Street Cop Podcast

Latest Episodes:

Being a Survivor III feat. Jeremy Davidson Sep 16, 2021

Show notes

In this tight episode, Dennis has Jeremy recall the incident that changed everything and how to move forward as a survivor. Recorded on 09/08/2021.

Arrests with Contraband Items in Bags Sep 16, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis explains how to deal with arrests that have bags to be searched that may contain contraband items. Recorded on 11/29/2017. State V. Oyenusi 2006 – If you have an arrest with bags or items that may contain contraband you must search them contemporaneously with the arrest so close in time and location that they may be considered “connected units of an integrated incident and part of one single transaction.” Must not be remote in time or place. Once the property is not immediately associated with person under arrest a search of the property cannot be done as incident to arrest.(You will need consent or a warrant) Handcuffs first is OK SEARCH BAGS BEFORE YOU TRANSPORT! STATE v. OYENUSI | FindLaw Also see State v. Bradley 1996STATE v. BRADLEY | 291 N.J. Super. 501 (1996) | https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2FLeagle.com%2F%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR2MDyXSkM89GfzkH10ooffndmx4l2uE-dA9tBz0uF6tvRbXq-P_ccHPJI8andh=AT0xpRfHbiyV1fxQZUilc9zHWp4ZtOElwtPVRyHv0Pprt4rX3uEOyZhUKe8To8IayXWkr32ruFuOijr9dhIfzcrJiBaUJdWKyslgB7Fob6jjRo70J-1ffYkM3cAJ7VrvdwLi23qmxtfChgwIJAand__tn__=-UK-R (Leagle.com) State v Mahoney (1988) This is the case that ruled that stationhouse inventory searches are illegal. It is also noted that defendant did not consent to the inventory search nor was he given the opportunity of making other arrangements for the safekeeping of his suitcase and briefcase. State v.Mangold, the Court concluded that "[a]bsent consent or alternative security provisions, an inventory may not be undertaken." Mangold, 82 N.J. at 587.STATE v. MANGOLD | 82 N.J. 575 (1980) | https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2FLeagle.com%2F%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR0M0HMx_H5BWtGwSATZ2Vwn9DK40RzYDP863dXpEJEzglR6E6eGJRHz9REandh=AT0xpRfHbiyV1fxQZUilc9zHWp4ZtOElwtPVRyHv0Pprt4rX3uEOyZhUKe8To8IayXWkr32ruFuOijr9dhIfzcrJiBaUJdWKyslgB7Fob6jjRo70J-1ffYkM3cAJ7VrvdwLi23qmxtfChgwIJAand__tn__=-UK-R (Leagle.com) State v. Padilla (1999) It is improper to search and inventory the personal property of an arrestee without first affording the arrestee the opportunity to consent to the search or the opportunity to make other arrangements for the disposition of personal property.STATE v. PADILLA | FindLaw State v. Mahoney :: 1988 :: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division - Published Opinions Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia State v. Irelan 2005 This case ruled officers have the right to search a motor vehicle for open containers after an arrest for DWI. (1) the police may lawfully effect a custodial arrest of a motorist when there is probable cause of a DWI violation; (2) incident to the arrest, the police may search the person of the arrestee; and (3) a contemporaneous warrantless search of the vehicle is permissible We hold that these facts are sufficient to support a reasonable well-grounded suspicion that alcohol was consumed in the vehicle, and thus the vehicle contained open containers of alcohol. Therefore, the probable cause prong of the automobile exception is met. This will be allowed for CDS-related DWI’s as well. STATE v. IRELAN | FindLaw

Do Research to Curb Conditioning Sep 16, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis explains how to be proactive in research to think less like a basic cop and more like an interdiction officer. Recorded on 11/17/2021.

Being a Survivor II feat. Walter Mackel Sep 15, 2021

Show notes

In this reflective episode, Dennis talks with hero Walter Mackel and how he continues to move forward after seeing the action that he has. Recorded on 09/07/2021.

A Promotion is an Opportunity Sep 15, 2021

Show notes

In this new episode, Dennis addresses getting promoted, and how it isn't just about the focus on bringing value to the organization, but also bringing value to oneself in a way that will enable leadership qualities. Recorded on 09/14/2021.

THE OTHERSIDE WITH THOMAS WALSH feat. MICHEAL DEROIAN Sep 14, 2021

Show notes

In this premiere episode of a new series, Tom speaks with guest Michael Deroian and discusses what comes after a career in law enforcement. Recorded on 09/09/2021.

Drugs and Investigative Detentions Sep 14, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis answers questions about drugs and investigative detentions. Recorded on 11/17/2017. State of NJ v. Larry Wilson 2003 - https://streetcoptraining.com/original-caselaw/nj-v-wilson-2003/?fbclid=IwAR1hqCK2GqVEyIGzQozDBO0XUv-lWqLJNfxcw5p0lpBh4bCmbQof7R_H8Mc (https://streetcoptraining.com/original.../nj-v-wilson-2003/) The courts have upheld investigative detentions of: 45 Minutes – United States v Davies 1985 https://www.leagle.com/decision/19851661768f2d89311515?fbclid=IwAR1hmwOF7u01QWzRF_TlbmxWNxSlF1FuIVmaKu7ov0mF_NBx7s1EqtCt7io (https://www.leagle.com/decision/19851661768f2d89311515) 50 Minutes – US v. Alpert 1987 https://www.leagle.com/decision/19871774816f2d95811624?fbclid=IwAR3t6NBhT0JduiJWzyyXL6WFnrX1MSgOynmBIH8yvNOZ9XoIgXK0J9uQYIA (https://www.leagle.com/decision/19871774816f2d95811624) 60 Minutes – US v. Large 1984 https://www.leagle.com/decision/19841365729f2d63611269?fbclid=IwAR12M7kKDwYX2PaIo3RxwXuJK8hLD6y_6RajRh1jmTQ3tMgIJ7qKne4cLCM (https://www.leagle.com/decision/19841365729f2d63611269) 75 Minutes – US v. Borys 1985 https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcasetext.com%2Fcase%2Funited-states-v-borys-2%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR1c9cuSS0zYVB4kOAWUWWKwBXNVp2oLjKDzz4kRg_igI9CF3T_ftYtyQycandh=AT1Iv8ClIRqxpVCLuRmdxLnC4l9ToudM83iM1Yfg5S1l9qePLVhv73DhbrG4u8JQWG5gb-1GeFTkTDh8Im_f0pXbJD60FJxc29slmZNbhYMpaJgKzRXEdERy0IDxNao-b9q2Fm8qtJkK9kVmPAand__tn__=-UK-R (https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-borys-2) Each of these cases cited involved delays necessitated by efforts to obtain a narcotics dog for sniffing luggage or packages. The court will look at whether or not the police diligently pursued their investigation, and whether the detention lasts no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop. The circumstances surrounding the case will matter too, namely the use of handcuffs and confinement.

Title 39 Arrests Sep 14, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis discusses arrests on Title 39 violations. Recorded on 11/09/2017. May a police officer arrest any person who violates, in the officers presence, any provision of Chapter 3 or 4 of title 39? No, although 39:5-25 imposes no limits on an officer’s authority to arrest for traffic offenses, the statute not be read literally. There are “Other sources of law” that suggest that an officer’s authority to arrest under 39:5-25 is, and should be, restricted to those offenses in which , “AN ARREST IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY OR TO ASSURE THAT THE OFFENDER WILL RESPOND TO A SUMMONS!” (SOMEONE WITH NO IDENTIFCATION and YOU CAN’T FIGURE OUT WHO THEY ARE!) Court Rules 3:4-1; 3:3-1(c); 7:2-3(b) which set forth guidelines for officers who have made warrantless arrests in determining whether to apply to the court for a summons or an arrest warrant. 1. GENERAL RULE: A mere inquiry needs NO constitutional justification. A law enforcement officer needs no constitutional justification to approach an individual on the street or in another public place and ask if the individual is willing to answer some questions, and to ask the individual questions if he is willing to listen. See Florida v. Royer, 103 S. Ct. 1319 (1983.); State v. Davis, 104 N.J. 490 (1986).

Being a Survivor feat. Jesse Hartnett Sep 13, 2021

Show notes

In this calm yet intense episode, Philadelphia police officer Jesse Hartnett, who was wounded in an ambush shooting back in 2016, joins Dennis on the Street Cop Podcast to discuss the life-changing incident, his career, and what life looks like now. Recorded on 09/08/2021.

Miranda on Your Motor Vehicle Stops II Sep 13, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis revisits Miranda on your motor vehicle stops and answers some group questions. Recorded on 11/16/2017. The question posed in this case by the officer was, “You look really nervous, do you have something on you that you should surrender right now? Any contraband, weapons, anything like that?" Defendant admitted to it and handed over a bag of cocaine from his shoe. When the police lawfully conduct a motor vehicle stop they may question the occupants, even on a subject unrelated to the purpose of the stop, without violating the Fourth Amendment, so long as such questioning does not extend the duration of the stop. Roadside questioning of a motorist is not transformed into “custodial interrogation” that must be preceded by Miranda warnings simply because a police officer's questioning is accusatory in nature or designed to elicit incriminating evidence. According to the court the brief questioning of the defendant after the lawful motor vehicle stop of the car in which he was the passenger was perfectly valid. A traffic stop is presumptively temporary and brief and thus questioning incident to an ordinary traffic stop is quite different from stationhouse interrogation. Miranda warnings may be needed, however, if the totality of the circumstances surrounding the stop "impose a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest." However this is changed when you smell marijuana with the intention to arrest for the odor. STATE v. HICKMAN | FindLaw In Berkemer, the Court held that a police officer was not required to give Miranda warnings to a suspected drunk driver before asking him whether “he had been using intoxicants.” Similarly, in State v. Toro, 229 N.J.Super. 215, 551 A.2d 170 (App.Div.1988), we held that police officers who observed a package at the foot of a driver stopped for a motor vehicle offense, which they suspected was a container for drugs, could ask what was in the package without giving Miranda warnings. Although the police officers in Toro ordered the driver out of the car and frisked him for weapons before questioning him, we concluded that the questioning was not “custodial”: https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Flaw.justia.com%2Fcases%2Fnew-jersey%2Fappellate-division-published%2F1988%2F229-n-j-super-215-0.html%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR1AqknLd-lWSsKwZldbxlJ8IJ9HjjxlD677w9hc0XRJmvoacftCFCIGGKIandh=AT0NyVHzslBEtPT5tMmNIkfQr-V-vnE7_VUkm4LiMJS2s903ah9IraZx7-NOgKAaw3dfjXHppKRs46xOZcwKN-qFxjo8bSe616jAm1XNhN-GDbt3W17u7xMFBd3SMxDJALcGkuBniKjBm4q79Aand__tn__=-UK-R (https://law.justia.com/.../1988/229-n-j-super-215-0.html) Ohio v. Robinette (1996) US Supreme Court ....There is no requirement under the 4th Amendment that police, during the course of a motor vehicle stop or other investigative detention, must advise the person detained that he or she is “Free to go” before a consent search may be lawfully obtained.

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected