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.

Defective Warrant Must Result In Suppression Of Evidence

A Defendant filed a motion to suppress controlled dangerous substances (CDS) found during an illegal search in which a search warrant had allegedly been issued. The signature on the warrant was illegible, the signature line simply stated "JUDGE OF THE" and offered not even the Judge's written name. The Detective present at trial in the event there were questions about the warrant but the detective was not the affiant when the warrant was obtained. The State argued that the warrant was to be presumed valid and that the burden of proof was on the defendant to prove the search warrant invalid in defendant's motion to suppress evidence of an illegal search. The judge concluded that, pursuant to Rule 3:5-7(g), absent any bad faith she was bound to uphold the validity of the warrant and denied the motion to suppress. The NJ Appellate Division found, in State v. Riles, there was insufficient evidence to find the warrant was issued by a neutral judge and permitted the defendant to withdraw a guilty plea entered subject to appeal. Although there are restrictions on the manner in which police are to operate in securing evidence they believe to exist, searches are often faulty based on flawed warrants, failure to obtain warrants or other illegal and unscrupulous search methods. If you were arrested following a search in which illegal drugs, weapons, money or other substances were found on your person or in your vehicle, residence or other place which was under your control at the time, you should consult an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately to ensure your rights are protected. For more information about search and seizure, drug charges, gun charges, assault, burglary or other criminal offenses in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Community Caretaking Is No Exception To Warrant Requirement

Although there is a governmental right to enter a residence, under certain circumstances, for community caretaking functions such entry is not permitted without a search warrant barring exigent circumstances. The community caretaking function permits agents of the state, including police, to enter and search a residence under the pretext of concern for the residents' health and safety. In State v. Vargas, a landlord contacted police and expressed concern that he had not seen the tenant, Vargas, for several weeks nor had he received rent due from Vargas. The landlord knew nothing about Vargas' schedule, habits, family or whether he may have been on vacation. There was no reason for the landlord to believe there was an emergency and no reason the police could not have waited to obtain a warrant before entering Vargas' apartment. However, when police responded to the landlord's call, the landlord opened the door with his keys and the police entered. In plain view, the police found a jar of marijuana when they entered the apartment. Upon the finding of marijuana, the landlord began searching the apartment and found more marijuana. The police then obtained a search warrant and recovered $47,001, guns, ammunition, white powder, scales and additional marijuana. The NJ Supreme Court held there was no reason the police could not wait to apply for a warrant before undertaking the search in the absence of exigent circumstances. The NJ Supreme Court's holding in Vargas specifically included that the community-caretaking doctrine, standing alone and in the absence of some form of exigent circumstances, does not allow the police to conduct warrantless searches of homes. The State cannot use evidence against you if the evidence was obtained illegally. If you are facing charges based on an illegal search and seizure of your residence, vehicle or person you should contact an experienced criminal law attorney immediately to protect your rights. For more information on warrant requirements, drug charges, weapons charges, assault or other criminal charges in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and is not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Supreme Court Ruling Expands DNA Use In Criminal Cases

DNA obtained by police during arrest for assault charges is not illegal search and seizure and may be used to convict defendant of rape charges. The defendant, in Maryland v. King, was arrested for first and second degree assault charges in 2009 and as a standard part of their booking process, police in Maryland took a DNA sample by way of buccal swab from defendant's cheek. The DNA matched an unsolved rape from 2003 and defendant was charged with the rape. Defendant sought to have the DNA match suppressed as a violation of his fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. Suppression was denied on the basis that a buccal swab from the cheek is an non-intrusive part of the identification process undertaken during booking and is akin to photographing and fingerprinting. Law enforcement has a massive database of DNA evidence. There is likely to be widespread expansion of this practice following the court's decision in King. Justice Antonin Scalia provided a lengthy dissent to the opinion which includes the warning that the decision of the Supreme Court in King will lead to the taking of DNA and entry thereof "into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason. Many states already use methods of DNA collection which go well beyond those in King, including: (1) requesting DNA from uncharged suspects or witnesses to 'allow them to prove their innocence'; (2) implicating those who have DNA matches similar to DNA found at a crime scene in order to see if they will provide information about a family member's actual participation; (3) obtaining DNA samples from going through a person's trash; and (4) filing felony charges to get defendants to trade DNA for a 'lesser sentence' as part of a negotiated plea. In the event you are arrested, it is critical that your rights are upheld throughout the police investigation and procedures. If you have been charged with robbery, burglary, gun or other weapons charges, drug distribution or possession, rape of other sex crimes, conspiracy or any other criminal offense in NJ, you should immediately obtain an experienced criminal defense attorney to protect your rights. For more information on protecting your rights if charged with possession, distribution or other crimes in NJ visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and is not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Will Police in NJ Be Permitted to Inspect Cell Phone Contents At Accident Scenes?

If a newly introduced bill relating to NJ motor vehicle safety is passed, police officers will be able to confiscate cell phones under certain circumstances relating to auto accidents in order to assess motor vehicle penalties. The bill also increases penalties for texting while driving. The bill (S-2783) was introduced May 20, 2013 by Senator James W. Holzapfel (D-Ocean). As introduced, the bill permits any police officer coming to the scene of a motor vehicle accident resulting in death, bodily injury, or property damage to confiscate the driver's cell phone if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe the driver was using the cell phone while driving. The bill includes that the officer may review the cell phone's CALL history, however, the pertinent statute Section 39:4-97.3 of the NJ Motor Vehicle Code defines "Use" of a cell phone as including, "but not be limited to, talking or listening to another person on the telephone, text messaging, or sending an electronic. This means police will be reading text messages and emails, viewing installed applications ("aps") on the phone, memos and anything else they wish to view. This will permit the police the right to trounce citizen's rights against unreasonable search and seizure each time a motor vehicle accident occurs. The bill requires no warrant showing probable cause and merely permits police to make a judgment call as to whether the driver was "operating" a cell phone as well as whether a hands-free device or feature was in use at the time of the accident. Even in the event police determine there was no use of the cell phone, there is nothing in the bill limiting their use of any information obtained from the phone for other purposes such as criminal complaints against the driver. Also, it can be assumed the phones of any passengers in the vehicle will also be searched as police claim that a witness saw the driver pass the phone to a passenger immediately following the accident. Given the use of passwords, swipe patterns, voice and face recognition software and other means of protecting the information on personal cell phones, information contained in cell phones is considered private and falls within the expectation of privacy contemplated under the Fourth Amendment. Other penalties include a fine of $100 for calls, $300 for texts, 2 points and suspension of driving privileges for 3 months. If you have been charged with use of a cell phone while driving or face criminal charges as a result of unreasonable search and seizure in NJ, you should immediately obtain an experienced criminal defense attorney to protect your rights. For more information on protecting your rights if charged with motor vehicle offenses or other crimes in NJ visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and is not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.