Fire investigators were on the scene as a fire was just being put out, and they were looking for the source of the fire when they found two bodies. The bodies were legitimately found during a fire scene search, and the investigators were not required to get a search warrant and come back. State v. Amodio, 390 N.J. Super. 313, 915 A.2d 569 (February 5, 2007):<\/p>\n
In our view, the trial judge correctly applied these principles when he denied defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence found during the investigation of the fire. The evidence presented at the suppression hearing revealed that Dannenfelser arrived at the scene at around 2:00 a.m. when the fire was under control. Dannenfelser and West conducted their investigation of the fire by systematically going through every room in the house. They checked for all possible ignition sources, including electrical devices, appliances, evidence of smoking materials, chemicals, and ignitable liquids.<\/p>\n
The second floor of the house had partially collapsed. After West had gone through the rooms which remained on that floor, Dannenfelser and West continued their investigation in the rear bedrooms on the first floor. The smoke stains and fire patterns indicated that the fire had originated in the front section of the house. Dannenfelser and West moved to the living room area, and checked the circuitry and electrical appliances. They observed no abnormal electrical activity. Dannenfelser and West then proceeded into the kitchen and sifted through the debris. There they found pieces of the roof rafters and shingles. Near the refrigerator, they found the bodies of Lisa and Kollin.<\/p>\n
Dannenfelser and West hand-sifted the materials around the victims. Dannenfelser explained that they did so to see if there was evidence of any materials that might have caused the fire and to determine where the victims were prior to the fire. Around Lisa’s body, they found the fiberglass handle of a hammer. They also found the metal part of the hammer. Dannenfelser concluded that the victims had been on the first floor at the time of the fire.<\/p>\n
The investigators looked at the appliances in the kitchen to determine whether they were a source of ignition. They observed that the most damaged area of the home was the front hallway. Dannenfelser stated that they found a metal-clad door lying in the center of the hallway. When West lifted the door, Dannenfelser smelled an odor characteristic of gasoline.<\/p>\n
. . .<\/p>\n
[and the court further described the investigative efforts for accelerants.]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
District court sensitively balances all the factors for and against consent, and it finds consent valid on the totality but finds that the defendant consented spontaneously although just arrested and not Mirandized. United States v. Reyes, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7639 (D. Conn. January 30, 2007).*<\/p>\n
Officer lacked all reasonable suspicion for a patdown of the defendant because he had no specific information nor did he see a bulge. United States v. Pinckney, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7774 (D. D.C. January 21, 2007).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading