"Inevitable Discovery", "Independent Source" Doctrines and Suppression in NJ

In the recently decided case of State v. Pheasant, police received a tip from an informant that defendant was selling marijuana but during a controlled buy they arranged, police did not find marijuana on defendant's person. Police then questioned defendant regarding where the marijuana was and he stated it was in his truck and they could "go get it." Defendant was charged with possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS), possession with intent to distribute CDS, possession of intent to distribute CDS within 1,000 of a school and possession of CDS with intent to distribute within 500 feet of a public housing facility, park or public building. Defendant sought to suppress the marijuana due to a warrantless search. The State argued defendant voluntarily disclosed the location of the CDS and even if the defendant's privacy rights were violated, a search warrant would have issued and the CDS would have been rightfully seized under the "inevitable discovery doctrine." The judge decided the State met the elements of inevitable discovery but failed to correctly interpret the doctrine. Additionally, the trial judge erred in incorporating elements of the "independent source doctrine" into the analysis when the State made no claim of independent source. The NJ Appellate Division held that the officer's inquiry regarding the CDS triggered defendant's right to privacy and he only disclosed the location of the marijuana when asked. Inevitable discovery requires that (1) proper, normal and specific investigatory procedures would have been followed in the investigation; (2) given the facts, the investigation would have resulted in discovery of the evidence; and (3) the discovery of evidence would have occurred independently of the discovery by unlawful means. State v. Sugar, 100 N.J. 214 (1985). In contrast, the independent source doctrine requires (1) the State had probable cause to search even without the illegally obtained information; (2) the state would have sought a warrant even without the illegally obtained knowledge; and (3) and illegality was a mistake and not "flagrant police misconduct." Because the State addressed only the inevitable discovery doctrine at trial the matter is remanded for reconsideration under the proper elements of that doctrine and the State is precluded from raising the independent source doctrine after the fact. A judge must submit very specific reasons for finding you guilty in a criminal matter. If you are facing criminal charges, you should consult an experienced criminal law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on drug charges, CDS, distribution, drug possession, CDS in a motor vehicle or other criminal law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter.

Lack of Consent to Search Permits Withdrawal of Guilty Plea in NJ

Police received a tip from an informant about two black males selling drugs out of a car belonging to defendant. When police located the vehicle at the location provided, they notified defendant of their belief there were drugs in the trunk and requested permission to search. Upon denial of consent to search, officers proceeded to open the trunk and located the drugs the informant stated they would find. After entering a plea of guilty to two counts of third-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) with intent to distribute, the defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea. In spite of the fact defendant may have been notified of his right to file a suppression motion, and that his right would be waived by entering a plea of guilty, defendant chose to plead guilty. Defendant later filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. After the Court below denied the defendant the relief sought, the New Jersey Appellate Court found that the Motion to withdraw the plea should have been granted. Defendant's appeal was granted on his contention that he did not consent to the search of the trunk of his car. Defendant claimed that he expressly denied consent to open the trunk of the car but the police did not honor his rights. Because the search may have violated defendant's rights, granting defendant's motion to withdraw the guilty plea was appropriate. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter. If you face criminal charges as a result of an illegal search, you should consult an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information regarding illegal search and seizure, 4th Amendment rights, drug charges or other criminal law matters, including municipal court matters, in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com.