheduled for trial. Through counsel, he filed a motion to dismiss based on the court’s failure to uphold his right to a speedy trial. The municipal court judge denied the motion and Cahill appealed after entering a conditional guilty plea. The NJ Superior Court held that Cahill’s right to a speedy trial was violated under the particular circumstances of the matter and vacated the sentence after a review of the matter based on the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Barker v. Wingo. In Barker v. Wingo, the US Supreme Court established a four factor balancing test to determine whether a defendant’s right to a speedy trial was upheld. In the instant case, the NJ Superior Court found the 16 month delay was held to be too lengthy, without good cause, and prejudicial to the defendant who suffered anxiety over the prospect of the trail as well as limited his employment alternatives based on the likelihood he would be found guilty at trial. The decision to dismiss the DWI charge was upheld by the NJ Appellate Division and the NJ Supreme Court and Cahill’s sentence was vacated. Driving under the influence charges carry significant consequences including loss of driving privileges for 7-12 months for a first offense, 2 years for a second offense and ten years for a third or subsequent offense as well as substantial fines and penalties, the inability to work and the social stigma that is associated with DUI. There are ways that an attorney can help you, even if you think you will be found guilty and it is always critical that you consult with an experienced traffic attorney prior to deciding whether to enter into a guilty plea for DUI. For more information about DUI/DWI, reckless driving and other serious traffic court matters, visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of counsel.