Distracted Driving In NJ

Although most thing of the New Jersey Cell Phone law (N.J.S.A. 39:4-97.3) when thinking of distracted driving in New Jersey. Although texting and driving is a frequent cause of serious motor vehicle accidents, there are other classifications of "distracted driving" which can lead to police pulling you over and issuing you a summons resulting in $200-$400 plus court costs for a first offense, $400-600 plus court costs for a second offense and $600-800, 3 points and up to 90 day loss of license for a third or subsequent offense. In addition to texting or talking on a cell phone, programming or using an electronic device to find your destination can also lead to a summons. Although many see people applying make-up or shaving while driving and shaken our heads in disbelief, routine activities many are guilty of including eating or drinking, adjusting your radio, looking at a map, and even talking to your passengers can be reasons for police to stop you and issue a summons. With newly relaxed search warrant rules established in State v. Witt, (A-9-14)(074468), 435 N.J. Super. 608, 610-11 (App. Div. 2014), 219 N.J. 624 (2014), this can ultimately lead to a search of your vehicle, arrest and other serious charges. If you are charged with distracted driving, you should consult an experienced traffic attorney immediately. For more information about using a cell phone while driving, warrantless vehicle searches, distracted driving and other motor vehicle charges visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

State v. Witt, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-2.4 and Guns

Under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-2.4, police may impound your vehicle in the event that a weapon contained therein is possessed for an unlawful purpose (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4); an individual is in unlawful possession of a weapon therein (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5); a motor vehicle with an occupant unlawfully possessing a weapon is used in another crime; the motor vehicle is used to further prostitution (N.J.S.A. 2C:34-1); and either controlled dangerous substances (CDS) are contained within the vehicle (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10) or the vehicle is being used for drug trafficking (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5). If you are stopped for a simple traffic violation and the police find cause within the newly prescribed limits of State v. William Witt, 219 N.J. 624 (2014), wherein the New Jersey Court overturned its prior ruling in Pena-Flores, 198 N.J. 6 (2009), relaxing the requirements for police to obtain a warrant to search your vehicle, you may find yourself facing weapons charges and without the reasonable transportation you need to obtain suitable defense counsel. Second-degree unlawful possession of a firearm or handgun carries up to 10 years in prison with a mandatory parole ineligibility period under the Graves Act (N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(c)). If you find yourself facing weapons charges or the impoundment of your vehicle as a result of a warrantless search or search with inadequate probable cause, you should immediately seek the assistance of a seasoned criminal defense attorney to protect your rights. For more information about possession of a controlled dangerous substance, CDS in a motor vehicle (N.J.S.A. 39:4-49.1), distribution of CDS, weapons possession, use or possession of a gun in the commission of a crime, possession of a handgun without a permit, weapons possession while on probation or parole, illegal weapons or other weapons related charges in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Denial Of Motion To Suppress Marijuana And Handgun Upheld

Kenneth L. Hawes was indicted for third-degree possession of marijuana with intent to distribute (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) and 2C:35-5(b)(11)); second-degree possession of marijuana with intent to distribute within 500 feet of public property (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7.1); second-degree possession of a firearm while in the course of committing a crime (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5 and 2C:39-4.1(a)); second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)); and second-degree certain persons not to have weapons (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b)). An anonymous caller informed Franklin Township police that a black male was selling what may be narcotics from an SUV in a parking lot. Upon investigating, officers in plain clothes saw the man, who had been brought to their attention previously, selling hats, CDS, DVDs and other merchandise from a GMC Envoy and, upon approaching, smelled a strong odor of raw marijuana emanating from Hawes and the SUV. Hawes moved away from the officers but was seized by the arm and subjected to a pat-down search by the officers for their personal safety in which a small pouch with marijuana was discovered on Hawes person and he was placed under arrest. Hawes then asked if he could return the merchandise to his vehicle before being removed and upon returning the merchandise to the vehicle for him, the officers discovered a handgun in partial plain view. Officer Hernandez removed the gun then proceeded to search the vehicle for other weapons, discovering an additional 70 bags of marijuana in the vehicle. At the suppression hearing, in State v. Hawes, the defendant testified that he never asked the officers to return anything to the vehicle and that the weapon was not in plain view. The motion judge found the defendant and his 4 witnesses to lack credibility and denied the motion to suppress. Following the denial of his suppression motion, Hawes entered a retraxit plea of guilty to both indictments in exchange for the State's recommendation of a maximum 10 year sentence with a 5 year period of parole ineligibility. The Somerset County Superior Court Judge sentenced Hawes according to the plea agreement but did not separately impose sentences on the charges. Hawes challenged the validity of the scope of the pat-down search, pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968), in which under claim of a protective search officers opened the coin pouch discovered in his pocket. Hawes further challenged the ensuing search of his vehicle, including discovery of the handgun and bags of marijuana, as fruit of the poisonous tree under Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487-88, 83 S. Ct. 407, 417-18, 9 L. Ed. 2d 441, 454-56 (1963). The NJ Appellate Division followed State v. O'Neal, 190 N.J. 601 (2007); State v. Maryland, 167 N.J. 471 (2001); State v. Citarella, 154 N.J. 272 (1998); and State v. Pineiro, 181 N.J. 13 (2004) in properly placing the burden of proof on the State to prove the warrantless search and seizure was soundly within one of the well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement. The Appellate Court held that, based on the circumstances at the time of the search under State v. Pena-Flores, 198 N.J. 6 (2009), police had probable cause to arrest Hawes and, therefore, the search and seizure were valid under Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969); State v. Dangerfield, 171 N.J. 446 (2002); State v. McKenna, 228 N.J. Super. 468 (App. Div. 1988); and State v. Burnett, 42 N.J. 377 (1964). Further, the Appellate Division held that defendant's request to return the merchandise to his vehicle gave police opportunity to view the handgun, in plain view, in the defendant's vehicle which, once discovered, made it valid for the police to search the remainder of the vehicle for further weapons without first obtaining a warrant pursuant to U.S. v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 102 S. Ct. 2157, 72 L. Ed. 2d 572 (1968). Although the denial of the suppression motion was upheld on appeal, the matter was remanded for re-sentencing due to the court's failure to impose individual sentences for each offense as required under State v. Rodriguez, 97 N.J. 263 (1984). The difference between having a search upheld or suppressing evidence obtained from a search rests on small legal distinctions. If the police obtained evidence against you in what you believed to be an illegal search, it is critical that you obtain experienced criminal defense counsel to defend you against the prosecution. For more information about warrantless search, search and seizure, drugs, weapons or other criminal issues in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of counsel.

DUI Blood Draw Due To Exigent Circumstances

Donna Jones was suspected of driving under the influence (DUI) at the time she caused a three car accident, resulting in injury to herself and another, by rear ending a car stopped at a light then striking a second car immediately in front of the first before her vehicle came to rest. As a result of the accident, Jones was unconscious. Although officers were alerted by EMTs to an odor of an alcoholic beverage emanating from Jones' breath at the scene, no field sobriety testing was possible due to her condition. Jones was transported to the hospital for treatment after emergency personnel extracted her from her vehicle. At the hospital Jones remained unconscious for some time and was despondent upon regaining consciousness. An officer requested that blood be extracted from Jones without a warrant and the resultant blood alcohol content (BAC) reading was .345 percent. Jones was indicted for fourth-degree assault by auto (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(c)(2)) and issued summonsed for DUI (N.J.S.A. 39:4-50) and reckless driving (N.J.S.A. 39:4-96). In Missouri v. McNeely, ___ U.S.___, 133 S. Ct. 1552, 185 L. Ed. 2d 696 (2013), a driver was arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI) as a result of a routine traffic stop and U.S. Supreme Court determined that the natural metabolization of alcohol in an individual's bloodstream does not, without more, constitute exigent circumstances giving rise to the ability of police to forego the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment and withdraw a blood sample without consent. Pursuant to the holding in McNeely and the fact that there was no proof police were unable to obtain a warrant under the particular facts of the case, the trial court suppressed Jones' blood alcohol content (BAC) reading. On appeal, in State v. Jones, the State argued that McNeely should not have been applied retroactively in this case where the incident occurred but the case was decided after McNeely. The NJ Appellate division determined the trial judge erred in his application of the standard required under McNeely and Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), and held that the BAC results of Jones should not have been suppressed. In State v. Dyal, 97 N.J. 229, 238 (1984), New Jersey courts held it legal to obtain a blood sample without the need for a warrant as long as there was a reasonable belief the driver was intoxicated and the blood was withdrawn "in a medically acceptable manner…without the use of excessive force." The NJ Appellate Division did consider McNeely in determining that it is a given that a person's BAC does dissipate once the alcohol is fully absorbed into the blood stream and declines over time until it is fully metabolized thus creating a need for drawing blood to preserve evidence of intoxication. The decision of the trial court with regard to suppression of the BAC results was reversed. If you are convicted of DUI you face serious penalties including loss of license for up to 10 years, incarceration for up to 180 days and substantial fines. You should obtain an experienced DUI attorney immediately to help fight your case. For more information about DWI, drug DUI, CDS in a motor vehicle, blood and urine testing, reckless driving, refusal to submit to a breath test or other serious motor vehicle offenses in NJ visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

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.

Limit On Police Requests For Passengers To Exit Vehicle

In State v. Bacome, a pretextual motor vehicle stop led to the discovery of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) in a vehicle. The NJ Appellate Division affirmed that police must have a “reasonable and articulable belief that their safety is in danger” before they can order passengers to exit a motor vehicle during a traffic stop. On April 11, 2014, Tawain Bacome and another gentleman suspected of drug use and distribution were followed by Woodbridge detectives to Newark. While in Newark, the detectives lost sight of the vehicle and returned to Woodbridge to wait for the vehicle to return. Upon seeing the vehicle coming into town, the detectives also noticed the passenger was not wearing a seatbelt and conducted a stop during which the passenger was ordered from the vehicle. Upon the passenger’s exit from the vehicle, the detectives saw certain evidence of crack use in plain view and used the evidence to obtain the vehicle’s owner’s consent to search. Ultimately, 13 vials of crack were discovered in the vehicle and Bacome was charged with drug possession and intent to distribute. The NJ Superior Court, Law Division, Criminal Part of Middlesex County denied Bacome’s motion to suppress the crack cocaine and other evidence found during the stop. On appeal, the NJ Appellate Division upheld State v. Smith, 134 N.J. 599, 637 A.2d 158 (1994) which set forth the need for police to have “reasonable and articulable belief that their safety is in danger” before they can order passengers to exit a motor vehicle during a traffic stop. Smith is more restrictive on police than the requirements set forth in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Maryland v. Wilson, 518 U.S. 408 (1997) wherein it was established that police officers were permitted to instruct passengers to exit a motor vehicle as long as the vehicle is stopped for a lawful reason. The NJ Appellate Division found the stop to be pretextual, based not on the passenger’s failure to wear a seatbelt but rather the detectives’ interest in searching the vehicle for evidence of drug use or distribution. The Appellate Division determined that the evidence should be suppressed and Bacome allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. If you are now facing charges as a result of a warrantless search and seizure, you should obtain experienced criminal defense counsel to represent you against the State’s charges. For more information about traffic stops, search and seizure, warrant requirements, warrantless searches, drug possession or distribution charges or other serious 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.

Man Is Charged With Possession Of A Firearm After Calling 9-1-1 To Aid Another

Donald Peterson was charged with second-degree possession of a firearm (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b)) and fourth-degree possession of a machete (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(a)) as a result of being a good samaritan. Peterson called the Hillsborough Police to report an unconscious male in front of his residence. Ultimately a murder investigation ensued with regard to the man discovered, based on the suspicious death of the 16 year old male. The Somerset County Prosecutor’s Office obtained a warrant to search the residence of Peterson for evidence that the victim had been in Peterson’s residence including “hair, fibers, fingerprints, bodily fluids, DNA, and other microscopic/forensic evidence. During multiple interviews with police officers, after Miranda warnings, Peterson admitted to having a criminal history as well as possessing weapons. While searching Peterson’s residence, the police discovered a Winchester rifle and a machete which Peterson was prohibited from possessing under N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7 as a certain person prohibited from possessing weapons due to his prior criminal history. Although no evidence was discovered liking Peterson to the death of the man he discovered on his sidewalk, he was indicted for the weapons possessions charges. In State v. Peterson, the defendant sought to suppress the discovery of the weapons in light of the fact that, although discovered in plain view during the search, discovery was not inadvertent given his prior notice to officers of his possession of same. Over the State’s objection, the NJ Superior Court, Law Division- Criminal Part, Somerset County suppressed the weapons in reliance on State v. Bruzzese, 94 N.J. 210, 236 (1983) holding inadvertent discovery to be an essential element for application of the ‘plain view’ exception to the search warrant requirement. The NJ Appellate Division reviewed the matter and found the inevitable discovery doctrine to apply in this case involving a search warrant for evidence establishing the victim’s pre-mortem presence in Peterson’s residence. Pursuant to State v. Marshall, 199 N.J. 602, 611 (2009), a lawful search should be limited to the areas likely to lead to discovery of the intended object of the search. In State v. Sheehan, 217 N.J. Super. 20 (1987), the court determined that when a search warrant applies to the entire premises, any item discovered therein is lawful as within the scope of the warrant. The court determined that State v. Gamble, 218 N.J. 412, 412 (2014) provided the N.J. Supreme Court with the opportunity to strike down or limit inadvertent discovery doctrine yet the justices did not seize upon said opportunity. The court turned to State v. Sugar, 108 N.J. 151, 156-157 (1987) establishing proof required by the State to invoke the inevitable discovery doctrine as follows: “(1) proper, normal and specific investigatory procedures would have been pursued in order to complete the investigation of the case; (2) under all of the surrounding relevant circumstances the pursuit of those procedures would have inevitably resulted in the discovery of the evidence; and (3) the discovery of the evidence through the use of such procedures would have occurred wholly independently of the discovery of such evidence by unlawful means.” Based on Peterson’s statements to police regarding his criminal history and his possession of the rifle, a warrant would have properly issued for a search for the weapon wholly independent of the warrant related to whether the victim had been present in Peterson’s residence pre-mortem. The NJ Appellate Division found the inevitable discovery doctrine to apply in this matter and reversed the trial court’s suppression of the rifle. If you are facing weapons charges, you should seek experienced criminal defense counsel immediately to protect your rights. For more information about weapons possession, use or possession of a gun in the commission of a crime, possession of a handgun without a permit, certain persons not to possess weapons or weapons charges in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Warning To The Wise About Your Car's 'Black Box'

If you are charged with criminal activity, the police now have another source of information to use against you, the information stored in your car's 'black box.' The Senate voted to approve NJ A3579, a bill introduced by the NJ Assembly on September 11, 2013 pertaining to the use of information from automobile ‘black box’ recording devices. The information recorded and stored by the ‘black box’ includes location, time of use, number of occupants inside the vehicle, direction of travel and speed. In addition to providing evidence in the case of a motor vehicle accident, the information is also accessible for law enforcement purposes. The text of the NJ A3579 includes the following: “2. a. Except as provided in subsection c. of this section, no person, except the owner of the motor vehicle that contains the recording device, or the owner's representative, may retrieve, obtain, or use data recorded, stored, or transmitted from the recording device, unless: (1) The owner of the motor vehicle, or the owner's representative, consents in writing at the time the data is retrieved, obtained, or used; (2) The recorded data is retrieved or obtained by a law enforcement officer pursuant to a search warrant issued by a judge of the Superior Court or upon order by a court of competent jurisdiction or another administrative authority having jurisdiction to issue such an order;” Although the bill, recently approved by the NJ Senate, limits the use of the stored data, it did not preclude its use by law enforcement. This means that if the police believe that a motor vehicle was utilized in the commission of a crime they may be able to obtain the information from the vehicle’s ‘black box’ that would assist in the investigation and prosecution of any suspects. For more information about specific crimes or criminal defense in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

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.

After Gun Is Discharged A Warrantless Search Is Upheld Over Objection of Resident

Michael Lamb fired a handgun at others on a public street. Sometime later police found his vehicle in front of the trailer home in which he resided with his family. In State v. Lamb, the NJ Supreme Court recently decided whether a warrantless search could be upheld when one party at the scene consents after another strongly objecting party has been removed from the scene by police. Upon seeing the police, Lamb's step-father, Steven Marcus, immediately advised them they were not permitted upon his property. Police then proceeded to remove Lamb's step-father from the scene. Thereafter, they were able to coax Lamb from the residence and he was arrested. Police then sought consent to enter the trailer home and Lamb's mother agreed. Within Lamb's bedroom a box containing a handgun was located and used against him at trial. The court looked at multiple factors in upholding the warrantless search over the initial objections of Lamb's step-father. Factors included the proximity in time to the shots fired, the fact that the individual refusing consent was no longer present and the eventual consent of Lamb's mother. Countervailing factors including the initial objection of Marcus, the fact that Lamb's removal from the residence also removed the likelihood of danger from further shots fired and the ability of police to obtain a warrant did not serve to render the search invalid. In another case decided at the same time, the NJ Supreme Court held a warrantless search valid when consent was obtained from a homeowner to search the locked room of a relative who resided in the home but was being detained nearby. In State v. Coles, the fact that the police had detained Byseem Coles nearby was a substantial factor in holding the search to be invalid although his aunt had granted consent to search his room. In spite of the ruling in Coles, where the defendant was being detained nearby while permission was sought from Coles' aunt, the court upheld the search in Lamb even though Marcus, who plainly and vehemently objected to the search, was removed from the scene by police. If you are facing charges for weapons offenses or believe that evidence against you was obtained illegally, you should obtain experienced criminal defense counsel immediately. For more information about use or possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, possession of a handgun without a permit, unlawful possession of a weapon, use or possession of a weapon in the commission in the commission of a crime or other criminal charges in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Robbery Suspects Apprehended By Police GPS Use Without Warrant

US v. Katzin, 732 F. 3d 187 (2013), involved the warrantless placing of a GPS tracking device by police on the vehicle of brothers suspected in the robbery of multiple Rite Aid pharmacies in New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland. Harry Katzin and his van were seen in the proximity of several of the pharmacies where the robberies took place. Using the GPS device, police tracked the Katzin brothers van as they drove to a Rite-Aid where a robbery took place then stopped them shortly thereafter. Evidence gathered during the traffic stop, which resulted from the use of the GPS device, led to their arrest. The device was installed on December 14, 2012 and the Katzins were apprehended on December 16, 2012, limiting the use to approximately 48 hours. In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2914 (2011), 564 U.S. ___ (2011) holding that evidence discovered while police were conducting searches in good faith reliance on legalities at the time of the search. In U.S. v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945, 565 U.S. ___ (2012), the U.S. Supreme Court held that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle constituted trespass and therefore required a warrant but never addressed whether the warrantless tracking utilizing the GPS device was unreasonable. Justice Steven Breyer's comments during Jones likened the ability of police to monitor individuals 24 hours per day at will using GPS devices to George Orwell's novel 1984. In Katzin, the brothers' suppression motion was granted by a District Judge hearing the matter and government appealed to the Third Circuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that heard arguments in the case held that any evidence obtained through the use of the GPS tracking device must be suppressed. The prosecution maintained that, with probable cause to believe the vehicle is involved in criminal activity, no warrant should be required as the Fourth Amendment requires either a warrant or probable cause. The prosecution further argued that while attached to the vehicle, the device provided no information beyond what could be observed by simple visual surveillance. The ACLU argued that Jones found the original attachment of the GPS device to require a warrant, without consideration of whether limiting the time of the tracking would affect the need for a warrant. The ACLU further argued that the ease and cost-effectiveness of using a GPS device will render law enforcement likely to track individuals even where it there is no reasonableness. Without the requirement of a warrant, police could use GPS devices to gather information and use that information to establish probable cause. Ultimately, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that law enforcement officers must have a valid warrant before installing a GPS tracking device on a suspect's vehicle. If you are facing charges of robbery, the penalties can be severe and you should obtain experienced criminal defense counsel immediately. For further information regarding robbery, warrantless searches, burglary or other serious criminal offenses in New Jersey, visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Warrantless Search Leads To Drug Charges

In State v. Tepper, the police entered a woman’s residence without a warrant and she was subsequently charged with 3rd degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) with intent to distribute (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5a) as a result of marijuana the police observed while in the residence. The defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence based on the unlawful entry of the police onto her property was denied when the Somerset County Superior Court Judge held that the warrantless entry was valid under the “community caretaking” doctrine. Police went to the defendant’s residence based on a school bus driver’s complaint about a car, bearing her tags, passing the bus while stopped. When they arrived at the residence, officers found the car in question and knocked to no avail. Seeing lights on in the residence and allegedly finding a rear sliding door ajar, the police entered the residence without a warrant believing a burglary to be in progress or recently committed. Upon their search of the entire residence, the officers located several jars in the basement containing marijuana, some Ecstasy pills, paraphernalia and cash. The 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution, as well as the NJ Constitution, bars warrantless searches and seizures unless there one of the well-delineated exceptions apply. The basis of each exception is reasonableness of the search when reviewed under the totality of the circumstances. There is a presumption against warrantless searches and seizures and the prosecution bears the burden of justifying the entry into private property without a warrant. Additionally, people have a right to the greatest amount of privacy within their homes and warrantless searches thereof should be subject to the highest scrutiny. In undertaking their search, the officers entered the rear yard of the residence and entered upon a rear deck which is overreaching without a warrant, however, the Appellate Court deemed this to be simply for the purpose of contacting the residents and not illegal. At the time the decision was made to deny the suppression motion State v. Vargas, 213 N.J. 301 (2013) had not yet been decided. In Vargas, the NJ Supreme Court set forth a test to determine the validity of a warrantless search. The NJ Appellate Division remanded to the trial court for a determination under the Vargas test. If you are facing drug charges or believe you are being prosecuted in a matter based on an illegal search by the police, you should obtain experienced criminal defense counsel to represent you against the state and protect your rights. For more information about drug charges, warrantless searches or other serious criminal charges in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Drug Suppression Motion For Warrantless Search Denied

In State v. Salladino the defendant was indicted for 3rd theft of movable property (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3) and 3rd degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10a1). The defendant won a suppression motion relating to the Oxycodone found during the warrantless search by police. The prosecution filed an interlocutory appeal and the N.J. Appellate Court determined that, although the Oxycodone was found during a search of the defendant's person exceeding the scope of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the drugs would have inevitably been discovered when the defendant was searched incident to the arrest for the robbery charges. According to the court's holding in State v. Sugar, 100, N.J. 211 (1985) if the evidence would have inevitably been discovered as a result of an independent and predictable circumstance, it remains admissible even if seized by other unlawful means. The Appellate division held that the suppression motion should not have been granted and remanded for further proceedings. Following a call from a robbery victim, police located 2 suspects in the vicinity matching the description given by the victim. The officer in charge of the investigation ordered that the suspects be brought before the victim for a show-up identification. Prior to transporting Salladino to the show-up, a police officer conducted a pat-down search of the defendant to ensure the defendant has no weapons. During the frisk, the officer felt a "hard bulge" and retrieved a pill bottle without a label or lid which contained 83 Percocet pills. The officer seized the pills but made no arrest regarding the Percocet. The suspects were positively identified by the victim during a show-up identification and they were arrested. At no time between the stop and the arrest could the defendant have removed the pills from his person without notice by the police, therefore, the Percocet would have been inevitably discovered during the search incident to arrest even though retrieving the pill bottle from the defendant's person exceeded the scope of a Terry stop as there was no reasonable basis to conclude the defendant was armed and the officer never claimed he believed the "hard bulge" was a weapon. 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, robbery, warrantless searches, 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.