NJ Supreme Court: Police Don’t Need Warrant To Search Your Car
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that they can search you car without a warrant.
The case stems from a man who was charged with illegal possession of a handgun that was found during a routine traffic stop in 2012. William L. Witt was pulled over on a local highway after failing to turn off his high beam headlights when approaching an officer. After a filed sobriety test, the officer determined that Witt was intoxicated and searched his car for alcohol, subsequently finding the handgun. A state appeals court found in May that the officers lacked the “exigent circumstances” required of the officer by the 2009 New Jersey Supreme Court case State v. Pena-Flores [NJ.com report]. A controversial decision by the court, it was overturned with [last] week’s ruling.
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
28 responses to NJ Supreme Court: Police Don’t Need Warrant To Search Your Car
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Larry Schmitt September 28th, 2015 at 07:02
The link is broken.
Andrea Latham September 28th, 2015 at 08:09
A Way To Get Paid $97/hour And More…….After earning an average of 19952 Dollars monthly,I’m finally getting 97 Dollars an hour,just working 4-5 hours daily online.….. Weekly paycheck… Bonus opportunities…earn upto $16k to $19k /a month……….Only a few hour required to understand and start working…….look over here …
.ab.
➤➤➤ http://GoogleTopCareersGetMillionsFinancialJobs/get/morethan$97/h…
✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥✥
allison1050 September 28th, 2015 at 07:31
And of course this will be challenged?
JimmyPete September 28th, 2015 at 07:49
not unless it is taken to a Federal Court, up till now Jersey Law was more restrictive of Police Power than Federal Interpretation. A State can have a broader view of it’s own search and seizure law usually set forth in the State Constitution than the US Supreme Court, a State can’t have a less restrictive view of Governmental Power ie less “liberal” than the Supremes, for a while Jersey was saying except in exigent circumstances Police need to get at least a phone warrant to search a vehicle, no more , guy is out of the car , and the cop is in.
allison1050 September 28th, 2015 at 10:16
Glad I don’t reside there.
William September 28th, 2015 at 09:01
It’s a moot point. Until recently “search pursuant to arrest” was the norm. The logic that searching a car for weapons AFTER a person was arrested made no sense. IE a person in handcuffs is not likely to use a weapon. So some jurisdictions stopped doing that.
There is a loophole. (sometimes)
When an officer arrests you, he has your car towed. It is prudent, and often department policy to inventory the contents of the vehicle.
viola.
Using the “exigent circumstances” exception seems silly.
Budda September 28th, 2015 at 09:19
Good explanation
Jimmy Fleck September 28th, 2015 at 10:12
What does a viola have to do with it? Surely that is not considered a weapon is it? :p
William September 28th, 2015 at 11:02
Google “plain sight doctrine”
Jimmy Fleck September 28th, 2015 at 11:36
Google “Voila” vs. “Viola” :)
William September 28th, 2015 at 13:30
“touché”. (you got me)
Jimmy Fleck September 28th, 2015 at 14:28
ha- i love the “touche” response. I only commented because I have two daughters that play the viola and it struck me as funny. Have a nice day.
William September 28th, 2015 at 17:27
Thanks. I was going to answer with “Too-shay” …and wow, that’s not an easy instrument to hold much less play. Congrats, those girls chose a path much less traveled.
robert September 28th, 2015 at 23:05
if the cops get you on a DUI your pretty much toast. searching the car ( possibly for open alcohol ) is almost the norm. Had this dude been pulled over for DWB i would be in his corner 100%
just saying…
William September 28th, 2015 at 23:11
There are exceptions. IE a locked brief case. A weapon or prohibited substance is fair game in plain sight. There is however a reasonable expectation of privacy in a locked container. Sadly so many people agree to a consent search because they think they are required to.
robert September 28th, 2015 at 23:19
in my state ( not even close to NJ ) it falls under reasonable suspicion and since he failed the sobriety test ( which he could have refused ) THEN you have some leverage Since he admitted guilt and took the test your at the mercy of a roadside inspection.
oh sh*t im starting to sound like a hard a** cop
William September 29th, 2015 at 12:53
Fouth amendment rights do not go away because of a field sobriety test or a spontaneous confession
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Ross
robert September 29th, 2015 at 22:56
all im saying is this dude should have signed for the high beams and called it a day. If the cop wanted to take anything further including searching the car ? those actions will be held against him in court.
Im almost sure since the driver decided to take the sobriety test he’s at least going to be convicted because as i said before he surrendered his rights and took the breath test.
William September 29th, 2015 at 23:28
In my state refusal to submit to tests is actually evidence. Further refusal to submit to an “intoxilizer” test will result in a suspension. We have an impled consesnt law.
robert September 29th, 2015 at 23:46
driving with high beams isn’t against the law and its not probable cause for DUI . Ive talked to friends who have beat the rap because they didn’t surrender their rights and the officers past conduct is fair game too in court. If he has a past for writing bogus ticket,profiling or all around bad conduct ? this is all beneficial to the accused.
William September 30th, 2015 at 08:25
Actually it is against the law.
http://njtrafficfines.com/statute.php?statute_id=29
39:3-60 whenever the driver of a vehicle approaches an oncoming vehicle within five hundred feet, such driver shall use a distribution of light or composite beam so aimed that the glaring rays are not projected into the eyes of the oncoming driver, (fifty four dollar fine).
Driving with high beams on when not appropriate is one of the indicators of possible OUI. There is a chart which lists improper driving actions that may be indicators. The chart is most valid on Friday and Saturday nights. It lists in percentage points actions such as weaving, wide turns, straddling the white line etc. As I recall high beams was in there ….BUT
The suspect was not stopped for OUI, he was stopped for high beams. An officer can stop a subject for any traffic infraction, including, something as menial as a burnt out license plate light. Make no mistake, you are a lot more likely to get stopped for a bad tail light at midnight on Saturday night than you are on a Tuesday early evening. After the stop, the officer develops articulable suspicion . Glassy eyes, slurred speech, smell of alcohol and so forth. Then comes probable cause which is usually developed around field sobriety test results.
One of the interesting questions asked of me by a defense attorney concerning one of my OUI cases that originated with a license plate light stop
“Considering the number of drunk driver cases you have that grew from license plate lights, how many tickets have you written for that infraction”?
My reply was of course “none”. That’s something I put in the warning catagory
robert September 30th, 2015 at 23:01
it sounds like you were fair with traffic stops Other people i know have had anything from the felony stop treatment to offering sex ( female driver ) and he will forget about the ticket.
As a matter of fact i went to court with her and she told the judge the all the sexual gestures the officer told her to preform and 2 months later he was gone ( resigned before prosecution ) so there is a few good reasons to go to court no matter how bad the situation might seem.
William October 1st, 2015 at 09:08
I think I always complied with the law, but on OUI’s I was ruthless. Statistically 1 in 10 operators between the hours of 11 PM and 1AM on Friday and Saturday nights are impaired. My job was to find ten vehicles and ten legal reasons to stop them. Quite honestly I don’t care about license plate lights. The goal was to stop the vehicle get a quick “sniff”, politely advise the operator to get the defect fixed then quickly move on to the next one. Although it would appear that this frenzy of traffic stops was some sort of obsession to arrest a drunk it wasn’t.
The purpose, at least as I saw it, was to find that drunk and put him somewhere else before he could hurt him/herself and/or someone else. A jail cot is better than a hospital bed or a morgue slab.
I am familiar with crooked cops, but I think they are the minority. Years ago I stopped a vehicle from another state. I approached the vehicle and the operator handed me a gold card. This thing was actually made of metal and advised me that the operator was an immediate family member of a police officer. In Maine it’s a misdemeanor to in any way tamper with a traffic ticket. Even the Chief of police is committing a crime if he tells you to ditch one.
Anyway. I wrote the gentleman a (reduced) ticket for speeding. At the end of my shift I was advised by my dispatcher to contact an officer in another state. I didn’t think twice, as tips are passed around like this often.
The caller was the son of the guy I ticketed. He advised me, and I quote “No matter where you are you can be reached”.
fahvel September 29th, 2015 at 04:36
hay, not violas, it’s voila! :-)
Buford2k11 September 28th, 2015 at 10:22
the “Judge Dredd” era has begun…
rg9rts September 29th, 2015 at 15:12
I see a supreme court decision on this one
Elliot J. Stamler September 29th, 2015 at 15:38
You know it is pretty dumb to drive with a weapon in plain sight.
Budda September 30th, 2015 at 09:08
I lived in Jersey once ( along time ago ) they have hardass cops because they have hardass people