Drugs Suppressed When Found Outside Scope Of Warrant

Police executing a no-knock warrant at a residence located Chad Bivins and co-defendant, Sayid Jordan, in a vehicle located several residences away and, upon removing them from the car searching them, discovered 30 bags of crack cocaine on each of them. Bivins sought to have the crack cocaine suppressed based on his location well outside the residence subject to the warrant but the trial court denied the motion holding that defendant's location was proximate to the residence based on the totality of the circumstances, especially in light of the fact that an officer assigned to the scene located Bivins and co-defendants after receiving a report of individual exiting the residence to be searched. The defendant appealed the denial of the suppression motion in State v. Bivins. The NJ Appellate Division reversed in reliance on a existing laws with regard to the scope of a search warrant. State v. Reldon, 100 N.J. 187 (1985) limits officers to a search of appropriate areas when executing a search. the warrant in question limited police to search the residence and "all persons present reasonably believed to be connected to said property and investigation. The Appellate Division distinguished this from State v. Carolino, 373 N.J. Super. 377 (App..Div. 2004) wherein "any and app persons arriving at, departing from and located [in] the residence and vehicle in question were included in the warrant and both the behavior and proximity of the defendant therein differed greatly from Bivins. Bailey v. United States, ___U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1031, 185 L. Ed.2d 19 (2013) dictates that specific facts are required to connect an individual to a scene once they have departed premises subject to a warrant. The Appellate Division applied Bailey to the facts including neither the defendant nor the Pontiac in which he was located were described in the affidavit supporting the warrant, he was located a substantial distance outside the residence to be searched, the officer who searched the defendant received no report that the individuals fled the premises with evidence sought under the warrant being executed and the defendant did not act in a suspicious manner. The Appellate Division found that upholding the search would afford officers executing warrants overly broad discretion and therefore reversed the denial of the suppression motion. Drug charges, particularly distribution charges, have serious consequences including substantial terms of incarceration and enhanced penalties under certain circumstances. If you are facing drug charges and believe evidence obtained against you may have been obtained in violation of your rights, you should consult with an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately. For more information about controlled dangerous substances (CDS), warrantless searches, distribution of CDS, possession, CDS in a motor vehicle or other criminal issues in NJ visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Convicted Drug Dealer Is To Have Jail Credits Recalculated

Ramon Wilson entered into a negotiated plea agreement to third-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) (cocaine), with intent to distribute within a school zone (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7(a)), third-degree possession of a CDS (cocaine) (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1)) and a violation of probation. the State's offer was to recommend concurrent aggregate 5 year prison terms with a 3 year parole ineligibility period as well as dismissal of the remaining charges. Pursuant to the agreement, the remaining charges under the indictment were dismissed including second-degree possession of a CDS with intent to distribute (cocaine) (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1), (b)(2), second-degree possession of a CDS (cocaine) with intent to distribute within 500 feet of a public housing facility, public park or public building (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7.1) and third-degree burglary (N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2). Wilson, prior to entering into the plea, had filed an unsuccessful suppression motion to suppress drugs seized by the police and appealed the court's denial of the motion. Defendant's appeal with regard to the drugs was grounded in lack of lawful presence of police officers in an apartment when the drugs were discovered. Whitehead, the renter of an apartment known to permit dealers to distribute from his residence in exchange for free narcotics, was encountered by police on a visit to the building regarding a call about drug distribution therein. Upon encountering police, Whitehead advised that he had just returned home to three "crackheads" in his apartment distributing drugs and asked that the police remove the drug dealers from his unit. When police entered the apartment defendant jumped up and ran toward the bathroom and a bag of crack cocaine fell from his lap. Police also recovered 18 grams of crack cocaine from behind the toilet tank in the bathroom into which the defendant attempted to flee. The appellate court, in State v. Wilson, found the denial of defendant's motion to suppress to be grounded in sound legal principles and saw no reason to disturb the finding of the court below. Defendant also sought a recalculation of jail credits for the period of incarcerations between his December 2010 incarceration and August 12, 2011 sentencing. The sentencing court credited the defendant with 257 days of jail credit, however, the appellate division determined that the jail credits were not calculated according to the principles in State v. Hernandez, 208 N.J. 24 (2011) and remanded for recalculation of defendant's jail credits. If you are facing charges of distribution or possession of CDS, you should obtain an experienced criminal defense lawyer immediately. For more information about drug distribution, possession, prescription medication, under the influence, CDS in a motor vehicle, DUI or other drug related matters in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of counsel.

Eyewitness Identification And Criminal Defense

In State v. Henderson, 27 A.3d 872 (N.J. 2011), an indictment for first degree murder was issued by a grand jury and the defendant was ultimately convicted of manslaughter, aggravated assault, and weapons charges after a jury trial in which much weight was placed on an eyewitness identification. In the underlying matter, a man was shot and killed while another, who had been smoking crack and drinking wine, was held at bay in another room by an armed accomplice. The accomplice was identified by the man he held at bay during a photo lineup in the police station 13 days after the shooting. A Wade hearing was granted to determine the admissibility of the eyewitness ID and applied the Manson/Madison test to determine whether the criteria were met. The trial court decided the ID procedure implemented by the police was not impermissibly suggestive nor did it imply a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification and the eyewitness ID was admitted. The New Jersey Supreme Court considered factors which may affect an individual's memory and divided them into lineup procedures, controlled by police, and estimator variables, including the witnesses age, lighting, lapse of time between the event and ID as well as other similar variables over which the police have no control. The defendant has the initial burden of showing police procedures were "impermissibly suggestive." Unless there is irreparable harm, the court should present the jury with appropriately tailored instructions. The lineup, 13 days after the crime, was presided over by a detective other than the primary investigator, the eyewitness did not make an ID until told by the police to "do what he had to do" so they could be finished and the eyewitness testified he felt pushed to selecting the defendant from the lineup presented. The Court held that suggestive comments of the investigating officers during the identification procedure were substantial enough to entitle Henderson to a pretrial hearing and remanded the case for a hearing that weighs all system and estimator variables, meaningfully deters police from suggestive procedures, permits jurors to knowledgably evaluate the effects of factors on memory and flexible so as to guarantee fair proceedings. Eyewitness identification procedures are exceedingly fallible. If you have been charged with a crime as a result of eyewitness identification, there are multiple ways to attack the state's case against you and it is critical that you obtain an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately to protect your rights. For more information regarding aggravated assault, weapons charges, drug charges and other criminal matters in NJ visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.