Detention of Motorist after a Motor Vehicle Stop Without Further Probable Cause Is Unlawful United States Supreme Court Says.

Prepared as a public service by the law office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

In Rodriguez vs. United States decided on January 21, 2015, the United States Supreme Court held that detaining a motorist after a motor vehicle stop has been concluded violated the motorist’s Fourth Amendment rights to unreasonable search and seizure and all the narcotics seized would have to be suppressed.

In this case Mr. Rodriguez refused to consent to have a drug sniffing dog walk around his vehicle. Accordingly, the police officer on the scene called for backup. The court following Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407 (2005) held that the authority for the police to seize a motor vehicle during a motor vehicle stop for a traffic infraction ends when it did, or reasonable should have ended.  In Illinois v. Caballes the court held that it is permissible to have a drug sniffing dog sniff the exterior of the automobile during the automobile stop.

However, in Rodriguez v. United States the court held that permitting such K9 sniffing can only occur during the period of time of the automobile stop period, which must be a reasonable time period.  In other words, as long as it was reasonable to make the stop, obtain driving credentials, and issue the motor vehicle summons.  Any delay without further probable cause would be unreasonable and therefore unlawful.  The Fourth Amendment does not permit unrelated investigations that lengthen the roadside detention.  Waiting for a K9 dog sniff would be such a prolonged further investigation that is not permitted unless further reasonable suspicion or probable cause can be found.

In this case the patrol officer who conducted the motor vehicle stop had in his patrol vehicle a K9 drug sniffing dog.  After the motor vehicle ticket was issued, the officer asked Rodriguez whether he would permit his K9 to walk around his vehicle.  Rodriguez said no.  Because of the refusal the officer called for back-up, and in about 8-minutes a second officer arrived and the K9 walk around took place.  The court held that without consent the 8-minute wait for the second officer was unreasonable and the CDS (controlled dangerous substances) found in Rodriguez vehicle was suppressed.  What is very remarkable in this case is that the court said that only an 8-minute delay was unreasonable.

This case is very helpful to the defense because often local and State police departments will detain motorist for long time periods in order to secure to scene of the motor vehicle stop drug sniffing K9 unit.  This case is clear and sets forth a bright line rule that any detention outside the normal motor vehicle stop is no longer permitted.  This case however does not address the issue as to how long that period of time would be if the police have additional reasonable suspicion or probable cause to detain the motorist.

The Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth (Union County), NJ 07207

(908) 354-7006

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Defending the Possession with Intent to Distribute Case In Superior Court-Hudson County, Jersey City, by Criminal Defense Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

www.criminaldefensenj.com

It is without argument that the majority of criminal cases on the docket in Superior Court, Hudson County are the controlled dangerous substance (CDS) offenses.  Even drug users who have quantities of over 10 to 20 dime bags are often charged with possession with intent to distribute, notwithstanding that they do not possess the narcotics for sale, but only for their own personal use.  Often these users face the draconian penalties as sellers when in fact they only possess the CDS for their own personal consumption.

Remember if you are convicted twice for such an offense, the second conviction will result in a mandatory extended term, increasing the offense level automatically from a third-degree to a second-degree, or a second-degree crime to a first-degree crime depending on the amount of CDS and whether it was recovered within 1000-feet of a school, or 500-feet of a public park or public building such as a library.

There are many ways to defend these types of case and often an expert is needed to refute the prosecutor’s police expert who will testify that based on his knowledge and the hypothetical question posed to him, that the defendant possessed the quantity of CDS not for possession but rather with intent to distribute. 

The police expert will use factors such as other packaging material, such as baggies found near the CDS, scales, cutting agents, large sums of money, as well as other facts which he will claim shows that the defendant possessed these drugs not for his personal use but with intent to distribute.  In most cases the defendant will need to refute this testimony with his own drug intent expert.  Accordingly, the defendant must retain his own intent expert to explain to the jury that possession of 15-bags of heroin for example is typical and highly standard for a person who has a drug habit of 5-10 bags per day, and that the sum of 15 or 20 bags, based on the defendant’s drug usage, will last him or her maybe two days.  The law office of Vincent Sanzone has handled hundreds of these types of charges, and has successfully worked with defense drug experts at trial in defending these cases.  If you are charged with such an offense in Superior Court, Hudson County you are urged to consult the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

(908) 354-7006

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

Dated: October 10, 2013

Police in New Jersey Cannot Enter Home Because Landlord Gives Permission

New Jersey Supreme Court Rule in State v. Vargas 
that the Police with Landlord's Permission, and 
Request, Cannot Enter the Home Without Warrant.

New Jersey's highest court again scores another victor for constitutional rights by curbing the power of police to enter and search a home on the pretext of concern for the health and safety of its occupant.

The Supreme Court held, 6-1, that the "community caretaking" doctrine, which permits a warrantless search of vehicles in limited circumstances, cannot be used to justify a home search, with the consent and request of the landlord, absent “some form of an objectively reasonable emergency."

The ruling, in State v. Vargas, A-56-11, reinstated a trial judge's suppression of narcotics and weapons seized in the apartment of Cesar Vargas, who resided in the City of Vineland,  by police responding to a landlord's report that he had not been seen for several weeks nor had received rent that was due.

After the officers knocked on the door to Vargas' apartment with no response, the landlord, Henry Olaya, used his keys to open the back door and entered the apartment with the officers. In the living room, the officers observed a glass jar about six to eight inches high with green vegetation inside that appeared to be marijuana. Olaya, on his own, opened one a kitchen drawer and found two canning jars full of marijuana.

After the officers made this discovery they left and obtained a search warrant. The search resulted in the seizure of $47,001 in U.S. currency, a shotgun, a rifle, ammunition, two ballistic vests, a clear plastic bag containing white powder, eight mason jars with pot, two digital scales, and measuring cups and pots with white powder residue (in other words a "jackpot" for the police).

Eventually the police learned that Mr. Vargas had been in custody for 10 days after being arrested by the State Police in connection with another investigation.

Cumberland County Superior Court Judge Benjamin Telsey ordered the suppression of the contraband.  However, the Appellate Division reversed, saying the conduct was based a legitimate concern for Vargas' welfare and was not part of any criminal investigation.

Justice Barry Albin, writing for the majority said Olaya knew nothing of Vargas' personal or work life, his comings and goings, his vacation habits or whether he often left to visit family. There was no reason, he said, why the police could not attempt to obtain a warrant before entering his apartment.

The community-caretaking doctrine has its origins in the seminal U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973).  In that case the court upheld the search of a motor vehicle of a suspected drunken driver after it had been towed to a private garage.  Judge Albin held, however, that the Supreme Court "never suggested that community-caretaking responsibilities constituted a wholly new exception to the warrant requirement that would justify the warrantless search of a home.”

Additionally, distinguishing State v. Bogan, 200 N.J. 61 (2009), that the community-caretaking doctrine could apply in the case of police taking "de minimis" steps to ensure the safety of a child in an apartment building where there had been a recent rape, Albin said.

Again citing its ruling in State v. Edmonds, 211 N.J. 117 (2012), Justice Albin stated that there must generally be exigent circumstances to search a home without a warrant, and even then the exception is "not a roving commission to conduct a nonconsensual search of a home…"

In every criminal case you must consult with an experienced New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney to determine whether you have a viable motion to suppress.

Finally, the Court held, "[W]e now expressly disapprove of language suggesting that the community-caretaking doctrine permits the warrantless entry into or search of a home in the absence of some form of exigent circumstances ... We reject the State's position that the community-caretaking doctrine, standing alone and in the absence of some form of exigent circumstances, allows the police to conduct warrantless searches of homes.”
"To accept the State's argument would render the emergency-aid doctrine obsolete and undermine the heightened protections afforded to the home under our Federal and State Constitutions," Albin said.

If you have been charged with possession with intent to distribute CDS, controlled dangerous substance such as  Heroin, Cocaine, and Marijuana and other prescription narcotics or charged with a weapons offense such as unlicensed handgun or other firearm, you should consult with Attorney Sanzone who has achieved successful results in filing motions to suppress and suppressing CDS in Union, Essex, Hudson, Somerset, Bergen, Monmouth, Ocean, Middlesex, Mercer counties.

 

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

277 North Broad Street

P.O. Box 261

Elizabeth (Union County), New Jersey 07207

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Office Phone No. (908) 354-7006

Cell Phone No.   (201) 240-5716

Dated: May 11, 2013

Best Newark NJ Criminal Lawyers, Essex County Criminal NJ Criminal Defense Attorneys, Essex County criminal attorneys, N.J. Best Criminal Defense Attorneys, NJ Best Criminal Defense Lawyers, Elizabeth NJ criminal lawyers, Union County Criminal Lawyers, New Jersey federal trial lawyer, federal criminal trial attorney, NJ criminal attorney, Federal Criminal NJ lawyer, Union County criminal lawyer, Best Hudson Criminal Lawyers