NJLawman.com Editorial: NJ Supreme
Court Halts Post-Arrest
Vehicle Searches
Police and Law Enforcement News
Friday, January 27, 2006 3:05 p.m.
Listen carefully. Can you hear it. Try
harder. How about now?
It's the sound of drug dealers and
other elements of the criminally inclined cheering all across our
beautiful state. They're cheering because the New Jersey Supreme
Court gave them a huge victory via our state's search and seizure
law in the case
New Jersey v. William B. Eckel.
In January, the court issued a
landmark decision reversing well-established case law in the area of
motor vehicle searches.
|
The citizens of this state need to decide exactly what
they want from us.
Is it complete freedom from any law enforcement
intrusion?
If it is, fine. We'll enforce traffic laws, respond to
calls and sip lattés in between. Frankly, it's easier
and a lot safer. |
Simply, car searches,
incident-to-arrest of one of the occupants, are finished. No
automatic search of the passenger compartment, and no searching the
"wingspan" of someone arrested from the vehicle.
Of course, searches may still be
conducted based upon probable cause and consent, where applicable,
but the days of the automatic, post-arrest vehicle search are over.
If there is no justification for a
search independent of the arrest there will be no search at all.
We could not be any more opposed to
this ruling. It is yet another chapter in the continuing erosion of
law enforcement tools for New Jersey officers. In fact, this ruling
is arguably the worst blow we have taken in recent history.
Presumably, the court sought to
protect the average citizen from the intrusion and embarrassment of
having his or her car searched after being arrested on a contempt
warrant or some other minor offense.
Our position is that they used a
sledge hammer to kill a fly. Isn't the real intrusion and
embarrassment caused by the arrest itself?
The intentions of the court are not
lost on this writer or any other officer, but the court seems to
have focused solely on the altruistic benefits of this ruling and
not the ramifications. I'm not sure they realize that they have just
taken one of the most powerful tools in combating crime, especially
narcotics and weapons offenses, from law enforcement. How many guns
will now go undiscovered?
Courts, in their decisions, often
discuss the balance they must strike between the law enforcement
mission and the rights of the citizen. Here, they evidently decided
that the minor imposition of a car search outweighed the furtherance
of public safety and law enforcement.
The victors of this new law will not
be the average, law-abiding citizen.
No, the victors will be those who use
vehicles to transport handguns, assault weapons, drugs, and evidence
of their criminal activity. They will now have a protected mobile
sanctuary for their wares in the form of their vehicle.
The real losers won't be law
enforcement either.
The real losers will be those trying
to live their lives and raise families in crime ridden areas
infested with violence. The guns and drugs that will now go
undiscovered as a result of this ruling will mostly wind up in their
neighborhoods.
New Jersey already has numerous cities
plagued with violent crime, and we are only just beginning to see
the destruction of which gangs are capable.
The concept of New Jersey being a "law
and order," "tough on crime" state left the station a long time ago.
We know this.
The question is where New Jersey
will stand on crime and law enforcement.
While a periodic chipping away at
police powers may seem good to some, it comes with consequences. The
citizens of this state need to decide exactly what they want from
us. Is it complete freedom from any law enforcement intrusion? If it
is, fine. We'll enforce traffic laws, respond to calls and sip
latees in between. Frankly, it's easier and a lot safer.
No one wants to live in a police state
including those entrusted with policing, but we have gone much too
far in the other direction.
As law enforcement officers, we are -
as we should be - subject to the pleasure of our citizenry and those
they elect. But, we too are citizens who happen to have a front row
seat, and the view from the front row has become quite discouraging.
By deteriorating what the police may
do, policing as a whole is deteriorated.
Proponents of the new ruling will
argue, "Police can just get a search warrant."
Yes, that sounds nice, but this is not
television.
Obtaining a search warrant often takes
the better part of an entire shift.
Most of the time, patrol officers
won't even bother to start the warrant process simply because they
don't have the time to jump through all the legal hoops when there
are other calls to be answered.
It was partially for this reason that
the United States Supreme Court did and still does allow warrantless
searches of vehicles incident to arrest.
Where time and circumstances do allow,
the warrant process can be especially challenging (and almost
entertaining) in light of the fact that there are numerous
jurisdictions within New Jersey where police officers are instructed
that superior court judges are not to be bothered during overnight
hours.
One somewhat disturbing portion of the
court's decision reads as follows:
Obviously, where a
defendant has been arrested but has not been removed and secured,
the court will be required to determine, on a case-by-case basis
whether he or she was in a position to compromise police safety or
to carry out the destruction of evidence, thus justifying resort to
the search incident to arrest exception.
So, in order to conduct a permissible
search we must sacrifice officer safety and perform the search in
the presence of unsecured suspects whom we have just informed that
they are under arrest?
This is nothing less than a recipe for
disaster. Hopefully, road supervisors won’t stand for officers
sacrificing safety in order to find a package.
Plus, it’s highly doubtful that the
court will allow officers to get around the warrant requirement by
purposely delaying the actual securing of the prisoner.
Probably, the most discouraging part
of this ruling is the fact that our justices voted seven to zero in
favor of this new case law.
Ladies and gentlemen of the court, you
have just given the predators, opportunists, gang members, and thugs
of our society the ultimate tactic in defeating law enforcement.
So, to our state we say this: Keep
throwing obstacles in front of those you swear to protect you.
You will get what you deserve and you
will deserve what you get.
NJLawman.com
View the actual case in PDF format
Talk About this Story
Reader Comments
March 8, 2006
I am currently a gang detective in
the city of Fresno, CA. I was born and raised in Paterson, NJ. I
have many friends who are currently officers in NJ. It is sad to see
that the supreme court has made a hard job even harder for my fellow
brother in blue by sacrificing public/officer safety for the wrong
reasons. What's it gonna take for the courts to realize that they
have made a huge mistake? An officer killed doing the job he/she
loves!!!!! This is a outrage. Hopefully the AG will not stand for
this and appeal to a higher court. Be safe...everybody goes home at
the end of the tour.
-Anonymous
March 8, 2006
Finally, New Jersey gets one right.
-Anonymous
March 8, 2006
This case Law will enable the drug
dealer to get rich and purchase a home directly next to the people
who put the law on the books. At that time and no time sooner will
this case law be changed. Nothing is unexpected in this fine
state of NJ.
-North Jersey Cop......
March 8, 2006
As a police officer in Monmouth
County, New Jersey for 9 years, what I know most cops are starting
to do now in order not to go stir crazy because of all of these new
rulings made to protect bad guys and harm the good guys is quite
simple. We now drive around and put mileage on our cars to keep our
bosses happy. We will still stop cars and write our speeding and
parking tickets. Other than that, we will simply show up when we are
called to do so. It's obvious that proactive police work is not
wanted, and based on these new rulings, I guess they are not needed
as well in New Jersey. On a really scary side note, if anything were
to happen to my job as a police officer in New Jersey, I don't think
I would not hesitate becoming a bad guy, and using the strict laws
to my advantage.
-Anonymous
March 8, 2006
Please let the police do there jobs!
It now has become so difficult that many I am sure have lost
their drive to enforce the law because they have no legal backing
for their actions. Let's protect them and drive to stop crime.
-Anonymous
March 8, 2006
A simple solution to the 5 minute
"embarrassment" of having your car searched....Don't get arrested.
The NJ Supreme Court is obviously more concerned with protecting the
rights of the criminals getting arrested, then those of the families
who have to live in the neighborhoods run by the criminals.
-Anonymous
March 8, 2006
First, I have to believe that the
case will end up in the U.S. Supreme Court, where it will be
overturned.
Second, It is obvious that the N.J.
Supreme Court Justices are just to close to the books, and cannot
see real life. They need to step back and see what they just did.
Now, guns, drugs, explosives can be brought into the state for
REDISTRUBUTION, and the establishment of a lucrative black market.
The street cop will survive, but the public will suffer. Just look
at Newark, Jersey City, etc. It might just be time for the public to
change their politicians.
-NYPD (ret.)
March 8, 2006
what is wrong with our judicial
system today????? The criminals receive all the rights, and the
victims get the abuse and punishment. Let law enforcement do what
they were trained to do best!!! That is protect their community, and
take the crap and evertything that goes with it "OFF THE STREETS"
This is a HUGE MISTAKE, and innocent people will pay for this
misfortune in the end.
-Anonymous
March 8, 2006
This new ruling on the no search is
for the birds. How long is it going to take for another Police
Officer in this state to be killed, by a drug dealer or thug that
knows the police can not search. They will start hiding more weapons
in the car and not on their persons. This ruling is a JOKE and the
courts need to STOP restricting the Police in this state and
country.
REMEMBER ALL GIVE SOME SOME GAVE ALL
11, SEPTEMBER 2001
PAPD: 37 OFFICERS LOST
NYPD: 33 OFFICERS LOST
FDNY: 343 MEMBERS LOST
NYEMS: 9 MEMBERS LOST
CIVILIANS 2,500 + LOST
The only line of DEFENSE is the THIN
BLUE LINE
-Respectfully
Police670@aol.com
March 8, 2006
Hello, I'm a NYC Officer working in
the projects in East New York, Brownsville Brooklyn. When we arrest
someone driving a motor vehicle, we are supposed to voucher (take
Possession) the vehicle, and everything inside the auto gets
vouchered separately. In order to voucher property inside of a
automobile, you have to search the auto, and take inventory of
EVERYTHING other than the spare tire inside of the auto. Does this
violate your statue? And If not can you do something like this?
-Anonymous
March 8, 2006
I'm waiting to see how long after
this we lose "plain view". Looks like 1 summons a shift and lots of
coffee is the answer. It's unfortunate, but reality. Just remember,
family comes first and safety is paramount. Too all LEO's, stay
safe!
-Anonymous
February 6, 2006
How about towing the vehicle after an
arrest and doing an inventory search? Would that still be a viable
option in New Jersey? You guys sure got hammered with this ruling,
though! Stay safe.
-Anonymous
February 6, 2006
Calling Judges all hours of the night
for search warrants could possible be our only chance. We need our
unions who we all pay to represent us, to step up and unite us. It
is our only chance. One dead cop from this is one to many.
-Pissed in New Jersey
February 6, 2006
Great job Supreme Court, its hard
enough to catch these guys, why not just give them get out of jail
free cards? The real victim is the person that gun kills because we
could not search and seize it.
-Anonymous
February 6, 2006
Can't pursue vehicles, can't search
incident arrest. What's next? Maybe, can't stop a motor vehicle
without a signed warrant to do so. Thank you Justices. This is a
great state, that is, if your a scumbag criminal. The Justices of
this state should just make it illegal for any municipality, county,
or department in this state to employ persons in the capacity of law
enforcement. Really, think about it, we can't do anything to the
scumbag criminals anyway, so why have Police in this state? This is
fantastic, I mean do the Justices really think that the average law
abiding person who just forgot to pay for a traffic offense is the
one reaping the benefit of this ruling? The true answer is NO. The
ones who will benefit are the scumbags of this state that if stopped
and arrested, now know that there stash of Heroin, Cocaine, or
whatever will be safely secured in their vehicle, in the Police
Impoundment, waiting for them when they post bail. This is a
brilliant legal decision, it will 10 fold increase the amount of
drugs our children can receive from JOE SH1TBAG, you know him, the
guy that doesn't pay taxes, that is, until this state legalizes drug
sales. Now that is what's REALLY NEXT.
-Anonymous
February 6, 2006
This is crazy. I am a police officer
in Pennsylvania and search incident-to-arrest still stands in my
state. New Jersey better wake up, you are the crossroads for the
drug traffic trade. I don't blame any of NJ finest if they step back
with this new law, their safety is not being considered by the
courts.
-Anonymous
February 6, 2006
The only ones that have a problem
with a quick search are the criminals. It's sad that the "fourth
amendment" advocates hide behind a case that drugs were actually
found in. What's next no more baggage searching in the airport?
-Anonymous
February 6, 2006
This is an abomination. So what are
we going to do about it?
I say give them what the Supreme
Court wants. Get the search warrants for the vehicles. Wake up the
Superior Court Judges. Let the calls for service stack up. Let the
administrators explain why it took 5 hours for burglary report to
get taken. If you are told to do otherwise by a judge, document it!
I work in one of the bigger
departments in the state. Believe me, taking a two man car out of
service for 6 hours crushes the response time to other calls.
Ultimately, the citizens of the state
will voice their opposition. The Supreme Court won't listen to us.
Maybe they'll listen to them.
The thing is, this takes a
coordinated effort throughout the state which is something we
collectively are not too good at. But it will work. So it's worth
the effort.
-Anonymous
February 6, 2006
In response to the anonymous sender
who referenced that police have the "guilty before proven innocent
mantra:"
This new court decision has less to
do with the Fourth Amendment than it does eradicating established
national and state law enforcement procedure.
For the past decades, you have never
had the Fourth Amendment protection of a search of your vehicle
after a lawful arrest. Therefore, it is ridiculous that you even say
that you would have to "give up" your Fourth Amendment rights. You
never had them to begin with.
The search of a vehicle following an
arrest has been a longstanding practice meant to protect law
enforcement and private citizens by removing any potential weapons
from the vehicle. The Supreme Court has completely ignored that fact
that today's society is a mobile society; arrests arising from motor
vehicle stops for wanted individuals is commonplace. No criminal
commits a crime and the waits for public transportation.
The Supreme Court has completely
disregarded this issue and now allows weapons and contraband to
remain in the vehicles used in the commission of crimes, even if
that crime just be possessing an illegal weapon. Vehicles are not
just a means of conveyance for criminals; they are mobile stations
for criminal activity.
By ignoring this fact, the NJ Supreme
Court has forgotten the importance of motor vehicle stops as a
deterrent to crime and an effective procedure for criminal
investigation and apprehension. Both State v. Eckel and State v.
Dunlop have completely destroyed one of the most effective
procedures of law enforcement for ridding the State of unlawful
weapons and contraband.
If the NJ Supreme Court believed that
this practice was wrong, it only took them 110 years to correct it.
-Anonymous
February 6, 2006
Obviously the laws are made to
protect the criminals in our society and not the law abiding
citizens of this state. Besides the high taxes, crooked politicians,
a weak AG, it's just another valid & good reason why not to work or
live in NJ. I can't see how any police officer could do 25 years in
NJ, I can't wait to retire now!
-Disgusted & demoralized Newark, NJ
Police Officer
February 6, 2006
Hey NJ Taxpayer,
How do feel about the NJ Supreme
court giving already over burdened police officers another reason to
look the other way?
Listen, they are going to get paid
either way. If the courts want to continue tying the hands of NJ
cops it is going to result in nothing but unsafe streets for
everyone. Why should they unnecessarily risk departmental charges,
criminal charges (NJ Profiling Law), or civil suits when it is
easier to just look the other way?
Nobody gets into this line of work
wanting to do nothing, but the NJ courts are forcing it on us. They
are making it so the average cop will do nothing but "Miles and
Smiles" because anything else is unreasonably risky. Very few are
going to say "I'm going to leave this line of work now", because
they have too much time invested. The more likely response is that
they will ride out their career doing as little as possible, tell
the new guys coming in to "not get involved" and the whole time the
taxpayer is paying for it.
Can't blame the street cop! Very sad
ruling.
-Anonymous
February 2, 2006
I guess the drug dealers can now sit
in their vehicles in front of the projects and deal drugs. It's ok,
just keep your dope and guns under your seats and you'll be fine.
-Absolutely, 100% disgusted NJ Police
Officer!!!
February 2, 2006
What really Kills me is every Law
enforcement organization in NJ endorses Democrat after democrat for
office. Well this is the result of Democrat appointments. Does
anyone think it will get any better with SC Justices and Attorney
Generals being appointed regardless of their pass history of
warrants and license suspensions? Wake up! Democrats are not friends
of the Law enforcement community.
-Anonymous
February 2, 2006
Thank god someone cares about the
rights of citizens. Apparently "guilty till proven" innocent is the
mantra of most of the cops on this site. Look I do appreciate the
job you do and I am thankful for it but that doesn't mean I think
because most cops are good that we should just give up on the fourth
amendment. If you really think things are that bad then maybe you
should find a new job.
-Anonymous
February 2, 2006
This is just another blow to law
enforcement. Good luck trying to get cops to do their job now. They
have given the criminal element the green light to carry any and all
illegal items inside their cars, and promoted unsafe conditions for
all law enforcement. GOOD JOB!
-Anonymous
February 2, 2006
I attended training in which a Texas
LEO was teaching NJ LEO's how to "get into the trunk" for Drug
Interdiction. We started to laugh. Now we cant even get into the
passenger compartment. Does anyone really wonder why the 9-11
terrorists worked out of the Wonderful State of New Jersey......As
if getting a search warrant is even a feasible option.....in
Burlington County there is a standing order NOT to wake Superior
court judges between 11p and 6am.....are all Judges alike or what.
-Anonymous
February 2, 2006
Who will take the blame for rise in
crime rates five years from now? of course, the police. blame them
for everything....
-Disgruntled cop
February 2, 2006
The Supreme Court reasoned that after
a person has been arrested, removed from a vehicle and secured by
the police, the underlying reasons for a search incident to an
arrest (recovery of implements of escape, evidence and weapons) no
longer exists. Although this may be true, it does not prevent an
individual from accessing the loaded .22 he had under the driver's
seat after he posts for his $100.00 traffic warrant. Our hands were
tied before and this just tightens the knot.
-Anonymous
February 2, 2006
Typical...so we'll just leave and CDS
and potential weapons in the car to be sold at a later date for the
defendant's attorney fees and weapons to hurt other innocent parties
including the next police officer who stops that
individual.....Protect the Criminal Again....Brilliant
-18yrs. can't wait to retire.......
February 2, 2006
I have been on the job for 5 years
and this is the most ridiculous court decision I have ever heard of.
This is giving the criminals more rights. There will be more guns
and drugs on the streets and put me in harms way every time I lock
someone up.
-Anonymous
February 2, 2006
As a PO in N.J. for over 10 years,
the wind has just been removed from my sails. This is a true
disgrace. Now, maybe the homicide rates in N.J. will become the
highest in the country allowing all criminals to hold on to their
guns, even when they pinched for a simple traffic warrant.
-Disgusted North Jersey Cop.
February 2, 2006
As a police officer in NJ, should I
now take a chance on pulling someone over at 3:00am in the morning
and the nearest car across town? I rather be tried by 12 than
carried by 6!!!!
-Anonymous
January 30, 2006
I am an officer in Phoenix, AZ and I
am absolutely disgusted by that. Sounds like the court wants to put
you guys in handcuffs. Good luck and stay safe!
-Anonymous
January 30, 2006
Although off the topic...here is
another "Judge" give the criminal the benefits and taking power from
the LEO... the Parole Board is now giving Grievance Forms out to
convicts so that they can complain to upper management about their
PO or their PO's Sgt. And you know at the very least the PO or the
supervisor will be questioned by some knucklehead that never walked
into the projects or a biker den about why they did what they did.
Nice...What's next????
-Anonymous
January 30, 2006
Wow, this is excellent news. Its
about time the courts started to recognize the rights of the
individual.
"The right of the people to be secure
in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall
issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized."
-Anonymous
January 30, 2006
In crime-ridden cities like Camden
and Irvington, this ruling makes cleaning up the community next to
impossible. The Court really betrayed the average citizen with this
one.
-Anonymous
January 30, 2006
Any thoughts of sending this article
to USA today, Wall Street Journal, Star Ledger, Asbury Park Press as
an "letter to the editor" for exposure? Or ask the Police Unions in
NJ to band together against this decision publicly?
As a command officer with 16 years of
LEO exp., I am now most concerned about the death of a fellow
officer based on this narrow sighted decision. Attending the police
funeral should be the NJ Supreme Court Judges that handed down this
decision. They are bringing a very sad "new dawn" for the
professional LEO in our state.
May GOD bless all that work the
streets. That they may go home to their families and friends after a
days work protecting the communities they serve. Someone should ask
the justices what they fear when they go to work.
Respectfully submitted,
Dedicated "Blue" in NJ
January 30, 2006
Absolutely disgraceful. I still have
problems when the US Supreme Court issues a ruling, but the NJ
Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, decides that their ruling is
better for NJ citizens than the rest of the country. We as citizens
should be outraged with this ruling. We as law enforcement officers
ARE outraged. NJ Supreme Court justices, please wake up and start
living in the real world, okay?
-Anonymous
January 30, 2006
Since NJ has changed the 'trend' in
the nation, then the US Supreme Court should review this decision
and make a uniform decision for the entire country as to whether NJ
has overstepped its interpretation of what is permissible.
-Anonymous
January 30, 2006
New Jersey and all its liberal policy
is like cancer to any form of good police work! The State of New
Jersey has huge problems, and many more problems will come as this
State becomes more liberal!
NJ Police Officer
-Anonymous
January 30, 2006
Another example of the de-policing of
NJ! How many officers have to get hurt before the liberals change
their way of thinking in this state! Keep taking our tools away so
crime can keep going up, it is only a matter of time, then they will
all be crying! The job is hard enough, give us a break already!
Chief Vincent Caruso - Lodi PD
January 30, 2006
I don't wish anything bad on anybody,
but someday somehow I hope this comes back to bite one of the "7" in
the ass!
- 1 Unhappy NJ Cop!
This is an outrage!! I am an aspiring
police officer in New Jersey and I see the stress this decision
causes on all of my police officer friends and family... its hard
enough on them in bad areas such as Camden and Newark, now this!!!
this stupid state could care less about the cops as long as they
live in rich areas where they know they can go home safely... might
as well give the drug dealers and criminals your badges and let them
run themselves.
-Anonymous
January 29, 2006
Thank god I am retired
from law enforcement and moved out of the state of N.J. Just another
reason to move out.
-Anonymous
January 29, 2006
This brings a good
argument to have Judges voted in, not sitting for life. If you
arrest the driver, the passenger still can go to a hidden gun. Our
court hates cops, likes bad guys. We as a police community should
bane together, and badger our elected officials to have the courts
to change this dumb decision.
-Anonymous
NJLawman.com Response: Very interesting point about the
passenger.
January 29, 2006
Just when I think it
can't get any worse being a police officer in NJ, it does. Instead
of looking for bad guys, I might as well now focus my sites on
retirement. It is the only thing that keeps my sanity. This state is
hopeless....
Ptl. Beyond Frustrated
January 29, 2006
Let Mr. Eckel and those
Justices drive through Georgia and we will show them how to toss the
car, arrest them while they are whining like babies and drag them to
jail the good old fashioned way of treating the scum of this
country! Maybe forget the jail key also.
-Anonymous
January 29, 2006
As if the job wasn't
hard enough as it is. Now we have to walk on eggshells every time we
make an arrest, and worry about the evidence being suppressed.
Why even bother?
How many cops are going
to have to get hurt for this ruling to be reversed?????
Unbelievable.
-Disgusted in NJ
January 29, 2006
How are we going to
protect ourselves and enforce the laws if the politicians and judges
out there are favoring criminals? NJ has to be one of the worst
places to be a police officer anymore. We cant do anything without
charges against criminals are dropped and being prosecuted for just
doing our jobs and following the laws. This is ridiculous and
outrageous.
Very ticked off NJ
Officer
January 29, 2006
Maybe we just start
calling judges all hours of the night to get a search warrant. We
put enough pressure on them maybe they'll make a stink and get
something done.
-JPK
January 29, 2006
Just another reason to
work even harder! I eagerly accept the new challenge. It will put an
even bigger smile on my face when I continue to make even more
arrests due to the new issue of this guideline! Eat that law makers!
-Bring it on!
January 29, 2006
To the great law makers
of this criminal favored state: Thanks for nothing. We were just set
back about half a century in crime fighting and protecting the
public. Luckily, I am retiring in several months so I won't be
dealing with this state of confusion. Its a shame that you people
sit back and arm chair quarterback this type of law while we
officers risk our lives protecting yours. Thanks for the stab or
shot in the back you just gave us.
-Anonymous
January 29, 2006
A perfect reason as to
why Liberals should not hold office in New Jersey. The judges really
don't care about law enforcement officers, they just care about
staying on the bench. Sure, let's keep the criminals one step ahead
of law enforcement. Why not they deserve justice. Thank you to all
the judges for smacking all the police officers in this state with a
pile of sh*t.
-Paterson's
Finest...until now
January 29, 2006
This ruling sounds
almost whimsical and certainly without much deliberation. As such,
it can be reversed by equally whimsical decision making.
Think about this. At a
DWI trial, the lawyer asserts that his client guzzled the booze
AFTER the crash and stashed the bottle under his seat. The judge
finds him NO GUILTY (surprise surprise). The drunk then goes on a
bender and crashes into a NJ Supreme or a family member.
Or..
How about seeking a
warrant on EVERY SINGLE arrest from a car, whether it's a DWI, drug,
or whatever arrest. Clog the courtroom. Wake the judge and the AP
every single night. Line up at the judge's chambers so they can't
possibly take a lunch break. THEY want warrants so here they are!
(And remember, if you WERE going to search but can't now, aren't you
being "lazy" for not going for the warrant?)
I'll bet that before
long, the roadside searches will suddenly become constitutional
again.
NJLawman.com Response: Another interesting point about the DWI
defense.
-Anonymous
January 29, 2006
These judges who make
these decisions should go for a ride-along in a city such as Camden
or Trenton during a weekend night shift and see what we have to go
through day in and day out, just to actually do the job we've sworn
to do AND come home to our families at night.
-Anonymous
January 29, 2006
I am an aspiring police
officer in New Jersey with a family full of police and with most of
my friends cops as well... I see the stresses they go thru everyday
albeit some are in in country clubs but some are in the worst areas
of NJ. This stupid state doesn't care if officers go home safely to
their children at night just as long as the judges get to go home to
their ritzy houses and forget about the dangers on the street
because its far away from their mansions....I am disgusted with
lawyers and the judges... you might as well turn over you badges and
uniforms to the criminals... its heart wrenching to say this will
probably not be overturned until an alarming amount of police are
killed because of this law... maybe their unnecessary deaths will
make the judges see it but I doubt it and even so how many will it
take?? its ridiculous... I feel for those of you whom are
officers....
Aspiring cop in NJ..
maybe not anymore
January 29, 2006
I have been a cop in NJ
for 18 years, this is no surprise as the NJ Courts and Judges,
especially the NJ Supreme court are a disgrace. This is the state
that allows Cop killers to walk free, Union Co, and refuses to
punish other Cop killers like Leslie Nelson, thank God I only have a
couple to go.
-Anonymous
January 29, 2006
I moved from NJ to the
Atlanta area seven years ago to take a job policing. I've always
considered moving back, until now!!! This is a disgrace and a huge
blow to NJ law enforcement! Hopefully this will not be the trend
nationwide.
-Narcotics Inv.-Metro
Atlanta, GA
January 29, 2006
I am really happy that I
am a retired police officer in NJ.
All of you still on the
job out there have my deepest sympathy. Just pray for the day that
you stop some judges kid in his Beemer and you have to impound it
because daddy forgot to renew his tags.
Stay safe out there
everybody and try to keep your sanity.
-Ret. In NJ. Wish I
could afford to get out.
January 29, 2006
This is garbage lets
really watch crime rise in Essex County.
-Anonymous
January 29, 2006
Could you post phone
numbers or email addresses for the supreme court. Do you think if we
all band together and start a campaign they would revisit this?
Guess I'll find a good
hiding spot and a good book when I work.
-Disgusted in Middlesex
Co.
January 29, 2006
This is sad. To take
away a tool that compromises safety and ongoing crime prevention in
this state, in today's times is a smack in the face. NJ has
Camden...the highest violent crime stats two years in a row, Newark,
Trenton, and various other cities where the criminal element seems
to be more and more prevalent despite law enforcement efforts.
Clearly the judges in this case did not look at the big picture.
-Anonymous
January 29, 2006
NJ Cops can't get a
break, first a Gov. who appoints idiots, his AG who gives us Racial
Profiling, which is not done in NJ. But please don't stop minorities
even if you have probable cause because its racial profiling, Our
new AG prospect has little trial experience and has warrants and
3-40 problems. Easy answer give her trooper to drive for her. Now we
have the Great NJ Supreme court who has been handcuffing us since
for ever. They have upheld the 1955 Breathalyzer but will not rule
yet on the new one which prevents the chance of dial a drunk or
operator error. Go figure. Lets always remember they are ALL Lawyers
and lets recall what Shakespeare said !
Answer the calls, write
a few summons
-A short timer glad at
this part of career than just starting
January 29, 2006
I'm speechless. I
wouldn't be surprised if ATS warrants are completely thrown out of
the window after this, stating that they aren't serious enough
charges to be arrested for.
-Keep it up NJ
January 29, 2006
This is sickening!!!
Nothing will be done until some poor cops wife and kids are in front
of a news camera crying about her dead husband because of an unfound
weapon. Well said.
-B.J.T.
January 29, 2006
As a 19 year veteran and
a road cop for my whole career, I find the Eckel and Dunlop cases to
be the most damaging blows to law enforcement in many years. The
liberal State Supreme Court has gone over the top to safe guard the
rights of CRIMINALS and put the ever increasing burden on the backs
of law enforcement to safeguard law abiding citizens from drug
dealers, gun carriers, and other detriments to society
-Anonymous
January 29, 2006
Unbelievable and
demoralizing to New Jersey's finest. I cannot believe that the
criminals safety is held above officer's safety. The lawsuits, the
IA invests, and the multitude of late night calls to judges for
warrants may result in a "pop". 7-0 Vote? Thanks a lot! Come on out
and ride along for a few nights NJ Supreme Court justices. Its just
one more step in becoming Republican Social Workers!!
-Anonymous
January 29, 2006
Brothers and
Sisters,,,,The Court Case You refer to enumerates the restrictions
that We in Pennsylvania have been working under for years, ours is
even more restrictive in that you need reasonable suspicion to use a
Narcotics Detection Dog OUTSIDE a vehicle.
It Might be a good IDEA to research some Pennsylvania Cases and
attempt to use the format that is successful in our arrests and
prosecutions, to plagiarize a phrase from Clint Eastwood, "
Improvise, Adapt, and Overcome" and it really will make the case
STRONGER and HARDER TO BEAT ON APPEAL. I'm a dinasour, I worked in
the GOOD OLD DAYS FROM THE 70's and retired 2 1/2 years ago..
Thank You For Letting me speak about this,,,
BE SAFE AND GOD BLESS
FRATERNALLY,
RETIRED PA STATE NARCOTICS, AGENT FRANK DiMICELI,#183
PA OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, BUREAU OF NARCOTICS INVESTIGATIONS
SPECIAL OPERATIONS GROUP MEMBER AND INTERDICTION UNIT MEMBER
email dmmb1@ptd.net or
fdimiceli@fop.net
January 28, 2006
This from the same
Supreme Court that gave us the Dangerfield case, although later
revised. I guess it's time to get a coffee, 8 hours of reading
material and a hiding spot, or start following the "drive, wave and
smile" type of patrol, it seems that's what they want us to do
anymore. At least we'll have a strong, new "law and order" AG to
lead us now.
-Disgusted in Ocean
County
January 28, 2006
A stink ought to be made
of this so the public knows what is at stake!
-Anonymous Atlantic
County Officer
January 28, 2006
I put some of the blame
on the AG's office for not arguing the other exceptions (consents,
plain view and automobile exception to warrant) but what do you
expect when Harvey is in charge.
-Anonymous
January 28, 2006
Unreal!!
Welcome to N.J., home of
out of control political corruption, sky rocketing property taxes, a
raped and pillaged pension system, and now this!!!!
What's next...water
pistols and station house adjustments for drug dealers and gang
members!
I hope your all good at
doing police work with one arm handcuffed behind our back!!
-B.J.T.
January 28, 2006
With the way New Jersey
Courts assists the criminals by making these ridiculous laws and
court rulings… What’s next? Soon, police officer’s won’t even have
the authority to search a person’s own pockets after they are
lawfully placed under arrest.
-C.D.
January 28, 2006
Makes me thank god I am
a cop in PA, hopefully they will never follow suit.
-Anonymous
January 28, 2006
I am the wife of a law
enforcement officer and this scares me.
-Anonymous
January 28, 2006
Can this be appealed or
are the law enforcement officers stuck with this for good?
-Anonymous
NJLawman.com Response: This ruling is permanent as it comes
from the New Jersey Supreme Court. The only way it could be
stricken is if the court were to do it themselves as they did in
State vs. Dangerfield.
January 28, 2006
Unfortunately, this
ruling was a result of an arrest in Upper Township, not a hot bed
for criminal activity. The real losers of this case will be the
Officers' working in crime ridden neighborhoods; whose daily life’s
are at risk. The people who interpret the laws live in their glass
houses, not having to deal with the daily gun fire and local drug
dealers trying to corrupt their kids. Once again, New Jersey’s State
Constitution works in favor for the criminals, not the law abiding
citizens. I can already see the defense lawyers schooling there
criminal clients on the new law. For that, New Jersey, Thank you. I
am glad someone is looking out for the criminals safety, not mine.
-A disgusted cop in NJ
January 28, 2006
A complete
disgrace....why don't we just hand our weapons over to those we
arrest.
-Anonymous
January 28, 2006
I see it now!
I was arrested and had
$50k in my car when the police towed it away. My money is now gone.
LAWSUIT!!! IA Investigation!!!
What a joke, because the
officer was prohibited from conducting a vehicle search. (albeit -
incident to arrest or inventory)
-Anonymous
January 28, 2006
I want to know if there
are any Judges out there who carry a police radio and responds to
arrest scenes to approve a warrant. I'm guessing 0.
-Anonymous
January 28, 2006
To all the braniac law
makers, thanks, I bet you don't live in New Jersey...
-Anonymous
January 28, 2006
Is it me, or is New
Jersey the worst state to be in Law Enforcement? Maybe it would be
nice to move to Florida or California.
-Very demoralized NJ
Police Officer
January 28, 2006
Couldn't disagree more
-Anonymous
January 28, 2006
I just don't get it. This court
seems to dislike law enforcement. 7 to 0?
I'm glad that I'm moving south in 3
years, 3 months, and 2 days but whose counting?
-Anonymous
