Street Cop Podcast

Latest Episodes:

Wingspan Searches Sep 20, 2021

Show notes

In this archive, Dennis answers some group questions as well as provide insights on MV Violations and Wingspan Searches. Recorded on 12/12/2017. State v Eckel 2006 http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1107296.html?fbclid=IwAR0B_HCJ2h3wtsF01yuKHVOAyHkj7EpQgSZRLBp97C_iocECblFJtMbdnP0 (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1107296.html) We do not view Article I, Paragraph 7 as a procedural matter but as a reaffirmation of the privacy rights guaranteed to our citizens and of our duty as judges to secure them. So viewed, the Belton rationale simply does not pass muster. That is not to suggest that bright lines are not salutary, only that they cannot be the sole justification for a warrantless search. Indeed, a bright-line that remains true to an exception's roots is a worthy consideration. In that connection, one scholar has observed: If any bright line rule had been necessary to resolve the issue in Belton, it would have been the opposite of the rule that the Court announced ․ [O]ccupants almost invariably are removed before an automobile is searched; and once they have been removed, there is no longer much chance that they can secure weapons from the automobile or destroy evidence there. [Albert W. Alschuler, Bright Line Fever and the Fourth Amendment, 45 U. Pitt. L.Rev. 227, 274 (1984).] That is the line we draw here. Once the occupant of a vehicle has been arrested, removed and secured elsewhere, the considerations informing the search incident to arrest exception are absent and the exception is inapplicable. We thus return to Chimel and to Welsh and declare their reasoning to be the critical path to the application of the search incident to arrest exception under Article I, Paragraph 7 of our constitution. That, in turn, answers the open issue in Pierce. Obviously, where a defendant has been arrested but has not been removed and secured, the court will be required to determine, on a case-by-case basis whether he or she was in a position to compromise police safety or to carry out the destruction of evidence, thus justifying resort to the search incident to arrest exception. In Michigan v. Long, 103 S. Ct. 3469 (1983), the Court established the right of an officer to conduct a Terry-type "frisk" (protective inspection) of the passenger compartment of a vehicle stopped for a traffic violation when the officer has a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the motorist is dangerous and may gain immediate control of a weapon.MICHIGAN v. LONG | FindLaw Nervousness and Furtive Movements.— State v. Lund, 119 N.J. 35 (1990) State v. Lund :: 1990 :: Supreme Court of New Jersey Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia HELD: The Michigan v. Long rule "should be followed to protect New Jersey's police community." BUT, "nervousness and furtive gestures" alone, exhibited by the occupants of an automobile will not give rise to a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the driver or a passenger is presently armed and dangerous. See State of NJ v. Daniels (1993)STATE v. DANIELS | 264 N.J. Super. 161 (1993) | https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2FLeagle.com%2F%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR06l2XgoYwUPw7vlIIrSfPavdBs7Gja1aIRkG_wdUobL8sBfXeklm7ybwsandh=AT3dI4S6MHSTZbS-pEn1QUsSMut6BvLZU2wDFN6kNjaOQiWYGFOJYI4F1qa_fgoT7S7Izoxs0cd7E9Og_-Wr4nCbMyJv43VzUuV5m4f_3sd-bx94AlQ7M5eO7WhbfL8ASwand__tn__=-UK-R (Leagle.com)

Public Intoxication Sep 19, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis discusses the case laws around public intoxication. Recorded on 12/26/2017. 26:2B-16. Person intoxicated in public place; assistance to facility; determination of intoxication Any person who is intoxicated in a public place may be assisted to his residence or to an intoxication treatment center or other facility by a police officer or other authorized person. To determine whether or not such person is intoxicated, the police officer may request the person to submit to any reasonable test, including, but not limited to, tests of his coordination, coherency of speech, and breath. Any person who is intoxicated in a public place and who a police officer has reason to believe is incapacitated shall be assisted by the police officer to an intoxication treatment center or other facility. A police officer acting in accordance with the provisions of this section may use such force, other than that which is likely to inflict physical injury, as is reasonably necessary to carry out his authorized responsibilities. If the police officer reasonably believes that his safety or the safety of other persons present so requires, he may search such person and his immediate surroundings, but only to the extent necessary to discover and seize any dangerous weapon which may on that occasion be used against the officer or other person present. All persons acting under the provisions of this section shall be considered as acting in the conduct of their official duties and shall not be held criminally or civilly liable for such acts. Any person assisted by a police officer to a facility pursuant to the provisions of this section shall receive treatment in accordance with section 9. In any event, if such person is determined upon examination to be intoxicated, the examining physician or other medically competent individual shall so certify and a duplicate copy of the certification shall be made available to the police officer. A person assisted to a facility pursuant to the provisions of this section, shall not be considered to have been arrested and no entry or other record shall be made to indicate that he has been arrested.

Always Stay Vigilant Sep 19, 2021

Show notes

In this archive short, Dennis implores those in the active line of duty to stay aware at all times. Recorded on 12/16/2017.

Line of Duty feat. Jesse Hartnett Sep 19, 2021

Show notes

In this thrilling archive episode, Dennis has Jesse Hartnett share important thoughts to instill during your time in the line of duty. Recorded on 12/13/2017.

Rental Car Sep 18, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis explains how to deal with rental car motor vehicle stops. Recorded on 12/05/2017. US v. Rahme (1987) A hotel guests rental period has expired or been lawfully terminated the guest does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the hotel room or in any articles found therein of which the hotel lawfully takes possession. Moreover, the fact that the defendant’s arrest prevented his return to the hotel room made no difference for it was presumably his own conduct that prevented his return to the hotel.

Hindering Apprehension Sep 18, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis explains the cases of hindering apprehension when a subject must provide identification. Recorded on 12/04/2017.

Exigency Sep 18, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis explains exigency in regards to a time-sensitive situation regarding contraband. Recorded on 12/01/2017. State V. Nishina (2003) - This allows an officer to conduct an immediate search relying on training and experience, when the officer had probable cause to believe that a suspect is in possession of illegal narcotics and the officer detects the odor of marijuana on the suspects clothing. The courts have ruled this exigent circumstances and ruled that if a search warrant was sought the contraband could very well be consumed, hidden, or sold by the time one was issued. Search like incident to arrest. The odor of marijuana does not create exigency to warrant the entry of a home. State v George Myers 2015 The smell of marijuana itself can suffice to furnish probable cause that a criminal offense has been committed, the smell of marijuana gave Trooper Gore (Who is a police officer just like you) the right to arrest defendant for committing an apparent marijuana offense in his presence "'The "in presence" requirement . . . is satisfied by the trooper's use of his sense of smell in much the same manner as if he had used his sight or hearing or touch[.]'" In any event, subject to any pertinent defenses, possession of any quantity of marijuana is an offense. N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(4). “The distinctive odor of burnt . . . marijuana'" is evidence of such possession. “A strong odor is [not] required"; detection of the "characteristic" "smell of burnt marijuana, by a trained and experienced State Trooper, emanating from the passenger compartment of a legally stopped motor vehicle, created probable cause to believe that a violation of law had been or was being committed." The appropriate charge is 2C: 35-10a4 P.C. on complaint is odor of marijuana STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. GEORGE A. MYERS :: 2015 :: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division - Published Opinions Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia

Therapy, Meds, and Stigma feat. Jenna Romano Sep 17, 2021

Show notes

In this new reflective episode, Dennis and Jenna discuss the change in climate regarding mental health and how it is important to continue dismantling old stigmas of therapy and medications when necessary. Recorded on 09/15/2021. To listen to more #NoBSMentalFitness episodes with Jenna, subscribe to her free email or get in touch click the link: https://linktr.ee/jennarosecoaching *Please know that emails and social media are not monitored 24/7 and therefore should not be used for crisis contact. Here are some resources: Psychologytoday.com to search for therapists 1-800-COPLINE for peer support National suicide prevention lifeline 1800 273 8255 DISCLAIMER: The content in this podcast is not to be considered medical advise for any reason and nothing on it is intended to provide or act as a substitute for mental health treatment or medical treatment. We do not know your history or personal situation and cannot advise you or provide you with clinical recommendations without a consultation - This content is for general education.

Maintenance Violations Sep 17, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis explains that maintenance violations apply to out-of-state vehicles as well as in-state vehicles. Recorded on 11/30/2017. State v Forgione 1993 - ALL MAINTENANCE VIOLATIONS DO APPLY TO OUT OF STATE VEHICLES.. STATE v. FORGIONE | https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2FLeagle.com%2F%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR1XBbNAQoqYJjH8BpTv2KKMTP6b-KjiJuC24lnzoU3xRub9yK1KogSMOFsandh=AT1nCRM0TohsBVsWrTDQO6-XM4qx_WFosPskF-hwlFTT_ADLXfFACb5hMYmdjHxsAgr1O3EdYImBj4_pUg1T7rsWVS6kc8f0HwA27NSALP3fXzZDZUnRE48Ymn6EPalcbipGJ21fPDstfa7xoAand__tn__=-UK-R (Leagle.com) 1993 The court ruled that the provisions of 39:3-15, which exempt from the automobile equipment standards of Title 39 a vehicle licensed in another state and owned by a resident of that state, do not prevent a law enforcement officer in this state from stopping such a vehicle or requiring the driver to produce registration and driving credentials when the officer observes and equipment violation. A Law enforcement officer cannot ascertain whether an out of state licensed vehicle is owned by a resident of that state without checking the registration credentials of that vehicle. It is not unusual in this day in age for a resident of one state to register his car in another state. Consequently, entitlement to the exemption of 39:3-15 cannot be determined until the registration credentials confirm the vehicle in question is owned by an out-of-state resident and properly registered there. The only practical way for that conformation to occur is for the police officer involved to review the appropriate credentials. Tinted Windows – Falls under 39: 3-74 State v Cohen 2002 NJAC 13:20-33.7:(d) A motor vehicle, other than a police vehicle or a motor vehicle for which a medical exemption certificate has been issued by the Motor Vehicle Commission in accordance with N.J.S.A. 39:3-75.1 et seq., shall not be certified which has tinted spray or plastic material added to previously approved glazing in the front windshield or windows, vents, wings, deflectors, or side shields to the immediate right or left of the driver, because such condition changes the vision and light transmission properties of the glazing in areas where driver visibility shall not be obscured or obstructed; provided, however, tinted spray or plastic material may be applied to previously approved glazing in the front windshield if such spray or material extends no lower than six inches from the top of the front windshield or such spray or material does not extend below the AS-1 marking on the front windshield. State V. Cohen 2002 - NJ expressly adopts Judge Steinberg’s opinion from State V. Olberton 1992; tinted windows on a motor vehicle is RAS for a stop STATE v. COHEN | FindLaw

Defendant's Admission III Sep 17, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis answers some group questions revisiting the defendant's admission. Recorded on 11/27/2017. Defendants' admission brings offense within the presence of the officer. (also see Bauer v. Borough off Cliffside Park 1988.)Bauer v. Borough of Cliffside Park :: 1988 :: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division - Published Opinions Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia The court held that a defendants admission to a police officer of the facts making up the offense alleged will satisfy that the requirement that the disorderly offense occur in the officer’s presence. State v. Morse :: 1969 :: Supreme Court of New Jersey Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia Also - A video tape alone (CCTV) does not satisfy the in presence requirement (This is for Non-Indictables or a Non-Crime) for a warrantless arrest, not for a summons complaint.

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected