http://www.nj.com/…

The New Jersey Supreme Court heard arguments today over whether to change the circumstances under which police may search cars on Garden State roadways.

State prosecutors argue the current method needs a tune-up because it creates real-world problems for police trying to make decisions in the field. Under current rules, if police want to search a car without first getting a judge’s approval, they must determine that there is probable cause, whether the evidence might disappear and if the safety of the officer or public is at risk.

Instead, the state want to see the state’s high court adopt the method used by the federal courts, which lets police search a car on the belief there is contraband inside.

“It’s a rule that makes sense and is by no means a radical departure of the last 30 or 40 years,” said assistant Attorney General Ronald Susswein.

But criminal defense lawyers say the current system helps preserve important constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

“There is not a crisis with regard to automobile searches. The sky is not falling,” said assistant deputy state public defender, Stephen Kirsch.

And former Attorney General John Farmer Jr., who represents the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers — New Jersey , argued the advances in technology have so changed the landscape that there are fewer instances in which a warrantless search is necessary.

During arguments in Trenton, the justices peppered lawyers with questions about the law, such as what circumstances dictate when a vehicle might be impounded in connection with a stop and how the courts have defined the situations in which a warrantless search was okay.

“We’re defining it differently in difference circumstances,” said Justice Barry Albin.

If they really want to search your vehicle they will find a way to justify it. Rarely are you going to get the search found illegitimate by the courts. As with all other situations with police and the threat of a search: Just say no. Then say nothing. Anything, and I mean anything, can and will be used against you. If you are stopped by cops refuse to search you query whether you are being detained, if not ask to leave. Continue with the same questions until allowed to leave.

http://ap.google.com/…

Boston police will ask parents in high-crime areas to let detectives search their children’s bedrooms for guns without warrants in a new anti-crime program.

Police believe parents are so worried their teenagers will be caught up in gun violence that they’ll be willing to allow police into their homes. If the parents say no, the police will leave.

During the next two weeks, teams of three plainclothes officers assigned to schools will go to homes where they believe teens have guns and ask their parents or legal guardians for permission to search.

Thomas Nolan, a former Boston police lieutenant who teaches criminology at Boston University, called it “an end run around the Constitution.”

Some critics said people may be too intimidated to say no to police.

Davis said officers won’t conduct such searches in the homes of teenagers suspected in shootings or homicides whom investigators are trying to prosecute. If officers find drugs during a warrantless search, it will be up to them whether to make an arrest. Modest amounts of drugs like marijuana will simply be confiscated, officials said.

I wonder if these parents who honestly want their home searched realize the can of worms they could be opening. The cops will have free reign once invited in and as it normally go when you invite cops into a situation, things tend to get out of hand (tasings, asset forfeiture, etc). It’s far more likely a teenager will have drugs in their room than a firearm and it seems the cops will be able to bust them or just pocket the stash. My bet would be those who volunteer for this kind of beat would be the ones who’d ‘confiscate’ the prohibited items. I wonder how many parents who were met at their door with 3 cops would feel intimated and obligated to let them in? How many of them know their 4th Amendment rights?

http://www.nj.com/…

When police come to the aid of a disabled motorist they face limits in following a hunch to “fish” for illegal activity by searching the vehicle, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled today.

The court found police acted without proper cause in the case of six people arrested on conspiracy and drug charges after a warrantless search along the New Jersey Turnpike in Edison three years ago.

“The driver of a disabled car facing police officers whose offer of assistance quickly turns into a ‘fishing expedition’ based on a ‘hunch’ that criminal activity is afoot is subject to no less compulsion to accede to a consent search than a driver subject to a typical motor vehicle stop,” wrote Justice Barry Albin, who was joined by Justices Jaynee LaVecchia, Virginia Long, John Wallace and Helen Hoens.

I’m pleasantly surprised by this ruling. While absolutely obvious to myself had I read about this case prior I would have not been sure of it’s outcome. NJ is hardly the most freedom loving state. I’ve had had a few run ins with the state police that were of questionable legality or at least good taste. I’m glad that someone is looking out for the 4th Amendment.

http://appellate.typepad.com/…

Jean v. MA State Police, No. 06-1775 upholds a preliminary injunction against the state police who wish to arrest a political activist that wants to post (on the internet) an audio and video recording of an arrest and warrantless search of a private residence, when (assuming for the sake of argument) the individual who posted the recording had reason to know at the time she accepted the recording that it was illegally recorded.

The video in question is here. The law is a bit ridiculous to begin with. The cops can videotape you but you can’t videotape them?