• Offices:
  • Bensalem
  • Newtown
  • Doylestown
  • Bristol
  • Quakertown
  • Norristown
  • Bethlehem
Free Consultation | CALL OR TEXT: 215-642-2335
  • Home
  • Practice Areas
    • Car Accidents
    • Workers’ Compensation
    • Truck Accidents
    • Motorcycle Accidents
    • Slip And Fall Accidents
    • Nursing Home Neglect
    • Paraquat & Parkinson’s Lawsuit
      • Abogado litigante de paraquat y enfermedad de Parkinson
    • Defective Medical Devices
    • Defective Drugs
    • Pedestrian Accidents
    • Bicycle Accidents
    • AFFF Firefighting Foam
    • Zantac
    • 3M Military Earplugs
    • Injury Law in Bucks County
    • Others
  • About
    • Areas We Serve
  • Testimonials
  • Results
  • Resources
    • FAQs
    • Blog
    • Videos
    • Free Offers
    • Blog Archive
    • FAQs Archive
  • Union Relationships
    • FOP Lodge 5
    • Sheet Metal Local 19
    • PSEA Mideastern
    • Roofers Local 30
    • Laborers’ 57
  • Español
    • Paraquat
  • Contact
  • Show Search

NJ Police Need Reasonable Suspicion to Search Vehicle Without Warrant

· Oct 23, 2015 ·

Tweet
Share

This was a warrantless automobile search case. In State v. Carty, the NJ Supreme Court held that a police officer could not ask for consent to search a lawfully stopped vehicle or its occupants unless the officer had a “reasonable and articulable suspicion” that the occupants were engaged in criminal wrongdoing. In this case, the Court had to decide whether the principles of Carty extend to the occupants of a car disabled on the shoulder of a highway.

In the early morning hours of September 17, 2004, Trooper Sean O’Connor and Sergeant Ronald Klem were patrolling the New Jersey Turnpike in the area of Edison Township when they saw a disabled Lincoln Town Car on the side of the highway. Parked in front of it was a Honda Accord. At the scene, Anthony Graham and Marcellius Love were under the Lincoln attempting to reattach the gas tank. Michelle Elders and Tasha Jones were sitting on the guardrail, and Christopher Leach and Ronald Stanley were sleeping in the Honda.

As the troopers pulled up behind the Lincoln, they activated their video camera and audio equipment. Although Love signaled that everything was “okay”, the troopers approached the car. Concerned that “something wasn’t right”, Klem and O’Connor began asking questions. On the basis of the nervousness of some of the parties, the absence of a registered owner, and the suspicion aroused by the gas tank falling off the car, Klem gave O’Connor permission to request a consent search of the Lincoln. O’Connor asked Leach for his consent. After saying he would consent, Leach initially balked at giving written authorization. Approximately an hour-and-a-half after the troopers had stopped at the scene, Leach signed the consent form. O’Connor found cocaine and marijuana under the hood. All six persons were arrested. Thereafter, the troopers found what they believed to be crack cocaine on Elders. Stanley was carrying $8,000 in cash and Leach $3,000.

The six defendants were charged with first-degree conspiracy, first-degree possession of drugs with intent to distribute, and other lesser drug charges. Defendants moved to suppress the evidence seized by the troopers. The matter was heard by Superior Court Judge Frederick DeVesa. He concluded that State v. Carty applies to situations involving disabled vehicles and that based on the videotape and the testimony of the two troopers (the defendants did not testify at the hearing), the seized drugs and money were the product of an unconstitutional, warrantless search. He suppressed the evidence.

The State’s motion for leave to appeal to the Appellate Division was granted. Although that court agreed with Judge DeVesa that Carty applies to disabled vehicles, it concluded that in this case it owed “no special deference to [the trial court’s] factfinding” because the key evidence was the videotape and because there were no material factual disputes arising from the evidence. The Appellate Division reversed the suppression order, and the Supreme Court granted defendants’ motion for leave to appeal.

HELD: The “reasonable and articulable suspicion” standard of State v. Carty, 174 N.J. 351 (2002), which governs consent searches of cars that are validly stopped applies equally to disabled vehicles on the State’s roadways. In this case, the Court concludes that there was sufficient credible evidence in the record to support the trial judge’s findings that the troopers engaged in an unconstitutional investigatory detention and search.

Contact us for your FREE case evaluation!

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Looking for something?

View All Blog View All FAQs
Accessory Coverage for Motorcycle
Motorcycle Accidents,
Accessory Coverage for Motorcycle Continue Reading »
Are YOU fully Covered?
General,
Are YOU fully Covered? Continue Reading »
Brain Damage Claim & Brain Injury Compensation Claims in Southampton
Personal Injury,
Brain Damage Claim & Brain Injury Compensation Claims in Southampton Continue Reading »
Bus Driver at Fault
Bus Accidents,
Bus Driver at Fault Continue Reading »

Find a Competent
Lawyer Now!

  • Philadelphia Personal Injury Lawyer
  • Newtown Personal Injury Lawyer
  • Trevose Personal Injury Lawyer
  • Bensalem Personal Injury Lawyer
  • Bucks County Personal Injury Lawyer
  • Middletown Personal Injury Lawyer
  • Levittown Personal Injury Lawyer
  • Eddington Personal Injury Lawyer
  • Yardley Personal Injury Lawyer
  • Quakertown Personal Injury Lawyer
  • Bensalem Lawyer

Contact Us Now!

Please fill out the quick contact form below for a fast and free case consultation. We will contact you within 24 hours!

    • What can we help you with*?
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

About Us

The nationally recognized and award-winning team of attorneys at Cordisco & Saile, LLC protect residents of Pennsylvania and New Jersey who have been injured in an accident from the tricks and tactics of the insurance companies. Call us today to learn more about your legal rights, and see what we can do to get your life back to the way it was.

Follow Us

Quick Links

  • Injury Law Practice Areas
  • Blog
  • FAQs
  • Testimonials
  • Results
  • Contact
  • Privacy
  • Sitemap
  • Disclaimer

Office Locations

  • Bensalem
  • Newtown-Langhorne
  • Doylestown
  • Bristol
  • Quakertown
  • Bethlehem
  • Norristown
  • Phone: 215-642-2335
  • Email: info@cordiscosaile.com
© 2019 Cordisco & Saile LLC, All Rights Reserved.
Tweet
Share

Copyright © 2022 · Monochrome Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

  • Bensalem
  • Newtown-Langhorne
  • Doylestown
  • Bristol
  • Quakertown
  • Bethlehem
  • Norristown
  • Phone: 215-642-2335
  • Email: info@cordiscosaile.com