Street Cop Podcast

Latest Episodes:

Miranda on MV Stops / What is Reasonable Suspicion? / Is refusing to Provide ID Hindering? / Testimonial Sep 09, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis answers a few questions on Miranda, Reasonable Suspicion, Hindering, and even has a special guest provide a testimonial. Recorded on 10/04/2017. Related Links: https://streetcoptraining.com/caselaw/nj-v-letman/?fbclid=IwAR1PQj9RKjur92f7JXmeIC2l3M6NR5fSTwebbN7TJDphybjwOi4h-VN4uHs (https://streetcoptraining.com/caselaw/nj-v-letman/) https://streetcoptraining.com/caselaw/nj-v-hickman/?fbclid=IwAR2ygp1rzhd0NQCwILy9CMNHT0Caq9RhUiITzlwabe5zvoRv9ouA0QRRdyY (https://streetcoptraining.com/caselaw/nj-v-hickman/)

Tinted Windows / Parked Vehicles / Roadside Questioning Sep 09, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis answers a variety of questions regarding tinted windows, parked vehicles, and roadside questioning. Recorded on 09/27/2017. Questioning on an MV STOP May request a motorist’s driving credentials. Should advise the motorist of the reason for the stop. 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) http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1035452.html?fbclid=IwAR1X5LUDBHV979jXVpi8xKbhZCnw8qljo9qZAqbsJ6bYA_yEzA7w_RPlOIE (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”: 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

Terry Frisk and Identifying Person without ID Sep 09, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis explains the laws around Terry Frisks and ID. Recorded on 09/26/2017. State v. Lipski, 238 N.1Super. 100 (App.Div. 1990) The Terry frisk and "intoxicated" individuals. When there are no facts or circumstances supporting a reasonable and articulable concern by the officer for his safety," the Constitution prohibits that officer from conducting a routine protective frisk, after ordering a suspected intoxicated driver out of his vehicle. The Constitution does not authorize routine patdowns "absent the officer's belief that the suspect may be armed or dangerous. When a person refuses a consent search it is legal for the officer to advise their next step or steps in pursuit for further action. See State v. Cancel 1992 / State v. Pante (1999) STATE v. PANTE | FindLaw Applying for a search warrant Contacting a K-9 Unit / The threat of calling for a dog is good to go as long as you reasonably believed you could get one. (This requires RAS but you should have it at this point). See State v. Elders 2006 and State v. Baum 2007. Have a K-9 plan mapped out before you need a dog. STATE v. ELDERS | FindLaw https://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/mcs/case_law/a1576-06.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3xp5dboQB7wh29tPhYT4l6eZGcnG2T8wRA5elMZOFVk8M-4FnJLK5eqG8 (https://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/mcs/case_law/a1576-06.pdf) State v Baum (2007) http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1377541.html?fbclid=IwAR1d-OxBTUmnqAsNyg1NoKeI0lWXn-oB5aLlWROaEzM2R8WGl1A4O07t2eY (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court.../1377541.html) Because, during the motor vehicle stop, the officer had reasonable and articulable suspicion of drug possession at that point, he could threaten the use of a drug-sniffing dog. When there is reasonable suspicion of drugs and the threat to call for a dog is calmly given, as it was here, such a threat will not be considered coercive.

Vehicle Search Incident to Arrest vs Probable Cause Vehicle Search Sep 08, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis takes a live call explaining Eckel v Witt. Recorded on 09/22/2017.

Defendant's Admission Sep 08, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis explains that the defendant's admission establishes probable cause. Recorded on 09/17/2017. State v Brown 2002 - https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1473887/state-v-brown/?qandcourt_nj=onandorder_by=score%20descandfbclid=IwAR19d686JcxFor0qx7WMbe5pcKknU292jTgOW5qICxjRD8cTmCOD8Um66Sg (https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1473887/state-v-brown/?q=andcourt_nj=onandorder_by=score+desc) Dog hit’s on defendants suitcase and she admitted to having 55 pounds of marijuana on her hence establishing PC, she was arrested and the search of the bag was considered search incident to arrest. Probable cause to arrest defendant existed following her admission of guilt especially in light of the dog having "alerted" to the presence of drugs in the suitcase. Indeed, at oral argument before us, defense counsel admitted probable cause existed in these circumstances. Hence, the search of the suitcase was incident to defendant's arrest and her consent to search was not required.[8] That being so, we need not decide whether defendant's consent to search the suitcase was voluntary.

Opening Locked Containers Sep 08, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis explains that opening a locked container or safe does not require an additional warrant. Recorded on 09/17/2017. New Jersey adopts the federal standard...State of NJ v. Jackson 1993 In conducting the search the police discovered a locked safe, which was seized and opened, revealing incriminating evidence. The court rejected the argument that the scope of the warrant had been exceeded by the opening of a locked safe, concluding that "[t]he locked safe was a likely source for the specified documents and could therefore be opened." http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/1993/268-n-j-super-194-1.html?fbclid=IwAR0mTN-8RHGzJFuJRmng-yipCKfDYzjmW_WzUv42Wkwd67R8ZMrskgVrW5M (http://law.justia.com/.../1993/268-n-j-super-194-1.html) State v. Hansen, 732 P.2d 127, 131 (Utah 1987) (warrant to search premises for drugs permitted search of locked box within, rejecting contention that a separate warrant was required to open the box). Although article I, ¶ 7 of the New Jersey Constitution may very well afford our citizens greater protection against unreasonable searches and seizures than does the Fourth Amendment (see State v. Hempele, supra, 120 N.J. at 195, 576 A.2d 793 (and cases cited *210 therein)) neither public policy nor New Jersey decisional law compel a result different from that espoused in the federal authorities referenced above. Indeed, although not dispositive, Reldan, supra, 100 N.J. at 195, 495 A.2d 76, suggests an analysis which is both practical and consistent with the foregoing. http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/1993/268-n-j-super-194-1.html?fbclid=IwAR1madzfd7NXtpitT-KN6XZnbiq07b4iQQhrBrvYVfOhBxgYeOPJ_jAwKTw (http://law.justia.com/.../1993/268-n-j-super-194-1.html)

PC and Parked Motor Vehicles Sep 07, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis discusses the circumstances for PC regarding searching parked motor vehicles. Recorded on 09/16/2017 State v Colvin 1991 The "automobile exception" permits police to stop and search a moving or readily movable vehicle when there is probable cause to believe the vehicle contains criminally related objects. It also applies to parked motor vehicles. The rationale for this exception is grounded in the exigent circumstances created by the inherent mobility of vehicles and the somewhat lessened expectation of privacy in one's vehicle. [State v. Patino, 83 N.J. 1, 9, 414 A.2d 1327 (1980).]. We hold that when, without advance planning when police encounter a parked car and have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains criminal contraband such as drugs, and have articulable reasons to believe that the evidence may otherwise be lost or destroyed, they may seize and search the vehicle for the contraband without the necessity of a warrant. The ability to search a car does not depend on whether or not it is parked or moving, just remember that it must be unforeseeable and spontaneous. http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/1991/123-n-j-428-1.html?fbclid=IwAR1o9cvO0I5Sm0_ba87VMRmm2RxgQkiTczfsVRLOCFDlm_9ZFqW8T20I97E (http://law.justia.com/.../supreme.../1991/123-n-j-428-1.html) State v Patino http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/1980/83-n-j-1-0.html?fbclid=IwAR18V_498z22fU7tWHmmZ1J3fmSfs7aVW7gJhkKKJUQ4blIU9dju-6WTW5k (http://law.justia.com/.../supreme-court/1980/83-n-j-1-0.html)

Abandonment of Property and Evidence Sep 07, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis discusses abandonment and the circumstances needed for truly abandoned property. Recorded on 09/05/2017. Related Links: https://streetcoptraining.com/caselaw/nj-v-johnson/?fbclid=IwAR1TSeI7RzB_KGw3GlWhhg7-v9asupLxfIBGx27YiJIIqhq_853IulKMUA4 (https://streetcoptraining.com/caselaw/nj-v-johnson/) https://streetcoptraining.com/caselaw/nj-v-carvajal/?fbclid=IwAR2UcUI7loc4E2zScS25c6dnhZW72n7dPKDUXJ-wvQj2Scfmsi1lvOhHRxE (https://streetcoptraining.com/caselaw/nj-v-carvajal/) NJ v. v. Maristany (1993) http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/1993/133-n-j-299.html?fbclid=IwAR0lSkmYELpAw7ubfEHxhlhzc-ZZKxeC0w9l0ROxCdt4jVX0gTa-1W0IB1o (http://law.justia.com/.../supreme.../1993/133-n-j-299.html) NJ v. Lee 1991 http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/1991/245-n-j-super-441-0.html?fbclid=IwAR156roKip7M_UVDyU9pGUj3B-4kVm0B_cgbMXoWbwGoYS7VFypfr4wY0iE (http://law.justia.com/.../1991/245-n-j-super-441-0.html)

Constructive Possession Sep 07, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis answers questions about constructive possession and explains some case laws. Recorded on 09/01/2017. Maryland v Pringle 2003 - Respondent, Pringle, was the front-seat passenger in a car that was stopped for speeding. Upon stopping the car, the arresting officer found money in the glove compartment and cocaine in the back-seat armrest. The officer arrested all three occupants of the car and Pringle was convicted for possession with intent to distribute cocaine after he signed a written confession. Pringle appealed, arguing that probable cause to arrest him did not exist. Held. When finding contraband in an automobile, there is probable cause to arrest its occupants, regardless of their proximity from the contraband. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/540/366.html?fbclid=IwAR2D4r1rJwNuaaTbpqXBDGO5w3K1rtJn9Or5SLnmP-68l4sb8Ctsre85LVg (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/540/366.html)

Prescription Drugs Sep 06, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis explains prescription drugs and the laws around them. Recorded on 08/30/2017. 2C:35-24. Possession of certain prescription drugs A person who possesses a controlled dangerous substance that was prescribed or dispensed lawfully may possess it only in the container in which it was dispensed; except that the person may possess no more than a 10-day supply in other than the original container if the person produces, upon the request of a law enforcement officer, the name and address of the practitioner who prescribed the substance or the pharmacist who dispensed it. A person who violates this section is a disorderly person.

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected