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
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
