Warrantless Search And Seizure Results In Suppression Of Weapons And Marijuana

After losing a suppression motion based on warrantless search and seizure, Peter Samuell pled guilty to fourth-degree possession of more than 50 grams of marijuana (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(3)) in exchange for the dismissal of multiple other counts of drug possession with intent to distribute and firearms offenses after losing a suppression motion. Police in Trenton received multiple calls regarding the discharge of a handgun. Officers went to the front door of a house believed to be the possible location and surrounded same. While an officer was at the front door speaking to co-defendant Crawford, several others were surrounding the fenced in rear yard. Crawford appeared on the back porch and officers asked that he come to the fence to be frisked but he refused so Officer Bledsoe scaled the fence and detained Crawford. Several officers then entered the house to secure a large number of individuals inside and discovered marijuana, weapons and ammunition in plain view. The entry by police was warrantless and the defendant appealed the constitutionality of the entry in addition to attempting to suppress the evidence obtained as “fruit of the poisonous tree”. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 485, 83 S. Ct. 407, 9 L. ed.2d 441, 454 (1963). In State v. Samuell, the defendant appealed the warrantless search and the NJ Appellate Division reversed. The police did not have any probable cause to jump the fence onto private property in order to further their investigation of shots fired when they merely suspected criminal activity may be occurring on the property. State v. Jefferson, 413 N.J. Super. 344, 354-355 (App. Div. 2010). The NJ Appellate Division cited Kirk v. Louisiana, 536 U.S. 635 (2002); Payton v. New York, 455 U.S. 573 (1980); Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) and State v. Bolte, 115 N.J. 579 (1989) in holding that police must have a search warrant, consent to enter or the facts must fall under the exception to the warrant requirement as a person’s private property offers the highest degree of expectation of privacy from the intrusion of warrantless searches and seizures. The Appellate Division cited to the holding in State v. Sullivan, 169 N.J. 204 211 (2001) that “probable cause requires a ‘well grounded’ suspicion that a crime has been or is being committed” and found that was clearly not the case here where the shots fired could have come from any location in the area with a dog house in the back yard as described by callers. The Appellate Division considered the possibility of exigent circumstances permitting entry but found that none existed in review of the holdings of State v. Valencia, 93 N.J. 126 (1983); State v. Penalber, 386 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2006); State v. Hinton, 216 N.J. 211 (2013); State v. Holland, 328 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2000) and other authoritative decisions. The Appellate Division held that it was only upon Officer Bledsoe’s unlawful entry onto the property that the police had probable cause to believe there were firearms and drugs on the property and therefore the evidence was fruit of the poisonous tree which must be suppressed. If you are facing charges and believe evidence against you was obtained in violation of your Fourth Amendment rights against warrantless search and seizure, you should obtain experienced criminal defense counsel to fight your case. For more information about warrantless search, distribution of controlled dangerous substances (CDS), possession, CDS in a motor vehicle or other criminal matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Two Unlawful Weapons But Only One Extended Term For Convicted Felon

In State v. Robbins, the defendant, Sylvanus K. Robbins, was convicted of 2 counts of unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted felon (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7), possession of a stun gun (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3h), possession of a sawed-off shotgun (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3b), unlawful possession of a loaded weapon (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5c(2)) and hindering his own prosecution (N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3b(1)). Robbins appealed the conviction and the 16 year aggregate extended-term sentence with 50% parole disqualifier. Defendant was stopped for an illegal u-turn and failed to produce a license, registration or insurance card then confessed to having a suspended North Carolina driver's license. The defendant was ordered from the vehicle and secured in handcuffs for officer safety and during the detention it was discovered defendant had warrants from North Carolina for burglary, kidnapping and assault by strangulation. Defendant agreed to a search of the vehicle and based on information provided by defendant's girlfriend, the police also sought consent to search their hotel room. Upon receiving consent to search from defendant's girlfriend, police discovered a sawed-off shotgun, ammunition and a stun gun in the hotel room. Police stated that, after being Mirandized but before deciding whether to give up the right to remain silent, Defendant immediately admitted to ownership of the shotgun, advising it was for protection when riding his dirt bike in the North Carolina woods. Defendant denied admission of ownership of the gun and stated he only consented to the search as it was very cold outside and the officer had him stand outside of the car until he consented. The judge was not satisfied consent was voluntary and suppressed a fake gun found in the trunk of the car. The judge also decided the search of the hotel room was separate from the search of the vehicle and would have happened as a result of the warrants therefore, pursuant to Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) the shotgun was not "fruit of the poisonous tree." The judge held that the defendant's admission to ownership of the gun did not violate Miranda or Rule 3:17(a) as it was made spontaneously and not during an investigation. On appeal, the NJ Appellate Division affirmed the conviction and found the 16 year extended-term not to be excessive for possession of a saw-off shotgun gun by a convicted felon pursuant to State v. Bieniek, 182 N.J. 44 (2004). The Appellate Division did remand for re-sentencing with regard to the imposition of 2 extended term sentences as N.J.S.A. 2C:44-5a(2) prohibits more than one extended term. In regard to possession of the stun gun by a convicted felon, the sentence was to be a concurrent, ordinary term. If you are facing weapons or other serious charges, it is critical for you to obtain experienced criminal defense counsel to fight the charges. Conviction and even certain negotiated pleas can result in extended term sentences which will deprive you of your freedom for a large part of your life as well as have a devastating impact on your loved ones. For more information regarding weapons possession by a convicted felon, possession of a weapon for unlawful purposes, hindering apprehension and other serious criminal charges in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.