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.

[HamiltonJay]

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.

Well then, since we know a disproportionate number of crimes occur in urban minority neighborhoods, then Cops can begin going door to door there and asking to search.... Clean up a ton of crime quickly... let the sweeps begin.

[Focault's Pendulum]

Well then, since we know a disproportionate number of crimes occur in urban minority neighborhoods, then Cops can begin going door to door there and asking to search.... Clean up a ton of crime quickly... let the sweeps begin.

While the logic in what you say has merit...allowing that will also permit your home and mine to be coercively affronted without probable cause ad infinitum.

This is, as I have mentioned before, a double edged sword.

[Myrddin]

How often does a police officer ask to step inside your home?

Already answered. Read the thread.

[sure_fine]

"I suspect the American Communist Liberties Union will remain noticeably silent on this one, as it may appear to dilute the protection of civil liberties for minorities if they extend those liberties to everyone's home -- just as they are conspicuously silent in defending the Second Amendment."




aclu feels that no minority can own a home, they rent, so all negative responsibility goes to whitey landowner

[verity]

Actually your reply did not answer my specific question. However, it clarified your mindset.

[Flash Bazbeaux]

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

Well, the basic rule for a long, long, time regarding any searches is that PERMISSION to search makes the search lawful. The rule that the police need a good reason to ASK PERMISSION has never been part of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence that I am aware of. So this ruling is not eroding anyone's rights. All the party being asked for PERMISSION needs to do is "Just Say No."

[MotleyGirl70]

New Josey ping!

[stevie_d_64]

I guess I don;t tlike the part where they asked you if you had Weapons or Drugs in the car...

To which (knowing what is coming next) I would state to the trooper...

"To which are you implying? A weapon? Or Drugs?"

Both (separated) are not indicative of anything probably to a criminal activity...Even when combined, you may be on prescription medication and also be legally carrying a firearm for lawful purposes...

I am glad you did not concent to a search, and put the burn on them...It was going to happen anyway...So you handled it well...I would continue to do so as you file a complaint to their department...

Don't blame the dog...Most of those pups are just glad to get out and do something...Not their fault...

Good luck, sorry that happened to you...Keep us posted...

[Myrddin]

Actually your reply did not answer my specific question. However, it clarified your mindset.

My wife works for the police department. We mix and mingle with the officers on a regular basis. Having visitors in my house is difficult enough with 3 Rat Terriers and a couple Maine Coon cats running around. Still I choose not to have an open door policy. I have a TS clearance. It's not a matter of not obeying the law.

[Cagey]

Lucky me.

[Hegemony Cricket]

What would the law be for a mobile home? Would it depend on whether you had the wheels off or not?

[Jotmo]

Agreed. This is really nothing new. They've always been able to ask. And we can always say no, and they'll just find a way around it anyway (My dog smells something.) just like they always have.

The headline is extremely misleading.

[lepton]

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."

Is not.

Is too.

Is not.

Is too.

[RobRoy]

Nothing here really. It doesn't say whether they can search it or not. It just says they don't have to have a reason to ask. They still have to have permission to enter, either from the occupant or by way of a search warrant.

With a car, that is not so.

[RobRoy]

I was in until he found the drugs. I lost sympathy at that point.

[lepton]

The Constitution says they need a warrant. Anything less than that is unacceptable.

They need a warrant to ask permission?

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

"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."

Yes, it's called asset forfeiture, and it's been going on for several decades now. It is a major source of revenue for cops and was honed to an art form in the '90s.

And it isn't necessary for anything especially nasty to be "found." If more than a few thousand dollars in cash is found, for example, it is presumed to be drug-related and confiscated. I'm not kidding: there is no presumption of innocence since the cash is what's suspicious. The cash becomes the defendant... and you will never see it back. Many folks have lost their life's savings this way. It is not an urban legend. Google on "asset forfeiture" if you want a real scare.

[mysterio]

The Constitution says they need a warrant to enter at all. I know judges have given them many ways to subvert inconvenient Constitutional protections.

[tiger-one]

As of 2005 we did not have ticket quotas. My lie statement came from a U.S Supreme decision, is applicable more in felony investigations.

You are correct about playing games. If there are ticket quotas, you can find a stop sign and "work it" for hours and write many "fail to stop" tickets. Same with speeding on the interstate, limit 65, stop and write all going 72. Most are booking 80, which was my boogie for stop.

You have never lived, until went from zero to 80 plus, to execute a stop, from an interstate cross over, in a Ford CV Police Interceptor. The car is a POS

[meyer]

Lawyers cost money. The guy lost a half hour of his life. What is that worth? Maybe a couple of sawbucks? It will cost him thousands of dollars and maybe months off his life to pursue this matter. I say get over it.

Yes, and unfortunately, the police will continue this type of tactic on plenty of others as a result of this citizen failing to stand up for himself. The situation described by this poster dictates that this cop needs to get slapped hard, perhaps even fired. There is no excuse for harassment of the citizens.

I'll refrain from stating the obvious as to who is working for whom.