{"id":1432,"date":"2008-04-06T18:43:33","date_gmt":"2007-10-10T07:44:14","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-10-10T07:44:14","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1432","title":{"rendered":"Police created exigency was necessary, so no suppression"},"content":{"rendered":"

Exigent circumstances here were police created, but it was a result of reasonable investigative methods and not to manipulate the situation. Therefore, exigent circumstances justified the entry. State v. Laboo<\/a>, 396 N.J. Super. 109, 933 A.2d 4 (2007):<\/p>\n

In State v. Stanton<\/em>, 265 N.J. Super. 383, 388, 627 A.2d 674 (App. Div. 1993), we determined that a police-created exigency, similar to the present case, was prompted by reasonable investigative tactics. In that case, the police received a tip from an anonymous informant that the defendant was selling narcotics from his motel room where he also kept several guns. Id<\/em>. at 384-85, 627 A.2d 674. Approximately twelve hours later, four police officers went to the motel and one officer knocked on the defendant’s motel room door, identifying himself as a police officer. Id<\/em>. at 385, 627 A.2d 674. When one of the room’s occupants pulled back the drapes to the window, another officer observed a plastic bag containing cocaine in plain view. Ibid<\/em>. The officers immediately entered the room without a warrant and seized the drugs, as well as two handguns, a box of ammunition, and a knife. Ibid<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Although the exigent circumstances justifying entry into the motel room were “police-created,” we concluded that “they arose as a result of reasonable police investigative conduct.” Id<\/em>. at 386, 627 A.2d 674.<\/p>\n

We discern nothing constitutionally offensive in the decision of the police to proceed to the scene and investigate. Indeed, the officers would have been derelict in their duty had they failed to do so. We also perceive nothing unreasonable in the officers’ decision to knock on the motel room door and identify themselves. Whether or not this conduct was intended to detect criminal activity, it was not unreasonable or inconsistent with Fourth Amendment principles. We assume that the police routinely respond to complaints of criminal conduct by proceeding to the scene, announcing their presence and making reasonable inquiries. That is their job. We know of no constitutional prohibition barring such conduct.<\/p>\n

[Ibid.<\/em>]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Noting that the officers “could have taken other investigative action” such as conducting a surveillance, we recognized that “[t]he point to be stressed … is that [the officers] were not constitutionally compelled to pursue these options, and the course they chose was not unreasonable.” Ibid<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Here, we are equally convinced that, although the exigent circumstances that justified entry into the apartment may have been “police-created,” they arose as a result of reasonable police investigative conduct. Hutchins<\/em>, supra, 116 N.J. at 460, 561 A.2d 1142; Stanton<\/em>, supra, 265 N.J. Super. at 386, 627 A.2d 674. We also disagree with the judge’s analysis that the exigent circumstances lacked spontaneity or urgency. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The district court found that the stop was “over” and defendant was told he was free to go. He then asked where the next exit was, and conversation ensued that led to consent. The finding of voluntariness and consent was supported by the evidence. United States v. Munoz-Villalba<\/a>, 251 Fed. Appx. 90 (3d Cir. 2007)* (unpublished).<\/p>\n

Plaintiff’s 13 hour detention before release was based on probable cause and was not unreasonable. Lee v. O’Malley, 533 F. Supp. 2d 548 (D. Md. 2007).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1432","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1432","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1432"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1432\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1432"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1432"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1432"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}