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.

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.