No Right To Detain Suspects Away From Premises While Executing Warrant

In the execution of a warrant, police knowingly allowed suspects to leave the apartment and travel approximately one mile prior to stopping the vehicle and returning the occupants to the apartment where the police search team was already at work and found a gun and drugs. The police then arrested the men and discovered that a key located during a patdown search at the motor vehicle stop unlocked the apartment door. Defendant moved to suppress statements to the police made during the motor vehicle stop and the apartment key itself. The district court denied the motion indicating the motor vehicle stop and return to the apartment was justified as a detention incident to the execution of a search warrant under Michigan v. Summers. The United States Supreme Court reviewed the matter of Bailey v. United States and read Summers as allowing detention of the occupants of the premises during a valid search without particularized suspicion as to the involvement of the occupant in potential criminal activity. The court found three interests of law enforcement justifying the detention including 1) officer safety, 2) preventing interference with the search or destruction of evidence and 3) preventing those who may be guilty from fleeing. Upon considering the distance of the defendants from the apartment the US Supreme Court held that the arrest approximately a mile away "involved an additional level of intrusiveness" detention beyond the immediate vicinity of the premises is invalid. Motions to suppress evidence are difficult but possible if the appropriate facts exist and may result in the dismissal of the prosecution's case against you. If you are charged with a crime in New Jersey, you should immediately hire an experienced criminal attorney who will review the facts of the case and determine how to best help you to defeat the charges against you. For more information on illegal searches, motions to suppress or other criminal matters including drug (CDS), gun, assault, domestic violence, burglary, theft, shoplifting and DUI/DWI in NJ 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.

Fleeing the Police Does Not Always Give Probable Cause to Arrest in NJ

The police must have probable cause to stop and search without a warrant. A man exited a residence which was under surveillance by Newark police detectives investigating a shooting. Detectives watched the man stand on the porch until another man, the co-defendant, approached. The defendant stepped off the porch to speak with the co-defendant and co-defendant showed him what appeared to be a gun. Defendant looked at the object but never held or possessed the object. When the detectives approached, the defendant ran back onto the residence with a detective in pursuit. The detective tackled defendant into the residence as he was entering the door and saw weapons in plain view. The detective observed a shotgun, 3 long rifles and a stock of ammunition. Defendant was charged with illegal possession of the weapons and made a motion to suppress the guns at trial. In a case relating to probable cause to stop and search without a warrant, the NJ appellate court reaffirmed the prior decision, in Illinois v. Wardlow, setting forth the premise that flight alone cannot be used to justify stopping those who flee the police. The Court must look at the overall circumstances to determine whether the police could have had reasonable suspicion that the defendant was involved in criminal activity. 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 are facing criminal charges as a result of a wrongful arrest or illegally obtained evidence and believe you may be entitled to suppression of the confession, you should consult an experienced criminal law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on probable cause, reasonable suspicion or other criminal law or municipal court issues in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com.

Are You Being Tracked Through Your Cell Phone?

Use or possession of a cell phone comes with a big price tag if you have committed a crime in New Jersey. Law enforcement may contact your cellular carrier and track the location of your cell phone in the event they suspect you of committing a crime. In the event the police obtain a warrant to retrieve information from your cellular carrier, this method of tracking is legal. The warrant requirement subjects the police to show probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and you are the one who committed it to an impartial judge prior to the judge issuing the warrant. In State v. Earls, a burglary case, the court will rule on whether the police may seek information regarding your location from a cellular carrier without first obtaining a warrant. In the event the court upholds the warrantless tracking by police that occurred in Earls, the police power to monitor your cell phone will render your cell phone a constant signal of your location and movements. By simply owning a cell phone, you will lose ample privacy rights as the police will be able to track you whether you are in "plain view" or not. Within the Constitution the right to privacy was created and a decision in favor of the State in Earls would serve largely to strip away this right. If you believe you have been the victim of an illegal police search, you should consult an experienced criminal law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information regarding warrantless searches, your rights in criminal matters, burglary 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.

Right to Refuse Consent to Search in NJ

When law enforcement officers want to undertake a search, absent exigent circumstances (learn more about exigent circumstances by visiting HeatherDarlingLawyer.com), they are required to obtain a warrant or obtain consent of an individual who has authority over the place or item to be searched. If you are confronted by law enforcement officers, you have a right to refuse consent to search. More importantly, the officers are required to advise you very clearly of your right to refuse consent. The officers should make sure you have enough of an understanding of that right to make a decision as to whether you wish to provide consent or not. In the event officers have the opportunity to advise you of your right to refuse consent but do not do so before you offer consent and a search is undertaken of your property, any evidence discovered through the search may be suppressed. Furthermore, at all times during a search in which you have provided consent, you must be present and aware of your right to stop the search at any time. In order for a consent search to be valid, the officers conducting the search must 1) advise you of your right to refuse consent; 2) insure you are able to watch them conduct the search; 3) make you aware of your right to stop the search at any time; and 4) stop the search immediately in the event you withdraw consent. 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 and believe you were subject to an illegal search, you should consult an experienced criminal law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on consent searches, search and seizure, illegal search, warrantless search, domestic violence, anonymous tips or other criminal law matters, including municipal court matters, in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com.

Warrantless Search Without Danger Exceeds Community Caretaking Role of Police in NJ

Following receipt of an anonymous call about domestic violence, the police appeared at a New Jersey residence to determine whether there was danger to anyone. Upon arrival, police were met at the entrance to the apartments by the alleged victim. The alleged victim advised the police there were no problems at the residence and she was not in danger. The police found the circumstances to be curious, especially the fact that the alleged victim was at the door waiting for them, rather than inside with the other occupants. In order to determine whether the alleged victim was truly safe, the police insisted upon gaining entry into the apartment and were admitted into defendant's apartment by the parties' 11 year old child. Upon entry into the apartment, the police saw no signs of danger or unrest and no weapons were observed in plain view. At that time, rather than accepting that there was no actual danger present, the police violated defendant's rights by undertaking a warrantless search of the premises. The illegal search revealed a handgun under a pillow near the defendant and he was charged with a weapons offense. Only in the case of an emergency requiring immediate action by the police is a warrantless search permissible. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that this was an illegal search in violation of defendant's rights to enjoy the protections of the constitution relating to a person's home as offering a reasonable expectation of privacy from intrusion. 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 and believe that evidence against you was illegally obtained by police, you should consult an experienced criminal law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on search and seizure, illegal search, warrantless search, domestic violence, anonymous tips or other criminal law matters, including municipal court matters, in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com.

No Expectation of Privacy In A Cell Phone Number in NJ

A former Morris County teacher, Patrick DeFranco, was indicted on charges of first-degree aggravated sexual assault, second-degree sexual assault and third-degree endangering the welfare of a child after a wiretap provided evidence of a past sexual relationship between the teacher and a former student. The abuse had gone unreported for 7 years and the student no longer had evidence of the relationship. In order to obtain evidence, the victim agreed to call the Defendant while the police listened on a recorded line. The cell phone number the victim had for DeFranco was no longer valid so the Morris County Prosecutor's Office, with the help of Denville police, obtained DeFranco's current cell phone number from Valleyview school. A call took place in which DeFranco chose to discuss past sexual contacts with the victim. At trial, DeFranco moved to suppress the wiretap based on the fact that, although he had given his prior cell phone number to the victim, he had not given the number used for the wiretap to the victim. He further argued that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell phone number and the police should not have obtained same without a warrant, for which they may not have met the probable cause requirements. Morris County Superior Court Judge Dangler refused to suppress the evidence obtained from the phone call. The NJ Appellate Court upheld Dangler's decision, finding there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in a cell phone number and, even if there was, DeFranco waived it by giving the victim his number in the past. The Appellate Court also noted DeFranco's choice to recall intimate details of his past during a voluntary conversation with a victim he had sexually abused in the past. 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 are charged with a crime, you should consult an experienced criminal law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on megan's law, sex-crimes, endangering the welfare of a minor or other criminal law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com.