{"id":1831,"date":"2008-04-06T18:44:47","date_gmt":"2008-02-28T08:02:29","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-02-28T08:02:29","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1831","title":{"rendered":"N.J.: Possessory interest sufficient to have standing"},"content":{"rendered":"

A possessory interest is sufficient in New Jersey to challenge a search of a duffle bag that defendant was packing but admitted was not his. State v. Johnson<\/a>, 193
\nN.J. 528, 940 A.2d 1185 (2008). Lexis overview:<\/p>\n

Police had a warrant to arrest a man for threatening his girlfriend with a gun. The man’s father let them into his home; police arrested the suspect. They looked without success for the gun. Defendant, who was living there, put items in a duffel bag; an officer asked him if the items and bag were his; he said they were not. The officer opened the bag, found a handgun, and arrested defendant. The high court held that defendant had standing under New Jersey law to challenge the warrantless search of the bag and the fruits of the search had to be suppressed for failure to comply with the warrant requirements of N.J. Const. art. I, para. 7. He had standing because he had a possessory or participatory interest in the place searched and the property seized. It rejected the State\u2019s claim that his abandonment of the bag stripped him of standing because (1) the bag was not truly abandoned, as the police could have easily determined which of the residents was its owner; and (2) mere denial of ownership was not proof of an intent to abandon. Finally, police had possession of the bag, and exigent circumstances did not prevent them from obtaining a telephonic search warrant under R. 3:5-3.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Defendant was arrested outside his house and claimed he was not the man wanted. He protested that his ID was inside and would prove it. His son looked and could not find it, so he consented to an entry by the police to look for it, and they found a weapon and ammunition. United States v. Amaya, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13665 (N.D. Ind. January 23, 2008).*<\/p>\n

While church officials could enter the pastor’s office under church rules, they did not have apparent authority to invite the police in. State v. Young<\/a>, 974 So. 2d 601 (Fla. App. 1st DCA 2008).<\/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-1831","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1831","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=1831"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1831\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1831"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1831"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1831"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}