INSTRUCTIONAL UNIT 5.6

Warrantless Searches and Seizures UNIT GOAL

The trainee will identify case law interpreting the Fourth Amendment, and whether or not an officer can search and/or seize evidence without a warrant.

PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES

5.6.1 The trainee will identify constitutional protections given to all citizens under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution.

5.6.2 The trainee will identify that the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by government officials:

A. Federal case law interpreting this concept;

B. New Jersey case law interpreting this concept.

5.6.3 The trainee will identify what constitutes a reasonable expectation of privacy pursuant to case law.

5.6.4 The trainee will identify the standard of review in any subsequent suppression hearing concerning the actions of an officer:

A. Warrantless searches must be justified by law enforcement under established theories;

B. General Rule -- in New Jersey, a warrantless search is

impermissible unless it falls under an exception to the warrant requirement;

C. Under the concept of Dual Federalism, the New Jersey Supreme Court, interpreting the New Jersey Constitution has provided more rights than the United States Constitution.

5.6.5 The trainee will identify the “consent to search” warrantless search requirement:

A. What constitutes a voluntary and knowing consent;

B. When is a third-party consent valid; and C. The scope of a consent search.

5.6.6 The trainee will identify New Jersey caselaw interpreting “consent to search” cases and motor vehicles:

A. Two-pronged test established by the New Jersey Supreme Court under State v.

Carty, 170 N.J. 632 (2002);

18Instructor’s Note: Given the “automobile exception,” discuss the case law involving canine searches.

reasonable and articulable suspicion;

C. The application of the Carty standard to disabled cars; and

D. Case law interpreting consent to search a vehicle in narcotics cases.

5.6.7 The trainee will identify warrantless searches authorized under the “automobile exception”:¹⁸

A. The trainee will identify the three-pronged test established under State v. Pena-Flores, 198 N.J. 6 (2009);

B. The trainee will identify what are exigent circumstances under the case law; and

C. The trainee will identify recent case law interpreting Pena-Flores.

5.6.8 The trainee will identify the concept of a search incident to a valid arrest:

A. New Jersey case law limiting search incident to a valid arrest during a motor vehicle stop;

B. The Supreme Court ruling in State v. Eckle, 185 N.J. 523 (2006) holding “once the occupant of the car has been arrested,

removed or secured elsewhere, the rationale for a search incident to an arrest no longer applies and law enforcement must secure the vehicle and get a search warrant;”

C. Case law interpreting search incident to a valid arrest in non-motor vehicle cases;

D. Case law interpreting the contemporaneous requirement; and E. Case law interpreting the scope of the search.

5.6.9 The trainee will identify what constitutes reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop a motor vehicle:

A. Observations of a Title 39 offense;

B. Information from dispatcher reports;

C. Calls/tips from the public;

D. Motor vehicle stops justified under the community caretaker function;

E. Authority to remove driver/passenger from vehicle;

F. Length of the detention; and G. Roadblocks.

5.6.10 The trainee will identify what constitutes exigent circumstances and/or

hot pursuit, justifying a warrantless search of a home or residence.

5.6.11 The trainee will identify the three-pronged emergency-aid doctrine and scope of the search justified.

5.6.12 The trainee will identify the two-pronged test to justify an inventory search.

5.6.13 The trainee will identify the plain-view doctrine.

5.6.14 The trainee will identify the plain-touch doctrine.

5.6.15 The trainee will identify the plain-smell doctrine.

5.6.16 The trainee will identify what constitutes abandoned property.

5.6.17 The trainee will identify the methods for seizure or extraction of physical evidence from a person’s body.

19Instructor’s Note: Given time, discuss the Station House Adjustment Guidelines concerning the alternative method that law enforcement agencies may use to handle first-time juvenile offenders who have committed minor juvenile delinquency offenses within their jurisdiction, pursuant to Attorney General Directive 2008-2.

Fifth Amendment and Miranda Warnings UNIT GOAL

The trainee will identify when Miranda warnings are required to be given.

PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES

5.7.1 The trainee will identify constitutional provisions associated with Miranda warnings:

A. Fifth Amendment;

B. Sixth Amendment.

5.7.2 The trainee will identify when Miranda warnings must be given.

5.7.3 The trainee will identify case law interpreting what constitutes “custody.”

5.7.4 The trainee will identify case law interpreting what constitutes “interrogation.”

5.7.5 The trainee will identify whether or not there is a public safety exception to the Miranda rule.

5.7.6 The trainee will identify when Miranda warnings must be given in juvenile proceedings, and the steps that must be taken to contact a guardian¹⁹. 5.7.7 The trainee will identify what constitutes a valid waiver of the Miranda

warnings:

A. Ambiguous assertions;

B. Remaining silent; and

C. Initiating contact with law enforcement after initially invoking Fifth Amendment rights.

5.7.8 The trainee will identify steps that must be taken if an attorney calls claiming to represent a defendant during an interrogation.

5.7.9 The trainee will identify whether Miranda warnings must be given during routine booking/processing questions.

5.7.10 The trainee will identify whether or not a waiver was voluntary.

5.7.11 The trainee will identify case law interpreting the appropriate length of interrogation.

5.7.12 The trainee will identify when a Sixth Amendment right to counsel becomes effective.

Use of Force UNIT GOAL

The trainee will identify the justifications under N.J.S.A. 2C:3-1 et seq., and the Attorney General’s Use of Force Policy that apply to the lawful use of force, and consequences that might result from the misuse of force.

PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES