Approaches on the Beat

In this archive episode, Dennis takes a phone call and explains some approaches regarding questioning while on the beat outside of motor vehicle settings. Recorded on 08/13/2018. State of NJ v Sirianni 2002 - https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2435662195144290986andq=sirianni%20v%20stateandhl=enandas_sdt=4%2C31andfbclid=IwAR0PyHrQPgHRix9wgAbMe8ClF2drpL8GbuW87VGnX9kk-9ukEVmeBb0LK6c (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2435662195144290986andq=sirianni+v+stateandhl=enandas_sdt=4,31) It also involved a minimal degree of intrusion in this case. The encounter never escalated into an investigative detention and never extended beyond a mere request for identification until the marijuana was seen in plain view, at which point probable cause for arrest existed. Before then, however, there were no restraints on defendant's movement and nothing in the encounter conveyed to defendant that he was not free to refuse the officers' request. On the contrary, the approach was non-offensive. No demands or orders were issued. Nor was the police conduct overbearing or harassing. The officers' request for identification was non-accusatory and contained no presupposed suspicion of criminal conduct that could convey to defendant that he was the subject of a particularized investigation. The exchange appears to have been unremarkable and non-confrontational: the officers knocked on the car window and, after defendant awoke and opened the door, they asked for his name and identification; in reply, defendant gave his name, responded that he lived across the street at the home of a friend, and leaned over to retrieve his driving credentials. Under the circumstances, we conclude that the officers' conduct did not require reasonable suspicion or other constitutional justification. Since we conclude that both the initial approach and arrest of defendant were lawful, evidence disclosed pursuant to both a search of his person incident to his arrest 213 *213 and a search of the black bag inside the vehicle, which defendant does not challenge independently, was not the fruit of the poisonous tree. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484, 83 S.Ct. 407, 416, 9 L.Ed.2d 441, 453 (1963); State v. Pante, 325 N.J.Super. 336, 346-47, 739 A.2d 433 (App.Div.1999), certif. denied, 163 N.J. 76, 747 A.2d 285 (2000).

There are no comments yet.

Please log in to write the first comment.