No Code Website Builder| Court Case | Finding |
|---|---|
| PENN v MIMMS 1974
(Adopted by NJ) | Only the driver can be ordered out of car for officer safety. - If they refuse to comply = under arrest for obstruction. |
| NEW JERSEY v TAWAIN BACOME 2015
MARYLAND v WILSON 1997 STATE v MANNING 1989 | Police can order passengers to stay in a vehicle, enter a vehicle, or exit a vehicle if articulable suspicion of POSSIBLE DANGER to officer safety. If they refuse to comply = under arrest for obstruction. |
| NEW JERSEY v JOSE VEGA 2014 | Police can ORDER a driver to lower all tinted windows of a vehicle for officer safety. If driver does not comply = arrest for obstruction |
| NEW JERSEY v COHEN 2002 | 39:3-74 is the correct statute to write for tinted windows on windshield or front windows. NOT 39:3-75. |
| NEW JERSEY v BARROW 2009 | 39:3-74 obstructed view for items hanging from the rearview mirror must be larger than a Christmas tree style air freshener OR reflect light. Christmas tree air fresheners are allowed. |
| US v HOLT 2001 | Police can ask driver and passengers about loaded weapons in car without reasonable suspicion. |
| US v HERNANDEZ 2005
MUEHLER V MENA 2005 | Police can ask any question and ask for a passenger's identification without having reasonable suspicion. Passenger DOES NOT HAVE TO GIVE ID. If police ask in a friendly manner then the request is voluntary. If passenger gives ID it is considered voluntarily given and thus admissible. |
| BRENDLIN v CALIFORNIA 2007
(Adopted by NJ) | All passengers are "seized" during a mv stop. Police must look for reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or a violation of title 39 (no seatbelt, riding on parts not intended) to demand they produce identification. If Police have at least reasonable suspicion and passenger fails to comply with orders = under arrest for obstruction. If passengers try to leave prior to completion of the stop = under arrest for obstruction. |
| NEW JERSEY v SLOAN 2008 | Police can ask for identification and run a computer check on all occupants without reasonable suspicion. Passengers do not have to give ID if police do not have at least reasonable suspicion. If police allow a passenger to leave PRIOR TO COMPLETION of the stop, passenger must give identification before leaving whether police have reasonable suspicion or not. |
| NEW JERSEY v CHAPMAN 2000
NEW JERSEY v PEARLSTEIN 1985 | A driver must give driving credentials on a MV stop. Police can do a computer check on the driver without reasonable suspicion. Police can ask questions related to the MV stop and if inconsistent answers are given police can broaden questions to confirm criminal activity. If driver refuses to give driver license, name, registration = under arrest for 39:3-10 and 39:3-29. You can also arrest for obstruction since they are physically not giving you their license. |
| NEW JERSEY v Forgione 1993 | Police can stop an out of state vehicle for maintenance violations (tinted windows, broken tail light, etc) and can conduct a computer check on the registration and owner to confirm they live out of state. |
| NEW JERSEY v Donis 1998 | If a computer check reveals the RO is suspended or expired (F1 info cop search) – this is all you need to stop the vehicle. Once determined the driver is not the RO stop must be terminated unless something else arises. |
| US v SLATER 2003 | Police can only arrest passengers for failing to give ID if police have reasonable suspicion that crime is occurring/occurred and passengers are involved. |
| NEW JERSEY v SMITH 2005 | When questioning a suspect about GENERAL facts surrounding a crime while on scene (not a mv stop) police do not have to give Miranda warning. When on a MV stop you do not have to give Miranda warning when asking GENERAL questions to prove or disprove your suspicions to justify the stop. |
| Court Case | Finding |
|---|---|
| NJ STATE v WILLIAM WITT 2015 | Police can only search a motor vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause and exigency.
*** This OVER TURNED the Pena Flores decision which returns warrantless mv search standard to the State v Alston 1981 decision. - The automobile exception authorizes the warrantless search of an automobile only when the police have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of an offense and the circumstances giving rise to probable cause are unforeseeable and spontaneous. Even though occupants are removed from car does not remove exigency. When there is probable cause to search, the search cannot be delayed until a judge verifies the probable cause. Search must be conducted at location of the stop. Need 2 prongs needed for exigency – 1. An Automobile and 2. Probable Cause. |
| WYOMING v HOUGHTON 1999 | If PROBABLE CAUSE exists to search a vehicle – Police can search anything in the vehicle that may contain the object. This includes closed bags, boxes, etc. |
| NEW JERSEY v MARISTANY 1993 | If conducting a CONSENT SEARCH of a vehicle – all luggage or bags in a car needs consent from the owner of the bag to search. If all occupants deny ownership and police can’t identify the owner it becomes abandoned property and YOU CAN SEARCH IT. No expectation to privacy on abandoned property. If bag happens to be open then anything in PLAIN VIEW is fair game.
|
| NEW JERSEY v SANTANA 1985 | A Passenger has no right to refuse a consent search of a vehicle. If driver gives consent and passenger refuses to exit the car or allow the search then they are under for obstruction. Passenger can only refuse consent search to items that belong to solely them in the vehicle. (example a purse or bag) |
| NEW JERSEY v IRELAN 2005 | Police can search a vehicle without a warrant after a DWI arrest for any open containers of alcohol. IF DWI is for narcotics Police can search the vehicle for any other narcotics. Can only search areas that may contain the contraband you are looking for. |
| NEW JERSEY v SLOCKBLOWER 1979 | Inventory search of an impounded vehicle is illegal without consent |
| NEW JERSEY v JUDGE 1994 | Odor of burnt marijuana in a vehicle is probable cause to search all passengers for marijuana. |
| US v PLACE 1983 | A K-9 unit can be called if you have reasonable suspicion and no consent to search. IF the dog hits then you have PC. A dog sniff is not considered a search. |
| NEW JERSEY v BIRKENMEIER 2006 | Verbal consent is fine for consent searches as long as consent is given freely and voluntarily. Written consent is preferred but not required even if it violates your SOP’s. NO AGE for a person to give consent. So a 17 year old can give consent to search his car or bag. Consent can come from a third party if they share authority over the item to be searched. |
| NEW JERSEY v HICKMAN 2000 | If on a MV stop and you have the odor of marijuana (you have PC to search) you must give Miranda before asking any SPECIFIC questions about the marijuana.
Police can ask any type of question they want on a MV stop as long as it does not delay the stop. Driver/Passenger does not have to answer. |
| NEW JERSEY v ECKEL 2004 | Search of a MV incident to arrest is only allowed if the person is arrested in the vehicle. Police can only search the area immediately accessible to the suspect at the time of arrest. |
NEW JERSEY v HAMLETT 2017 NEW JERSEY v LARK 1989 | Police can arrest a driver for concealing their identity on a MV stop. If the driver refuses to give ID and police have no way of identifying them (not the RO). Police can search the center console and glove box without a warrant for driver credentials. NJ prefers you to arrest the driver for 39:3-29 and 39:3-10. |
| NEW JERSEY v PIERCE 1994 | Police can only arrest for MV offenses to protect public safety or to ensure the offender comes to court. So if you can’t ID the driver you can arrest on title 39 offenses 39:3-10 unlicensed of 39:3-29 failure to exhibit DL. |
| Court Case | Finding |
|---|---|
| NEW JERSEY v ERCOLANO 1979 | Police can impound a car incident to the driver’s arrest if it poses a hazard to the safety of other people or motorists. |
| ASSEMBLY ACT #4180 | Police can impound a vehicle incident to arrest for any 1st-4th degree crime, any weapons offense arrest or any drug related offense. |
| Court Case | Finding |
|---|---|
| NEW JERSEY v MAHONEY 1988 | Station house inventory searches are illegal without consent from the owner. |
| NEW JERSEY v DOMICZ 2006 | Police do not need Reasonable Suspicion to ask for consent to search a home or business. |
| NEW JERSEY v WALKER 2013 | Police can enter a home without a warrant if suspect answers the door smoking marijuana and seize any drugs found inside. CANNOT enter if only smell of marijuana exists. |
| NEW JERSEY v DOUGLAS 1985 | Parents can consent to search of a child’s bedroom. Landlords CANNOT give consent to search a tenants room. |
| TERRY v OHIO 1968 | Stop/Frisk - Police must have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity occurring or has occurred and can conduct a PAT DOWN FOR WEAPONS ONLY. |
| HIBEL v NEVADA 2004 | Stop/Frisk - Police must have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity occurring or has occurred and can conduct a PAT DOWN FOR WEAPONS ONLY.
|
| MICHIGAN v LONG 1983 | Police can Terry frisk if they have reasonable articulable suspicion. Nervousness and |
| NEW JERSEY v NISHINA 2003 | Police can search a person based on their training an experience if the person being searched smells like marijuana and police believe they are in possession of cds.
|
| NEW JERSEY v OYENUSI 2006 | Search incident to arrest must occur immediately after the arrest. If the suspect has bags they must also be searched immediately following the arrest. Must search shoplifter’s bags in the LP office before you transport or you can’t say anything found was from a search incident to arrest. |
| Court Case | Finding |
|---|---|
| NEW JERSEY v MYERS 2015 | Odor of burnt marijuana is PC for an arrest without physical marijuana. The odor of burnt marijuana is considered possession and plain smell is the offense happening in your presence. Charge is 2c:35-10a4. PC on the complaint is “odor of marijuana.” |
| BAUER v CLIFFSIDE PARK 1998 | If suspect admits to committing a Disorderly Persons offense in the officer’s presence. Then that is the same thing as the person committing the offense in the officer’s presence = police can arrest. Watching a video of the offense does not count. |
| NEW JERSEY v DANGERFIELD 2002 | Police can issue a special summons (BO book) for petty DP offenses OR they can arrest. (ex. 2C:33-13b Smoking in a no smoking area) |
| KNOWLES v IOWA 1998 | There is no search incident to summons. Only search incident to arrest. |
| NEW JERSEY v LETMEN 1989 | Once contraband is found must mirandize occupants before asking questions about the contraband. |
| NEW JERSEY v WANCZYK 1985 | If a person prevents an officer from conducting a terry frisk they are under arrest for obstruction. |
| NEW JERSEY v HERNANDEZ 2001 | If told to leave the scene of someone getting arrested and a third party refuses and interferes then under arrest for obstruction. |
| NEW JERSEY v DICKEY 1998 | Handcuffing does not automatically mean arrest. You can handcuff for officer safety. |
| NEW JERSEY v WOODSON 1989 | Police cannot abruptly open a car door on a MV stop without the permission of the driver. |
No Code Website Builder