Monday, June 23, 2014

NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT SITTING INSIDE HIS AUTOMOBILE FIVE OR SIX HOUSES AWAY WAS UNLAWFUL SINCE THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS FOR THE HOME AND NOT HIS AUTOMOBILE




In another defense victory the Supreme Court ruled that a search warrant being executed of a suspect’s home does not authorize the police to conduct a search of the suspect’s vehicle parked some distance away from the house.  In this case the search warrant authorized the search of the house and all people present in the house reasonably believed connected to the premises or involved in the alleged illegal activity.

Initially, the trial court denied the motion to suppress the 30-bags of crack cocaine which was found on the suspect while sitting in his automobile.  The Appellate Division reversed citing, Bailey v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 103 (2013) which held a search of a suspect who has left the search warrant “spatial area”, cannot be detained or searched unless justified by some other reason other than the search warrant of the premises.  In this case there was no evidence that the suspect was fleeing the area, or was identified as being connected to the house.

A motion to suppress evidence sometimes is the most valuable weapon in the arsenal of a criminal defense attorney.  Make sure that before you take a plea that you have an experienced criminal defense attorney analyzed or case to determine whether you have a chance to have the contraband seized suppressed.

Attorney Sanzone has been successful in many of his cases in which this was a viable issue, and has had many cases dismissed because of the suppression of evidence regarding various types of contraband.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.
P.O. Box 261
277 North Broad Street
Elizabeth, N.J. 07207
908-354-7006

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Gun Suppressed on Motion to Suppress When Cops Pull Motorist Over for Allegedly Failing To Dim High Beam Lights



This post as been prepared as a public service to the People by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., a New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney, serving all the State of New Jersey.

N.J.S.A. 39:3-60 requires that any motor vehicle being driven at night on the road must dim its high beam lights upon the approach of oncoming vehicles.  In this case the patrol officer was parked on the side of road when he gave pursuit for a motorist failing to dim its lights. 

The appellate division in State v. Witt held that the police officer did not have probable cause to stop the vehicle because the patrol vehicle was parked on the side of the road and not traveling directly into the vehicle, which failed to dim its high beam lights.

In this case Mr. Witt was arrested for DWI when he allegedly failed field sobriety tests.  Arrested and handcuffed in the back seat of the patrol vehicle, the patrolman decided to do a warrantless search of the vehicle in search of an open container.  In searching the vehicle the officer found a handgun.

The appellate division held that under well established case law, State v. Pena-Flores, 198 N.J. 6 (2009), there were no exigent circumstances which permitted the search without a warrant, and that even if there were, the officer did not have probable cause to stop the automobile in the first place because Mr. Witt did not violate the high beam motor vehicle law.

Before you plead guilty to a crime in which an automobile was involved and a warrantless search was conducted you must consult an experienced New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney, to consult you as to whether you have a viable Fourth Amendment motion to suppress the evidence that might have been unlawfully seized.

P.O. Box 261
277 North Broad Street
Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

(908) 354-7006