Appellate Court Boots Police Officers Arrest for Firearm and Marijuana Offenses when Police Officer Jumped a Fence into the backyard Based on the Smell of Marijuana and Tip that Firearm was Hidden inside the Backyard Dog House.

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

State v. Peter Samuell, Appellate Division decided February 25, 2015.

In this case Trenton Police Officers jumped a fence of a residential home to investigate the alleged smell of marijuana and tip that a firearm was hidden in the backyard dog house.

When the police surrounded the house the officers requested that the suspect/owner of the house submit through a patdown through his chain link fence.  When the suspect refused the officers jumped the fence, detained the suspect and entered the house to conduct a warrantless search of the house.  In the house were found drug manufacturing equipment, large amount of marijuana and AK-47 machine gun.

The Superior Court trial court denied the defendant’s  upheld the warrantless search holding that the facts alleged were sufficient to establish probable cause for the warrantless search. The Appellate panel reversed the conviction and granted the defendant’s motion to suppress. In this case the prosecutor presented no evidence that an exception from the warrant requirement applied.

At this stage of the investigation there was no probable cause to detain the defendant and enter the home to continue their investigation.  Although the police were justified in jumping over the fence to conduct a Terry search for weapons of the suspect, which under the facts was articulable and reasonable, those same facts did not authorize the police to enter private property to further their investigation. State v. Jefferson, 413 N.J. Super. 344, 354-55 (App. Div. 2010).  As always, in New Jersey

"minimally intrusive" police conduct must occur at a location in which the police are authorized to be (non-private property). State v. Maryland, 167 N.J. 471, 486 (2001)

In this case there was no doubt that the fence around the backyard was intended to keep everyone out, including police officers investigating a crime.  This protected cartilage is part of the home. United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987).

The court held that although the officers alleged “smell of  marijuana established probable cause to suspect unlawful possession of marijuana by one or more occupants of the house. But the smell of marijuana and the other information the police learned was still not sufficient for a warrantless police entry.”  In Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 750, (1984), the United State Supreme Court held.  "Before agents of the government may invade the sanctity of the home, the burden is on the government to demonstrate exigent circumstances that overcome the presumption of unreasonableness that attaches to all warrantless home entries

While the alleged smell of marijuana provided probable cause, it did not establish exigent circumstances for a warrantless entry. Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 12, (1948).  In that case an informant told police of persons smoking opium in a hotel room, which the court held was insufficient to enter the room without a warrant.

Again, State v. Holland, 328 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2000), rev d on other grounds, 176 N.J. 344 (2003), the court held that the alleged smell of burning marijuana may establish probable cause but not exigent circumstances to make a warrantless entry and to search when it shows nothing more than probable cause that a disorderly persons offense might have been or being committed.  Lastly, the court found no exigent circumstances as to why a warrant could not be obtained when the police had no evidence that a crime was being committed other than a disorderly person’s offense. State v. Holland, 328 N.J. Super. at 10-11; see also Welsh, 466 U.S. at 753-54.

It appears again that the New Jersey courts are closing another false excuse by law enforcement to justify an illegal search by claiming, “I smelled marijuana.”  Of course it is impossible for a defense attorney to disprove, what someone claims he or she smelled.  Law enforcement knows that a “smell” cannot be tagged into evidence.

Quotes of the Day:  "Three things I cannot escape: the eye of God, the voice of conscience, the stroke of death. In company, guard your tongue. In your family, guard your temper. When alone guard your thoughts." - Venerable Matt Talbot

"It is not a unity of religion we seek but a union of religious people. We may not be able to meet in the same pew, but we can meet together on our knees (as Christians)"

Archbishop Fulton J Sheen.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

(908) 354-7006

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth (Union County), New Jersey 07207

Criminal Defense Lawyer, for Union, Essex, Hudson, Middlesex, Bergen, Somerset counties.

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