Street Cop Podcast

Latest Episodes:

Hidden Compartments feat. TJ Cullen Sep 06, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis discusses hidden compartments/traps with guest TJ Cullen from TrapFind LLC. Recorded on 08/28/2017.

Core Qualities Sep 06, 2021

Show notes

In this essential archive episode, Dennis describes core qualities that you must possess to be a successful interdiction officer. Recorded on 08/27/2017.

Search Warrant for Motel Room / Holding Car While Waiting for K9 Sep 05, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis discusses search warrants for motel rooms and holding cars while waiting for the K9 Unit. Oh, and someone wins a shirt! Recorded on 08/24/2017.

K9 Indication Creates PC Sep 05, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis is addressing K9 again. Recorded on 08/23/2017. State v. William L. Witt (A-9-14; 074468) The exigent-circumstances standard set forth in Pena-Flores is unsound in principle and unworkable in practice. Citing Article I, Paragraph 7 of New Jersey’s State Constitution, the Court returns to the standard articulated in State v. Alston, 88 N.J. 211 (1981), for warrantless searches of automobiles based on probable cause.State v. Alston :: 1981 :: Supreme Court of New Jersey Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: US Law :: Justia The automobile exception authorizes the warrantless search of an automobile only when the police have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of an offense and the circumstances giving rise to probable cause are unforeseeable and spontaneous. This standard is seemingly consistent with the Federal Standard. Significantly, we also made clear in Alston, supra, that merely because “the particular occupants of the vehicle may have been removed from the car, arrested, or otherwise restricted in their freedom of movement,” police were not required to secure a warrant. 88 N.J. at 234. Last, relying on Chambers, we emphasized that “when there is probable cause to conduct an immediate search at the scene of the stop, the police are not required to delay the search by seizing and impounding the vehicle pending review of that probable cause determination by a magistrate.” Id. at 234–35. We also part from federal jurisprudence that allows a police officer to conduct a warrantless search at headquarters merely because he could have done so on the side of the road. See Chambers, supra, 399 U.S. at 52, 90 S.Ct. at 1981–82, 26 L. Ed.2d at 428–29. “Whatever inherent exigency justifies a warrantless search at the scene under the automobile exception certainly cannot justify the failure to secure a warrant after towing and impounding the car” at headquarters when it is practicable to do so. Pena–Flores, supra, 198 N.J. at 39 n. 1 (Albin, J., dissenting). Warrantless searches should not be based on fake exigencies. Therefore, under Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution, we limit the automobile exception to on-scene warrantless searches. For the reasons expressed, the exigent-circumstances test in Cooke and Pena–Flores no longer applies. We return to the standard set forth in Alston for warrantless searches of automobiles based on probable cause. Automobile by itself provides exigency satisfying the one prong of the two-prong necessity of a warrantless search, all you need is the probable cause.

MV Warrants / Inventory Searches / Impounding Vehicles Sep 05, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis discusses mv warrants and inventory searches. Recorded on 08/22/2017. State v William Witt 2015 Last, relying on Chambers, we emphasized that “when there is probable cause to conduct an immediate search at the scene of the stop, the police are not required to delay the search by seizing and impounding the vehicle pending review of that probable cause determination by a magistrate.” Id. at 234–35. State v Ercolano 1979 Police may properly impound a vehicle subsequent to its driver’s arrest when: 1- The driver consents to the impoundment 2- The vehicle, if not removed, constitutes a danger to persons or property or the public safety AND the driver cannot arrange for the alternative means of removal 3- When probable cause exists to believe that both the vehicle constitutes an instrumentality or fruit of a crime and that absent immediate impoundment, the vehicle will be removed by a third party 4- Probable cause exists to believe both that the vehicle contains evidence of a crime and absent immediate impoundment, the evidence will be lost or destroyed You can verify that the vehicle is uninsured through a third party ie…Calling Insurance Company State v Roberson (1978) Seehttp://www.nj.gov/oag/dcj/agguide/impound_guide_6804.pdf Attorney General Guidelines of Implementation Insurance Fraud Laws June 8th 2004 C.2C:43-2.4 Authority to impound motor vehicles. 1. a. Any law enforcement agency is authorized to impound: (1) a motor vehicle in which a violation of subsection a., d., or f ofN.J.S.2C:39-5 was committed; (Poss of Machine Gun/Assault Weap.) (2) a motor vehicle in which possession of a handgun, rifle, or shotgun for an unlawful purpose in violation ofN.J.S.2C:39-4 was committed; (Poss of a weapon for an unlawful purpose) (3) a motor vehicle in which a violation of subsection b. or c. of N.J.S.2C:39-5 was committed in addition to the motor vehicle being used to commit a separate crime of the first, second, third or fourth degree under Title 2C of the New Jersey Statutes; (4) a motor vehicle which was used in the commission of any offense under subsection b. ofN.J.S.2C:34-1; (Weapons and Drugs) (5) a motor vehicle which was used in the commission of an offense under subsection a. of N.J.S.2C:35-10 or subsection a. ofN.J.S.2C:35-5. (Possession and use of CDS and CDS Distribution)

K9 Sniffs and Where It Was Established as PC Sep 04, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis explains how it was established that K-9 Sniff will give you probable cause. Recorded on 08/19/2017. K-9 Sniff is considered “Sui Generis” which means unique to its purpose, similar to a drug testing kit. The Court had held that a dog sniff is sui generis because it discloses only the presence or absence of narcotics. (US v. Place 1983) http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/462/696.html?fbclid=IwAR3jw38otJbWOqGkBeFLHMWdyZwBs0XhbClqA_AA_3r1HhGzLqavnN_DMXM (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/462/696.html) US v Nurse 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.https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ravellaw.com%2Fopinions%2Fee859de4ba38d3bbc4550db9735fb71e%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR3kHJVXg3lCvucmFhXDjNbqrUCEuVg4ig87tAssldcswGUSuQG3et4C0SQandh=AT0E23SZHlEVwq9kjdWr-LZBcyrxZ8GQbCMoIFr59C0kNaTOkOmdFSAvDzeSRnf6ieD_8hTG_NgDLaaa_-nXU1lGv9k09Xn45ZdG1X64cZCqF1TRRbnpM5qo7BtBRt9z5gand__tn__=-UK-R (https://www.ravellaw.com/.../ee859de4ba38d3bbc4550db9735f...) Illinois v. Caballes 2005 - 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.” https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.justice.gov%2Fosg%2Fbrief%2Fillinois-v-caballes-amicus-merits%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR1bIXi_3oSo39wYT-OyAwmu_0DipVEdFcbY1taK8IfJ5--uYjKuPQTAbTIandh=AT0zo0-Tm4xrdE4dLE8i2C707gCmj1nBO0tOflHiLXwyEp2iS8oaCn5HPSzNxuNvP5duq29J7HfO9iH9I3finJkQoNe0rMd3miA34ymdK2KxTv3Uj7IubLi5FMsFxvvR-Aand__tn__=-UK-R (https://www.justice.gov/.../illinois-v-caballes-amicus...) Florida v. Harris 2013 https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourt.gov%2Fopinions%2F12pdf%2F11-817_5if6.pdf%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR0WG2Qu9ubTxiCSpran7apppKg2imx0ES7PN_xRTtW6wZgr0GWsA2EkL-Iandh=AT0SceADRAmR2PD8_LREGXDuMx_udIdxQl1p6F1ngt763Bc1pWt9ClwNdhjyzZmk3srGe6D3CenXCMQOxsAERhmR60Hm0QSWlitpsezaBELHk_5qYzzsatHKkneqiay94gand__tn__=-UK-R (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-817_5if6.pdf) .....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 reasonably prudent person think that a search would reveal contraband 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 its reliability in 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. State of NJ v Cancel...

Questioning Occupants / Body Language / Interdiction Tips Sep 04, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis answers some more questions from the group about interdiction. Recorded on 08/18/2017.

Narcotics Trafficking Sep 04, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis answers two questions about interdiction. Recorded on 08/17/2017. QUESTION #1: Hey Dennis, two questions that I think a lot of young officers who want to do good highway interdiction run into, and other guys in the group. First, is older/do nothing that tell you don't stop cars, you are wasting your time, or departments that make you call out every stop so whoever is on the desk is getting pissed off etc, how did you handle that. Second, if you stop a car ask for consent but see the person is agitated but somewhat cooperative, its the gray area, toss the car, come up empty, do you still write the PC for the stop or give them a warning because they were "nice enough" to let you search their car. QUESTION #2: Hey Dennis I follow your Street Cop Training and I have to say your videos are great. I follow them religiously now. I've been wanting to ask you for your opinion on something. I average about 50 - 70 drug arrests a year but I get very few large quantity grabs. I work in a town outside of Trenton and we usually target people leaving Trenton. Do you think that I should change my focus and try to target people going in to get larger quantities? I don't really have a K9 readily available either so would I just be pissing in the wind without one?

Closed and Locked Containers in Motor Vehicle Sep 03, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis explains to ask for consent when dealing with closed and locked containers. Recorded on 08/15/2017. US v. Ross 1982 Police officers who have legitimately stopped an automobile and who have probable cause to believe that contraband is concealed somewhere within it may conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle that is as thorough as a magistrate could authorize by warrant. Pp. 804-825. (a) The "automobile exception" to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement established in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 , applies to searches of vehicles that are supported by probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband. In this class of cases, a search is not unreasonable if based on objective facts that would justify the issuance of a warrant, even though a warrant has not actually been obtained. Pp. 804-809. (b) However, the rationale justifying the automobile exception does not apply so as to permit a warrantless search of any movable container that is believed to be carrying an illicit substance and that is found in a public place - even when the container is placed in a vehicle (not otherwise believed to be carrying contraband). United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 ; Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753 . Pp. 809-814. [456 U.S. 798, 799] (c) Where police officers have probable cause to search an entire vehicle, they may conduct a warrantless search of every part of the vehicle and its contents, including all containers and packages, that may conceal the object of the search. The scope of the search is not defined by the nature of the container in which the contraband is secreted. Rather, it is defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found. For example, probable cause to believe that undocumented aliens are being transported in a van will not justify a warrantless search of a suitcase. Pp. 817-824. Police officers who have legitimately stopped an automobile and who have probable cause to believe that contraband is concealed somewhere within it may conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle that is as thorough as a magistrate could authorize by warrant. https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcaselaw.findlaw.com%2Fus-supreme-court%2F456%2F798.html%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR2qQpqX52X5aJT_QONxdPWBUpROGIxHs3Zh3qnwruAByYjkiKOVMt7Qll0andh=AT1ER9zxj71_KOpEjaODOlNXEaojUeb7Hzvf_0MwUuvJ74rPRKJFvnpvc-jhv_GrTPRe-ZDFMp74K5JdEBtJhdjCGgkP0Dopk_Y9RUTp0Hc9PN_P0X8qkTjsYAcYGNYEGgand__tn__=-UK-R (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/456/798.html)

CDS on Passenger and PC to Search Motor Vehicles Sep 03, 2021

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis explains CDS on a passenger in a motor vehicle may not give you PC to search the car under certain circumstances. Recorded on 08/14/2017. State of NJ V. Larry Wilson State of New Jersey v. Larry D. Wilson http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/2003/a-49-02-opn.html?fbclid=IwAR2eSquaKb5k95GGNY6I6ijk_14oANcbo3H6hy0OU8Xj-DKvMdzv2KSdJpM (http://law.justia.com/.../supreme.../2003/a-49-02-opn.html) In this appeal, the Court is asked whether the State has satisfied its burden of demonstrating the validity of a warrantless automobile search. On February 30, 1999, at approximately 12:26 a.m., two officers in a marked police vehicle were patrolling the area of Union Avenue and Jasper Street in the City of Paterson. One of the officers observed a vehicle with a passenger suspected of having outstanding arrest warrants. The driver parked the vehicle on Jasper Street and the officers observed the defendant exit the vehicle. There was no indication that either of the occupants was aware of the marked police vehicle. Upon observing defendant and confirming the officer's belief that he was the person for whom the warrants had been issued, the officer called to defendant. Defendant walked towards the patrol vehicle and the officers arrested him based on the arrest warrants. Defendant had his hands inside his jacket sleeves and, in order to handcuff him, the officers asked that he remove them. Upon removing his hands out of the sleeves, one at a time, the officers observed packets suspected of containing controlled dangerous substances drop to the ground. The packets were later determined to contain marijuana and cocaine. After arresting defendant, placing him in the patrol vehicle, and retrieving the suspected drugs from the ground, the officers approached the driver. The driver produced valid driving credentials. While one of the officers questioned the driver, the other officer continued searching the grounds for any other drugs and also opened the unlocked passenger door of the vehicle. Inside, the officer found other narcotics, determined to be fifty bags of crack cocaine. The officer later acknowledged that the drugs in the vehicle were not in plain view. The driver was also arrested. Defendant was charged with third-degree possession of cocaine, third-degree possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, and third-degree possession of cocaine with intent to distribute within 1000 feet of school property. At a subsequent suppression hearing, the trial court found that probable cause and exigent circumstances had existed to justify the warrantless search of the automobile. Defendant pled guilty to all charges, subject to his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion. The trial court sentenced defendant to an extended term of six years imprisonment, with a three-year period of parole ineligibility, and assessed the usual fines and penalties. In a reported decision, the Appellate Division reversed the trial court, concluding that the officers lacked probable cause to conduct the warrantless search of the vehicle. The Supreme Court granted the State s petition for certification. HELD: The State has not overcome the presumption that its warrantless search of the automobile was invalid under the federal and State constitutions. The Appellate Division properly suppressed the fruits of the search. 1. Consistent with the State and federal constitutions, a warrantless search is presumed invalid unless it falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement, and the State bears the burden of demonstrating that the search falls within one of those exceptions. The automobile exception to the warrant requirement requires that the State demonstrate both probable cause and exigent circumstances. Probable cause requires, in turn, that the police action emanates from a well-grounded suspicion that a crime has been or is being committed. The definition of...

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected