In this archive episode, Dennis implores officers to not just accept throwaway contraband without searching the entire vehicle. Recorded on 04/30/2018.

In this archive episode, Dennis breaks down the mentality of a criminal driver when they see a patrol vehicle. Recorded on 04/26/2018.

In this archive episode, Dennis talks about common subtle gestures he has observed among those involved in criminal activities. Recorded on 04/23/2018.

In this new episode, Dennis and Sean discuss medical training and equipment as well as how important this subject is as a matter of life and death. Recorded on 10/14/2021.

In this archive episode, Dennis discusses common behaviors of criminal activity in motor vehicle traffic. Recorded on 04/09/2018.

In this archive episode, Dennis drops tips on how you'll eventually face haters when you become successful at your craft, and how to roll with it. Recorded on 04/09/2018.

In this archive episode, Dennis talks about the necessary traits one needs to possess in the interdiction game. Recorded on 04/11/2018.

In this archive video, Dennis explains that you don't need to reinvent the wheel when getting into interdiction. Recorded on 04/13/2018.

In this archive episode, Dennis delves into the situations where the weather might be less than ideal and how to go about interdiction on those days. Recorded on 04/16/2018.

In this archive episode, Dennis stresses the importance and legality of separating drivers and passengers during interdiction. Recorded on 04/17/2018. Pennsylvania V. Mimms - (1977)https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/434/106/case.html?fbclid=IwAR2UlUeWsXT98SEPMIVa_7tmRu3G-u7U49pcKasF24DE88T_YL577J2XCXY (https://supreme.justia.com/.../federal/us/434/106/case.html) Police may order driver out of the vehicle without criminal activity or RAS. Bare this in mind…..if you do not suspect the vehicle of criminality don’t get into the habit of ordering driver out of vehicle. State v Brian K. Smith (1997) – Once the vehicle was stopped, Trooper Long was permitted to request Smith to exit the vehicle for the purpose of investigation of the suspected motor vehicle violation. https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/1997/a3449-95-opn.html?fbclid=IwAR0QU7NVw_7fR6K0D1OWxyjm-tFmrIcAP48aMuiHNapD2yv9-DE_99a-j_o (https://law.justia.com/.../appella.../1997/a3449-95-opn.html) See State of NJ v. Brian L. Smith (1994) that stated that the Mimms test, as applied to drivers, satisfies the NJ constitution as well. https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Flaw.justia.com%2Fcases%2Fnew-jersey%2Fsupreme-court%2F1994%2Fa-28-93-opn.html%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR1pyM1cEa2oMhmhIkcbE_h06cfVHZG8SCMhkwcVxeqvGkO2T0dTSExfYAU&h=AT2R_tB-87Fff7lRVzLP53IGu2xof6XJUWWNAP60GEskLMq_IvTDOd5uvvlsAwCjj8VWlTT3LO5z5dKYX8HdwiE6LbaN_tMV8sT7JYFPJ5R3zbZUjwEG7JaQBMxVtf76b9HL0lPC1a5a5PXovw&__tn__=-UK-R (https://law.justia.com/.../supreme.../1994/a-28-93-opn.html) The court stated that “Instances will surface in which police officers, with less than a reasonable suspicion that a passenger is engaged in criminal activity or is armed and dangerous, may reasonably order a passenger to step out of a car.” The officer does not need to point out specific facts that the occupant is armed and dangerous rather the officer needs only to point out some fact or facts in the totality of the circumstances that would warrant a heightend caution. Examples…. Proximity to traffic. Bad weather; Poor visibility. Suspicious gestures by passenger(s) (Never say furtive movements, explain what you saw in detail). Ability to control the movements of several occupants. Ability to control the actions of bystanders. Suspicion of Criminal Activity. NOT ONLY LIMITED TO THE ABOVE LISTED REASONS. STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS BRIAN K. SMITH, ET AL :: 1997 :: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division - Published Opinions Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: US Law :: Justia Police may not routinely ask passengers out of a vehicle that has been stopped for a traffic violation. HOWEVER, NJ law states passengers can be asked out of the vehicle, when an officer is able to point to some specific fact(s) that would warrant a heightened caution. This can be anything to include R.A.S. (State v. Brian L. Smith 1994). This does not have to include a danger factor. https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/2017/a-9-15.html?fbclid=IwAR26bOyVmaAauWtJ54XX_Xva9JUsVpW06fTymmW7T5BWhbkCh-IRPf2mk8A (https://law.justia.com/.../supreme-court/2017/a-9-15.html)

In this archive episode, Dennis explains that passengers cannot simply leave a motor vehicle stop. Recorded on 04/18/2018. Brendlin V. California 2007 (Adopted by NJ) – A traffic stop entails a seizure of the driver even though the purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention is quite brief. The stop also entails a seizure of every passenger in the vehicle along with the driver. Passengers unlawfully leaving a legal motor vehicle stop will be arrested and charged with obstructing. https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBrendlin_v._California%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR0JulugpUB4AxqYf8bl6gkdk9lz_-aaI64BWcbxTOEIciI7ZBrlNOA9s7k&h=AT23tVj7qI2CL_J4VyrIAZat8hoZDr3cUy4wbvCG40SEU_mpjgAyuEVyeuSn7aaM6eB4Us8xgQKuh9HDKHhb4caz3yf48pIsOUCXJ20lEwBQpP3P0xUr8gdKrjQ1r3RhLyhQL2ANlj3eXvkuig&__tn__=-UK-R (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendlin_v._California) State of NJ in the interest of DK 2006 - In DK the court held that a passengers incidental detention as a result of a valid motor vehicle stop is “Unchallengeable,” for, if a stop for a motor vehicle violation is reasonable, the police do not have to show an independent basis for detaining the passengers, unless the detention goes beyond what is incident to a brief motor vehicle stop.” See State v. Hickman https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Flaw.justia.com%2Fcases%2Fnew-jersey%2Fappellate-division-published%2F2003%2Fa6037-01-opn.html%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR25loTO6IEjB43E9MyzVeTWfelxLo-lAwQngTd_5_0f3lIFqanbilh2uiQ&h=AT0m8yi7NQSRMWR_XibotYbQoPx9TsCyjRq2A77K8mHB85SCLWeYl18ZwbsNu9Gq8q6H-9OTD02leUpArAcC2V84L0XOTPtKFszY6g7jF3bG5JBonu409e0jDRml3mDfOleAVfAzB35L_CzqjA&__tn__=-UK-R (https://law.justia.com/.../appella.../2003/a6037-01-opn.html) State of NJ v Sloane 2008 - https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcaselaw.findlaw.com%2Fnj-supreme-court%2F1146795.html%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR0s8jU1aiZWcHBGtgS23tm8PjTjkhvO7ZxVXJzACexe8rcKkykrIP_pEGk&h=AT2mlVjPSQC4LC9IiE9yIZNHNprcNvDKB4PDzEj8NsN99XMf7v57rnERrNWIgc7yIGFTuWwYwJmeTCTAUsz1BoAgpQiKI1yPPO1x5TrrCczunWMvDQZEn0I6UJeDqwyq1qqu1hu-GOfg7Mft7Q&__tn__=-UK-R (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1146795.html) All of those reasons lead to the conclusion that when a police officer conducts a traffic stop of a private vehicle, the passenger as well as the driver are seized under both the federal and state constitutions. That holding is consistent with the majority of state court rulings on the issue. See State v. Bowers, 334 Ark. 447, 976 S.W.2d 379, 380-82 (1998); State v. Haworth, 106 Idaho 405, 679 P.2d 1123, 1124 (1984); People v. Bunch, 207 Ill.2d 7, 277 Ill.Dec. 658, 796 N.E.2d 1024, 1029 (2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 959, 124 S.Ct. 1712, 158 L.Ed.2d 399 (2004); State v. Eis, 348 N.W.2d 224, 226 (Iowa 1984); State v. Hodges, 252 Kan. 989, 851 P.2d 352, 361-62 (1993); State v. Carter, 69 Ohio St.3d 57, 630 N.E.2d 355, 360 (1994) (per curiam); State v. Harris, 206 Wis.2d 243, 557 N.W.2d 245, 251 (1996); see also Hickman, supra, 335 N.J.Super. at 634, 763 A.2d 330. But see People v. Jackson, 39 P.3d 1174, 1184-86 (Colo.2002) (en banc); State v. Mendez, 137 Wash.2d 208, 970 P.2d 722, 729 (1999) (en banc). Applying that standard, Sloane was seized at the time of the traffic stop. When Officer Muzyka ordered Moore to stop her vehicle on the suspicion that she was driving with a suspended license, Sloane's travel was curtailed. Sloane then got out of the car, and the officer promptly ordered him to return to it. Sloane complied. Apart from what any reasonable person might have thought, Sloane was, in fact, not free to leave. Although he was a passenger and not the driver, he was temporarily “seized.”

In this archive episode, Dennis answers questions on case laws regarding refusal to follow police commands. Recorded on 04/19/2018. State v Doss 2002 - https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/1992/254-n-j-super-122-1.html?fbclid=IwAR3VADQXd2nKrzEPBtRk3MOniOpmwiYw--JK3I7zyqQ43e6qJmT1Y_GRJRs (https://law.justia.com/.../1992/254-n-j-super-122-1.html) In the present case, once the totality of the circumstances observed by the police justifiably aroused an "articulable suspicion" which warranted their stopping and interrogating defendant, he was legally obligated to halt in response to their shouted orders to stop and, subject to his privilege against self-incrimination, he had a duty to answer their inquiries.[4] As the Court stated in State v. Lashinsky, 81 N.J. 1, 11, 404 A.2d 1121 (1979), "where an officer's instructions are obviously reasonable, *130 in furtherance of his duties, an individual toward whom such instructions are directed has a correlative duty to obey them." See also State v. Taylor, 121 N.J. Super. 395, 297 A.2d 216 (Cty.Dist.Ct. 1972). When defendant continued his flight from the pursuing police officers despite their shouted orders to halt, his refusal to obey their orders, together with all of the other circumstances of the case, gave the police reasonable cause to believe that he had committed or was then committing a criminal offense. See Kolender v. Lawson, supra, 461 U.S. at 366 n. 4, 103 S. Ct. at 1863 n. 4, 75 L. Ed. 2d at 915 n. 4 (Brennan, J., concurring) ("[R]eactions [by individuals to a properly limited Terry encounter], such as flight, may often provide the necessary information, in addition to that the officers already possess, to constitute probable cause."); LaFave, supra, § 9.2(d) at 369 (quoting Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure at 284-85 (1975)). Consequently, when Detective Parks and the other policeman caught up with defendant and handcuffed him when he tripped and fell, they had probable cause to effect his arrest. The concurrent seizure and search of the cap which he held crumpled up in his hand, revealing the cocaine which it contained, was lawful because it was incident to a lawful arrest. See State v. McNair, 60 N.J. 8, 285 A.2d 553 (1972). 2C:29-1 condemns "interference"; it states, "A person commits an offense if he purposely ... prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from lawfully performing an official function by means of ... physical interference or obstacle...." (Emphasis added.) The implication of Lashinsky is that refusing to obey the order of a policeman constitutes "interference" within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1. See also State v. Manning, 146 N.J. Super. 589, 370 A.2d 499 (App.Div. 1977) (An automobile passenger's refusal to comply with a policeman's order to return to his car "interfere[d]" within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 2A:170-29; cf. Township of East Brunswick v. Malfitano, 108 N.J. Super. 244, 260 A.2d 862 (App.Div. 1970); State v. Taylor, 38 N.J. Super. 6, 118 A.2d 36 (App.Div. 1955)). The second sentence of N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1 says, "This section does not apply to flight by a person charged with crime, refusal to submit to arrest, failure to perform a legal duty other than an official duty, or any other means of avoiding compliance with law without affirmative interference with governmental functions." That sentence does not exclude defendant Doss from its purview. He had not been charged with a crime although he was suspected of one. He had not refused to submit to an arrest; he was seeking to evade a stop short of an arrest. See State v. Perlstein, 206 N.J. Super. 246, 502 A.2d 81 (App.Div. 1985), where this court held that a driver who refused to show her driving credentials to a policeman and who moved her car contrary to his directions was guilty of "attempt[ing] to prevent a public servant from lawfully performing an official function by means of... physical interference" in violation of N.J.S.A....

In this new episode, Dennis and Jenna discuss therapy and how critical it can be to change the outlook of life for First Responders. Recorded on 10/01/2021.

In this archive episode, Dennis discusses where to set up to conduct interdiction style observations. Recorded on 04/07/2018.

In this archive episode, Dennis recalls a few stories where he needed to check ID with more scrutiny but failed to do so due to rushing. Recorded on 03/29/2018.

In this archive episode, Dennis talks about recent case law regarding searching cars for documentation for proof of ownership. Recorded on 03/29/2018. State of NJ v. Terry 2018 - Searching Cars for Documents Defendant Keith Terry caused a patrol car to activate its lights and siren after the rental truck he was driving ran a stop sign. Defendant triggered a dangerous chase as he eluded the police, weaving through traffic before pulling into a gas station. The police removed defendant from the truck at gunpoint, and defendant did not respond to an officer's repeated requests to show the truck's registration or proof of ownership. In light of defendant's silence and his failure to indicate he was in lawful possession of the truck, a police officer conducted a limited search of the glove compartment for the truck's ownership papers and, in the process, observed a handgun in plain view on the vehicle's floor. Thereafter, defendant was charged with and found guilty by a jury of unlawful possession of a firearm and hollow-point bullets. Although the trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress the handgun, the Appellate Division reversed and vacated defendant's conviction. It held that the search was unreasonable because the police did not give defendant the opportunity to produce the truck's registration. We conclude that the Appellate Division erred in substituting its factfindings for those of the trial court. Sufficient credible evidence supported the trial court's determination that defendant was given an adequate opportunity to present the vehicle's registration before the search commenced. We reaffirm our decision in Keaton—and in previous cases—that, when a driver is unwilling or unable to present proof of a vehicle's ownership, a police officer may conduct a limited search for the registration papers in the areas where they are likely kept in the vehicle. We add this limiting principle. When a police officer can readily determine that the driver or passenger is the lawful possessor of the vehicle—despite an inability to produce the registration—a warrantless search for proof of ownership will not be justified. The limited registration search exception to the warrant requirement has long been embedded in our jurisprudence and has been adopted by many other courts. We reject the constitutional challenge to the limited registration search exception, as applied here, and hold that the search of defendant's glove box was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Paragraph 7 of our State Constitution. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division and reinstate defendant's conviction. https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcaselaw.findlaw.com%2Fnj-supreme-court%2F1891610.html%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR3ADe5lOR3XQEwPB-zxwuHRM5T4hxukZx6LCRtdF3CtLRn8Ke6Ml9bGZWs&h=AT3IVk1wdn3EHqqu5F_DAa3GXO3Y6VETGILkZPOFXpJUYClPIA6eazfar2K8Vt6kdjkxRN8Zu2zaho9pwTx0_oa6fAMm3hYmJb-H0zCBzOP21XCifalHG8sraCQrzYrttH0T5vDFRmoHVC7YFg&__tn__=-UK-R (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1891610.html) Also see State of NJ v Julian Hamlett

In this archive episode, Dennis explains how to follow up questions to really check the story of a subject you've pulled over. Recorded on 03/28/2018.

In this archive episode, Dennis answers some group questions and provides tips on how to avoid invalidating your case. Recorded on 03/26/2018.

In this archive episode, Dennis explains some case laws and tactics to apply with passengers in vehicles. Recorded on 03/24/2018. State of NJ v. Brian L Smith 1994 https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/1994/a-28-93-opn.html?fbclid=IwAR3SIJrMktFLomB-0wZbeMlSfOKjQ7dGkagvy-QG0Vc1Vg92kn4WPtiRmDM (https://law.justia.com/.../supreme.../1994/a-28-93-opn.html) HELD: The State Trooper's order to the passenger, Geraldine Muhammad, to step out of the car stopped for a routine traffic violation, and the officer's pat-down of that passenger were reasonable, and hence, permissible under the Fourth Amendment of the Federal Constitution and Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution. Therefore, the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress the cocaine and drug paraphernalia found incident to arrest. 1. In determining whether Trooper Gacina's order to the passenger, Muhammad, to get out of the car was reasonable, the Court is guided by the seminal case, Pennsylvania v. Mimms. In Mimms, the U.S. Supreme Court balanced the driver's interest in privacy against the State's interest in protecting its police officers. The Court concluded that the State's interest in the safety of its officers far outweighed the driver's interest in not being made routinely to step out of a car after it has been stopped for a traffic violation. The Court held that the order to the driver to step out of the vehicle was reasonable and thus permissible under the Fourth Amendment. (pp. 8-10) 2. Mimms, as applied to drivers, satisfies the New Jersey Constitution. Here, the Court decides whether and under what conditions Mimms should be extended to passengers. The touchstone of the Court's analysis is the reasonableness, under all circumstances, of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security. (pp. 10-16) 3. Although the State's interest in safety remains the same whether the driver or the passenger is involved, requiring a passenger to step from the vehicle in the course of a routine traffic stop represents a greater intrusion on the passenger's liberty than it does on a driver's liberty. In applying the Mimms balancing test to passengers, the Court concludes that the Mimms per se rule should not be applied automatically to passengers. There will be instances, however, in which police officers, with less than a reasonable suspicion that a passenger is engaged in criminal activity or is armed or dangerous, may reasonably order a passenger to step out of the car. (pp. 16-20) 4. To support an order to a passenger to step out of a vehicle stopped for a traffic violation, the officer must point to some fact or facts in the totality of the circumstances that would create in a police officer a heightened awareness of danger that would warrant an objectively reasonable officer in securing the scene in a more effective manner by ordering the passenger to step out of the car. To justify a pat-down of an occupant who has stepped out of a vehicle, the officer must find specific articulable facts to demonstrate that a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his or her safety or that of others was in danger. (pp. 20-22) 5. In this case, Trooper Gacina's order was objectively reasonable. The unusual movements of the passengers in the car, the early morning hour, and a largely deserted Turnpike are facts that warrant proceeding with extra caution in handling the occupants of the vehicle. Moreover, the pat-down of Muhammad was valid. The premature announcement of Officer's Gacina's intent to perform a pat-down does not debilitate the officer so that he will not later be able to perform a pat-down should sufficient facts come to light. Muhammad's actions after she stepped from the vehicle, when considered in the totality of the circumstances, were sufficient to support a reasonable, articulable suspicion that she was armed and dangerous. (pp. 22-26) Also see State v...

In this archive episode, Dennis discusses some case laws and offers tips on getting proof of vehicle ownership in the case of being unable to identify the driver. Recorded on 03/23/2018. State V. Ornette Terry and searching cars in NJ for vehicle documents decided 03/14/18 (NJ Supreme Court). HELD: Sufficient credible evidence supported the trial court’s determination that the defendant was given an adequate opportunity to present the vehicle’s registration before the search commenced. When a driver is unwilling or unable to present proof of a vehicle’s ownership, a police officer may conduct a limited search for the registration papers in the areas where they are likely kept in the vehicle. When a police officer can readily determine that the driver or passenger is the lawful possessor of the vehicle—despite an inability to produce the registration—a warrantless search for proof of ownership will not be justified. Argued October 11, 2017 -- Decided March 14, 2018 -- Corrected March 16, 2018 ALBIN, J., writing for the Court. The Court considers whether an officer acted reasonably, in accordance with New Jersey precedents permitting a limited registration search without a warrant and the dictates of the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Paragraph 7 of the State Constitution, when he searched defendant’s glove box. Union Township Police Officer Devlin observed defendant’s GMC truck run a stop sign and almost strike his patrol car. Officer Devlin activated the overhead lights and siren. Defendant did not pull to the side of the road. Instead, without signaling, he zigzagged back and forth from the right to the left lane in traffic. Officer Devlin relayed the truck’s license plate number to a dispatcher, who notified him that the vehicle was a Hertz rental, which had not been reported stolen. After a half-mile, defendant turned into a gas station where he came to a stop. Officer Devlin parked his patrol car behind defendant’s truck while a backup police officer in a marked unit pulled in front of the truck, effectively blocking it in. With the other officer beside him and their guns trained on defendant, Officer Devlin repeatedly ordered defendant to show his hands, but defendant made no response. Twenty to thirty seconds later, Officer Devlin opened the driver’s door and commanded that he step out of the vehicle. Defendant did so, leaned against the truck, put his hands in his pockets, and asked why the officers had pulled him over. Although Officer Devlin repeatedly instructed defendant to show his hands, he was slow to comply. The two officers quickly patted defendant down, assuring themselves he was not armed with a weapon. When Officer Devlin asked defendant for identification, defendant reached into his pocket and presented his license. Officer Devlin next requested that defendant produce the vehicle’s registration and insurance card. Defendant did not respond, “[h]e just stood there with a blank stare on his face.” The officer asked a second time, and defendant “shrugged his shoulders.” Defendant made no non-verbal gestures to indicate that the papers were on his person or in the truck. Finally, Officer Devlin asked defendant whether he owned the truck or had any paperwork for it. Again, defendant did not respond. Officer Devlin went to the passenger’s side of the truck, opened the door, and looked in the glove box—“[t]he most common place” where papers are stored. Although he found no documentation in the glove box, the light from his flashlight reflected against a white object on the passenger’s floorboard. That object was a handgun. The trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress. The court found that Officer Devlin “was a reasonable and credible witness” and concluded that because defendant failed to produce the vehicle registration on demand, Officer Devlin had a right to search for the registration, rental agreement, and insurance in the area where such documents are usually kept. The court further...

In this archive episode, Dennis implores officers to have a plan of action for K-9 units for when they need them on the scene. Recorded on 03/23/2018.

In this archive episode, Dennis shares an anecdote and implores listeners to try not to get fooled. Recorded on 03/19/2018.

In this archive episode, Dennis discusses Interdiction Tactics based on different environments as well as answers some group questions. Recorded on 03/15/2018.

In this archive episode, Dennis explains the importance of making sure to get a clear yes to consent to search a motor vehicle. Recorded on 03/19/2018.

In this heartfelt and emotional episode, Dennis interviews Lucas Campoverde about his incident and the aftermath, as well as how to continue overcoming trauma. Recorded on 09/30/2021.

In this episode, Dennis explains that when you follow a suspicious car, don't let them simply pull into a gas station and let it go. Recorded on 03/02/2018.

In this archive episode, Dennis explains running a CCH on a Motor Vehicle Stop. Recorded on 03/12/2018.

In this archive episode, Dennis brings up Title 39 as a basis for stops. Recorded on 03/07/2018.

In this archive episode, Dennis explains through case laws how K-9 Sniffs establish probable cause. Recorded on 03/06/2018. State of NJ v. Cancel 1992 (Non-Motor vehicle setting, establishes probable cause is the point) We agree that the dog's positive reaction to defendant's suitcase and the discrepancy between her name and the name on her ticket gave the police probable cause to arrest her and obtain a warrant to search the suitcase.(Referring to a US Supreme Court Decision) See Florida v. Royer, *434 460 U.S. 491, 506, 103 S. Ct. 1319, 1329, 75 L. Ed. 2d 229, 242 (1983) (had police used dog to sniff defendant's luggage "a positive result would have resulted in his justifiable arrest on probable cause"). US v Nurse (D.C. Cir. 1990) If the canine sniff results in a positive alert or indication that the particular piece of property contains contraband or evidence of a suspected crime, this trained Canine’s reaction elevates the reasonable suspicion to probable cause, and thus provides the necessary justification for the issuance of a search warrant or for a search under an applicable exception to the warrant requirement. Illinois v Caballes (2005) US Supreme Court As found by the trial judge prior to the appeal, the dog sniff was sufficiently reliable to establish probable cause to conduct a full blown search of the trunk. United States v Pierce (2010)- The United States Supreme Court has consistently held “That an exterior canine sniff of a car during a lawful traffic stop does not amount to a search under the 4th Amendment. It is also well established that, looking at the totality of the circumstances, a dog’s positive alert while sniffing the exterior of the car provides an officer with probable cause.” Florida v Harris 2013 US Supreme Court The question—similar to every inquiry into probable cause—is whether all the facts surrounding a dog’s alert, viewed through the lens of common sense, would make a reasonably prudent person think that a search would reveal contraband or evidence of a crime. A sniff is up to snuff when it meets that test… And here, Aldo’s did. If a bona fide organization has certified a dog after testing his reliability in a controlled setting, a court can presume (subject to any conflicting evidence offered) that the dog’s alert provides probable cause to search. The same is true, even in the absence of formal certification, if the dog has recently and successfully completed a training program that evaluated his proficiency in locating drugs. After all, law enforce­ment units have their own strong incentive to use effective training and certification programs, because only accurate drug-detection dogs enable officers to locate contraband without incurring unnecessary risks or wasting limited time and resources.

In this archive episode, Dennis revisits the case law of State v. Sloane (2008). Recorded on 03/05/2018. State V. Sloane (2008) - https://streetcoptraining.com/original-caselaw/nj-v-slone-2008/?fbclid=IwAR1fU1xdUaHMRIItmB0kA3Z9-fAxAec62BSXWxz5mjBKohmPLFHEE1QtU10 (https://streetcoptraining.com/original.../nj-v-slone-2008/) We hold that at the time of the stop, the passenger, like the driver, was seized under the federal and state constitutions. We also hold that police do not need reasonable suspicion before they may access the NCIC database. Because the decision to check the NCIC database was within the scope of the traffic stop and did not unreasonably prolong the stop, there was no basis to suppress the evidence found. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division and reinstate defendant’s conviction and sentence. All of those reasons lead to the conclusion that when a police officer conducts a traffic stop of a private vehicle, the passenger as well as the driver are seized under both the federal and state constitutions. That holding is consistent with the majority of state court rulings on the issue. See State v. Bowers, 334 Ark. 447, 976 S.W.2d 379, 380-82 (1998); State v. Haworth, 106 Idaho 405, 679 P.2d 1123, 1124 (1984); People v. Bunch, 207 Ill.2d 7, 277 Ill.Dec. 658, 796 N.E.2d 1024, 1029 (2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 959, 124 S.Ct. 1712, 158 L.Ed.2d 399 (2004); State v. Eis, 348 N.W.2d 224, 226 (Iowa 1984); State v. Hodges, 252 Kan. 989, 851 P.2d 352, 361-362 (1993); State v. Carter, 69 Ohio St.3d 57, 630 N.E.2d 355, 360 (1994) (per curiam); State v. Harris, 206 Wis.2d 243, 557 N.W.2d 245, 251 (1996); see also Hickman, supra, 335 N.J.Super. at 634, 763 A.2d 330. But see People v. Jackson, 39 P.3d 1174, 1184-86 (Colo.2002) (en banc); State v. Mendez, 137 Wash.2d 208, 970 P.2d 722, 729 (1999) (en banc). *801 Applying that standard, Sloane was seized at the time of the traffic stop. When Officer Muzyka ordered Moore to stop her vehicle on the suspicion that she was driving with a suspended license, Sloane’s travel was curtailed. Sloane then got out of the car, and the officer promptly ordered him to return to it. Sloane complied. Apart from what any reasonable person might have thought, Sloane was, in fact, not free to leave. Although he was a passenger and not the driver, he was temporarily “seized.” When Sloane and Moore jumped out of the car and approached the officer, he ordered them back into the car. The officer’s concerns for his own safety justified that reasonable command. See State v. Diloreto, 180 N.J. 264, 276, 850 A.2d 1226 (2004); People v. Castellon, 76 Cal.App.4th 1369, 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 204, 207-08 (1999), review denied, No. S085514, 2000 Cal. Lexis 3298 (Mar. 29, 2000). Likewise, after Sloane asked for the keys to the car, it was reasonable for the officer to ask Sloane for identification to insure that the car would be driven by a properly licensed driver. See State v. Pegeese, 351 N.J.Super. 25, 31-32, 796 A.2d 934 (App.Div.2002); Hickman, supra, 335 N.J.Super. at 635, 763 A.2d 330. Up to this point, we find nothing inappropriate in the conduct of the police. We turn next to whether the check of the NCIC database violated Sloane’s constitutional right. There is no “`litmus paper test’” for determining whether “`a seizure exceeds the bounds of an investigative stop.’” Dickey, supra, 152 N.J. at 476, 706 A.2d 180 (quoting Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 506, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 1329, 75 L.Ed.2d 229, 242 (1983) (plurality opinion)). “[C]ommon sense and ordinary human experience must govern over rigid criteria.” Id. at 477, 706 A.2d 180. In addition, police conduct during a traffic stop must be evaluated “within the context of unfolding events.” Diloreto, supra, 180 N.J. at 277, 850 A.2d 1226.

In this archive episode, Dennis answers group questions about parked cars in public places. Recorded on 03/04/2018.

In this archive episode, Dennis explains further how admission is probable cause. Recorded on 03/04/2018.

In this episode, Dennis explains how to employ your radar unit to pick up on subtle changes when drivers notice you. Recorded on 03/02/2018.

In this informative and emotional episode, Dennis and Tom Stack talk about the problem of Human Trafficking still prevalent today. Recorded on 09/29/2021.

In this archive episode, Dennis implores listeners to NOT talk themselves out of motor vehicle stops. Recorded on 02/25/2018.

In this archive episode, Dennis explains not to stop your investigation from the bait of possession of smaller amounts of contraband admitted. Recorded on 02/23/2018.

In this archive episode, Dennis offers more tips on how to develop more reasonable articulable suspicion. Recorded on 02/23/2018.

In this archive episode, Dennis explains why you require consent even with probable cause in certain jurisdictions. Recorded on 02/17/2018.

In this episode, Dennis explains situations where perpetrators may use suspicious tactics and might call your bluff with consent to search. Recorded on 02/16/2018.

In this episode, Dennis explains the importance of searching under the hood for contraband the next time you have probable cause and a search warrant or K-9 Unit. Recorded on 02/16/2018.

In this archive episode, Dennis explains that admission during a motor vehicle stop is probable cause to search. Recorded on 02/12/2018.

In this archive episode, Dennis answers some group questions including some tips on how to build more reasonable suspicion. Recorded on 02/12/2018.

In this archive episode, Dennis explains how to look for reactions and what they will indicate. Recorded on 02/12/2018.

In this archive episode, Dennis answers a group member's question on when to seize the money during interdiction. Recorded on 02/09/2018.

In this archive episode, Dennis answers group questions pertaining to behavior and how to understand signs of something wrong. Recorded on 02/07/2018.

In this special guest episode, we have Kenny Williams interview his student Tyler about the incident he experienced shortly after the class and the aftermath. Recorded on 09/23/2021.

In this archive episode, Dennis talks to a new rookie and offers advice on understanding what to do out in the field. Recorded on 02/05/2018.

In this archive episode, Dennis implores listeners that it is imperative to approach vehicles from the passenger side after a stop. Recorded on 02/05/2018.

In this archive episode, Dennis advises on what to do when there are abandoned containers and such in a motor vehicle after an incident to arrest and in other cases. Recorded on 02/04/2018.

In this archive episode, Dennis talks about the implications of observing a hand-to-hand drug transaction and how to proceed. Recorded on 02/02/2018. State v Moore 2004 - The detectives observed a group of approximately six people congregating in a vacant lot between Piggy s Bar and a delicatessen. The detectives parked three-quarters of a block away and conducted surveillance, using binoculars. Detective Abrams observed a man wearing a floppy hat leave the group and walk towards the rear of the delicatessen. Defendant and another man left the group and joined the man in the floppy hat. Defendant and his companion handed currency to that man and each received from him a small item in return, which they both immediately pocketed, before returning to the group. Believing he had just witnessed a drug transaction, Detective Abrams promptly drove his vehicle towards the group. When the detectives arrived, defendant placed his hand in his right pocket and began to walk away. Detective Abrams exited the car and approached defendant to arrest him. The detective informed defendant that he had observed him participating in a drug transaction and grabbed defendant s right arm. Defendant removed his hand from his pocket to reveal two clear bags of a white powdery substance that was later identified as cocaine. Another detective recovered a similar bag of cocaine from defendant s companion. The detectives were unable to locate the third man who they believed had sold the drugs to defendant and his companion. We turn now to apply those principles to the present case. Detective Abrams was an experienced narcotics officer. He previously had made numerous drug arrests in the same neighborhood, which was known to the police for heavy drug trafficking. Using binoculars, he observed three men move away from the group to the back of a vacant lot, and he saw defendant and his companion give money to the third person in exchange for small unknown objects. Based on his experience and those factors, it was reasonable for Detective Abrams to conclude that the totality of the circumstances supported a well-grounded suspicion that he had witnessed a drug transaction. Therefore, the trial court properly determined that there was probable cause for Detective Abrams to arrest defendant. https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fstreetcoptraining.com%2Foriginal-caselaw%2Fnj-v-moore-2004%2F%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR0kwJbxnh2uwkLdNojn326rmmhXGYm-tdtXuqCZB9k4qv-bkW_xGqt9OhQ&h=AT0hsMuVcElOhaYq5ifj5XgRGDZl9-8i9QmiGcsi79K_hAqhmcO5n_2gHIYBqEi2KkZjL_mXHSYn2havtaIcl33SCpllYnVcEWy_jpqnV9Fwa6s-gA002hGmnZamUdcQtTdAbGk7XuZEftIZLQ&__tn__=-UK-R (https://streetcoptraining.com/original.../nj-v-moore-2004/) State v Pagan - 2005 Conway observed Pagan conversing with codefendant Vasquez and then saw Vasquez hand Pagan what appeared to be paper currency in exchange for a small unknown object which Pagan took from his pocket and handed to Vasquez. Conway saw Vasquez inspect the object and place it in his right hand jacket pocket before walking away from Pagan. The officer followed Vasquez to a dead end area of Division Street and approached him on foot. When Conway tapped Vasquez on the shoulder he turned around and removed his right hand from his jacket pocket, which allowed Conway to see two balloons in the pocket, each tied off in a knot, one green and one white. Based on his training and experience, Conway knew that heroin was often stored and sold in such a manner because it made it easier to swallow and destroy the drugs before the police could get them. Conway removed the objects from Vasquez’s pocket and placed him under arrest. About ten minutes later, Conway arrested Pagan for distribution of heroin and recovered $142 in U.S. currency from Pagan’s...

In this archive episode, Dennis offers some techniques for pedestrian interdiction. Recorded on 02/01/2018.

In this archive episode, Dennis answers some group questions around searching vehicles, probable cause, and reasonable suspicion. Recorded on 01/31/2018.

In this archive episode, Dennis offers advice on how to figure out someone is when you are unable to compel ID from them. Recorded on 01/31/2018.

In this archive episode, Dennis provides some advice with running random license plate checks with MDT. Recorded on 01/30/2018.

In this reflective episode, Dennis interviews international guest Clint Calcut about his incident and moving forward. Recorded on 09/22/2021.

In this archive episode, Dennis revisits the topic of Miranda on your motor vehicle stops. Recorded on 01/22/2018.

In this archive episode, Dennis discusses circumstances where warrantless entry into private property is allowed. Recorded on 01/10/2018. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) was a United States Supreme Court case concerning warrantless entry into a private home in order to make a felony arrest. The Court struck down a New York statute providing for such warrantless entries because the Fourth Amendment draws a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not be reasonably crossed without a warrant. The court, however, did specify that an arrest warrant (as opposed to a search warrant) would have sufficed for entry into the suspect's residence if there had been reason to believe that the suspect was within the home. Payton and related case law establish that the principle that a person in a home, particularly his or her own, is entitled Fourth Amendment protections not afforded to persons in automobiles, as per Whren v. United States, or to persons in public, as per United States v. Watson. Constructive Possession and Miranda with multiple passengers in a motor vehicle. Kirk v Lousianna http://caselaw.findlaw.com/la-court-of-appeal/1252149.html?fbclid=IwAR1zLNb9jCIpn1RMVKzeuPeNm654AcRs84IptNCdgpdudnB4k6kcdcc7gJs (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/la-court-of-appeal/1252149.html) US v. Santana 1976 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/427/38/?fbclid=IwAR1a7BgeNeEGpxIHnUUH__3ZJX1Ob-5oliGQh9Jh9tyeS8lsVB9S126b8JA (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/427/38/)

In this episode, Dennis and Zach discuss case laws surrounding requesting passenger ID, including a new one, as well as answering a few group questions. Recorded on 09/21/2021.

In this archive episode, Dennis discusses impounding vehicles in New Jersey. Recorded on 01/09/2018. Here's the link to the AG's guide regarding this: http://www.nj.gov/oag/dcj/agguide/impound_guide_6804.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0weCjyfry6lugGLyerglChPLT8ZXZ3nILkQeVsO8-dI7VIIP-XKKUeDu4 (http://www.nj.gov/oag/dcj/agguide/impound_guide_6804.pdf)

In this archive episode, Dennis talks about case laws surrounding calling into 9-1-1 to report drunk driving. Recorded on 01/08/2018. State v. Amelio 2008 - HELD: Based on the report to dispatch by defendant s seventeen-year-old daughter, who identified herself, reported that her father was driving drunk, described the vehicle, and exposed herself to criminal prosecution if her report was knowingly false, there was reasonable and articulable suspicion of an offense to support a constitutional motor vehicle stop by the police. https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/2008/a-92-07-doc.html?fbclid=IwAR081PmOk9VgUISn0Z99pr3B1YOhRnTL0S5j5z0Wc6HDilHn7jZaAoVSpOc (https://law.justia.com/.../supreme.../2008/a-92-07-doc.html) We also discuss random plate inquiries and consent of driver does not extend to other passengers belongings.

In this thrilling and thoughtful episode, Dennis interviews Anthony Pyzik about his career-changing incident and moving forward. Recorded on 09/16/2021.

In this archive episode, Dennis discusses case laws surrounding anonymous calls on a 9-1-1 line about erratic driving. Recorded on 01/07/2018. State of NJ v. Golotta 2003 - In this search-and-seizure case, a cell-phone user telephoned a 9-1-1 operator to report that a particular motor vehicle was being driven erratically on a public road. The question presented is whether that call and the information that it imparted provided a constitutional basis for the police to stop the identified vehicle. Given the significant risk of death or serious injury to the public and to the vehicle's driver implicated by such a call, and in view of the other factors discussed below, we hold that the answer to that question is yes. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1452816.html?fbclid=IwAR16d09iY0ME44HTKEsxTKsmqcE1UliF6IOnMXc0nX1d9B7yJCZHoDBkvww (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1452816.html)

In this archive episode, Dennis shares some interdiction tips for the night shift and the mentality that follows. Recorded on 01/03/2018.

In this archive episode, Dennis explains different types of informants and how to determine the veracity or reliability of said informants. Recorded on 01/03/2018. State of NJ v Sibilia 2000 - Here the clinic patient was “known” to Officer Fuentes in a meaningful way even though he did not have her name. The facts are more than sufficient to establish her as a citizen witness. As such the information she supplied had the indicia of reliability. Moreover, she not only provided information describing defendant, but she went outside with the officer and pointed him out. That information and identification, combined with the statements of the other two patients, the officer's prior knowledge of methadone sales in the area, defendant's location and apparent nervousness, all combined to provide probable cause to arrest defendant for the attempted purchase of a controlled, dangerous substance. Wildoner v. Borough of Ramsey, 162 N.J. 375, 389-391, 744 A.2d 1146 (2000); Sanducci v. City of Hoboken, 315 N.J.Super. 475, 480-481, 719 A.2d 160 (App.Div.1998). That probable cause justified the pat-down and subsequent arrest of defendant. The motion to suppress should have been denied. https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcaselaw.findlaw.com%2Fnj-superior-court-appellate-division%2F1044652.html%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR15hs9m9_4E_cO42r7geIQHleHa2i9GH-wPwWg-RrkcJs-08onwNffYuEA&h=AT3-Ugqb8MMBotv9U3q4kQ5kKnIJVnnSfs6jQmpgw60GXkDSzoJhET3aNhv-NGwW4nw6qCG5kT4r9XT0kr-5Rgn6qwCXEmVoayKsAUbx0Y18j_NsyDFQVG6d3uQ7ca0uLg&__tn__=-UK-R (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court.../1044652.html) State of NJ v Basil 2010 - Our courts have distinguished between an identifiable citizen, who is presumed to be reliable, and an anonymous informer whose reliability must be established. State v. Davis, 104 N.J. 490, 506 (1986). The distinction is “grounded in common experience” because we assume that an ordinary citizen “is motivated by factors that are consistent with law enforcement goals.” Ibid. The distinction is also grounded in common sense. “[W]hen a tip is made in-person, an officer can observe the informant's demeanor and determine whether the informant seems credible enough to justify immediate police action without further questioning.” United States v. Palos-Marquez, 591 F.3d 1272, 1275 (9th Cir.2010). Moreover, “an in-person informant risks losing anonymity and being held accountable for a false tip.” Ibid.; see also N.J.S.A. 2C:28-4(a) (“A person who knowingly gives or causes to be given false information to any law enforcement officer with purpose to implicate another commits a crime of the fourth degree.”). We now apply those principles to the relevant facts to determine whether defendant's “seizure” ran afoul of the federal and state constitutions. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1532208.html?fbclid=IwAR3aXnXY0mW9aXY3h4-xezGd2IR5SxRFrhu0I-D32Ac9kybhJXPpVQOmKLQ (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1532208.html)

In this archive episode, Dennis delves into what situations call for escalating a mere field inquiry to an investigative detention. Recorded on 12/29/2017. State v Lurdes Rosario 2017 First and foremost, we must address whether and at what point defendant's interaction with the police officer escalated from a field inquiry into an investigative detention. Then we must assess whether reasonable and articulable suspicion supported the detention's restriction on defendant's freedom of movement. The encounter took place on a May evening when defendant was in her car, which was parked lawfully, head-on in a lined parking space directly outside her apartment. The car's engine was off. The officer positioned his patrol car perpendicularly behind defendant's to box in defendant's car and engaged his vehicle's rooftop, right-side “alley” light to shine at her car. The officer then exited his patrol car and approached the driver's-side door of defendant's car to address her. We conclude that no objectively reasonable person in those circumstances would have felt free to leave. Under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would feel the constraints on her freedom of movement from having become the focus of law enforcement attention. Accordingly, we hold that an investigative detention had begun. Because we also conclude that reasonable and articulable suspicion did not ripen prior to the officer's subsequent exchanges with defendant, we reverse the judgment under review. State v Pearlstein 1985 - Failing to provide documents constitutes Obstructing the Admin of Law As a result, Lizzano crossed the street to the patrol car to obtain his summons book. Then he asked Ms. Perlstein for her license and registration which she refused to tender. She continued to spew a barrage of comments at Lizzano. Lizzano told her that if she did not show her license, registration and insurance card he would issue her three more summonses. She persisted in her refusal. Then she said that she was going to see the Chief of Police to see what he had to say about this incident. With the car door open, she picked up her keys from the seat, put them in the ignition, turned on the car and put it in reverse. Lizzano was standing in the open door and knew he could be hurt if the car moved so he reached in and grabbed the keys. Thereafter, he placed her under arrest.

In this archive episode, Dennis gives insight on how to read suspicious drivers through their actions. Recorded on 12/27/2017.

In this heartfelt episode, Dennis interviews Josiah Overton about a career defining incident and how survivorship is handled day by day. Recorded on 09/16/2021.

In this archive episode, Dennis explains how to approach case law to understand relevant points. Recorded on 12/12/2017.

In this archive, Dennis answers some group questions as well as provide insights on MV Violations and Wingspan Searches. Recorded on 12/12/2017. State v Eckel 2006 http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1107296.html?fbclid=IwAR0B_HCJ2h3wtsF01yuKHVOAyHkj7EpQgSZRLBp97C_iocECblFJtMbdnP0 (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1107296.html) We do not view Article I, Paragraph 7 as a procedural matter but as a reaffirmation of the privacy rights guaranteed to our citizens and of our duty as judges to secure them. So viewed, the Belton rationale simply does not pass muster. That is not to suggest that bright lines are not salutary, only that they cannot be the sole justification for a warrantless search. Indeed, a bright-line that remains true to an exception's roots is a worthy consideration. In that connection, one scholar has observed: If any bright line rule had been necessary to resolve the issue in Belton, it would have been the opposite of the rule that the Court announced ․ [O]ccupants almost invariably are removed before an automobile is searched; and once they have been removed, there is no longer much chance that they can secure weapons from the automobile or destroy evidence there. [Albert W. Alschuler, Bright Line Fever and the Fourth Amendment, 45 U. Pitt. L.Rev. 227, 274 (1984).] That is the line we draw here. Once the occupant of a vehicle has been arrested, removed and secured elsewhere, the considerations informing the search incident to arrest exception are absent and the exception is inapplicable. We thus return to Chimel and to Welsh and declare their reasoning to be the critical path to the application of the search incident to arrest exception under Article I, Paragraph 7 of our constitution. That, in turn, answers the open issue in Pierce. Obviously, where a defendant has been arrested but has not been removed and secured, the court will be required to determine, on a case-by-case basis whether he or she was in a position to compromise police safety or to carry out the destruction of evidence, thus justifying resort to the search incident to arrest exception. In Michigan v. Long, 103 S. Ct. 3469 (1983), the Court established the right of an officer to conduct a Terry-type "frisk" (protective inspection) of the passenger compartment of a vehicle stopped for a traffic violation when the officer has a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the motorist is dangerous and may gain immediate control of a weapon.MICHIGAN v. LONG | FindLaw Nervousness & Furtive Movements.— State v. Lund, 119 N.J. 35 (1990) State v. Lund :: 1990 :: Supreme Court of New Jersey Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia HELD: The Michigan v. Long rule "should be followed to protect New Jersey's police community." BUT, "nervousness and furtive gestures" alone, exhibited by the occupants of an automobile will not give rise to a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the driver or a passenger is presently armed and dangerous. See State of NJ v. Daniels (1993)STATE v. DANIELS | 264 N.J. Super. 161 (1993) | https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2FLeagle.com%2F%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR06l2XgoYwUPw7vlIIrSfPavdBs7Gja1aIRkG_wdUobL8sBfXeklm7ybws&h=AT3dI4S6MHSTZbS-pEn1QUsSMut6BvLZU2wDFN6kNjaOQiWYGFOJYI4F1qa_fgoT7S7Izoxs0cd7E9Og_-Wr4nCbMyJv43VzUuV5m4f_3sd-bx94AlQ7M5eO7WhbfL8ASw&__tn__=-UK-R (Leagle.com)

In this archive episode, Dennis discusses the case laws around public intoxication. Recorded on 12/26/2017. 26:2B-16. Person intoxicated in public place; assistance to facility; determination of intoxication Any person who is intoxicated in a public place may be assisted to his residence or to an intoxication treatment center or other facility by a police officer or other authorized person. To determine whether or not such person is intoxicated, the police officer may request the person to submit to any reasonable test, including, but not limited to, tests of his coordination, coherency of speech, and breath. Any person who is intoxicated in a public place and who a police officer has reason to believe is incapacitated shall be assisted by the police officer to an intoxication treatment center or other facility. A police officer acting in accordance with the provisions of this section may use such force, other than that which is likely to inflict physical injury, as is reasonably necessary to carry out his authorized responsibilities. If the police officer reasonably believes that his safety or the safety of other persons present so requires, he may search such person and his immediate surroundings, but only to the extent necessary to discover and seize any dangerous weapon which may on that occasion be used against the officer or other person present. All persons acting under the provisions of this section shall be considered as acting in the conduct of their official duties and shall not be held criminally or civilly liable for such acts. Any person assisted by a police officer to a facility pursuant to the provisions of this section shall receive treatment in accordance with section 9. In any event, if such person is determined upon examination to be intoxicated, the examining physician or other medically competent individual shall so certify and a duplicate copy of the certification shall be made available to the police officer. A person assisted to a facility pursuant to the provisions of this section, shall not be considered to have been arrested and no entry or other record shall be made to indicate that he has been arrested.

In this archive short, Dennis implores those in the active line of duty to stay aware at all times. Recorded on 12/16/2017.

In this thrilling archive episode, Dennis has Jesse Hartnett share important thoughts to instill during your time in the line of duty. Recorded on 12/13/2017.

In this archive episode, Dennis explains how to deal with rental car motor vehicle stops. Recorded on 12/05/2017. US v. Rahme (1987) A hotel guests rental period has expired or been lawfully terminated the guest does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the hotel room or in any articles found therein of which the hotel lawfully takes possession. Moreover, the fact that the defendant’s arrest prevented his return to the hotel room made no difference for it was presumably his own conduct that prevented his return to the hotel.

In this archive episode, Dennis explains the cases of hindering apprehension when a subject must provide identification. Recorded on 12/04/2017.

In this archive episode, Dennis explains exigency in regards to a time-sensitive situation regarding contraband. Recorded on 12/01/2017. State V. Nishina (2003) - This allows an officer to conduct an immediate search relying on training and experience, when the officer had probable cause to believe that a suspect is in possession of illegal narcotics and the officer detects the odor of marijuana on the suspects clothing. The courts have ruled this exigent circumstances and ruled that if a search warrant was sought the contraband could very well be consumed, hidden, or sold by the time one was issued. Search like incident to arrest. The odor of marijuana does not create exigency to warrant the entry of a home. State v George Myers 2015 The smell of marijuana itself can suffice to furnish probable cause that a criminal offense has been committed, the smell of marijuana gave Trooper Gore (Who is a police officer just like you) the right to arrest defendant for committing an apparent marijuana offense in his presence "'The "in presence" requirement . . . is satisfied by the trooper's use of his sense of smell in much the same manner as if he had used his sight or hearing or touch[.]'" In any event, subject to any pertinent defenses, possession of any quantity of marijuana is an offense. N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(4). “The distinctive odor of burnt . . . marijuana'" is evidence of such possession. “A strong odor is [not] required"; detection of the "characteristic" "smell of burnt marijuana, by a trained and experienced State Trooper, emanating from the passenger compartment of a legally stopped motor vehicle, created probable cause to believe that a violation of law had been or was being committed." The appropriate charge is 2C: 35-10a4 P.C. on complaint is odor of marijuana STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. GEORGE A. MYERS :: 2015 :: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division - Published Opinions Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia

In this new reflective episode, Dennis and Jenna discuss the change in climate regarding mental health and how it is important to continue dismantling old stigmas of therapy and medications when necessary. Recorded on 09/15/2021.

In this archive episode, Dennis explains that maintenance violations apply to out-of-state vehicles as well as in-state vehicles. Recorded on 11/30/2017. State v Forgione 1993 - ALL MAINTENANCE VIOLATIONS DO APPLY TO OUT OF STATE VEHICLES.. STATE v. FORGIONE | https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2FLeagle.com%2F%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR1XBbNAQoqYJjH8BpTv2KKMTP6b-KjiJuC24lnzoU3xRub9yK1KogSMOFs&h=AT1nCRM0TohsBVsWrTDQO6-XM4qx_WFosPskF-hwlFTT_ADLXfFACb5hMYmdjHxsAgr1O3EdYImBj4_pUg1T7rsWVS6kc8f0HwA27NSALP3fXzZDZUnRE48Ymn6EPalcbipGJ21fPDstfa7xoA&__tn__=-UK-R (Leagle.com) 1993 The court ruled that the provisions of 39:3-15, which exempt from the automobile equipment standards of Title 39 a vehicle licensed in another state and owned by a resident of that state, do not prevent a law enforcement officer in this state from stopping such a vehicle or requiring the driver to produce registration and driving credentials when the officer observes and equipment violation. A Law enforcement officer cannot ascertain whether an out of state licensed vehicle is owned by a resident of that state without checking the registration credentials of that vehicle. It is not unusual in this day in age for a resident of one state to register his car in another state. Consequently, entitlement to the exemption of 39:3-15 cannot be determined until the registration credentials confirm the vehicle in question is owned by an out-of-state resident and properly registered there. The only practical way for that conformation to occur is for the police officer involved to review the appropriate credentials. Tinted Windows – Falls under 39: 3-74 State v Cohen 2002 NJAC 13:20-33.7:(d) A motor vehicle, other than a police vehicle or a motor vehicle for which a medical exemption certificate has been issued by the Motor Vehicle Commission in accordance with N.J.S.A. 39:3-75.1 et seq., shall not be certified which has tinted spray or plastic material added to previously approved glazing in the front windshield or windows, vents, wings, deflectors, or side shields to the immediate right or left of the driver, because such condition changes the vision and light transmission properties of the glazing in areas where driver visibility shall not be obscured or obstructed; provided, however, tinted spray or plastic material may be applied to previously approved glazing in the front windshield if such spray or material extends no lower than six inches from the top of the front windshield or such spray or material does not extend below the AS-1 marking on the front windshield. State V. Cohen 2002 - NJ expressly adopts Judge Steinberg’s opinion from State V. Olberton 1992; tinted windows on a motor vehicle is RAS for a stop STATE v. COHEN | FindLaw

In this archive episode, Dennis answers some group questions revisiting the defendant's admission. Recorded on 11/27/2017. Defendants' admission brings offense within the presence of the officer. (also see Bauer v. Borough off Cliffside Park 1988.)Bauer v. Borough of Cliffside Park :: 1988 :: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division - Published Opinions Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia The court held that a defendants admission to a police officer of the facts making up the offense alleged will satisfy that the requirement that the disorderly offense occur in the officer’s presence. State v. Morse :: 1969 :: Supreme Court of New Jersey Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia Also - A video tape alone (CCTV) does not satisfy the in presence requirement (This is for Non-Indictables or a Non-Crime) for a warrantless arrest, not for a summons complaint.

In this tight episode, Dennis has Jeremy recall the incident that changed everything and how to move forward as a survivor. Recorded on 09/08/2021.

In this archive episode, Dennis explains how to deal with arrests that have bags to be searched that may contain contraband items. Recorded on 11/29/2017. State V. Oyenusi 2006 – If you have an arrest with bags or items that may contain contraband you must search them contemporaneously with the arrest so close in time and location that they may be considered “connected units of an integrated incident and part of one single transaction.” Must not be remote in time or place. Once the property is not immediately associated with person under arrest a search of the property cannot be done as incident to arrest.(You will need consent or a warrant) Handcuffs first is OK SEARCH BAGS BEFORE YOU TRANSPORT! STATE v. OYENUSI | FindLaw Also see State v. Bradley 1996STATE v. BRADLEY | 291 N.J. Super. 501 (1996) | https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2FLeagle.com%2F%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR2MDyXSkM89GfzkH10ooffndmx4l2uE-dA9tBz0uF6tvRbXq-P_ccHPJI8&h=AT0xpRfHbiyV1fxQZUilc9zHWp4ZtOElwtPVRyHv0Pprt4rX3uEOyZhUKe8To8IayXWkr32ruFuOijr9dhIfzcrJiBaUJdWKyslgB7Fob6jjRo70J-1ffYkM3cAJ7VrvdwLi23qmxtfChgwIJA&__tn__=-UK-R (Leagle.com) State v Mahoney (1988) This is the case that ruled that stationhouse inventory searches are illegal. It is also noted that defendant did not consent to the inventory search nor was he given the opportunity of making other arrangements for the safekeeping of his suitcase and briefcase. State v.Mangold, the Court concluded that "[a]bsent consent or alternative security provisions, an inventory may not be undertaken." Mangold, 82 N.J. at 587.STATE v. MANGOLD | 82 N.J. 575 (1980) | https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2FLeagle.com%2F%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR0M0HMx_H5BWtGwSATZ2Vwn9DK40RzYDP863dXpEJEzglR6E6eGJRHz9RE&h=AT0xpRfHbiyV1fxQZUilc9zHWp4ZtOElwtPVRyHv0Pprt4rX3uEOyZhUKe8To8IayXWkr32ruFuOijr9dhIfzcrJiBaUJdWKyslgB7Fob6jjRo70J-1ffYkM3cAJ7VrvdwLi23qmxtfChgwIJA&__tn__=-UK-R (Leagle.com) State v. Padilla (1999) It is improper to search and inventory the personal property of an arrestee without first affording the arrestee the opportunity to consent to the search or the opportunity to make other arrangements for the disposition of personal property.STATE v. PADILLA | FindLaw State v. Mahoney :: 1988 :: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division - Published Opinions Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia State v. Irelan 2005 This case ruled officers have the right to search a motor vehicle for open containers after an arrest for DWI. (1) the police may lawfully effect a custodial arrest of a motorist when there is probable cause of a DWI violation; (2) incident to the arrest, the police may search the person of the arrestee; and (3) a contemporaneous warrantless search of the vehicle is permissible We hold that these facts are sufficient to support a reasonable well-grounded suspicion that alcohol was consumed in the vehicle, and thus the vehicle contained open containers of alcohol. Therefore, the probable cause prong of the automobile exception is met. This will be allowed for CDS-related DWI’s as well. STATE v. IRELAN | FindLaw

In this archive episode, Dennis explains how to be proactive in research to think less like a basic cop and more like an interdiction officer. Recorded on 11/17/2021.

In this reflective episode, Dennis talks with hero Walter Mackel and how he continues to move forward after seeing the action that he has. Recorded on 09/07/2021.

In this new episode, Dennis addresses getting promoted, and how it isn't just about the focus on bringing value to the organization, but also bringing value to oneself in a way that will enable leadership qualities. Recorded on 09/14/2021.

In this short, Tom Rizzo discusses anger, how we sometimes use it as an anchor, and awareness to harness that energy constructively. Recorded on 08/18/2021.

In this premiere episode of a new series, Tom speaks with guest Michael Deroian and discusses what comes after a career in law enforcement. Recorded on 09/09/2021.

In this archive episode, Dennis answers questions about drugs and investigative detentions. Recorded on 11/17/2017. State of NJ v. Larry Wilson 2003 - https://streetcoptraining.com/original-caselaw/nj-v-wilson-2003/?fbclid=IwAR1hqCK2GqVEyIGzQozDBO0XUv-lWqLJNfxcw5p0lpBh4bCmbQof7R_H8Mc (https://streetcoptraining.com/original.../nj-v-wilson-2003/) The courts have upheld investigative detentions of: 45 Minutes – United States v Davies 1985 https://www.leagle.com/decision/19851661768f2d89311515?fbclid=IwAR1hmwOF7u01QWzRF_TlbmxWNxSlF1FuIVmaKu7ov0mF_NBx7s1EqtCt7io (https://www.leagle.com/decision/19851661768f2d89311515) 50 Minutes – US v. Alpert 1987 https://www.leagle.com/decision/19871774816f2d95811624?fbclid=IwAR3t6NBhT0JduiJWzyyXL6WFnrX1MSgOynmBIH8yvNOZ9XoIgXK0J9uQYIA (https://www.leagle.com/decision/19871774816f2d95811624) 60 Minutes – US v. Large 1984 https://www.leagle.com/decision/19841365729f2d63611269?fbclid=IwAR12M7kKDwYX2PaIo3RxwXuJK8hLD6y_6RajRh1jmTQ3tMgIJ7qKne4cLCM (https://www.leagle.com/decision/19841365729f2d63611269) 75 Minutes – US v. Borys 1985 https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcasetext.com%2Fcase%2Funited-states-v-borys-2%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR1c9cuSS0zYVB4kOAWUWWKwBXNVp2oLjKDzz4kRg_igI9CF3T_ftYtyQyc&h=AT1Iv8ClIRqxpVCLuRmdxLnC4l9ToudM83iM1Yfg5S1l9qePLVhv73DhbrG4u8JQWG5gb-1GeFTkTDh8Im_f0pXbJD60FJxc29slmZNbhYMpaJgKzRXEdERy0IDxNao-b9q2Fm8qtJkK9kVmPA&__tn__=-UK-R (https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-borys-2) Each of these cases cited involved delays necessitated by efforts to obtain a narcotics dog for sniffing luggage or packages. The court will look at whether or not the police diligently pursued their investigation, and whether the detention lasts no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop. The circumstances surrounding the case will matter too, namely the use of handcuffs and confinement.

In this archive episode, Dennis discusses arrests on Title 39 violations. Recorded on 11/09/2017. May a police officer arrest any person who violates, in the officers presence, any provision of Chapter 3 or 4 of title 39? No, although 39:5-25 imposes no limits on an officer’s authority to arrest for traffic offenses, the statute not be read literally. There are “Other sources of law” that suggest that an officer’s authority to arrest under 39:5-25 is, and should be, restricted to those offenses in which , “AN ARREST IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY OR TO ASSURE THAT THE OFFENDER WILL RESPOND TO A SUMMONS!” (SOMEONE WITH NO IDENTIFCATION and YOU CAN’T FIGURE OUT WHO THEY ARE!) Court Rules 3:4-1; 3:3-1(c); 7:2-3(b) which set forth guidelines for officers who have made warrantless arrests in determining whether to apply to the court for a summons or an arrest warrant. 1. GENERAL RULE: A mere inquiry needs NO constitutional justification. A law enforcement officer needs no constitutional justification to approach an individual on the street or in another public place and ask if the individual is willing to answer some questions, and to ask the individual questions if he is willing to listen. See Florida v. Royer, 103 S. Ct. 1319 (1983.); State v. Davis, 104 N.J. 490 (1986).

In this calm yet intense episode, Philadelphia police officer Jesse Hartnett, who was wounded in an ambush shooting back in 2016, joins Dennis on the Street Cop Podcast to discuss the life-changing incident, his career, and what life looks like now. Recorded on 09/08/2021.

In this archive episode, Dennis revisits Miranda on your motor vehicle stops and answers some group questions. Recorded on 11/16/2017. The question posed in this case by the officer was, “You look really nervous, do you have something on you that you should surrender right now? Any contraband, weapons, anything like that?" Defendant admitted to it and handed over a bag of cocaine from his shoe. When the police lawfully conduct a motor vehicle stop they may question the occupants, even on a subject unrelated to the purpose of the stop, without violating the Fourth Amendment, so long as such questioning does not extend the duration of the stop. Roadside questioning of a motorist is not transformed into “custodial interrogation” that must be preceded by Miranda warnings simply because a police officer's questioning is accusatory in nature or designed to elicit incriminating evidence. According to the court the brief questioning of the defendant after the lawful motor vehicle stop of the car in which he was the passenger was perfectly valid. A traffic stop is presumptively temporary and brief and thus questioning incident to an ordinary traffic stop is quite different from stationhouse interrogation. Miranda warnings may be needed, however, if the totality of the circumstances surrounding the stop "impose a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest." However this is changed when you smell marijuana with the intention to arrest for the odor. STATE v. HICKMAN | FindLaw In Berkemer, the Court held that a police officer was not required to give Miranda warnings to a suspected drunk driver before asking him whether “he had been using intoxicants.” Similarly, in State v. Toro, 229 N.J.Super. 215, 551 A.2d 170 (App.Div.1988), we held that police officers who observed a package at the foot of a driver stopped for a motor vehicle offense, which they suspected was a container for drugs, could ask what was in the package without giving Miranda warnings. Although the police officers in Toro ordered the driver out of the car and frisked him for weapons before questioning him, we concluded that the questioning was not “custodial”: https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Flaw.justia.com%2Fcases%2Fnew-jersey%2Fappellate-division-published%2F1988%2F229-n-j-super-215-0.html%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR1AqknLd-lWSsKwZldbxlJ8IJ9HjjxlD677w9hc0XRJmvoacftCFCIGGKI&h=AT0NyVHzslBEtPT5tMmNIkfQr-V-vnE7_VUkm4LiMJS2s903ah9IraZx7-NOgKAaw3dfjXHppKRs46xOZcwKN-qFxjo8bSe616jAm1XNhN-GDbt3W17u7xMFBd3SMxDJALcGkuBniKjBm4q79A&__tn__=-UK-R (https://law.justia.com/.../1988/229-n-j-super-215-0.html) Ohio v. Robinette (1996) US Supreme Court ....There is no requirement under the 4th Amendment that police, during the course of a motor vehicle stop or other investigative detention, must advise the person detained that he or she is “Free to go” before a consent search may be lawfully obtained.

In this archive episode, Dennis revisits the topic of permissible questions during a motor vehicle stop and answers other group questions. Recorded on 11/13/2017. State v. Hickman - A traffic stop is presumptively temporary and brief and thus questioning incident to an ordinary traffic stop is quite different from stationhouse interrogation. Miranda warnings may be needed, however, if the totality of the circumstances surrounding the stop "impose a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest." May request a motorist’s driving credentials Should advise the motorist of the reason for the stop (Doesn’t have to!) May run a computer check May ask questions reasonably related to the reason for the traffic stop; **Inconsistent or contradictory answers provided by the vehicle’s occupants may then permit an officer to broaden the inquiry and ask more intrusive questions designed to confirm or dispel suspicions of criminal activity** May issue a citation State v Chapman (2000) https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcaselaw.findlaw.com%2Fnj-superior-court-appellate-division%2F1035452.html%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR1WTJjMtesl6q3StLnPPH5-f52RQRyZoAR7UYo9-89wK0jzBJRsCuobDrY&h=AT30TFR6QL92B8a0HSlPAi5sQa65a9xHEWehDEczxRG4rIHx3HIIy9f1Jr8o_OOz_GitQd3V4XNj2X57DS6b_VtpQsDmkfs8ZVQbHg-5rzmg4Ho0UA0xBeSVDU8Prwc_CR3h41CyYDqq9LVaBw&__tn__=-UK-R (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court.../1035452.html) State v Hickman (2000) The question posed in this case by the officer was “You look really nervous, do you have something on you that you should surrender right now? Any contraband, weapons, anything like that?’ Defendant admitted to it and handed over a bag of cocaine from his shoe. When the police lawfully conduct a motor vehicle stop they may question the occupants, even on a subject unrelated to the purpose of the stop, without violating the Fourth Amendment, so long as such questioning does not extend the duration of the stop. Roadside questioning of a motorist is not transformed into “custodial interrogation” that must be preceded by Miranda warnings simply because a police officer's questioning is accusatory in nature or designed to elicit incriminating evidence. According to the court, the brief questioning of the defendant after the lawful motor vehicle stop of the car in which he was the passenger was perfectly valid. Thus, in Berkemer, the Court held that a police officer was not required to give Miranda warnings to a suspected drunk driver before asking him whether “he had been using intoxicants. Similarly, in State v. Toro, 229 N.J.Super. 215, 551 A.2d 170 (App.Div.1988), we held that police officers who observed a package at the foot of a driver stopped for a motor vehicle offense, which they suspected was a container for drugs, could ask what was in the package without giving Miranda warnings. Although the police officers in Toro ordered the driver out of the car and frisked him for weapons before questioning him, we concluded that the questioning was not “custodial”:

In this archive episode, Dennis explains that transporting a subject for ID only is illegal. Recorded on 11/08/2017. Dunaway v. New York (1979)US Supreme Court Whenever a law enforcement officer removes a suspect from where he is found and transports that suspect to police headquarters for questioning, the police action is the functional equivalent of an arrest. Although the defendant was not told he was under arrest, he would have been physically restrained if he had attempted to leave. Also See…State V. Dickey 1998 “De Facto” arrest and Kaupp v. Texas (2003) KAUPP v. TEXAS | FindLaw There is no such thing as transporting for identification purposes against someone’s will! If they agree to come in under their own will that’s totally different. Use State v. Pierce referenced earlier Dunaway v. New York :: 442 U.S. 200 (1979) :: Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

In this archive episode, Dennis packs in knowledge about arresting for motor vehicle offenses and State v Irelan vs State v Eckel and their differences. Recorded on 11/07/2017. State V. Pierce (1994) May a police officer arrest any person who violates, in the officer's presence, any provision of Chapter 3 or 4 of title 39? No, although 39:5-25 imposes no limits on an officer’s authority to arrest for traffic offenses, the statute not be read literally. There are “Other sources of law” that suggest that an officer’s authority to arrest under 39:5-25 is, and should be, restricted to those offenses in which, “AN ARREST IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY OR TO ASSURE THAT THE OFFENDER WILL RESPOND TO A SUMMONS!” (SOMEONE WITH NO IDENTIFCATION and YOU CAN’T FIGURE OUT WHO THEY ARE!) Court Rules 3:4-1; 3:3-1(c); 7:2-3(b) which set forth guidelines for officers who have made warrantless arrests in determining whether to apply to the court for a summons or an arrest warrant. State V. Lark (2000) The court said, “Where the driver is without a license and persists concealing his identity an officer may then either continue to detain the driver for further investigation or arrest the driver under 39:3-10 (Unlicensed Driver) or 39: 3-29(Failure to provide Documents).” In instances such as this, when a driver is without a license and offers false information in response to a reasonable police inquiry, there exists a sufficient basis for the police officer to detain the driver for further questioning until the officer learns the true identity of the driver Assuming that the driver persists in concealing his or her identity and there appears to be no other reasonable alternative, the police officer may take the driver into custody. State v Eckel 2006 There is no such thing as a search of a vehicle incident to arrest without probable cause associated with the vehicle itself. STATE v. ECKEL | FindLaw Also see Arizona V. Gant (2009) which replaced NY v. Belton (Belton Bright Line Rule). State v Irelan 2005 This case ruled officers have the right to search a motor vehicle for open containers after an arrest for DWI. (1) the police may lawfully affect a custodial arrest of a motorist when there is probable cause of a DWI violation; (2) incident to the arrest, the police may search the person of the arrestee; and (3) a contemporaneous warrantless search of the vehicle is permissible We hold that these facts are sufficient to support a reasonable well-grounded suspicion that alcohol was consumed in the vehicle, and thus the vehicle contained open containers of alcohol. Therefore, the probable cause prong of the automobile exception is met. This will be allowed for CDS-related DWI’s as well.

In this archive episode, Dennis answers some questions about containers in motor vehicles to be searched after a DWI arrest. Recorded on 11/06/2017. State of NJ v. Irelan 2005 - This case ruled officers have the right to search a motor vehicle for open containers after an arrest for DWI. (1) the police may lawfully effect a custodial arrest of a motorist when there is probable cause of a DWI violation; (2) incident to the arrest, the police may search the person of the arrestee; and (3) a contemporaneous warrantless search of the vehicle is permissible We hold that these facts are sufficient to support a reasonable well-grounded suspicion that alcohol was consumed in the vehicle, and thus the vehicle contained open containers of alcohol. Therefore, the probable cause prong of the automobile exception is met. This will be allowed for CDS related DWI’s as well. STATE v. IRELAN | FindLaw

In this archive episode, Dennis answers more questions about out-of-state motor vehicles and violations. Recorded on 10/24/2017.

In this archive episode, Dennis answers group questions about K9 units and sniffs establishing probable cause. Recorded on 10/23/2017. US v Nurse (D.C. Cir. 1990) If the canine sniff results in a positive alert or indication that the particular piece of property contains contraband or evidence of a suspected crime, this trained Canine’s reaction elevates the reasonable suspicion to probable cause, and thus provides the necessary justification for the issuance of a search warrant or for a search under an applicable exception to the warrant requirement. Illinois v Caballes (2005) US Supreme Court As found by the trial judge prior to the appeal, the dog sniff was sufficiently reliable to establish probable cause to conduct a full-blown search of the trunk. United States v Pierce (2010)- The United States Supreme Court has consistently held “That an exterior canine sniff of a car during a lawful traffic stop does not amount to a search under the 4th Amendment. It is also well established that, looking at the totality of the circumstances, a dog’s positive alert while sniffing the exterior of the car provides an officer with probable cause.” Illinois v. Caballes - Amicus (Merits) | OSG | Department of Justice Florida v Harris 2013 US Supreme Court The question—similar to every inquiry into probable cause—is whether all the facts surrounding a dog’s alert, viewed through the lens of common sense, would make a reason- ably prudent person think that a search would reveal con- traband or evidence of a crime. A sniff is up to snuff when it meets that test… And here, Aldo’s did. If a bona fide organization has certified a dog after testing his reliabilityin a controlled setting, a court can presume (subject to any conflicting evidence offered) that the dog’s alert provides probable cause to search. The same is true, even in the absence of formal certification, if the dog has recently and successfully completed a training program that evaluatedhis proficiency in locating drugs. After all, law enforce­ment units have their own strong incentive to use effective training and certification programs, because only accuratedrug-detection dogs enable officers to locate contraband without incurring unnecessary risks or wasting limited time and resources. https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourt.gov%2Fopinions%2F12pdf%2F11-817_5if6.pdf%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR3S9IGJ9tlw-cUEkeqlKXeViwjtLu717t4GxDnRQnDgv8pO4hrQwvqexo0&h=AT1i_d8pny0ccA7pr8cqwqj1o9KHUqMrjptXiAvVHq7f6ivaESlYWpz10d5Gyi1HPhCgELEXJDEEfxVq-GDOAwHkCpsJgj445-w_-bMPNE3H0obypRxl9WGO6sdcLYJEBpta3Zy6K0ayKDGo3g&__tn__=-UK-R (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-817_5if6.pdf) State of NJ v. Cancel 1992 We agree that the dog's positive reaction to defendant's suitcase and the discrepancy between her name and the name on her ticket gave the police probable cause to arrest her and obtain a warrant to search the suitcase.(Referring to a US Supreme Court Decision) See Florida v. Royer, *434 460 U.S. 491, 506, 103 S. Ct. 1319, 1329, 75 L. Ed. 2d 229, 242 (1983) (had police used dog to sniff defendant's luggage "a positive result would have resulted in his justifiable arrest on probable cause"). State v. Cancel :: 1992 :: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division - Published Opinions Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: US Law :: Justia 1. GENERAL RULE: A mere inquiry needs NO constitutional justification. A law enforcement officer needs no constitutional justification to approach an individual on the street or in another public place and ask if the individual is willing to answer some questions, and to ask the individual questions if he is willing to listen. See Florida v. Royer, 103 S. Ct. 1319 (1983.); State v. Davis, 104 N.J. 490 (1986). 1. GENERAL RULE: A mere inquiry needs NO constitutional justification. A law enforcement officer needs no constitutional justification to approach an individual on the street or in another public...

In this archive episode, Dennis answers some group questions regarding K9 units and motor vehicle delays. Recorded on 10/13/2017. Illinois v Caballes (2005) US Supreme Court As found by the trial judge prior to the appeal, the dog sniff was sufficiently reliable to establish probable cause to conduct a full-blown search of the trunk. Caballes is the same as (2017) State v. Mark Dunbar (A-94-15; 077839) The Court adopts the federal standard barring unnecessary delays for the purpose of canine sniffs. Officers do not need reasonable suspicion of a drug offense provided that the canine sniff does not prolong the stop beyond the time required to complete the stop’s mission. United States v Pierce (2010)- The United States Supreme Court has consistently held “That an exterior canine sniff of a car during a lawful traffic stop does not amount to a search under the 4th Amendment. It is also well established that, looking at the totality of the circumstances, a dog’s positive alert while sniffing the exterior of the car provides an officer with probable cause.” Illinois v. Caballes - Amicus (Merits) | OSG | Department of Justice State v Sloan 2008 - Leaving a vehicle to be driven by a passenger or a third party allows you the right to check their driving credentials. (Criminal Wants / Warrants) This also allowed police officers to run warrant checks of passengers without Reasonable Suspicion. The police do not need a reasonable suspicion before they access the NCIC database. An NCIC check by the police is not a search under the federal or state constitutions. HELD: During a motor vehicle stop, the passenger, like the driver, is seized under the federal and state constitutions. Police do not need reasonable suspicion before they may access the NCIC database and, because accessing the NCIC database was within the scope of the traffic stop and did not unreasonably prolong the stop, there was no basis to suppress the evidence found. State of NJ v. Patino (1980) – “The discovery of a small amount of marijuana in the passenger compartment gave rise only to an inference that the occupants were casual users, and this furnished no cause to search the trunk where large “Dealer Sized” quantities of drugs would presumably be stored. “In the absence of other circumstances that suggest participation in drug trafficking or possession of more contraband” such a search could not expand beyond the persons of the occupants or the passenger compartment of the car.” State v. Patino :: 1980 :: Supreme Court of New Jersey Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia Trooper pulls over vehicle and spots plastic bag protruding from under the floor mat containing a 4.6 ounce chunk of a white powdery substance later testing positive for cocaine (Plain View) Both are arrested, read miranda, and agreed to speak, co-defendants lips were quivering when asked about the bag in the trunk and responded that he did not know what the contents were. (364 Plastic Vials used for packaging found) Court said – “These are the very types of circumstances that the Patino court referred to, as providing probable cause to search the entire vehicle including the trunk and the interior of the paper bags in the trunk. Allows an officer, after discovery of contraband, to question a defendant after having read them their Miranda rights. State v. Letman :: 1989 :: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division - Published Opinions Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia State v Guerra 1983 The troopers lawfully stopped the vehicle. They then detected a strong odor of marijuana emanating from the interior of the vehicle. Thus they had probable cause to search the trunk for evidence of contraband. The packages found in the trunk were validly searched. Regardless of the visibility of their contents, the size of the packages and the odor of marijuana that they emitted clearly suggested that they contained...

In this thrilling, heartfelt, and introspective episode, Dennis speaks with guest Scott Williamson about a day that went from 0-100. Recorded on 08/30/2021.

In this episode, Dennis explores the topic of investigative detention, hindering, and the timeframe allowed while waiting for an available K9 Unit. Recorded on 10/12/2017. The courts have upheld investigative detentions of: 45 Minutes – United States v Davies 1985 https://www.leagle.com/decision/19851661768f2d89311515?fbclid=IwAR1yrWu5W7atkaHg_KTcrT7Ek05PXB4fj4YmepPA2UiiMJ4uU0eoaBzN4H4 (https://www.leagle.com/decision/19851661768f2d89311515) 50 Minutes – US v. Alpert 1987 https://www.leagle.com/decision/19871774816f2d95811624?fbclid=IwAR2CpcPPIWcfvc7L0fKTCU4vhJuuNuyo920DtSizrYuNTl103EUbeNg8Kf0 (https://www.leagle.com/decision/19871774816f2d95811624) 60 Minutes – US v. Large 1984 https://www.leagle.com/decision/19841365729f2d63611269?fbclid=IwAR3yiAMskxn5y89lKy6ndpsOYfYKXFS6ybxPHXtCR-zFDPuGSgUulw---bU (https://www.leagle.com/decision/19841365729f2d63611269) 75 Minutes – US v. Borys 1985 https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-borys-2?fbclid=IwAR1OmEIeTyBnYaikm0jJZUnycAtfCwWhprYIamoPK1_AqbBhyi8g7vxyykY (https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-borys-2) Each of these cases cited involved delays necessitated by efforts to obtain a narcotics dog for sniffing luggage or packages. The court will look at whether or not the police diligently pursued their investigation, and whether the detention lasts no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop. The circumstances surrounding the case will matter too, namely the use of handcuffs and confinement. U.S. v. Sharpe (1985) 20 Minute or Longer detentions do not constitute a violation of the 4th Amendment! In Sharpe the Court refused to adopt a time limit. State v Davis (1986) – NJ Courts adopt Sharpe and state – “Officers should use the least instrusive investigative techniques reasonably available to verify or dispel his suspicion in the shortest period of time reasonably possible” https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Flaw.justia.com%2Fcases%2Fnew-jersey%2Fsupreme-court%2F1986%2F104-n-j-490-0.html%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR1Aazl3ZObZOZm5-e8v7-9nJiJq9T3jCn0JKzu0mM4kyvFh9G64s7aq0Vo&h=AT2SHE_DVb0uYXJqzoOSHxaXeLIgi-d4RcDVxJKmKKlWYEo5oUCDKAHNZAtfQnZwPWY5VRpZQcv5Uf9mWadOgkdx176569Jlz1S61_QYRpUpgr1UXDS72x9r9Y0Lm26qgDtfXmRaaaBJHePlSA&__tn__=-UK-R (http://law.justia.com/.../supreme.../1986/104-n-j-490-0.html) Also discussed in State v Dickey (1998) https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcaselaw.findlaw.com%2Fnj-supreme-court%2F1456380.html%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR3gxkLJEHIOMZW2hS9KwyXwdEKK9wg2DOH5A2qQu8rQR0s2WCab0oVIqig&h=AT1fWLeapRnbwSRg2OBcU1bKJze71_iyVjTv7J5ovl76EgjthkyhIa9ppt7Z90XZkDbZoOJX1qgSAR93vu2IjbwQ3ndaOxT2aG2aiNsJbn0nmOuU-lPBIqDi-JLvT63j2QGJivNWB-enZhyHUQ&__tn__=-UK-R (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1456380.html) Also see State v. Colapinto 1998 regarding the detention of 25 minutes while waiting for a DWI officer. UNITED STATES v. SHARPE | FindLaw STATE v. COLAPINTO | FindLaw

In this archive episode, Dennis revisits cases where the defendant makes an admission in the presence of an officer. Recorded on 10/11/2017. Defendants admission brings offense within the presence of the officer. (also see Bauer v. Borough off Cliffside Park 1988.)Bauer v. Borough of Cliffside Park :: 1988 :: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division - Published Opinions Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia The court held that a defendants admission to a police officer of the facts making up the offense alleged will satisfy that the requirement that the disorderly offense occur in the officer’s presence. State v. Morse :: 1969 :: Supreme Court of New Jersey Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia Most commonly, the “in presence” requirement is satisfied by an officer directly viewing or seeing the offense occur even if the officer uses a telescope or binoculars. Remember – Binoculars are an accepted way of surveillance. Also- A video tape alone (CCTV) does not satisfy the in presence requirement (This is for Non-Indictables or a Non-Crime) for a warrantless arrest, not for a summons complaint. The in-presence requirement only applies to the arrest of a person. This doesn’t mean you can’t issue a summons in an incident where probable cause exists. R. 7:2-(a)(2) A law enforcement officer may personally serve the summons on the defendant without making the custodial arrest without a finding by a judicial officer of probable cause for issuance. officer using the Special Form should check the box in the shaded area designated "Law Enforcement Use Only.“ Or you can type it up at HQ on a CDR https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.judiciary.state.nj.us%2Frules%2Fr7-2.htm%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR0sE9onlheLJgeLqxNw5GCnq47dc86DyFE9xbRy_ziuWnhZHLyCxQD1uDE&h=AT1I1vWfO6h3qMEVB_UveblCj2SzM6IOiaUQbqpYwgsk2E8h1-GEtedDtN-oICCg3lA2OhK8oPFw0LMfrsheWvItCR2AxiSndHDkOLs8mJpW2CkQYTTh2Sx1ZfLVoPoc9ro0zqWt9dUEkTX5kQ&__tn__=-UK-R (http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/rules/r7-2.htm) Under Chapter 12 of Title 2B Any police officer may issue summonses related to such complaints and may as authorized by the Rules of the Court issue a summons in lieu of an arrest for an offense committed in the officer's presence. Special Form of Complaint and Summons under NJ Court Rule 7:2-1(g) Disorderly / Petty Disorderly Offenses, except for those involving domestic violence and those with a companion indictable manner Local Ordinance Violations Code Enforcement Actions Penalty Enforcement actions (R.7:2-1(h) Boating Offenses Parking and Traffic Offenses where a private citizen is the complainant.

In this archive episode, Dennis answers a few questions on Miranda, Reasonable Suspicion, Hindering, and even has a special guest provide a testimonial. Recorded on 10/04/2017. Related Links: https://streetcoptraining.com/caselaw/nj-v-letman/?fbclid=IwAR1PQj9RKjur92f7JXmeIC2l3M6NR5fSTwebbN7TJDphybjwOi4h-VN4uHs (https://streetcoptraining.com/caselaw/nj-v-letman/) https://streetcoptraining.com/caselaw/nj-v-hickman/?fbclid=IwAR2ygp1rzhd0NQCwILy9CMNHT0Caq9RhUiITzlwabe5zvoRv9ouA0QRRdyY (https://streetcoptraining.com/caselaw/nj-v-hickman/)

In this archive episode, Dennis answers a variety of questions regarding tinted windows, parked vehicles, and roadside questioning. Recorded on 09/27/2017. Questioning on an MV STOP May request a motorist’s driving credentials. Should advise the motorist of the reason for the stop. May run a computer check. May ask questions reasonably related to the reason for the traffic stop; **Inconsistent or contradictory answers provided by the vehicle’s occupants may then permit an officer to broaden the inquiry and ask more intrusive questions designed to confirm or dispel suspicions of criminal activity** May issue a citation State v Chapman (2000) http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1035452.html?fbclid=IwAR1X5LUDBHV979jXVpi8xKbhZCnw8qljo9qZAqbsJ6bYA_yEzA7w_RPlOIE (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court.../1035452.html) State v Hickman (2000) The question posed in this case by the officer was “You look really nervous, do you have something on you that you should surrender right now? Any contraband, weapons, anything like that?’ Defendant admitted to it and handed over a bag of cocaine from his shoe. When the police lawfully conduct a motor vehicle stop they may question the occupants, even on a subject unrelated to the purpose of the stop, without violating the Fourth Amendment, so long as such questioning does not extend the duration of the stop. Roadside questioning of a motorist is not transformed into “custodial interrogation” that must be preceded by Miranda warnings simply because a police officer's questioning is accusatory in nature or designed to elicit incriminating evidence. According to the court the brief questioning of the defendant after the lawful motor vehicle stop of the car in which he was the passenger was perfectly valid. Thus, in Berkemer, the Court held that a police officer was not required to give Miranda warnings to a suspected drunk driver before asking him whether “he had been using intoxicants. Similarly, in State v. Toro, 229 N.J.Super. 215, 551 A.2d 170 (App.Div.1988), we held that police officers who observed a package at the foot of a driver stopped for a motor vehicle offense, which they suspected was a container for drugs, could ask what was in the package without giving Miranda warnings. Although the police officers in Toro ordered the driver out of the car and frisked him for weapons before questioning him, we concluded that the questioning was not “custodial”: A traffic stop is presumptively temporary and brief and thus questioning incident to an ordinary traffic stop is quite different from stationhouse interrogation. Miranda warnings may be needed, however, if the totality of the circumstances surrounding the stop "impose a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest." However, this is changed when you smell marijuana with the intention to arrest for the odor. STATE v. HICKMAN | FindLaw

In this archive episode, Dennis explains the laws around Terry Frisks and ID. Recorded on 09/26/2017. State v. Lipski, 238 N.1Super. 100 (App.Div. 1990) The Terry frisk and "intoxicated" individuals. When there are no facts or circumstances supporting a reasonable and articulable concern by the officer for his safety," the Constitution prohibits that officer from conducting a routine protective frisk, after ordering a suspected intoxicated driver out of his vehicle. The Constitution does not authorize routine patdowns "absent the officer's belief that the suspect may be armed or dangerous. When a person refuses a consent search it is legal for the officer to advise their next step or steps in pursuit for further action. See State v. Cancel 1992 / State v. Pante (1999) STATE v. PANTE | FindLaw Applying for a search warrant Contacting a K-9 Unit / The threat of calling for a dog is good to go as long as you reasonably believed you could get one. (This requires RAS but you should have it at this point). See State v. Elders 2006 and State v. Baum 2007. Have a K-9 plan mapped out before you need a dog. STATE v. ELDERS | FindLaw https://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/mcs/case_law/a1576-06.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3xp5dboQB7wh29tPhYT4l6eZGcnG2T8wRA5elMZOFVk8M-4FnJLK5eqG8 (https://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/mcs/case_law/a1576-06.pdf) State v Baum (2007) http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1377541.html?fbclid=IwAR1d-OxBTUmnqAsNyg1NoKeI0lWXn-oB5aLlWROaEzM2R8WGl1A4O07t2eY (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court.../1377541.html) Because, during the motor vehicle stop, the officer had reasonable and articulable suspicion of drug possession at that point, he could threaten the use of a drug-sniffing dog. When there is reasonable suspicion of drugs and the threat to call for a dog is calmly given, as it was here, such a threat will not be considered coercive.

In this archive episode, Dennis takes a live call explaining Eckel v Witt. Recorded on 09/22/2017.

In this archive episode, Dennis explains that the defendant's admission establishes probable cause. Recorded on 09/17/2017. State v Brown 2002 - https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1473887/state-v-brown/?q&court_nj=on&order_by=score%20desc&fbclid=IwAR19d686JcxFor0qx7WMbe5pcKknU292jTgOW5qICxjRD8cTmCOD8Um66Sg (https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1473887/state-v-brown/?q=&court_nj=on&order_by=score+desc) Dog hit’s on defendants suitcase and she admitted to having 55 pounds of marijuana on her hence establishing PC, she was arrested and the search of the bag was considered search incident to arrest. Probable cause to arrest defendant existed following her admission of guilt especially in light of the dog having "alerted" to the presence of drugs in the suitcase. Indeed, at oral argument before us, defense counsel admitted probable cause existed in these circumstances. Hence, the search of the suitcase was incident to defendant's arrest and her consent to search was not required.[8] That being so, we need not decide whether defendant's consent to search the suitcase was voluntary.

In this archive episode, Dennis explains that opening a locked container or safe does not require an additional warrant. Recorded on 09/17/2017. New Jersey adopts the federal standard...State of NJ v. Jackson 1993 In conducting the search the police discovered a locked safe, which was seized and opened, revealing incriminating evidence. The court rejected the argument that the scope of the warrant had been exceeded by the opening of a locked safe, concluding that "[t]he locked safe was a likely source for the specified documents and could therefore be opened." http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/1993/268-n-j-super-194-1.html?fbclid=IwAR0mTN-8RHGzJFuJRmng-yipCKfDYzjmW_WzUv42Wkwd67R8ZMrskgVrW5M (http://law.justia.com/.../1993/268-n-j-super-194-1.html) State v. Hansen, 732 P.2d 127, 131 (Utah 1987) (warrant to search premises for drugs permitted search of locked box within, rejecting contention that a separate warrant was required to open the box). Although article I, ¶ 7 of the New Jersey Constitution may very well afford our citizens greater protection against unreasonable searches and seizures than does the Fourth Amendment (see State v. Hempele, supra, 120 N.J. at 195, 576 A.2d 793 (and cases cited *210 therein)) neither public policy nor New Jersey decisional law compel a result different from that espoused in the federal authorities referenced above. Indeed, although not dispositive, Reldan, supra, 100 N.J. at 195, 495 A.2d 76, suggests an analysis which is both practical and consistent with the foregoing. http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/1993/268-n-j-super-194-1.html?fbclid=IwAR1madzfd7NXtpitT-KN6XZnbiq07b4iQQhrBrvYVfOhBxgYeOPJ_jAwKTw (http://law.justia.com/.../1993/268-n-j-super-194-1.html)

In this archive episode, Dennis discusses the circumstances for PC regarding searching parked motor vehicles. Recorded on 09/16/2017 State v Colvin 1991 The "automobile exception" permits police to stop and search a moving or readily movable vehicle when there is probable cause to believe the vehicle contains criminally related objects. It also applies to parked motor vehicles. The rationale for this exception is grounded in the exigent circumstances created by the inherent mobility of vehicles and the somewhat lessened expectation of privacy in one's vehicle. [State v. Patino, 83 N.J. 1, 9, 414 A.2d 1327 (1980).]. We hold that when, without advance planning when police encounter a parked car and have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains criminal contraband such as drugs, and have articulable reasons to believe that the evidence may otherwise be lost or destroyed, they may seize and search the vehicle for the contraband without the necessity of a warrant. The ability to search a car does not depend on whether or not it is parked or moving, just remember that it must be unforeseeable and spontaneous. http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/1991/123-n-j-428-1.html?fbclid=IwAR1o9cvO0I5Sm0_ba87VMRmm2RxgQkiTczfsVRLOCFDlm_9ZFqW8T20I97E (http://law.justia.com/.../supreme.../1991/123-n-j-428-1.html) State v Patino http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/1980/83-n-j-1-0.html?fbclid=IwAR18V_498z22fU7tWHmmZ1J3fmSfs7aVW7gJhkKKJUQ4blIU9dju-6WTW5k (http://law.justia.com/.../supreme-court/1980/83-n-j-1-0.html)

In this archive episode, Dennis discusses abandonment and the circumstances needed for truly abandoned property. Recorded on 09/05/2017. Related Links: https://streetcoptraining.com/caselaw/nj-v-johnson/?fbclid=IwAR1TSeI7RzB_KGw3GlWhhg7-v9asupLxfIBGx27YiJIIqhq_853IulKMUA4 (https://streetcoptraining.com/caselaw/nj-v-johnson/) https://streetcoptraining.com/caselaw/nj-v-carvajal/?fbclid=IwAR2UcUI7loc4E2zScS25c6dnhZW72n7dPKDUXJ-wvQj2Scfmsi1lvOhHRxE (https://streetcoptraining.com/caselaw/nj-v-carvajal/) NJ v. v. Maristany (1993) http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/1993/133-n-j-299.html?fbclid=IwAR0lSkmYELpAw7ubfEHxhlhzc-ZZKxeC0w9l0ROxCdt4jVX0gTa-1W0IB1o (http://law.justia.com/.../supreme.../1993/133-n-j-299.html) NJ v. Lee 1991 http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/1991/245-n-j-super-441-0.html?fbclid=IwAR156roKip7M_UVDyU9pGUj3B-4kVm0B_cgbMXoWbwGoYS7VFypfr4wY0iE (http://law.justia.com/.../1991/245-n-j-super-441-0.html)

In this archive episode, Dennis answers questions about constructive possession and explains some case laws. Recorded on 09/01/2017. Maryland v Pringle 2003 - Respondent, Pringle, was the front-seat passenger in a car that was stopped for speeding. Upon stopping the car, the arresting officer found money in the glove compartment and cocaine in the back-seat armrest. The officer arrested all three occupants of the car and Pringle was convicted for possession with intent to distribute cocaine after he signed a written confession. Pringle appealed, arguing that probable cause to arrest him did not exist. Held. When finding contraband in an automobile, there is probable cause to arrest its occupants, regardless of their proximity from the contraband. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/540/366.html?fbclid=IwAR2D4r1rJwNuaaTbpqXBDGO5w3K1rtJn9Or5SLnmP-68l4sb8Ctsre85LVg (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/540/366.html)

In this archive episode, Dennis explains prescription drugs and the laws around them. Recorded on 08/30/2017. 2C:35-24. Possession of certain prescription drugs A person who possesses a controlled dangerous substance that was prescribed or dispensed lawfully may possess it only in the container in which it was dispensed; except that the person may possess no more than a 10-day supply in other than the original container if the person produces, upon the request of a law enforcement officer, the name and address of the practitioner who prescribed the substance or the pharmacist who dispensed it. A person who violates this section is a disorderly person.

In this archive episode, Dennis discusses hidden compartments/traps with guest TJ Cullen from TrapFind LLC. Recorded on 08/28/2017.

In this essential archive episode, Dennis describes core qualities that you must possess to be a successful interdiction officer. Recorded on 08/27/2017.

In this archive episode, Dennis discusses search warrants for motel rooms and holding cars while waiting for the K9 Unit. Oh, and someone wins a shirt! Recorded on 08/24/2017.

In this archive episode, Dennis is addressing K9 again. Recorded on 08/23/2017. State v. William L. Witt (A-9-14; 074468) The exigent-circumstances standard set forth in Pena-Flores is unsound in principle and unworkable in practice. Citing Article I, Paragraph 7 of New Jersey’s State Constitution, the Court returns to the standard articulated in State v. Alston, 88 N.J. 211 (1981), for warrantless searches of automobiles based on probable cause.State v. Alston :: 1981 :: Supreme Court of New Jersey Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: US Law :: Justia The automobile exception authorizes the warrantless search of an automobile only when the police have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of an offense and the circumstances giving rise to probable cause are unforeseeable and spontaneous. This standard is seemingly consistent with the Federal Standard. Significantly, we also made clear in Alston, supra, that merely because “the particular occupants of the vehicle may have been removed from the car, arrested, or otherwise restricted in their freedom of movement,” police were not required to secure a warrant. 88 N.J. at 234. Last, relying on Chambers, we emphasized that “when there is probable cause to conduct an immediate search at the scene of the stop, the police are not required to delay the search by seizing and impounding the vehicle pending review of that probable cause determination by a magistrate.” Id. at 234–35. We also part from federal jurisprudence that allows a police officer to conduct a warrantless search at headquarters merely because he could have done so on the side of the road. See Chambers, supra, 399 U.S. at 52, 90 S.Ct. at 1981–82, 26 L. Ed.2d at 428–29. “Whatever inherent exigency justifies a warrantless search at the scene under the automobile exception certainly cannot justify the failure to secure a warrant after towing and impounding the car” at headquarters when it is practicable to do so. Pena–Flores, supra, 198 N.J. at 39 n. 1 (Albin, J., dissenting). Warrantless searches should not be based on fake exigencies. Therefore, under Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution, we limit the automobile exception to on-scene warrantless searches. For the reasons expressed, the exigent-circumstances test in Cooke and Pena–Flores no longer applies. We return to the standard set forth in Alston for warrantless searches of automobiles based on probable cause. Automobile by itself provides exigency satisfying the one prong of the two-prong necessity of a warrantless search, all you need is the probable cause.

In this archive episode, Dennis discusses mv warrants and inventory searches. Recorded on 08/22/2017. State v William Witt 2015 Last, relying on Chambers, we emphasized that “when there is probable cause to conduct an immediate search at the scene of the stop, the police are not required to delay the search by seizing and impounding the vehicle pending review of that probable cause determination by a magistrate.” Id. at 234–35. State v Ercolano 1979 Police may properly impound a vehicle subsequent to its driver’s arrest when: 1- The driver consents to the impoundment 2- The vehicle, if not removed, constitutes a danger to persons or property or the public safety AND the driver cannot arrange for the alternative means of removal 3- When probable cause exists to believe that both the vehicle constitutes an instrumentality or fruit of a crime and that absent immediate impoundment, the vehicle will be removed by a third party 4- Probable cause exists to believe both that the vehicle contains evidence of a crime and absent immediate impoundment, the evidence will be lost or destroyed You can verify that the vehicle is uninsured through a third party ie…Calling Insurance Company State v Roberson (1978) Seehttp://www.nj.gov/oag/dcj/agguide/impound_guide_6804.pdf Attorney General Guidelines of Implementation Insurance Fraud Laws June 8th 2004 C.2C:43-2.4 Authority to impound motor vehicles. 1. a. Any law enforcement agency is authorized to impound: (1) a motor vehicle in which a violation of subsection a., d., or f ofN.J.S.2C:39-5 was committed; (Poss of Machine Gun/Assault Weap.) (2) a motor vehicle in which possession of a handgun, rifle, or shotgun for an unlawful purpose in violation ofN.J.S.2C:39-4 was committed; (Poss of a weapon for an unlawful purpose) (3) a motor vehicle in which a violation of subsection b. or c. of N.J.S.2C:39-5 was committed in addition to the motor vehicle being used to commit a separate crime of the first, second, third or fourth degree under Title 2C of the New Jersey Statutes; (4) a motor vehicle which was used in the commission of any offense under subsection b. ofN.J.S.2C:34-1; (Weapons and Drugs) (5) a motor vehicle which was used in the commission of an offense under subsection a. of N.J.S.2C:35-10 or subsection a. ofN.J.S.2C:35-5. (Possession and use of CDS and CDS Distribution)

In this archive episode, Dennis explains how it was established that K-9 Sniff will give you probable cause. Recorded on 08/19/2017. K-9 Sniff is considered “Sui Generis” which means unique to its purpose, similar to a drug testing kit. The Court had held that a dog sniff is sui generis because it discloses only the presence or absence of narcotics. (US v. Place 1983) http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/462/696.html?fbclid=IwAR3jw38otJbWOqGkBeFLHMWdyZwBs0XhbClqA_AA_3r1HhGzLqavnN_DMXM (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/462/696.html) US v Nurse 1990 - If the canine sniff results in a positive alert or indication that the particular piece of property contains contraband or evidence of a suspected crime, this trained Canine’s reaction elevates the reasonable suspicion to probable cause, and thus provides the necessary justification for the issuance of a search warrant or for a search under an applicable exception to the warrant requirement.https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ravellaw.com%2Fopinions%2Fee859de4ba38d3bbc4550db9735fb71e%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR3kHJVXg3lCvucmFhXDjNbqrUCEuVg4ig87tAssldcswGUSuQG3et4C0SQ&h=AT0E23SZHlEVwq9kjdWr-LZBcyrxZ8GQbCMoIFr59C0kNaTOkOmdFSAvDzeSRnf6ieD_8hTG_NgDLaaa_-nXU1lGv9k09Xn45ZdG1X64cZCqF1TRRbnpM5qo7BtBRt9z5g&__tn__=-UK-R (https://www.ravellaw.com/.../ee859de4ba38d3bbc4550db9735f...) Illinois v. Caballes 2005 - As found by the trial judge prior to the appeal, the dog sniff was sufficiently reliable to establish probable cause to conduct a full blown search of the trunk. United States v Pierce (2010)- The United States Supreme Court has consistently held “That an exterior canine sniff of a car during a lawful traffic stop does not amount to a search under the 4th Amendment. It is also well established that, looking at the totality of the circumstances, a dog’s positive alert while sniffing the exterior of the car provides an officer with probable cause.” https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.justice.gov%2Fosg%2Fbrief%2Fillinois-v-caballes-amicus-merits%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR1bIXi_3oSo39wYT-OyAwmu_0DipVEdFcbY1taK8IfJ5--uYjKuPQTAbTI&h=AT0zo0-Tm4xrdE4dLE8i2C707gCmj1nBO0tOflHiLXwyEp2iS8oaCn5HPSzNxuNvP5duq29J7HfO9iH9I3finJkQoNe0rMd3miA34ymdK2KxTv3Uj7IubLi5FMsFxvvR-A&__tn__=-UK-R (https://www.justice.gov/.../illinois-v-caballes-amicus...) Florida v. Harris 2013 https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourt.gov%2Fopinions%2F12pdf%2F11-817_5if6.pdf%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR0WG2Qu9ubTxiCSpran7apppKg2imx0ES7PN_xRTtW6wZgr0GWsA2EkL-I&h=AT0SceADRAmR2PD8_LREGXDuMx_udIdxQl1p6F1ngt763Bc1pWt9ClwNdhjyzZmk3srGe6D3CenXCMQOxsAERhmR60Hm0QSWlitpsezaBELHk_5qYzzsatHKkneqiay94g&__tn__=-UK-R (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-817_5if6.pdf) .....The question—similar to every inquiry into probable cause—is whether all the facts surrounding a dog’s alert, viewed through the lens of common sense, would make a reasonably prudent person think that a search would reveal contraband or evidence of a crime. A sniff is up to snuff when it meets that test… And here, Aldo’s did. If a bona fide organization has certified a dog after testing its reliability in a controlled setting, a court can presume (subject to any conflicting evidence offered) that the dog’s alert provides probable cause to search. The same is true, even in the absence of formal certification, if the dog has recently and successfully completed a training program that evaluatedhis proficiency in locating drugs. After all, law enforce­ment units have their own strong incentive to use effective training and certification programs, because only accuratedrug-detection dogs enable officers to locate contraband without incurring unnecessary risks or wasting limited time and resources. State of NJ v Cancel...

In this archive episode, Dennis answers some more questions from the group about interdiction. Recorded on 08/18/2017.

In this archive episode, Dennis answers two questions about interdiction. Recorded on 08/17/2017. QUESTION #1: Hey Dennis, two questions that I think a lot of young officers who want to do good highway interdiction run into, and other guys in the group. First, is older/do nothing that tell you don't stop cars, you are wasting your time, or departments that make you call out every stop so whoever is on the desk is getting pissed off etc, how did you handle that. Second, if you stop a car ask for consent but see the person is agitated but somewhat cooperative, its the gray area, toss the car, come up empty, do you still write the PC for the stop or give them a warning because they were "nice enough" to let you search their car. QUESTION #2: Hey Dennis I follow your Street Cop Training and I have to say your videos are great. I follow them religiously now. I've been wanting to ask you for your opinion on something. I average about 50 - 70 drug arrests a year but I get very few large quantity grabs. I work in a town outside of Trenton and we usually target people leaving Trenton. Do you think that I should change my focus and try to target people going in to get larger quantities? I don't really have a K9 readily available either so would I just be pissing in the wind without one?

In this archive episode, Dennis explains to ask for consent when dealing with closed and locked containers. Recorded on 08/15/2017. US v. Ross 1982 Police officers who have legitimately stopped an automobile and who have probable cause to believe that contraband is concealed somewhere within it may conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle that is as thorough as a magistrate could authorize by warrant. Pp. 804-825. (a) The "automobile exception" to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement established in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 , applies to searches of vehicles that are supported by probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband. In this class of cases, a search is not unreasonable if based on objective facts that would justify the issuance of a warrant, even though a warrant has not actually been obtained. Pp. 804-809. (b) However, the rationale justifying the automobile exception does not apply so as to permit a warrantless search of any movable container that is believed to be carrying an illicit substance and that is found in a public place - even when the container is placed in a vehicle (not otherwise believed to be carrying contraband). United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 ; Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753 . Pp. 809-814. [456 U.S. 798, 799] (c) Where police officers have probable cause to search an entire vehicle, they may conduct a warrantless search of every part of the vehicle and its contents, including all containers and packages, that may conceal the object of the search. The scope of the search is not defined by the nature of the container in which the contraband is secreted. Rather, it is defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found. For example, probable cause to believe that undocumented aliens are being transported in a van will not justify a warrantless search of a suitcase. Pp. 817-824. Police officers who have legitimately stopped an automobile and who have probable cause to believe that contraband is concealed somewhere within it may conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle that is as thorough as a magistrate could authorize by warrant. https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcaselaw.findlaw.com%2Fus-supreme-court%2F456%2F798.html%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR2qQpqX52X5aJT_QONxdPWBUpROGIxHs3Zh3qnwruAByYjkiKOVMt7Qll0&h=AT1ER9zxj71_KOpEjaODOlNXEaojUeb7Hzvf_0MwUuvJ74rPRKJFvnpvc-jhv_GrTPRe-ZDFMp74K5JdEBtJhdjCGgkP0Dopk_Y9RUTp0Hc9PN_P0X8qkTjsYAcYGNYEGg&__tn__=-UK-R (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/456/798.html)

In this archive episode, Dennis explains CDS on a passenger in a motor vehicle may not give you PC to search the car under certain circumstances. Recorded on 08/14/2017. State of NJ V. Larry Wilson State of New Jersey v. Larry D. Wilson http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/2003/a-49-02-opn.html?fbclid=IwAR2eSquaKb5k95GGNY6I6ijk_14oANcbo3H6hy0OU8Xj-DKvMdzv2KSdJpM (http://law.justia.com/.../supreme.../2003/a-49-02-opn.html) In this appeal, the Court is asked whether the State has satisfied its burden of demonstrating the validity of a warrantless automobile search. On February 30, 1999, at approximately 12:26 a.m., two officers in a marked police vehicle were patrolling the area of Union Avenue and Jasper Street in the City of Paterson. One of the officers observed a vehicle with a passenger suspected of having outstanding arrest warrants. The driver parked the vehicle on Jasper Street and the officers observed the defendant exit the vehicle. There was no indication that either of the occupants was aware of the marked police vehicle. Upon observing defendant and confirming the officer's belief that he was the person for whom the warrants had been issued, the officer called to defendant. Defendant walked towards the patrol vehicle and the officers arrested him based on the arrest warrants. Defendant had his hands inside his jacket sleeves and, in order to handcuff him, the officers asked that he remove them. Upon removing his hands out of the sleeves, one at a time, the officers observed packets suspected of containing controlled dangerous substances drop to the ground. The packets were later determined to contain marijuana and cocaine. After arresting defendant, placing him in the patrol vehicle, and retrieving the suspected drugs from the ground, the officers approached the driver. The driver produced valid driving credentials. While one of the officers questioned the driver, the other officer continued searching the grounds for any other drugs and also opened the unlocked passenger door of the vehicle. Inside, the officer found other narcotics, determined to be fifty bags of crack cocaine. The officer later acknowledged that the drugs in the vehicle were not in plain view. The driver was also arrested. Defendant was charged with third-degree possession of cocaine, third-degree possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, and third-degree possession of cocaine with intent to distribute within 1000 feet of school property. At a subsequent suppression hearing, the trial court found that probable cause and exigent circumstances had existed to justify the warrantless search of the automobile. Defendant pled guilty to all charges, subject to his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion. The trial court sentenced defendant to an extended term of six years imprisonment, with a three-year period of parole ineligibility, and assessed the usual fines and penalties. In a reported decision, the Appellate Division reversed the trial court, concluding that the officers lacked probable cause to conduct the warrantless search of the vehicle. The Supreme Court granted the State s petition for certification. HELD: The State has not overcome the presumption that its warrantless search of the automobile was invalid under the federal and State constitutions. The Appellate Division properly suppressed the fruits of the search. 1. Consistent with the State and federal constitutions, a warrantless search is presumed invalid unless it falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement, and the State bears the burden of demonstrating that the search falls within one of those exceptions. The automobile exception to the warrant requirement requires that the State demonstrate both probable cause and exigent circumstances. Probable cause requires, in turn, that the police action emanates from a well-grounded suspicion that a crime has been or is being committed. The definition of...

In this archive episode, Dennis revisits permissible questioning on a motor vehicle stop and surrounding case law around it. Recorded on 08/11/2017. State v Chapman - We are, nevertheless, satisfied that the trooper's initial questions in this case concerning where the defendants had been and where they were going were reasonably related to the reason for the traffic stop http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1035452.html?fbclid=IwAR2A6TV5xI63-_jcqxSo0WGlqp3U5KD_BY_nlrkMZf6jteMCS4ZoMgWSFjE (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court.../1035452.html). State v. Hickman 2000 When there are passengers in a car stopped for a traffic violation, the passengers are subject, as a practical matter, to the same temporary stop as the driver, because passengers do not generally have readily available alternative means of transportation. See Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 413-14, 117 S.Ct. 882, 886, 137 L.Ed.2d 41, 47 (1997) (“[A]s a practical matter, [in a motor vehicle stop] the passengers are already stopped by virtue of the stop of the vehicle.”); Berkemer, supra, 468 U.S. at 436, 104 S.Ct. at 3148, 82 L.Ed.2d at 332 (“[A] traffic stop significantly curtails the ‘freedom of action’ of the driver and the passengers, if any, of the detained vehicle.”); see also State v. Smith, 134 N.J. 599, 611-19, 637 A.2d 158 (1994); Dickey, supra, 152 N.J. at 483, 706 A.2d 180. Moreover, if a stop for a motor vehicle violation is reasonable, the police do not have to show an independent basis for detaining the passengers, unless the detention goes beyond what is incident to a brief motor vehicle stop.http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1000781.html?fbclid=IwAR3IRN7SJ1nQ2d_m8_OMW5oTLa7GFL5iK1f1_i-O8B3758Gl9Xw7mJM4lyE (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court.../1000781.html)

In this archive episode, Dennis talks about ordering passengers out of vehicles and the meaning of heightened caution. Recorded on 08/17/2017. State v Bacome 2017 http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/2017/a-9-15.html?fbclid=IwAR2Zpok_sEctBhLVUZX3smxpBP3RjU6APUlt8XZtxnRNAX5pYZhN9EPvgfc (http://law.justia.com/.../supreme-court/2017/a-9-15.html) In April 2011, detectives were engaged in an undercover drug patrol in Woodbridge when they observed defendant Taiwan Bacome driving a blue Ford Bronco. S.R., the owner of the Bronco, was riding in the front passenger seat. Having previously encountered both men, detectives knew the men used and dealt narcotics. The police department had also received complaints from defendant's neighbors of a lot of traffic coming and going from [his] apartment, which, in the detectives' experience, is often indicative of narcotics activity. In their unmarked vehicle, the detectives followed the Bronco, losing sight of it shortly after arriving in an area of Newark known for crime and drug trafficking. In an attempt to pick up the Bronco's trail, the detectives drove back to Woodbridge, presuming that defendant and S.R. would return there with newly purchased drugs. About an hour later, the detectives observed the Bronco re-enter Woodbridge. The detectives resumed surveillance and, after they both observed S.R. in the passenger seat not wearing his seatbelt, they conducted a traffic stop. In this appeal, the New Jersey Supreme Court clarified the circumstances under which police officers may require a passenger in an automobile to exit a vehicle after a valid stop. The first detective reported that he saw defendant lean forward as if he were reaching under his seat and immediately ordered defendant to exit the vehicle. The second detective then ordered S.R. out of the passenger's seat. Both occupants complied. Defendant specifically challenged S.R.'s removal from the vehicle. The trial court found that defendant's reaching under the seat created the heightened caution that warranted S.R.'s removal. The Appellate Division reversed, finding the detectives failed to prove "heightened caution." The Supreme Court reversed, finding that while the heightened caution standard remained the proper test for determining the appropriateness of ordering a passenger from a car, defendant's movements inside the stopped car was an objectively reasonable basis to justify removal of the passenger. State v Brian L. Smith 1994 Although the per se rule under Mimms permits an officer to order the driver out of a vehicle incident to a lawful stop for a traffic violation, we decline to extend that per se rule to passengers. Instead, we determine that an officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts that would warrant heightened caution to justify ordering the occupants to step out of a vehicle detained for a traffic violation.http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/1994/a-28-93-opn.html?fbclid=IwAR29npF5cXbcyx62Hj_z1Tq_WIqj0_5rQO0d8PK3Og9Tj1W1SOvZI5C7TsU (http://law.justia.com/.../supreme.../1994/a-28-93-opn.html)

In this archived episode, Dennis explains how to deal with detaining subjects in a motor vehicle stop and cites some case laws. Recorded on 08/08/2017. State v Dickey 1998 and reasonable length of roadside detentions and solutions to any issues with that http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1456380.html?fbclid=IwAR0sF4x4jOWKO_gQ8XngY-KHarGnK-OyJoQUBYOo-QCQt8FYsUSzULGdJhw (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1456380.html) “[T]here is [no] litmus-paper test for ․ determining when a seizure exceeds the bounds of an investigative stop.” Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 506, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 1329, 75 L.Ed.2d 229, 242 (1983) (plurality opinion). The Supreme Court has refused to adopt a “hard-and-fast time limit for a permissible Terry stop.” Sharpe, supra, 470 U.S. at 686, 105 S.Ct. at 1575, 84 L.Ed.2d at 615; accord United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 709 n. 10, 103 S.Ct. 2637, 2646 n. 10, 77 L.Ed.2d 110, 122 n. 10 (1983). “Much as a ‘bright line’ rule would be desirable, in evaluating whether an investigative detention is unreasonable, common sense and ordinary human experience must govern over rigid criteria.” Sharpe, supra, 470 U.S. at 685, 105 S.Ct. at 1575, 84 L.Ed.2d at 615. In assessing whether a detention is too long in duration to be justified as an investigative stop, we consider it appropriate to examine whether the police diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly, during which time it was necessary to detain the defendant.

In this archive episode, Dennis explains approaching parked motor vehicles and the laws around this subject. Recorded on 08/07/2017. State v . Butler 1994 - http://www.leagle.com/decision/1994371278NJSuper93_1362/STATE%20v.%20BUTLER Under both the United States and New Jersey constitutions, a police officer has the authority to detain individuals without a warrant, on less than probable cause. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 26-27, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Davis, supra, 104 N.J. at 502-504, 517 A.2d 859. And, in order to pass constitutional muster, the stop must be predicated upon specific and articulable suspicion that a person has been or is about to engage in criminal activity. United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-418, 101 S.Ct. 690, 695, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981); Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 51, 99 S.Ct. 2637, 2640, 61 L.Ed.2d 357 (1979); Davis, supra, 104 N.J. at 504, 517 A.2d 859. The Court in Davis noted: A police officer charged with the duty of crime prevention and detection of the public safety must deal with a rich diversity of street encounters with citizens. In a given situation, even though a citizen's behavior does not reach the level of highly suspicious activities, the officer's experience may indicate that some investigation is in order. Depending on the circumstances, street interrogation may be most reasonable and proper. [Id. at 503, 517 A.2d 859]. The New Jersey Supreme Court has held that under a narrowly defined and controlled set of circumstances, investigatory stops and detentions are constitutionally permissible even though based on less than probable cause. In State v. Hall, 93 N.J. 552, 561, 461 A.2d 1155, cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1008, 104 S.Ct. 526, 78 L.Ed.2d 709 (1983), the Court explained: Our reading of Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 89 S.Ct. 1394, 22 L.Ed.2d 676 (1969), convinces us that for certain detentions — those that do not entail significant intrusions upon individual privacy or freedom, are productive of reliable evidence, and can be effectuated without abuse, coercion or intimidation — no probable cause in the traditional sense is necessary in order to obtain the authorization of a judicial officer[.] We conclude that, under a narrowly defined set of circumstances, such detentions can be constitutionally permissible. Davis, 394 U.S. at 727-28, 89 S.Ct. at 1398, 22 L.Ed.2d at 681. Strictly limiting the circumstances under which such detentions take place insures that the restrictions upon individual privacy and freedom interests are minimized so that a showing of need upon less than traditional probable cause can be tolerated. See United States v. Place, supra, [462] U.S. [696] at [703], 103 S.Ct. [2637] at 2642 [77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983)] (minimally intrusive detention can be supported on less than probable cause); Terry v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S. at 27, 88 S.Ct. at 1883, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1983) (permitting police to conduct stop and frisk upon less than probable cause); Michigan v. Long, [463] U.S. [1032], 103 S.Ct. 3469, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983) (permitting police to conduct protective search for weapons in passenger compartment of car upon less than probable cause); cf. Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967) (permitting search upon probable cause determined by administrative standards). In evaluating whether an officer has acted reasonably under the circumstances, due weight must be given, not to his inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or `hunch,' but to the specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience. Terry, supra, 392 U.S. at 27, 88 S.Ct. at 1883, 20 L.Ed.2d at 909. In other words, the test for reasonable suspicion is whether [b]ased upon the whole picture the detaining officer [had] a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity. State v. Thomas, 110 N.J. 673, 678, 542 A.2d 912 (1988) (quoting Cortez, supra,...

In this short archive episode, Dennis offers a quick tip for the Interdiction Game. Recorded on 08/06/2017.

In this archive episode, Dennis explains what a pretextual stop is and why it is legal. Recorded on 08/03/2017. Whren v. United States 1996 Pre-Textual stops defined - A Pre-Textual stop is one based on motives unrelated to the expressed reason for the stop. The court said, “The observation of the traffic violation provided the constitutional justification for the stop. A Police Officer's “ulterior motives” will not serve to invalidate police conduct that is constitutionally justified.” https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/517/806/case.html?fbclid=IwAR2LkDTRVTyhhUDxDqMJO2algac01axGk6wiYL0cdITjqJkoKITO_v1MkXU (https://supreme.justia.com/.../federal/us/517/806/case.html) Arkansas v. Sullivan 2001 http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/532/769.html?fbclid=IwAR2-3CZSqf12cPNbEvyBB7S_97K-IuiqgxcTMpn1vsXRTzwrDBgCt6crIto (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/532/769.html)

In this thrilling interview, Kyle Cummings recalls his life working in SWAT and discusses a particular game-changing night with Dennis. Recorded on 08/26/2021.

In this episode, Dennis answers some questions on the art of speaking to people and how it is critical to work on this skill. Recorded on 08/01/2017. Better ways of communicating to people on gaining consent to search and a DP committed in a hotel room and what to do? State V. Walker 2013 .. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1627779.html?fbclid=IwAR1oLeTz1n4QeVsp38Akti-KB8h8XOc1SAItd8saJJ_xeu7LNnvbKzz908Q (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1627779.html) Justified entry into a suspect's home to make an arrest when he answered the door smoking marijuana. This does not translate into smoking marijuana inside of his home. Here the suspect answered the door smoking marijuana. This does not mean you can enter into a home for all the calls you get of just smoking marijuana and nothing more. Under the New Jersey and federal constitutions, probable cause and exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry into defendant’s apartment and the seizure of the marijuana cigarette and all the CDS found there. State v George Myers 2015...http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/2015/a4295-12.html?fbclid=IwAR0ZTT_-Y_PWUHLwFX6ZzZgS2lAoKE4gXphtAC1ZIZ-Sz0xogxC-PyaiF4E (http://law.justia.com/.../appellate.../2015/a4295-12.html) The smell of marijuana itself can suffice to furnish probable cause that a criminal offense has been committed, the smell of marijuana gave Trooper Gore (Who is a police officer just like you) the right to arrest defendant for committing an apparent marijuana offense in his presence "'The "in presence" requirement . . . is satisfied by the trooper's use of his sense of smell in much the same manner as if he had used his sight or hearing or touch[.]'" The smell of marijuana itself can suffice to furnish probable cause that a criminal offense has been committed, the smell of marijuana gave Trooper Gore (Who is a police officer just like you) the right to arrest defendant for committing an apparent marijuana offense in his presence "'The "in presence" requirement . . . is satisfied by the trooper's use of his sense of smell in much the same manner as if he had used his sight or hearing or touch[.]'"

In this archive episode, Dennis takes a call and answers questions live about mere field inquiry of stopped vehicles and arresting for driving while suspended. Recorded on 07/31/2017. State v Sloan 2008 Leaving a vehicle to be driven by a passenger or a third party allows you the right to check their driving credentials. (Criminal Wants / Warrants) This also allowed police officers to run warrant checks of passengers without Reasonable Suspicion. The police do not need reasonable suspicion before they access the NCIC database. An NCIC check by the police is not a search under the federal or state constitutions. HELD: During a motor vehicle stop, the passenger, like the driver, is seized under the federal and state constitutions. Police do not need reasonable suspicion before they may access the NCIC database and, because accessing the NCIC database was within the scope of the traffic stop and did not unreasonably prolong the stop, there was no basis to suppress the evidence found. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1146795.html?fbclid=IwAR3y01tmDepEjRtAE-HdDOZwwmFSl_5h6csCs8N35Ben1oTqoB8v6FNk17o (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1146795.html) State v. Sirianni 2002 Judged by this standard, the police officer's action in requesting identification from defendant required no constitutional justification. https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcaselaw.findlaw.com%2Fnj-superior-court-appellate-division%2F1152195.html%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR3SpeKQXQhxAZ9BQ5CAF3bHfLNZi-OvtLsjWvForkZxdukTFebTVr6KylE&h=AT1-DfyTos4YksZbsdrvqiY3zFjHYayeycGz5uwjWL2VVfuhfVmYGaovR-aLNDXSHvGs6DtsVWc_nIL5bbsv980pxyXpQZTpzDV-5BfbF3jDW8AaHWxGghF-ApTtNGUOIg&__tn__=-UK-R (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court.../1152195.html) State v Pierce 1994. There are “Other sources of law” that suggest that an officer’s authority to arrest under 39:5-25 is, and should be, restricted to those offenses in which, “AN ARREST IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY OR TO ASSURE THAT THE OFFENDER WILL RESPOND TO A SUMMONS!” (SOMEONE WITH NO IDENTIFICATION and YOU CAN’T FIGURE OUT WHO THEY ARE!) https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newjerseycriminallawattorney.com%2FAutomobile-Stop-Case-Law-State-v-Pierce.shtml%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR33iuIyhWWutwKJ6b4JxabC40UqqUb6fUstqPcLLwP-Mpgrn0_27NO1VHw&h=AT1_YDEZI9fU2ONPAhnoCCxbSn6M4uvNSu-iGJB4kAKtc1zo2OPItn5RR3LEwn24qKAb6NBF1_lz_s22TAz2vfkNX4VM7p0ekDKsRcn-dIZnfLZY25v_MaKNfLsclRlOJA&__tn__=-UK-R (http://www.newjerseycriminallawattorney.com/Automobile...) Rules of the Court Rules 3:3-1(c); 7:2-3(b) https://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/attorneys/assets/rules/r7-2.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2UmpdjZv6vqM47YjBOaS5sDa1jSJhDCbB-tmyt0wQsmgeJm808hltPquE (https://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/.../assets/rules/r7-2.pdf)

In this scintillating discussion, Dennis and Jenna discuss how to identify negative habits, how to make positive changes, and the fear of change. Recorded on 08/26/2021.

In this archive episode, Dennis explains case laws around post DWI arrest vehicle searches. Recorded on 07/28/2017. The wording in Witt and Alston and touching on searching post DWI... State V. Irelan 2005 This case ruled officers have the right to search a motor vehicle for open containers after an arrest for DWI. (1) the police may lawfully affect a custodial arrest of a motorist when there is probable cause of a DWI violation; (2) incident to the arrest, the police may search the person of the arrestee; and (3) a contemporaneous warrantless search of the vehicle is permissible We hold that these facts are sufficient to support a reasonable well-grounded suspicion that alcohol was consumed in the vehicle, and thus the vehicle contained open containers of alcohol. Therefore, the probable cause prong of the automobile exception is met. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1053523.html?fbclid=IwAR1Wobi-Feo2rlkqto96XloXCkcmXv7b_StBufigGMh7D10cl2fhqTHppns (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court.../1053523.html) This will be allowed for CDS-related DWI’s as well. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1053523.html?fbclid=IwAR0B3eAbqwBoUT-lk7vVI-YDoOL5wiovktieomzRYTRDE_IJ5v_0NlXiH3Q (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court.../1053523.html) Significantly, we also made clear in Alston, supra, that merely because “the particular occupants of the vehicle may have been removed from the car, arrested, or otherwise restricted in their freedom of movement,” police were not required to secure a warrant. 88 N.J. at 234. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1713839.html?fbclid=IwAR0BAfHimAZjS-dRixHCQ916OwmUzbXXexeun81tw-ViWgHkHNYMWOnRk64 (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1713839.html)

In this archive episode, Dennis explains searching homes and case laws surrounding this. Recorded on 07/26/2017. Denise Brown v. State of NJ Explained As of November 20, 2008, the precedent was not sufficiently clear to support a conclusion that Detective Steet violated clearly established law when he entered Brown’s home to secure it. And although police department policies do not hold compelling weight in a qualified immunity analysis, Detective Steet’s reliance on State Police training and policy is informative when determining the reasonableness of his conduct. Detective Steet is entitled to qualified immunity as to Brown’s NJCRA claim because regardless of whether his conduct amounts to a violation of a constitutional right, that right was not clearly established at the time that he acted. (pp. 28-35) 7. The Court adds guidance going forward. In a case of true exigency and probable cause, the police can enter a dwelling. However, police-created exigency designed to subvert the warrant requirement has long been rejected as a basis to justify a warrantless entry into a home. Further, invocation of a person’s right to refuse an officer’s request for a consent search is not probative of wrongdoing and cannot be the justification for the warrantless entry into a home. In the future, law enforcement officials may not rely on McArthur to enter an apartment to secure it while awaiting a search warrant. Although McArthur does not explicitly permit or forbid entry into a home, under those circumstances, this ruling makes clear that officers may not do so. They must get a warrant and, if reasonably necessary, may secure the apartment for a reasonable period of time from the outside. (pp. 35-37) The judgment of the Appellate Division is REVERSED, and the trial court’s dismissal of this action against Detective Steet is REINSTATED. JUSTICE ALBIN, DISSENTING, notes that in the wake of McArthur, courts understood, as they always have, that the securing of a home—awaiting a warrant application—cannot be justified absent exigent circumstances. According to Justice Albin, Brown had a clearly established right to remain secure in her home, pending the arrival of a warrant, given the absence of any true exigent circumstances to justify a seizure of her apartment. Detective Steet, therefore, is not entitled to the protection of qualified immunity, in Justice Albin’s view. https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/2015/a4796-12.html

In this older episode, Dennis answers questions on what else to search for inside vehicle trunks as well as charging occupants with drug offenses. Recorded on 07/25/2017. Related Links: Maryland v. Pringle 2003 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_v._Pringle?fbclid=IwAR2YcdnnhR0XOi-Md0_xv8ov1wz0s4I3xShG2r8kEjOt-pqimsk0bfSpcuA State of NJ v. Patino (1980) - https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/1981/88-n-j-211-0.html “The discovery of a small amount of marijuana in the passenger compartment gave rise only to an inference that the occupants were casual users, and this furnished no cause to search the trunk where large “Dealer Sized” quantities of drugs would presumably be stored. “In the absence of other circumstances that suggest participation in drug trafficking or possession of more contraband” such a search could not expand beyond the persons of the occupants or the passenger compartment of the car.” Ask for Consent or Call a K9 Unit for a sniff. State V. Letman (1989) Trooper pulls over vehicle and spots plastic bag protruding from under the floor mat containing a 4.6 ounce chunk of a white powdery substance later testing positive for cocaine (Plain View) Both are arrested, read miranda, and agreed to speak, co-defendants lips were quivering when asked about the bag in the trunk and responded that he did not know what the contents were. (364 Plastic Vials used for packaging found) Court said – “These are the very types of circumstances that the Patino court referred to, as providing probable cause to search the entire vehicle including the trunk and the interior of the paper bags in the trunk. Allows an officer, after discovery of contraband, to question a defendant after having read them their Miranda rights. State v. Letman :: 1989 :: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division - Published Opinions Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia

In this essential classic, Dennis explains what Reasonable Suspicion and Reasonable Articulable Suspicion is. Related Links: STATE v. CARTY - https://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1151928.html?fbclid=IwAR1nkfWKHP_bJFAJ-eEPeNAvGNktgCPf-wFQtkRiiuNGlKCj_xOMKC5z_Bs Consent searches following a lawful stop of a motor vehicle should not be deemed valid unless there is reasonable and articulable suspicion to believe that a motorist or passenger has engaged in, or is about to engage in criminal activity.

In this older episode, Dennis answers a call about the reasonable length of an investigation in a Motor Vehicle Stop after the subject denies consent. Recorded on 07/22/2017. Related Links: US v. Sharpe - https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/470/675.html?fbclid=IwAR32RuG207VxPD2HTSd_1iqA01X7PRPQcD9eTljznYcadxnNMzxDwZZVoSc 20 Minute or Longer detentions do not constitute a violation of the 4th Amendment! The court will look at whether or not the police diligently pursued their investigation, and whether the detention lasts no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop. The Court refused to adopt a time limit. State v. Colapinto 1998 - https://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1193151.html?fbclid=IwAR1jHgHLlG7JFn5rqVahvVHSneCa4n_NIyb26rD9SD-62ch0kal0IMm_Ib4 State of NJ v. Patino (1980) – “The discovery of a small amount of marijuana in the passenger compartment gave rise only to an inference that the occupants were casual users, and this furnished no cause to search the trunk where large “Dealer Sized” quantities of drugs would presumably be stored. “In the absence of other circumstances that suggest participation in drug trafficking or possession of more contraband” such a search could not expand beyond the persons of the occupants or the passenger compartment of the car.” Ask for Consent or Call a K9 Unit for a sniff. State V. Letman (1989) - Trooper pulls over vehicle and spots plastic bag protruding from under the floor mat containing a 4.6 ounce chunk of a white powdery substance later testing positive for cocaine (Plain View) Both are arrested, read miranda, and agreed to speak, co-defendants lips were quivering when asked about the bag in the trunk and responded that he did not know what the contents were. (364 Plastic Vials used for packaging found) Court said – “These are the very types of circumstances that the Patino court referred to, as providing probable cause to search the entire vehicle including the trunk and the interior of the paper bags in the trunk. Allows an officer, after discovery of contraband, to question a defendant after having read them their Miranda rights.

In this classic episode, Dennis explains the importance of searching bags before transporting the subject. Recorded on 07/21/2017. Related Links: State V. Oyenusi 2006 – If you have an arrest with bags or items that may contain contraband you must search them contemporaneously with the arrest so close in time and location that they may be considered “connected units of an integrated incident and part of one single transaction.” Must not be remote in time or place. Once the property is not immediately associated with the person under arrest a search of the property cannot be done as incident to arrest (you will need consent or a warrant). Handcuffs first are OK. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1380703.html?fbclid=IwAR1Ct1JjDQYqrWXFBAYCW-8xM5bsR09bKg-E77e4-KF7jC6Yi-3XVIhzYkI (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1380703.html?fbclid=IwAR1Ct1JjDQYqrWXFBAYCW-8xM5bsR09bKg-E77e4-KF7jC6Yi-3XVIhzYkI) State v. Bradley - https://www.leagle.com/decision/1996792291njsuper5011756 (https://www.leagle.com/decision/1996792291njsuper5011756) State v Mahoney 1988 - This is the case that ruled that station house inventory searches are illegal. It is also noted that defendant did not consent to the inventory search nor was he given the opportunity of making other arrangements for the safekeeping of his suitcase and briefcase. https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/1988/226-n-j-super-617-0.html (https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/1988/226-n-j-super-617-0.html) State v.Mangold - The Court concluded that "[a]bsent consent or alternative security provisions, an inventory may not be undertaken." Mangold, 82 N.J. at 587. https://www.leagle.com/decision/198065782nj5751384 (https://www.leagle.com/decision/198065782nj5751384) State v. Padilla (1999) - It is improper to search and inventory the personal property of an arrestee without first affording the arrestee the opportunity to consent to the search or the opportunity to make other arrangements for the disposition of personal property. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1348854.html?fbclid=IwAR3dNvqoMHUlIYqEQlnD5U4f6AJKcsqs8475pYcYwMnKMFKPo4uOuegtQxQ (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1348854.html?fbclid=IwAR3dNvqoMHUlIYqEQlnD5U4f6AJKcsqs8475pYcYwMnKMFKPo4uOuegtQxQ)

In this older episode, Dennis explains that while you may not demand ID without RAS, you may certainly ask for ID as a mere field inquiry. Recorded on 07/20/2017. Related Links: STATE v. SIRIANNI - https://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1152195.html?fbclid=IwAR3sYynqK8uFopThvZkfRvO2aWF755Yx6woWHzZ_ADuIxr2WSeuYoYukegY HORNBERGER v. AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES INC ABC - https://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1247222.html?fbclid=IwAR0oRs4IA67csIrL4utBSBukHMTb1N7QKVlViaY5_dEODfa-uizwO9orNt0 STATE v. SLOAN - https://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1146795.html?fbclid=IwAR21FIhqj3N9eYDxcQI4QM8glwNxdAPAxvZ-XmSSHU7oRzDAOc-p0rqI1bk

In this classic episode, Dennis explains stopping out of State Vehicles for maintenance violations/hindering/constructive possession. Recorded on 07/18/2021. Related Links: Pringle v. Maryland (2003) - https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/540/366.html?fbclid=IwAR30xkaMVmLNYvh2EKp97uPHVRkC4gtKTyKDV0m9LXeThftgBc0ImQZMEYo Ybarrav v. Illinois (1979) - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/444/85/

In this banger, Jenna Romano helms the Podcast Ship and discusses Law Enforcement Trauma with Nick Wilson. Recorded on 08/19/2021.

In this older episode, Dennis explains that searching vehicles for vehicle documents are limited to registration only. Recorded on 07/17/2017. Relevant Links: State of NJ v Holmgren - https://www.leagle.com/decision/1995494282njsuper2121480 State v. Boykins - https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/1967/50-n-j-73-0.html State of NJ v Keaton 2015 - https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/2015/a-92-13.html State of NJ v Julian Hamlett - https://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1851254.html?fbclid=IwAR2Gwy1pJA-uQ6wWqF6wniZcI-haq7i4CDs_90VPq1tXsn_mjgLhK6IgOM4

In this classic episode, Dennis answers a call about running random plate checks and what to do when finding a hit. Recorded on 07/14/2021.

In this older episode, Dennis explains how to ID passengers. Recorded on 07/13/2017. State v Sloane 2008 HELD: During a motor vehicle stop, the passenger, like the driver, is seized under the federal and state constitutions. Police do not need reasonable suspicion before they may access the NCIC database and, because accessing the NCIC database was within the scope of the traffic stop and did not unreasonably prolong the stop, there was no basis to suppress the evidence found. State v Pierce 1994 May a police officer arrest any person who violates, in the officer's presence; any provision of Chapter 3 or 4 of title 39? No, although 39:5-25 imposes no limits on an officer’s authority to arrest for traffic offenses, the statute not be read literally. There are “Other sources of law” that suggest that an officer’s authority to arrest under 39:5-25 is, and should be, restricted to those offenses in which, “AN ARREST IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY OR TO ASSURE THAT THE OFFENDER WILL RESPOND TO A SUMMONS!” (SOMEONE WITH NO IDENTIFICATION and YOU CAN’T FIGURE OUT WHO THEY ARE!) Rules 3:3-1(c); 7:2-3(b) STATE V. LARK The court said, “Where the driver is without a license and persists concealing his identity an officer may then either continue to detain the driver for further investigation or arrest the driver under 39:3-10 (Unlicensed Driver) or 39: 3-29(Failure to provide Documents).” In instances such as this, when a driver is without a license and offers false information in response to a reasonable police inquiry, there exists a sufficient basis for the police officer to detain the driver for further questioning until the officer learns the true identity of the driver Assuming that the driver persists in concealing his or her identity and there appears to be no other reasonable alternative, the police officer may take the driver into custody. Related Links: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1146795.html?fbclid=IwAR1jaacuDa5m3PCs3vQtOzclkC4r98bKTWC7OlmVz5mK2NqK6PoVfb9RXpM https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/1992/257-n-j-super-483-1.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1010443.html?fbclid=IwAR0dn1P0YM1ia2q4cEgrO6a-BTCyc6hetBQywDGpIf_SZFX7hpvFuecUQRU

In this classic episode, Dennis gives away tips for motor vehicle stops and questions to determine when a subject is lying or hindering. Recorded on 07/12/2017.

In this older episode, Dennis explains ways to incorporate RAS in your report and when it is necessary. Recorded on 07/11/2017. Related Links: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/517/806/ https://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1152241.html?fbclid=IwAR17juvS8_icqlyPjoUjVSRBMAKEbEUefo4St7ZSy8zKywndOhr8yFttqXg

In this classic episode, Dennis explains a new federal standard case law. The Court adopts the federal standard barring unnecessary delays for the purpose of canine sniffs. Officers do not need reasonable suspicion of a drug offense provided that the canine sniff does not prolong the stop beyond the time required to complete the stop’s mission. Recorded on 07/10/2017. Relevant Links: https://bit.ly/3sFsaDs

In this classic, Dennis discusses US v Ross 1982 and answers a caller on building RAS to access a trunk in a motor vehicle search. Recorded on 07/03/2017. Relevant Links: https://bit.ly/3sGk65p

In this classic episode, Dennis takes a call and answers questions on optimal vehicle positioning for interdiction work. Recorded on 07/03/2017.

In this follow-up short, Dennis answers another question from a group member regarding items inside vehicles that do not belong to the driver when there are passengers. Recorded on 07/02/2017.

In this classic short, Dennis calls and answers a group member about PC, Consent, Warrants, and Motor Vehicle Stops. Recorded on 07/02/2017.

In this older classic, Dennis answers some questions about PC and Consent and clues the listeners in on some commonly overlooked places for criminal activities. Recorded on 06/30/2017.

In another short classic, Dennis explains a few behaviors to look out for that might indicate criminal behavior. Recorded 06/29/2017.

In this older episode, Dennis implores that if you do not know what you are talking about, you should not be talking about it. Recorded on 06/29/2017.

In this classic short, Dennis busts a myth that most drugs are moved at night. Recorded on 06/28/2017.

In this classic, Dennis explains tactics that yield results when looking for criminal activity. Recorded on 06/27/2017.

In this older short, Dennis quickly explains the situation around expired hotel room rentals and a suspect. A hotel guest's rental period has expired or been lawfully terminated the guest does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the hotel room or in any articles found therein of which the hotel lawfully takes possession. Moreover, the fact that the defendant’s arrest prevented his return to the hotel room made no difference for it was presumably his own conduct that prevented his return to the hotel. Recorded on 06/26/2017. Related Link: US v. RAHMEUS v. Rahme (1987) https://casetext.com/case/us-v-rahme

In this classic episode, Dennis explains the case law surrounding hindrance of apprehension and exemptions. Dennis mentions State v Witt, but he meant State v Myers. Recorded on 08/17/2017.

In this quick classic episode, Dennis explains how 39:4-88 is a very useful tool regarding RAS and PC. Recorded on 06/22/2017.

In this older episode, Dennis provides tips regarding PC and Requesting Consent. Recorded on 06/21/2017.

In this older episode, Dennis explains when you can and how to ask for ID without meeting the requisites for Title 39 in a Motor Vehicle Stop, bringing up relevant case laws. Recorded on 06/19/2017. Related Links: https://bit.ly/3g6SWzF https://bit.ly/2XxQgVh https://bit.ly/2VYQ7cY

In this throwback, Dennis implores LEOs to stop focusing on just the driver, you have to pay attention to the passengers, as they are often fugitives from justice. You must think outside of the box to have the success you desire in this game. Recorded on 06/18/2017.

In this classic episode, Dennis explains how and why routine frisks are unlawful under State v Lipiski. Recorded on 06/12/2017.

In this older episode, Dennis explains how State v Alston 1981 set the standard for warrantless searches of automobiles when police have probable cause. Recorded on 08/13/2021. Related Links: http://law.justia.com/.../supreme.../1981/88-n-j-211-0.html

In this older episode, Dennis reassures law enforcement officers by navigating a then-recent case law. Recorded on 06/08/2017.

In this older episode, Dennis explains that how to approach searches with probable cause when dealing with a motor vehicle stop. Recorded on 06/02/2017. Related Links: http://law.justia.com/.../supreme.../1983/93-n-j-146-0.html http://law.justia.com/.../supreme-court/1980/83-n-j-1-0.html

In this final episode of the series, Dennis reveals some material from his class on how to conduct criminal motor vehicle stops. Part 4 of 4. Recorded on 05/25/2017.

In this multi-part series, Dennis reveals some material from his class on how to conduct criminal motor vehicle stops. Part 3 of 4. Recorded on 05/22/2017.

In this continuation, Dennis reveals some material from his class on how to conduct criminal motor vehicle stops. Part 2 of 4. Recorded on 05/22/2017.

In this early episode, Dennis reveals some material from his class on how to conduct criminal motor vehicle stops. Part 1 of 4. Recorded on 05/22/2017.

In this classic episode, Dennis addresses three topics: Taxi Interdiction, RAS and what it actually is, and more on Permissible Questions on a Motor Vehicle Stop, Part 2. Recorded on 05/21/2017. Further Reading: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1035452.html?fbclid=IwAR3H9Ysez1V7wOa-9jBMKydpuQlcM0swWtc2bOxddB7HKEowHPTFm16FSuM (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court.../1035452.html) http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1000781.html?fbclid=IwAR2WACPVMlUETNSKr5ift6URxv0xNo3k8YkAa7sSdx1k7ufl1PnuGOwe68k (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court.../1000781.html)

In this classic episode, Dennis addresses three topics: Taxi Interdiction, RAS and what it actually is, and more on Permissible Questions on a Motor Vehicle Stop, Part 1. Recorded on 05/21/2017. Further Reading: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1035452.html?fbclid=IwAR3H9Ysez1V7wOa-9jBMKydpuQlcM0swWtc2bOxddB7HKEowHPTFm16FSuM (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court.../1035452.html) http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1000781.html?fbclid=IwAR2WACPVMlUETNSKr5ift6URxv0xNo3k8YkAa7sSdx1k7ufl1PnuGOwe68k (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court.../1000781.html)

In this early episode, Dennis explains when to release a juvenile charged with delinquency. Recorded on 05/16/2017. Further Reading: http://codes.findlaw.com/nj/title-2a-administration-of-civil-and-criminal-justice/nj-st-sect-2a-4a-35.html?fbclid=IwAR3HyTjLIQ2KRUSOSu0xbUF-OHKtGCRDC46VIkoH7Zkdnw-CMOrm7I36ecw (http://codes.findlaw.com/.../tit.../nj-st-sect-2a-4a-35.html)

In this blast from the past, Dennis discusses what constitutes a strip search and body cavity search. Recorded on 05/12/2017. Further Reading: http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcj/agguide/3strpsch.pdf?fbclid=IwAR35Dm0f10oCislJ4iyqUHODfjlcqj6IKjSLHzqWP4WfTOJRk2IH1W2JVeY (http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcj/agguide/3strpsch.pdf)

In this throwback, Dennis explains when criminal history checks are permitted. Recorded on 05/10/2017.

In this classic episode, Dennis discusses case law and some relevant points. Recorded on 05/09/2017.

In this classic episode, Dennis explains that reasonable suspicion is not needed to ask for consent to search outside of the motor vehicle setting. Recorded on 05/05/2017.

In this throwback episode, Dennis explains how to employ Miranda to keep the case solid during roadside questioning. Recorded on 05/04/2017.

In this blast from the past, Dennis continues his discussion about permissible questions during a motor vehicle stop and some example case laws. Recorded on 05/03/2017.

In this classic episode, Dennis explains the difference between the Contact Officer and Cover Officer. Recorded on 05/02/2017.

In this throwback, Dennis talks about the importance of watching hands during a motor vehicle stop. Recorded on 05/02/2017.

I this classic episode, Dennis clarifies to build reasonable suspicion before calling in a K9 Unit and compares two case laws. Recorded on 05/01/2017.

In this throwback, Dennis revisits case law about obstruction and hindrance of identification. Recorded on 04/27/2017.

In this classic episode, Dennis compares two case laws regarding identification, hindering, and obstruction. Recorded on 04/25/2017.

In this classic episode, Dennis explains the legalities of Pat Frisking on the job. Recorded on 04/24/2017.

Dennis and Jenna Rose Romano discuss stress within LEO and other surrounding factors in this riveting discussion that is widely applicable. Recorded on 07/30/2021.

In this throwback, Dennis explains the value of being courteous during motor vehicle stops. Recorded on 04/21/2017.

In this classic episode, Dennis explains the implications of the "felony forest". Recorded on 04/18/2017.

In this throwback, Dennis explains the implications of a ringing burner phone. Recorded on 04/17/2017.

In this classic episode, Dennis explains that there is no "transport for identification purposes". Recorded on 04/02/2017.

In this older episode, Dennis discusses the signs, clues, and giveaways that there is criminal activity. Recorded on 04/07/2017.

In this stunner of an episode, Dennis asks Matt to recall his survival and brings insight into the world of Pro-Active Policing. Recorded on 07/29/2021.

In a throwback episode, Dennis clarifies in what situations the subject does not need to provide ID. Recorded on 04/05/2017.

Dennis explains how free air sniffs without probable cause will not hold up in court in this classic episode. Recorded on 04/03/2017.

In another throwback episode, Dennis emphasizes 2 key techniques to identify someone trying to hinder the process. Recorded on 03/31/2017.

In this classic episode, Dennis reveals a key item to help identify a hindering subject. Recorded on 03/30/2017.

In this classic episode, Dennis explains to look out for rear passengers not wearing seatbelts as this allows for further investigation as a basis to start. Recorded on 03/26/2017.

In this throwback episode, Dennis discusses the minimum age to consent to search as well as the conversations that may occur in such situations. Recorded on 03/25/2017.

In this blast from the past, Dennis discusses questions you are allowed to ask during a motor vehicle stop. Recorded on 03/24/2017.

Dennis reveals some tricks on how suspects may try to hinder apprehension and techniques on how to deal with this in a blast from the past episode. Recorded on 03/23/2017.

In this throwback episode, Dennis explains that while you cannot detain a pedestrian without probable cause, you are certainly allowed to make inquiries. Recorded on 03/20/2017.

Dennis explains good locations to park while looking for suspicious motor vehicles. As well, he talks about the importance of passenger side approaches during motor vehicle stops in this throwback episode. Recorded on 03/18/2017.

Dennis explains that one of the tell-tale signs that someone is up to no good is seeing a nervous driver ash a cigarette out the window in this throwback episode. Recorded on 03/17/2017.

Dennis explains Title 39 and Pedestrian Stops with Probable Cause in this throwback episode. Recorded on 03/16/2017.

Dennis explains some strategies to look for cars with occupants that are up to no good in this throwback episode. Recorded on 03/13/2017.

Dennis and Zach expand on issues and confusions around Miranda and how it works. Recorded on 07/15/2021.

Dennis offers tips on roadside questioning and building reasonable articulable suspicion. Recorded on 03/12/2017.

Dennis explains tactics on how to find out if you are dealing with possible wanted suspects in this throwback episode. Recorded on 03/08/2017.

Dennis explains what happens in the event of suspects leaving their vehicles or other property in this throwback episode. Recorded on 03/06/2017.

Dennis explains on what grounds you can search a vehicle for open containers of alcohol in this throwback episode. Recorded on 03/05/2017.

Dennis explains how to look for license plate violations according to the law in this throwback episode. Recorded on 03/04/2017.

Dennis explains what constitutes an obstructed view according to case law in this throwback episode. Recorded on 03/01/2017.

Dennis briefly explains the case law to search a Motor Vehicle after stopping them for a DWI in this throwback episode. Recorded on 02/23/2017.

Dennis explains under what circumstances you can stop to question and search parked cars with occupants in them in this throwback episode. Recorded on 02/17/2017.

Dennis explains where you would build Reasonable Articulable Suspicion in Motor Vehicle Stops in a classic throwback episode. Recorded on 02/13/2017.

Dennis continues with more tips and examples on identifying people that may have warrants on them. Recorded on 03/10/2017.

Sometimes you might disagree with a fellow cop or supervisor on particular procedures regarding laws. Dennis explains that you can look through case law for interpretations and you should demand the same before following said advice from your peers. Recorded on 02/16/2017.

Dennis gives a few tips with some examples on how to ID people that are not answering straight. Recorded on 03/09/2017.

Dennis explains where case law comes from and what precedents get set. Recorded on Feb 8, 2017.

Dennis and Keven discuss the importance of Dark Web awareness and how it can help crackdown on crime. Recorded on 07/16/2021.

Dennis and Jenna Romano discuss stress and burnout among Law Enforcement Officers, what exacerbates it, and how to manage it. Recorded on 07/15/2021.

Dennis and Nick Jerman discuss why it is important to investigate social media and the importance and protection of your own internet identity. Recorded on 07/14/2021.

Dennis explains when Miranda kicks in during a Motor Vehicle Stop. Recorded on 02/03/2017.

Dennis and Nick discuss how suffering in silence afflicts many Law Enforcement Officers and how to address this to keep going in a healthier way for the mind. Recorded on 07/12/2021.

Dennis and Shane discuss the practice of cultivating informants and why they are so important in covering the blind spots of law enforcement. Audio rough due to inclement weather. Recorded on 07/06/2021.

Dennis and Jenna take a deep dive into emotions and trauma, and how they factor into relationships with partners and families of Law Enforcement officers. Recorded on 07/01/2021.

Dennis continues this subject in this throwback from Episode 56, delving into what obstruction or hindering is and some anecdotes. Recorded on 01/30/2017.

Dennis and Wayne discuss a step and surrounding rules that trips up a lot of cops in cases of interdiction: seizing cash. Recorded on 06/30/2021.

Dennis explains some scenarios where it is okay to arrest for motor vehicle violations. Recorded on 01/29/2017.

Throwing a classic that still relevant as ever, Brad Gilmore talks about how a good demeanor during a traffic stop can change everything. Recorded on 06/06/2019.

In this episode, Dennis and guests Jeff and Kenny talk about the need for more training as well as some tactics to increase safety and decrease confrontation. Recorded on 06/16/2021.

Dennis talks about tactics suspects may use to undermine interdiction, and how it is important to keep nerves as long as you are doing the right things. Recorded on 02/23/2021.

Dennis breaks down the eagerness to work, imploring new cops to really think about how the public perceives the police based on their interactions that create lasting sentiments. Make sure the memories of the police are positive. Recorded on 03/08/2021.

Dennis implores officers to stop writing petty tickets and go beyond to do good police work to have a celebrated career. Recorded on 06/23/2021.

Dennis explains that when someone is citing legal advice that seems strange and contrary to the truth, ask them to cite the cases they are using as a legal reference. Recorded on 06/23/2021.

Dennis and guest psychotherapist Jenna Romano talk about the very serious issue regarding mental health in law enforcement. Recorded on 06/16/2021.

Dennis explains that a natural tendency for humans is to try and fit in with the pack. Dennis implores us to recognize that behavior. Recorded on 03/13/2021.

Dennis and Zach revisit vehicle search incident to arrest citing case laws and examples. Recorded on 06/10/2021.

Dennis talks about the considerations of making a move to find a more suitable place to work, how the grass isn't always greener, and how it okay to move again in case the first move was not satisfactory.

Tom Rizzo adds his take on the matter of the previous episode of changing administrative perspectives on Pro-Active Police work. Recorded on 06/07/2021.

Dennis answers a question on how to introduce Pro-Active Police work to agencies that previously did not perform to this standard. Recorded on 06/07/2021.

Tom Rizzo delivers a small pep talk and praises the cops out there striving to do the right thing in the face of adversity. Recorded on 06/01/2021.

Tom Rizzo explains that the best way to help yourself is by helping others. Dig deep to offer value to others. Recorded on 03/19/2021.

Out driving in the rain, Dennis explains what to look for when evaluating a suspicious vehicle before pulling them over. Recorded on 03/28/2021.

Dennis recalls where his focus was as a young and undertrained officer, shedding a candid light on how lost a cop can feel on what to do and look out for. Recorded on 06/01/2021.

With the controversies surrounding police and the courts amidst tensions, Tom shares his perspectives on how to make sure things can begin to get better, starting with each individual mindset. Recorded on 04/21/2021.

In this episode, Dennis and Zach continue to discuss the Trooper Two-Step debate and further investigate anecdotes and case laws. Recorded on 05/07/2021.

Dennis and Zach discuss the hot topic of Trooper Two-Step, controversies surrounding it, and relevant case laws.

Dennis and Zach answer a few questions from the community with case law examples and anecdotes, going further into topics covered in the weeks prior.

With the changes happening in law, Dennis and Zach discuss Qualified Immunity and recall relevant incidents.

Aaron Moss shares a heartfelt anecdote of a traffic stop conducted after taking Kenny's Street Academy course. Recorded on 03-17-2021.

Dennis and Zach discuss procedures leading up to a vehicle search and arrest, as well as relevant case laws and notes. Recorded 03/12/2021.

Picking up where they last left off with Vehicle Exceptions, Dennis and Zach discuss the matter of passengers during a traffic stop. Recorded 03-05-2021.

Introducing our newest member of the Street Cop Training family, Tom Walsh! He gives us a rundown of the topics he will cover in his upcoming course while Dennis and Tom Rizzo share their thoughts on the topic of health and wellness. Be vigilant with your health!

Dennis and newcomer to the Street Cop Family Zach Miller discuss a common question about the automobile exception for a warrant for search and seizure when there is a reasonable cause for suspicion.

Dennis stresses the importance of reading Miranda Rights and knowing relevant case laws to keep cases from being thrown out on technicalities.

Jeff Smith outlines some precautions around the arcs of doors during vehicle stops and how things can go wrong if the suspect panics.

Dennis and special guest Kenny Williams (a.k.a. The Red Ninja) tackle questions from the community. Originally aired on 10/04/2021.

Dennis answers a call about when it is appropriate to do a partial vs. full plate check while not engaged in a traffic stop and describes when it is appropriate to do a warrant check and criminal history lookup while engaged in a traffic stop.

In this heated episode, Dennis explains a simple rule that seems to be warped into a myth and is constantly perpetuated into bad advice among active police officers.

Tom Rizzo explains how pandering to an antagonist that is looking to cancel you is an exercise in futility, and how to better direct your energy toward your staff instead of falling victim to appeasement.

Dennis answers a question on vehicle selection and provides some insights on how to develop a strategy for bigger and better results over time.

Tom Rizzo explains the pitfalls of doing things for recognition and the trappings of not giving others the recognition they deserve for fear of one's own status.

In an excerpt from an earlier video, Dennis talks about his experience as a rookie and how he reevaluated priorities on police work.

We have a special guest episode of The Squad Room featuring our very own Dennis Benigno of Street Cop Training. Dennis joins The Squad Room to talk about his career and how he navigated through a start in corrections, to federal law enforcement, and eventually, back home working in the New Jersey town he grew up in. A big thank you to the guys at The Squad Room for the feature! Check out thesquadroom.net for more of their episodes and other resources.

Dennis explains the legalities of Terry Frisking, how it can change from state to state, and how to use the Terry v Ohio case as a guideline.

Dennis explains that not everyone needs to perform the trooper 2-step to gain lawful consent, depending on the state. He also discusses how to look for case laws and previous court cases pertaining to lawful consent procedures.

Dennis explains that to succeed as a good Supervisor, you have to remember that you are working for your staff, not the other way around.

Tom Rizzo explains the trappings of fearing inferiority and the benefits of having humility for the organization and yourself.

Tom Rizzo explains the impact of having administrative support and how being supportive of staff will net big returns all around.

Dennis and his guest Robert Ferreiro discuss the motivation behind the actions of law enforcement.

What it means to be in the Brotherhood of Police Officers.

What are you spending your time on out in the field? Dennis recalls an experience and talks less about headlights and more about how to be effective in the field.

If you are new to the Police game, you might feel that this lifestyle was not what you had signed up for at first. Dennis explains the dopamine hit from your first successful bust, and how each successive bust adds to the rush.

Dennis sits down with a new acquaintance, Jake Bigelow to discuss the real problems in law enforcement right now.

Taken from a live video, Dennis Benigno discusses making a decision and sticking to it.

Dennis sits down with the Real Minority Report to discuss his career & Street Cop Training

Dennis sits down with one of our own and top three instructors at Street Cop, SGT. Kenny Williams. Kenny is a well known interdiction police officer throughout the country, also known as The Red Ninja. Dennis and Kenny discuss the beginning of his career, training, and interdiction. Sergeant Williams began his career in 2007, and currently works as a full time K9 interdiction officer. Williams has been personally responsible for the seizure of over 4 million dollars cash, several hundred pounds of illicit narcotics, and well over a ton of Marijuana. Williams has received countless awards for his work from numerous organizations and has established a national reputation. Williams is a fully certified EPIC and DIAP instructor.

Uncle Den Answers Group Members Questions From Our Private LEO only Facebook Group.

Dennis sits down with Brad Gilmore, an instructor with SCT and talent in law enforcement. Brad discusses his origin story, some of the struggles he had in the beginning of his career and what he does now!

K9 SGT Scott Kivett drops by Street Cop Training

Dennis sits down with Oklahoma Highway Patrol to discuss Street Cop Training, Case law, and more.

Philadelphia police officer Jesse Hartnett, who was wounded in an ambush shooting back in 2016 joins Dennis on the Street Cop Podcast to discuss the life changing incident, his career and what life looks like now.

Dennis sits down today to discuss the Top Ten Most Important US Supreme Court Cases that cops need to know. Case law is fundamental for all cops. This is one of the core beliefs of Street Cop Training.

Dennis sits down with Captain Tom Rizzo to answer questions on police leadership and correct approaches. Thomas Rizzo began his law enforcement career in December of 2001, as a Patrolman with the Middlesex Borough Police Department (NJ). In 2004, Rizzo was hired by the Howell Township Police Department (NJ), where he is currently serving as the Investigations Division Commander at the rank of Captain. Rizzo formulated Howell Township Police Department’s first Criminal Suppression Unit, where he has participated in a variety of search warrant executions, intra/inter-agency collaborations, and take-downs of distributors. Rizzo takes great pride in the constant pursuit of leading by example, while consistently being a student of human behavior.  Rizzo has quickly become one of Street Cop Training’s most sought after instructors.