Supreme Court of New Jersey Rules to Allow Police to Search Cars Without a Warrant

[JamesL]

Trenton, NJ — In 2009, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that police could only violate your 4th Amendment rights by warrantlessly searching you, if they prove two key factors first. Those two key factors, or two-pronged test, required both probable cause and a reason to believe evidence might disappear, or the safety of the officer or public would be at risk if the search were delayed to obtain a warrant.

However, on Thursday, the court overturned its meager rights-protecting decision from 2009. In an ominous 5-2 decision, the state Supreme Court gave police even more power and opportunity to violate the rights of the citizens.

The court’s decision stemmed from a case in which a Salem County man was found with an ‘illegal’ handgun after he was pulled over for his headlights being too bright.

William L. Witt was pulled over on Route 48 in Carneys Point in December 2012 after he approached a police officer with his high beams on and “failed to dim” as he passed. After speaking with Witt, the officer concluded he was intoxicated, performed a field sobriety test and placed him under arrest, according to NJ.com.

After arresting Witt for an alleged DUI, police officers then illegally searched his car without a warrant and without Witt’s consent. During this unlawful search, police found an unregistered handgun.

Citing the 2009 decision, Witt fought to suppress the fact that he merely wanted to protect himself with a handgun by claiming that the police performed an unreasonable search in violation of the state and federal constitutions.

In May of 2014, New Jersey officials, still showing some semblance of protecting the rights of the people, ruled that the officer did not meet the “exigent circumstances” needed to violate the rights of Witt.

However, that constitutional decision would be short-lived. On Thursday, police were give the authority to search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe there is contraband or evidence of a crime as long as the circumstances that led to the probable cause are unforeseeable and spontaneous.

In other words, cops in New Jersey, can now make up any reason they want to search your private property.

“One can only wonder why the State and the majority of this Court find it appropriate to turn from the progressive approach historically taken in this State to privacy and constitutional rights of motorists,” Justice Jaynee LaVecchia wrote in her dissent.

The door has once again been left wide open for abuse by police in searching vehicles. With the billions stolen annually from innocent people in the name of civil asset forfeiture, does it seem like a good idea to give police even more powerto violate the rights of the citizens?

Perhaps the five judges who voted in favor of warrantless searches wanted a raise.

In an Orwellian fashion, acting Attorney General John Hoffman says the ruling achieves an appropriate balance between protecting constitutional rights and public safety.

Those who support this ridiculous breach of the privacy of citizens have taken to the internet by repeating the call of the slave, “If you aren’t doing anything illegal, you have nothing to worry about.”

But what they really mean is, “Why have any rights at all? Rights must only be for criminals.”

Share this article with your friends and family in hopes of stopping other states from adopting this rights-violating policy.

http://sostrenews.com/supreme-court...llow-police-to-search-cars-without-a-warrant/

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

As I recall the federal courts have taken essentially the same position on warrantless auto searches. If you are caught with contraband in your car, you probably do not have much of a constitutional argument. However, never give consent to such a search. If you do, then you have no case at all. If you refuse consent, the police will search the car anyway, but at least you preserve the probable cause argument. People often worry that they will look guilty if they refuse to consent to a warrantless search. Tell them your lawyer told you never to consent. If they are asking for consent, they are going to search your car no matter what you tell them, so you have nothing to lose by politely refusing.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Fourth Amendment search and seizure cases have provoked much controversy because they involve two important and sometimes competing factors, freedom from government overreach and freedom from crime. In general, the courts have extended comprehensive protection against warrantless searches only to dwellings. The only real exceptions are hot pursuit or obviously exigent circumstances. Another exception is plain view. if something can be seen from the street, then it is in plain view and no warrant is needed.

One unusual case in Maryland involved a pot grow house that was run into by a runaway car, which knocked down a wall and exposed the contraband inside. The occupants claimed the plain view doctrine was not applicable in light of the way the contraband came into view, but the court ruled against them.

You have the least constitutional protection when you are out in public. The police have the right to conduct a limited stop and frisk search with no warrant or probable cause at all. This policy has become very controversial in NYC for example, but it has been allowed by the courts. There is implied consent to a full search when you do certain things, such as board an airplane. When crossing international borders, you have no rights at all.

Courts have struggled with auto searches, as they are in a gray area between residences and being a pedestrian in public. Some of you will recall the scene in Breaking Bad where the DEA was trying to search the meth lab in an RV and Saul the lawyer told them to resist the search on the grounds that it was equivalent to a house. Only on wheels.

For better or worse, the courts have given vehicles next to no protection against warrantless searches, at least if they are out on public highways. The police have a laundry list of acceptable grounds for probable cause, eg they smelled dope, the vehicle sat low on its springs, drivers acting nervous, etc etc. As the OP noted, cops often use this ruse in asset forfeiture scams.

 

[globuli]

As I understand it, a cop can search your car if he has probable cause. Absent probable cause, the cop has to obtain permission from the driver. A search conducted without permission is generally illegal and such a search that yields evidence of criminal activity would cause a judge to squash the evidence.

From lawyers.com:

"Searches after Motorists are Stopped
When evidence is taken from a car by police after a motorist has been stopped, the issue of whether that evidence can be used against the driver in a later criminal trial turns on:

• The validity of the police officer’s stop of the motorist, and
• Whether the facts and circumstances of the stop provide an exception to the warrant requirement

With respect to vehicles, there is less strict enforcement of the warrant requirement because:

• The mobile nature of automobiles creates exigent circumstances — situations that require immediate action, and
• A person’s expectation of privacy with respect to his or her car is lower than the expectation of privacy with respect to his or her home

Nevertheless, it is likely that there must be strict compliance with the warrant requirements for the search of a car that is parked on private property and there are no exigent circumstances indicating that there is not enough time to obtain a valid search warrant and still ensure that evidence is not destroyed.

In addition, there is an important distinction between the ability of the police to stop and seize a moving vehicle and the right of the police to approach and request information from the driver or passengers of a stationary vehicle:

• When a car is stationary, an officer does not have to have a reasonable suspicion to approach it. The police can exercise their rights to inquire, that is, the right to approach and request information
• When a car is momentarily stopped, for example, at a traffic light, but is otherwise in the general flow of traffic, the car is not “stationary” for these purposes"