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.

[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.