N.J. court tells police limits on car searches don't apply to homes

Star-Ledger Staff ^ | Thursday, September 21, 2006 | BY ROBERT SCHWANEBERG

[Focault's Pendulum]

In New Jersey, one's home is not one's castle after all. The real castle, it turns out, is the car.

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled 4-3 yesterday that police do not need a reason to ask permission to search someone's home.

The same court four years ago issued rules saying police must have a good reason before asking motorists if they can search their cars.

Yesterday the court said the rules for cars -- which prohibit police from asking motorists if they can conduct a search unless they have "a reasonable and articulable suspicion" of criminal activity -- are designed specifically to combat racial profiling on the state's highways and do not apply to searches of homes.

[Focault's Pendulum]

This appears to be a rather convoluted ruling...but what the hell...I live here..I should be used to it by now.

To read the article on NJ.COM it will ask you for zip code, age and gender.(yeah, I told the truth!) Nothing personal but it does set a cookie....easily deleted in Tools/Options. cookie is nj.com

[Smogger]

http://www.bugmenot.com/view/nj.com

[steveo]

A judge found Domicz invited the detectives in out of the rain and eventually signed a form giving them permission to search his house.

Well duh.

[steveegg]

This would be the same Kangaroo Court that said that the 'RATS and only the 'RATS can replace candidates after filing deadlines at will. I'm not the least bit surprised, and won't exactly be shocked (but I will be shocked, SHOCKED) when they do the same thing to the cars.

[Gay State Conservative]

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled 4-3 yesterday that police do not need a reason to ask permission to search someone's home.

In some little cubicle down at ACLU Headquarters,a lawyer is wetting his/her/its pants right now.

[Myrddin]

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled 4-3 yesterday that police do not need a reason to ask permission to search someone's home.

The police need a warrant before they can enter the premises. If you invite them inside, all bets are off. When a police officer asks if they can step inside my home, I politely decline and step outside to speak with them.

[Jaysun]

I was pulled over two days ago in Tennessee for speeding. The officer gave me my ticket (after a long delay) and asked if I had any weapons or drugs in the vehicle. I said no. He asked if it were okay if he searched. I said no. He then insisted on having his dog walk around the outside of the vehicle, after which he said that something was indeed found and another unit was on the way to assist him.

He ordered me out of the car, searched me, and proceeded to search the vehicle. This took him about 30 minutes. Upon finding nothing he said I was free to go.

I was irate. I pulled over for the smug bastard for speeding. I cooperated with him and was very pleasant. Yet he insisted on searching my vehicle for drugs and kept me on the side of the highway for more than an hour. When he was finished I commented that he may need to have his dog checked. He smirked and drove off. I suspect his dog "found something" in order to justify a further search.

[Focault's Pendulum]

Actually I think the knock/hello can we come in...has shot the hell out of probable cause.

I think there's something in the Constitution about unlawful search and seizure. The last two paragraphs intimate that such coercive tactics approach the line.

[ps2]

Isn't it amazing that out of the abudance of political correctness the court's ruling effectively hinders the war on terror...preventing the search of those potentially moving dangerous and or lethal material?

[dontpethesweatythings]

Shelby County?

BTW, DO NOT SPEED IN TN.

[Morgan in Denver]

Can NJ Democrats replace their soon to be indicted candidate with Hugo Chavez? He would seem to be a natural there.

[calex59]

The police need a warrant before they can enter the premises. If you invite them inside, all bets are off. When a police officer asks if they can step inside my home, I politely decline and step outside to speak with them.

This ruling only says they don't have to have a reason to ASK to search. It doesn't say they don't have to have a warrent to search without permission. Just refuse if they ask. Don't invite them inside, don't sign any agreements to allow searches. IOW, protect your constitutional rights as you should always have been doing.

There is nothing particularly sinister about this ruling.

[Gay State Conservative]

I think I've read that there's at least one financial incentive for police to find drugs in a situation like yours.I think they get to keep the car or something like that.

If I'm correct (and any lawyer who might read this will set me straight if I'm not) you've got your motive for the search,IMO.

[Jaysun]

Shelby County?
BTW, DO NOT SPEED IN TN.

I don't know. It was in Fayetteville, just across the Alabama state line. I did speed and I took my ticket, but beyond that this was absurd.

[spudsmaki]

You are right. Everybody view the video on youtube.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3NmC5wHfCdM

Flex your rights. The ACLU isn't completely worthless, they have done a couple of useful things.

nj.com also sets a javascript string in the browser cache for tracking.

[ThinkDifferent]

Isn't it amazing that out of the abudance of political correctness the court's ruling effectively hinders the war on terror...preventing the search of those potentially moving dangerous and or lethal material?

If the 4th Amendment has any meaning at all then yes, some bad guys are going to get away. I'd rather accept that risk than live in a police state.

[DelphiUser]

I hate to say this (don’s asbestos underwear) but I agree with the court on this.

They should be able to ASK (politely).

May we search your house, pretty please with cream and sugar on it?

You should be able to ask for anything (this is a free country) for example:

Q. can I have all of your money please?
A. No, get away from me!

See asking is not the problem, demanding, not asking but just doing, those I have a problem with.

(Any resemblance to humor in this post was entirely intentional)

[Jaysun]

I think I've read that there's at least one financial incentive for police to find drugs in a situation like yours.I think they get to keep the car or something like that.

If I'm correct (and any lawyer who might read this will set me straight if I'm not) you've got your motive for the search,IMO.

If that's true then I'm perfectly willing and able to sue the sons a bitches to get it changed. An incentive? Give me a damned break. I was in suit and tie with a baby seat in the rear. I'm as far as one can get from a typical dope user / pusher.

[ladyrustic]

What an a$$hole LEO. Cops think they can get away with anything, and unfortunately, too often they do. That jerk was just making your life miserable because you declined his request to search your car, pure and simple.

[Jaysun]

What an a$$hole LEO. Cops think they can get away with anything, and unfortunately, too often they do. That jerk was just making your life miserable because you declined his request to search your car, pure and simple.

And what is my recourse? I'd spend thousands to set the bastard straight.

[Centurion2000]

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled 4-3 yesterday that police do not need a reason to ask permission to search someone's home.

So the New Jersey judicial system is now advocating writs of assistance? My God how we have fallen.

[Centurion2000]

If you invite them inside, all bets are off. When a police officer asks if they can step inside my home, I politely decline and step outside to speak with them.

Vampires are like that too.

[Renegade]

I live here too, in the People's Republic of Zoo Jersey . The corruption in this state is worst in the country . The police act like the Gestapo. The actions of law enforcement in New Jersey have given me a bad taste and a total lack of respect for the job they do. BTW, they don't PROTECT you from harm, they only TRY to find out who harmed you.

[MrNJ]

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled 4-3 yesterday that police do not need a reason to ask permission to search someone's home.

It's worth stressing that the police still needs to ask permission unless they have a warrant.

All in all, this decision actually makes sense, unlike most other decisions by our crazy supreme court.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

When he was finished I commented that he may need to have his dog checked. He smirked and drove off. I suspect his dog "found something" in order to justify a further search.

Happens all the time. You will NOT successfully balk a police officer if he really wants to screw with you. The best you can hope for is he's just an @sshole, not a corrupt @sshole.

In that case, you're going to need a VERY good lawyer and a lot of cash.

[Focault's Pendulum]

There is nothing particularly sinister about this ruling.

Oh yes there is. NJ Supreme Court has made it official...

This is a two edged sword.

The ruling was a battle about police accused of racial profiling by making stops on the NJ Turnpike.

As a sop to the liberals (What??!!?? NJ Liberal!!??) this has the opportunity to turn any race baiter into an unpaid informant on their neighbor.

There are wheels within wheels on this ruling..and please believe me..I don't spin conspiracies.

[Gay State Conservative]

If that's true then I'm perfectly willing and able to sue the sons a bitches to get it changed. An incentive? Give me a damned break. I was in suit and tie with a baby seat in the rear. I'm as far as one can get from a typical dope user / pusher.

Rest assured that I'm not defending what they did.All I'm doing is suggesting why they might have done it.Of course,if my assumption about the financial incentive is wrong,then my theory goes out the window.

Never having been a cop,I haven't the foggiest idea of how they think.

[preacher]

When police ask you to do something while you are being detained most people don't consider that just a request. They consider it an order.

After all you are being detained against your will by someone in a uniform wearing a gun. (Color Of Law)

[thoughtomator]

That's the drug war for you... completely unaccountable police action where the law provides an incentive for them to steal your property.

[MarcusTulliusCicero]

It's called civil forfeiture. Same thing that allows them to seize accused drug dealers' homes, cars, boats or other property. It doesn't require a court ruling for them to be able to do it. And, in order to get it reversed, the burden of proof is yours. All sanctioned by SCOTUS, of course.

[Coleus]

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled 4-3 yesterday that police do not need a reason to ask permission to search someone's home.

"The Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures and against coerced waivers of constitutional rights," Albin wrote. "It does not disallow voluntary cooperation with the police." >>>

I guess if you're a criminal and are dumb enough to sign a waiver for the cops to come in and search, then you should get arrested.

[dinasour]

> In that case, you're going to need a VERY good lawyer and a lot of cash.

Just don't have the cash with you. They may take it in a "civil forfeiture".

[Focault's Pendulum]

Wallace added that the Supreme Court of Washington state declared in 1998 that "any knock and talk is coercive to some degree" and required police to warn occupants they have a right to deny the police entry. Wallace added that the Supreme Court of Washington state declared in 1998 that "any knock and talk is coercive to some degree" and required police to warn occupants they have a right to deny the police entry./

Albin countered that unlike a motorist stopped on the road and threatened with a traffic citation, someone who is at home "can send the police away without fear of immediate repercussions."

Buckman said having five detectives show up on one's doorstep is "every bit if not more coercive than a car search." When courts allow that, he added, "we've got a problem with the privacy of our homes."

Albin countered that unlike a motorist stopped on the road and threatened with a traffic citation, someone who is at home "can send the police away without fear of immediate repercussions."

Buckman said having five detectives show up on one's doorstep is "every bit if not more coercive than a car search." When courts allow that, he added, "we've got a problem with the privacy of our homes."

[ARealMothersSonForever]

He then insisted on having his dog walk around the outside of the vehicle, after which he said that something was indeed found and another unit was on the way to assist him.

"But if you do not have anything to hide, why complain". The drug warriors will be here shortly to beat you down and show the error of your ways. BTW, in the event that you are so detained in the future and requested to get out of your vehicle; may I suggest that you ask to go before a magistrate. The time involved is about the same. And your name does not get "in the book". Every NCIC check from this point forward will reflect your misfortune. Unless you take action at your own expense. Good luck.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Just don't have the cash with you. They may take it in a "civil forfeiture".

No MAY to it. If you have more money than the cop thinks you deserve to have, he's taking it. You can bet on that.

[calex59]

As long as they still need a warrent. Asking is not the same as searching. I didn't want to read the whole ruling so maybe I missed something. However, if the ruling only says they can aks without a reason, and they could always ask, and not SEARCH without a reason or a warrent, then it isn't too bad. As I said, maybe I missed something. Personally, I never give permission for search of either my house or car.

[ARealMothersSonForever]

I guess if you're a criminal and are dumb enough to sign a waiver for the cops to come in and search, then you should get arrested.

Two words. "Implied consent". May you never have to deal with them. Yet it seems that everyone that encounters law enforcement is guilty until they can prove otherwise, for some folks.

[pandoraou812]

The police entered my house when I had them called on me for having an outside fireplace. My front door was unlocked and I saw the lights from their cars so I walked to the front of my house. There I met with the fire capt and he and I walked thru my back gate. I thought the cop would follow but nope he walked thru my house, checked out my sons rooms and then walked down my back steps to the backyard. I asked him what right he had to come into my house and he said I am allowed to walk into your house as your front door was unlocked!! I didnt get in trouble for having the fireplace and I made sure to get a letter from the fire capt saying so as my neighbors hate my fireplace. I wanted to ask for the badge # of the cop but as we have 3 HD's in the garage I figured we would be targeted each time we rode. Now I keep all doors locked.

[Focault's Pendulum]

As long as they still need a warrent. Asking is not the same as searching. I didn't want to read the whole ruling so maybe I missed something. However, if the ruling only says they can aks without a reason, and they could always ask, and not SEARCH without a reason or a warrent, then it isn't too bad. As I said, maybe I missed something. Personally, I never give permission for search of either my house or car.

I'm gonna think real hard about what you just said.

[mrsmith]

"And what is my recourse? I'd spend thousands "

It's free to file an administrative complaint, or contest the ticket and complain to the judge. That keeps this behavior down.

Of course since you were "not from around here" the cop wasn't worried about that.

[meyer]

He ordered me out of the car, searched me, and proceeded to search the vehicle. This took him about 30 minutes. Upon finding nothing he said I was free to go.

I'd certainly consider getting a lawyer. Trumped-up false dog-sniffing BS isn't probably cause - it's harassment.

[packrat35]

Standard practice in TN for out-of-state drivers. Were you on I-40? They call it the drug corridor.

They always claim the dog senses something as an excuse to search if you refuse. I agree its BS. Especially bad if you got Texas tags.

[Focault's Pendulum]

"The Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures and against coerced waivers of constitutional rights,"

Let's think Tax assessors

[JoeFromSidney]

And what is my recourse? I'd spend thousands to set the bastard straight.

Sitting on a jury is free (well, you do lose time and pay). But when the cop is on the witness stand, or better yet the defendant, there's your chance for revenge.

I'm really surprised that cops go out of their way to piss off the kind of people who sit on juries.

[Thinkin' Gal]

Thread of interest ping.

[Jaysun]

Happens all the time. You will NOT successfully balk a police officer if he really wants to screw with you. The best you can hope for is he's just an @sshole, not a corrupt @sshole.

In that case, you're going to need a VERY good lawyer and a lot of cash.

In terms of lawyers I've the best the SE has to offer. In terms of cash I have perhaps $150,000 for this prick. I'm not sure he's worth more.

[Jaysun]

Rest assured that I'm not defending what they did.All I'm doing is suggesting why they might have done it.Of course,if my assumption about the financial incentive is wrong,then my theory goes out the window.

Never having been a cop,I haven't the foggiest idea of how they think.

Understood. Some are simply overcome with a sense of "power".

[ARealMothersSonForever]

They always claim the dog senses something

That is the truth. Something that most US citizens are unaware of is that the dogs are trained in a foreign language. I posit that if the judge or magistrate does not speak German or Czech, he does not know what the dog is hitting on. Therefore, the handler is the arbiter of justice on the roadside; and in your house. How can a citizen be reasonably expected to interview (face the accusation) of a dog that is trained in a foreign language?

[Jaysun]

It's called civil forfeiture. Same thing that allows them to seize accused drug dealers' homes, cars, boats or other property. It doesn't require a court ruling for them to be able to do it. And, in order to get it reversed, the burden of proof is yours. All sanctioned by SCOTUS, of course.

The SCOTUS should be burn to rubble in my rather irrational and humble view.

[Jaysun]

"But if you do not have anything to hide, why complain". The drug warriors will be here shortly to beat you down and show the error of your ways. BTW, in the event that you are so detained in the future and requested to get out of your vehicle; may I suggest that you ask to go before a magistrate. The time involved is about the same. And your name does not get "in the book". Every NCIC check from this point forward will reflect your misfortune. Unless you take action at your own expense. Good luck.

Thanks for the advice. I hope to never have to use it.