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

Prepared as a Public Service by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

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

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

United States Supreme Court Holds No Canine Sniff of Front Porch without Warrant.

Prepared by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq., as a public service.

The facts of Florida v. Jardines (2013) are simple and straight forward.  The police in Florida took a drug-sniffing canine to the front porch of the defendant’s home to see whether the dog would make a positive hit for drugs.  The dog did, and based on the that positive hit, the police obtained a search warrant to search the home.  In searching the home pursuant to the warrant the police discovered marijuana plants, and the defendant was charged with trafficking in CDS.

The evidence was suppressed by the lower courts in Florida and affirmed by the Florida Supreme Court.  The United States took certiorari and our highest court agreed that the police had no right to bring the drug-sniffing dog on the defendant’s porch without a warrant.  That any search of a home or its curtilage without a warrant was a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Following Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 180 (1984), which held that any area immediately surrounding and associated with the house is part of the home for purposes of Fourth Amendment protection.

If you have been arrested as result of a search of your home, office or motor vehicle without a warrant you must seek competent legal advice from an experienced criminal defense attorney, to see if your fourth amendment rights have been violated and your chances of obtaining a dismissal based on a motion to suppress the evidence illegally seized.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Elizabeth, New Jersey

(908) 354-7006

Criminal Defense Attorney in New Jersey, Union County, Federal Court, Newark, Elizabeth, Jersey City, New Brunswick, Hackensack, Morristown, Somerville, Bayonne, Union City, Clifton, Roselle Park, Clark, Westfield, Union, Short Hills, Milburn.

Dated: December 26, 2013

Quote of the day:  “Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope.” Robert Kennedy