|
WHAT WERE YOU
CHARGED WITH?
New Jersey Criminal Lawyer
Home
NJ Criminal Law:
Criminal Charge
Resource Ctr.
NJ Appellate Opinions
Criminal Law Articles
NJ Criminal Law Blog
Criminal Lawyer
Bio
FREE Consultation
15% discount to new web
clients using this form
Contact Info/Office
Directions
HARK & HARK
New Jersey Criminal Lawyer
1101 Marlton Pike West
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
(866) 427-5529
Practicing in all NJ Counties
|
New Jersey Criminal Lawyer - Appellate Opinions
State v. Handy, 412 N.J.
Super. 492 (App. Div. 2010)
The facts in
the case before us are quite distinct from those in
Herring. Rather than a past clerical error, such as
neglecting to remove a no-longer valid warrant, the police
dispatcher in this case inaccurately reported to the police officer
in the field that there was an active warrant for Handy when, in
fact, there were significant discrepancies in the spelling of the
first name and the date of birth that were not reported at the same
time, thereby causing the arrest of the wrong person. Had the police
dispatcher reported the discrepancies at the same time as the
existence of the warrant, Drogo would have attempted to verify that
the warrant was for Handy before, rather than after, the arrest.
Inasmuch as he was never able to verify that the warrant was for
Handy, the arrest and the resulting search would not have taken
place.
The State's suggestion
on appeal that the warrant may actually have been for Handy is
simply not supported in the record. As previously noted, the date of
birth Handy gave to Drogo is the same date of birth reflected on the
pre-sentence report. In addition, the list of aliases in the
pre-sentence report does not include “Jermaine O. Handy,” the name
on the warrant.
The deterrent
value of applying the exclusionary rule in this case is, in our
view, quite significant, especially in contrast to the low value
under the factual circumstances before the Supreme Court in
Herring. The police dispatcher is the crucial link
between the officer in the field and police headquarters. The
officer depends on receiving the correct information from the
dispatcher, information such as whether there is or is not an
outstanding arrest warrant for the person with whom the officer is
then face to face. Misinformation either way has the potential to
leave the officer either unaware that he or she is dealing with a
dangerous criminal or arresting the wrong person.
The need to
avoid the former is obvious and clearly in the best interest of the
police officer in the field, the need to avoid the latter finds its
basis in the Fourth Amendment's protection of “[t]he right of the
people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures.” See also
N.J. Const. art. I, ¶ 7. The police officer in the field
and the citizen on the street both benefit from a police dispatch
system that is free of unreasonable conduct by dispatchers who fail
to ensure that they are providing the available information about
outstanding warrants as accurately and completely as possible.
Contact
experienced, aggressive
New Jersey criminal lawyer, Jeffrey Hark
Email Now or Call
1.866.427.5529
|
