Street Cop Podcast

Latest Episodes:

Permissible Questions During a Motor Vehicle Stop III Sep 13, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis revisits the topic of permissible questions during a motor vehicle stop and answers other group questions. Recorded on 11/13/2017. State v. Hickman - 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." May request a motorist’s driving credentials Should advise the motorist of the reason for the stop (Doesn’t have to!) May run a computer check May ask questions reasonably related to the reason for the traffic stop; **Inconsistent or contradictory answers provided by the vehicle’s occupants may then permit an officer to broaden the inquiry and ask more intrusive questions designed to confirm or dispel suspicions of criminal activity** May issue a citation State v Chapman (2000) https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcaselaw.findlaw.com%2Fnj-superior-court-appellate-division%2F1035452.html%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR1WTJjMtesl6q3StLnPPH5-f52RQRyZoAR7UYo9-89wK0jzBJRsCuobDrYandh=AT30TFR6QL92B8a0HSlPAi5sQa65a9xHEWehDEczxRG4rIHx3HIIy9f1Jr8o_OOz_GitQd3V4XNj2X57DS6b_VtpQsDmkfs8ZVQbHg-5rzmg4Ho0UA0xBeSVDU8Prwc_CR3h41CyYDqq9LVaBwand__tn__=-UK-R (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court.../1035452.html) State v Hickman (2000) 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. Thus, 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”:

Transporting for ID is Illegal Sep 12, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis explains that transporting a subject for ID only is illegal. Recorded on 11/08/2017. Dunaway v. New York (1979)US Supreme Court Whenever a law enforcement officer removes a suspect from where he is found and transports that suspect to police headquarters for questioning, the police action is the functional equivalent of an arrest. Although the defendant was not told he was under arrest, he would have been physically restrained if he had attempted to leave. Also See…State V. Dickey 1998 “De Facto” arrest and Kaupp v. Texas (2003) KAUPP v. TEXAS | FindLaw There is no such thing as transporting for identification purposes against someone’s will! If they agree to come in under their own will that’s totally different. Use State v. Pierce referenced earlier Dunaway v. New York :: 442 U.S. 200 (1979) :: Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

Arresting for MV Offenses / State v Irelan vs. State v Eckel Sep 12, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis packs in knowledge about arresting for motor vehicle offenses and State v Irelan vs State v Eckel and their differences. Recorded on 11/07/2017. State V. Pierce (1994) May a police officer arrest any person who violates, in the officer's 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. State V. Lark (2000) The court said, “Where the driver is without a license and persists concealing his identity an officer may then either continue to detain the driver for further investigation or arrest the driver under 39:3-10 (Unlicensed Driver) or 39: 3-29(Failure to provide Documents).” In instances such as this, when a driver is without a license and offers false information in response to a reasonable police inquiry, there exists a sufficient basis for the police officer to detain the driver for further questioning until the officer learns the true identity of the driver Assuming that the driver persists in concealing his or her identity and there appears to be no other reasonable alternative, the police officer may take the driver into custody. State v Eckel 2006 There is no such thing as a search of a vehicle incident to arrest without probable cause associated with the vehicle itself. STATE v. ECKEL | FindLaw Also see Arizona V. Gant (2009) which replaced NY v. Belton (Belton Bright Line Rule). 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 affect 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.

Searching Containers in Motor Vehicles After DWI Arrest Sep 12, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis answers some questions about containers in motor vehicles to be searched after a DWI arrest. Recorded on 11/06/2017. State of NJ 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

Out of State Motor Vehicle Violations Sep 11, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis answers more questions about out-of-state motor vehicles and violations. Recorded on 10/24/2017.

K9 Sniffs Establishes Probable Cause Sep 11, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis answers group questions about K9 units and sniffs establishing probable cause. Recorded on 10/23/2017. US v Nurse (D.C. Cir. 1990) If the canine sniff results in a positive alert or indication that the particular piece of property contains contraband or evidence of a suspected crime, this trained Canine’s reaction elevates the reasonable suspicion to probable cause, and thus provides the necessary justification for the issuance of a search warrant or for a search under an applicable exception to the warrant requirement. Illinois v Caballes (2005) US Supreme Court As found by the trial judge prior to the appeal, the dog sniff was sufficiently reliable to establish probable cause to conduct a full-blown search of the trunk. United States v Pierce (2010)- The United States Supreme Court has consistently held “That an exterior canine sniff of a car during a lawful traffic stop does not amount to a search under the 4th Amendment. It is also well established that, looking at the totality of the circumstances, a dog’s positive alert while sniffing the exterior of the car provides an officer with probable cause.” Illinois v. Caballes - Amicus (Merits) | OSG | Department of Justice Florida v Harris 2013 US Supreme Court The question—similar to every inquiry into probable cause—is whether all the facts surrounding a dog’s alert, viewed through the lens of common sense, would make a reason- ably prudent person think that a search would reveal con- traband or evidence of a crime. A sniff is up to snuff when it meets that test… And here, Aldo’s did. If a bona fide organization has certified a dog after testing his reliabilityin a controlled setting, a court can presume (subject to any conflicting evidence offered) that the dog’s alert provides probable cause to search. The same is true, even in the absence of formal certification, if the dog has recently and successfully completed a training program that evaluatedhis proficiency in locating drugs. After all, law enforcement units have their own strong incentive to use effective training and certification programs, because only accuratedrug-detection dogs enable officers to locate contraband without incurring unnecessary risks or wasting limited time and resources. https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourt.gov%2Fopinions%2F12pdf%2F11-817_5if6.pdf%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR3S9IGJ9tlw-cUEkeqlKXeViwjtLu717t4GxDnRQnDgv8pO4hrQwvqexo0andh=AT1i_d8pny0ccA7pr8cqwqj1o9KHUqMrjptXiAvVHq7f6ivaESlYWpz10d5Gyi1HPhCgELEXJDEEfxVq-GDOAwHkCpsJgj445-w_-bMPNE3H0obypRxl9WGO6sdcLYJEBpta3Zy6K0ayKDGo3gand__tn__=-UK-R (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-817_5if6.pdf) State of NJ v. Cancel 1992 We agree that the dog's positive reaction to defendant's suitcase and the discrepancy between her name and the name on her ticket gave the police probable cause to arrest her and obtain a warrant to search the suitcase.(Referring to a US Supreme Court Decision) See Florida v. Royer, *434 460 U.S. 491, 506, 103 S. Ct. 1319, 1329, 75 L. Ed. 2d 229, 242 (1983) (had police used dog to sniff defendant's luggage "a positive result would have resulted in his justifiable arrest on probable cause"). State v. Cancel :: 1992 :: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division - Published Opinions Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: US Law :: Justia 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). 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...

Case Laws Regarding K9 Units and Motor Vehicle Delays Sep 11, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis answers some group questions regarding K9 units and motor vehicle delays. Recorded on 10/13/2017. Illinois v Caballes (2005) US Supreme Court As found by the trial judge prior to the appeal, the dog sniff was sufficiently reliable to establish probable cause to conduct a full-blown search of the trunk. Caballes is the same as (2017) State v. Mark Dunbar (A-94-15; 077839) The Court adopts the federal standard barring unnecessary delays for the purpose of canine sniffs. Officers do not need reasonable suspicion of a drug offense provided that the canine sniff does not prolong the stop beyond the time required to complete the stop’s mission. United States v Pierce (2010)- The United States Supreme Court has consistently held “That an exterior canine sniff of a car during a lawful traffic stop does not amount to a search under the 4th Amendment. It is also well established that, looking at the totality of the circumstances, a dog’s positive alert while sniffing the exterior of the car provides an officer with probable cause.” Illinois v. Caballes - Amicus (Merits) | OSG | Department of Justice State v Sloan 2008 - Leaving a vehicle to be driven by a passenger or a third party allows you the right to check their driving credentials. (Criminal Wants / Warrants) This also allowed police officers to run warrant checks of passengers without Reasonable Suspicion. The police do not need a reasonable suspicion before they access the NCIC database. An NCIC check by the police is not a search under the federal or state constitutions. HELD: During a motor vehicle stop, the passenger, like the driver, is seized under the federal and state constitutions. Police do not need reasonable suspicion before they may access the NCIC database and, because accessing the NCIC database was within the scope of the traffic stop and did not unreasonably prolong the stop, there was no basis to suppress the evidence found. State of NJ v. Patino (1980) – “The discovery of a small amount of marijuana in the passenger compartment gave rise only to an inference that the occupants were casual users, and this furnished no cause to search the trunk where large “Dealer Sized” quantities of drugs would presumably be stored. “In the absence of other circumstances that suggest participation in drug trafficking or possession of more contraband” such a search could not expand beyond the persons of the occupants or the passenger compartment of the car.” State v. Patino :: 1980 :: Supreme Court of New Jersey Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia Trooper pulls over vehicle and spots plastic bag protruding from under the floor mat containing a 4.6 ounce chunk of a white powdery substance later testing positive for cocaine (Plain View) Both are arrested, read miranda, and agreed to speak, co-defendants lips were quivering when asked about the bag in the trunk and responded that he did not know what the contents were. (364 Plastic Vials used for packaging found) Court said – “These are the very types of circumstances that the Patino court referred to, as providing probable cause to search the entire vehicle including the trunk and the interior of the paper bags in the trunk. Allows an officer, after discovery of contraband, to question a defendant after having read them their Miranda rights. State v. Letman :: 1989 :: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division - Published Opinions Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia State v Guerra 1983 The troopers lawfully stopped the vehicle. They then detected a strong odor of marijuana emanating from the interior of the vehicle. Thus they had probable cause to search the trunk for evidence of contraband. The packages found in the trunk were validly searched. Regardless of the visibility of their contents, the size of the packages and the odor of marijuana that they emitted clearly suggested that they...

A Story of Survivorship feat. Scott Williamson Sep 10, 2021

Show notes

In this thrilling, heartfelt, and introspective episode, Dennis speaks with guest Scott Williamson about a day that went from 0-100. Recorded on 08/30/2021.

Investigative Detention / Hindering / Timeframe Allowed While Waiting for K9 Sep 10, 2021

Show notes

In this episode, Dennis explores the topic of investigative detention, hindering, and the timeframe allowed while waiting for an available K9 Unit. Recorded on 10/12/2017. The courts have upheld investigative detentions of: 45 Minutes – United States v Davies 1985 https://www.leagle.com/decision/19851661768f2d89311515?fbclid=IwAR1yrWu5W7atkaHg_KTcrT7Ek05PXB4fj4YmepPA2UiiMJ4uU0eoaBzN4H4 (https://www.leagle.com/decision/19851661768f2d89311515) 50 Minutes – US v. Alpert 1987 https://www.leagle.com/decision/19871774816f2d95811624?fbclid=IwAR2CpcPPIWcfvc7L0fKTCU4vhJuuNuyo920DtSizrYuNTl103EUbeNg8Kf0 (https://www.leagle.com/decision/19871774816f2d95811624) 60 Minutes – US v. Large 1984 https://www.leagle.com/decision/19841365729f2d63611269?fbclid=IwAR3yiAMskxn5y89lKy6ndpsOYfYKXFS6ybxPHXtCR-zFDPuGSgUulw---bU (https://www.leagle.com/decision/19841365729f2d63611269) 75 Minutes – US v. Borys 1985 https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-borys-2?fbclid=IwAR1OmEIeTyBnYaikm0jJZUnycAtfCwWhprYIamoPK1_AqbBhyi8g7vxyykY (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. U.S. v. Sharpe (1985) 20 Minute or Longer detentions do not constitute a violation of the 4th Amendment! In Sharpe the Court refused to adopt a time limit. State v Davis (1986) – NJ Courts adopt Sharpe and state – “Officers should use the least instrusive investigative techniques reasonably available to verify or dispel his suspicion in the shortest period of time reasonably possible” https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Flaw.justia.com%2Fcases%2Fnew-jersey%2Fsupreme-court%2F1986%2F104-n-j-490-0.html%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR1Aazl3ZObZOZm5-e8v7-9nJiJq9T3jCn0JKzu0mM4kyvFh9G64s7aq0Voandh=AT2SHE_DVb0uYXJqzoOSHxaXeLIgi-d4RcDVxJKmKKlWYEo5oUCDKAHNZAtfQnZwPWY5VRpZQcv5Uf9mWadOgkdx176569Jlz1S61_QYRpUpgr1UXDS72x9r9Y0Lm26qgDtfXmRaaaBJHePlSAand__tn__=-UK-R (http://law.justia.com/.../supreme.../1986/104-n-j-490-0.html) Also discussed in State v Dickey (1998) https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcaselaw.findlaw.com%2Fnj-supreme-court%2F1456380.html%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR3gxkLJEHIOMZW2hS9KwyXwdEKK9wg2DOH5A2qQu8rQR0s2WCab0oVIqigandh=AT1fWLeapRnbwSRg2OBcU1bKJze71_iyVjTv7J5ovl76EgjthkyhIa9ppt7Z90XZkDbZoOJX1qgSAR93vu2IjbwQ3ndaOxT2aG2aiNsJbn0nmOuU-lPBIqDi-JLvT63j2QGJivNWB-enZhyHUQand__tn__=-UK-R (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1456380.html) Also see State v. Colapinto 1998 regarding the detention of 25 minutes while waiting for a DWI officer. UNITED STATES v. SHARPE | FindLaw STATE v. COLAPINTO | FindLaw

Defendant's Admission II Sep 10, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis revisits cases where the defendant makes an admission in the presence of an officer. Recorded on 10/11/2017. 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 Most commonly, the “in presence” requirement is satisfied by an officer directly viewing or seeing the offense occur even if the officer uses a telescope or binoculars. Remember – Binoculars are an accepted way of surveillance. 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. The in-presence requirement only applies to the arrest of a person. This doesn’t mean you can’t issue a summons in an incident where probable cause exists. R. 7:2-(a)(2) A law enforcement officer may personally serve the summons on the defendant without making the custodial arrest without a finding by a judicial officer of probable cause for issuance. officer using the Special Form should check the box in the shaded area designated "Law Enforcement Use Only.“ Or you can type it up at HQ on a CDR https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.judiciary.state.nj.us%2Frules%2Fr7-2.htm%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR0sE9onlheLJgeLqxNw5GCnq47dc86DyFE9xbRy_ziuWnhZHLyCxQD1uDEandh=AT1I1vWfO6h3qMEVB_UveblCj2SzM6IOiaUQbqpYwgsk2E8h1-GEtedDtN-oICCg3lA2OhK8oPFw0LMfrsheWvItCR2AxiSndHDkOLs8mJpW2CkQYTTh2Sx1ZfLVoPoc9ro0zqWt9dUEkTX5kQand__tn__=-UK-R (http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/rules/r7-2.htm) Under Chapter 12 of Title 2B Any police officer may issue summonses related to such complaints and may as authorized by the Rules of the Court issue a summons in lieu of an arrest for an offense committed in the officer's presence. Special Form of Complaint and Summons under NJ Court Rule 7:2-1(g) Disorderly / Petty Disorderly Offenses, except for those involving domestic violence and those with a companion indictable manner Local Ordinance Violations Code Enforcement Actions Penalty Enforcement actions (R.7:2-1(h) Boating Offenses Parking and Traffic Offenses where a private citizen is the complainant.

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected