|
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.
Pompa, 414 N.J. Super. 219 (App. Div. 2010)
The State had the burden of demonstrating exigent circumstances and
its failure in this regard is revealed by the Trooper's testimony.
During cross-examination at the suppression hearing, Trooper
Budrewicz admitted defendant's vehicle was incapable of being moved
because he was in possession of defendant's keys; common sense
strongly suggested it was not likely another person with another set
of keys was in the vicinity. In addition, the Trooper admitted he
could have had the vehicle towed to a safe location while he applied
for a warrant prior to conducting a search beyond the scope of the
administrative inspection:
Q: But you
could have towed [the truck] to Perryville station, secured it
there, and gotten a warrant, or you could have left it there, or
called a detective, or called the [prosecutor's] office and said
I've got probable cause to search this thing, get me a warrant....
A: I could
have done that but I had plain smell.
And, when asked why he
decided to search instead of first obtaining a warrant, the officer
insisted: “I don't need a warrant
*236
with probable cause.” Again,
Pena-Flores requires more than probable cause; exigent
circumstances are also required.
Contact
experienced, aggressive
New Jersey criminal lawyer, Jeffrey Hark
Email Now or Call
1.866.427.5529
|
