Random Plate Inquiry

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

Recorded25 Oct 2021

Publisheranchor.fm ↗

Handlerec:531470

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis talks about how there are other ways of finding criminal vehicles but also talks about legality. Recorded on 06/13/2018. State v Mandel 2018 - https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/2018/a5442-16.html?fbclid=IwAR0Frv8zieD8fO0JQ55mTuHCHKyMjHMRkCsIlzadEF6uCmNqHQosxsHxWIg (https://law.justia.com/.../appellate.../2018/a5442-16.html) Defendant appeals the denial of his motion to suppress the warrantless seizure of a small amount of marijuana from his vehicle. A police officer seized the marijuana after stopping defendant's vehicle for an equipment violation. During the stop, the officer smelled the odor of marijuana coming from inside the car while questioning defendant through the open passenger side window.The State contends the officer's slight intrusion inside the vehicle's window, for the sole purpose of better hearing defendant over the noise of passing traffic, did not constitute a search. Defendant argues it was a search, and that it was unlawful because the officer was not legally in the "smelling area" when he detected the odor of marijuana and developed the probable cause to seize it. Assuming without deciding that the officer conducted a search when he leaned his head inside defendant's open window, the panel concludes that the officer's slight, momentary intrusion inside the car window to hear defendant's responses was reasonable. Consequently, the search did not violate the Constitutional protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures." The marijuana was then properly seized pursuant to the "plain smell" exception to the warrant requirement. The trial court order denying the suppression motion is affirmed. State in the interest of J.A. (2018) Neither exigency nor the hot pursuit doctrine justified the officers’ warrantless entry here. However, defendant’s brother’s actions did not constitute state action and were sufficiently attenuated from the unlawful police conduct to preclude application of the exclusionary rule to the evidence. https://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/attorneys/assets/opinions/supreme/a_38_16.pdf?fbclid=IwAR08RGXB4NENZ79saMFrbDx2hA7veCAURMdnW-_vZHk9uFX3CC_QTndVWZg (https://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/.../supreme/a_38_16.pdf)

Ask this episode

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