Arrests with Contraband Items in Bags

episode

Street Cop Podcast not yet transcribed

▲ 0

Transcript

This episode hasn't been transcribed yet Upvotes decide what gets transcribed next — 0 so far. Sign in to upvote

More from Street Cop Podcast

Episode 1027: From Tragedy to Resiliency - Susan Snow’s Journey 57 min · 01 Sep 2026

Episode 1026: Inside the Future of Police Off-Duty Management with Augustus Hellwich 38 min · 09 Jul 2026

All episodes from Street Cop Podcast →

Report any issue

Source

Recorded16 Sep 2021

Publisheranchor.fm ↗

Handlerec:531563

Show notes

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_ccHPJI8andh=AT0xpRfHbiyV1fxQZUilc9zHWp4ZtOElwtPVRyHv0Pprt4rX3uEOyZhUKe8To8IayXWkr32ruFuOijr9dhIfzcrJiBaUJdWKyslgB7Fob6jjRo70J-1ffYkM3cAJ7VrvdwLi23qmxtfChgwIJAand__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_H5BWtGwSATZ2Vwn9DK40RzYDP863dXpEJEzglR6E6eGJRHz9REandh=AT0xpRfHbiyV1fxQZUilc9zHWp4ZtOElwtPVRyHv0Pprt4rX3uEOyZhUKe8To8IayXWkr32ruFuOijr9dhIfzcrJiBaUJdWKyslgB7Fob6jjRo70J-1ffYkM3cAJ7VrvdwLi23qmxtfChgwIJAand__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

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.