![]() What are you doing here and what's in your hand. Williams were neither harassing, overbearing, nor accusatory. Under field inquiry the police have the right to ask questions so long as they're not harassing, overbearing or accusatory. ![]() ![]() And even if it is constantly a high crime area, it is a high crime area, and when they do see someone who doesn't belong there in an area with knowledge that there's a lot of drug activity going on and recent burglaries, they have the right to stop and ask this person what he is doing there and what's going on. Williams for a number of reasons one, because it was a high crime area. But I do feel that the officers had the right to walk over and speak to Mr. So except for the fact they knew he didn't live in the area, it doesn't, it doesn't take away his rights to exist in private space in and of itself, so I do find it was a field inquiry. The public property and the private property distinction it doesn't make, it doesn't win in my mind because these officers made no attempt to determine whether this person was lawfully on private property or not lawfully on private property. That private property does not create a shield around the public or one that can be pierced much more easily than one is on private property. ![]() On the other hand, if they are questioned, there has got to be a basis for an officer walking up to private property and asking a question or some reason to make an inquiry. I do not believe that people on private property cannot be questioned by police officers. Let me start by saying that I do believe that this was a field inquiry. Cantor denied the suppression motion for the following reasons: After a struggle, Yurkovic obtained the bag and, when he realized it contained cocaine, placed defendant under arrest.ĭuring the suppression hearing, Bobadilla testified that he grabbed defendant's hand as defendant moved it toward his mouth because he knew that drug dealers often try to put narcotics in their mouths to conceal or destroy the drugs.Īfter hearing the testimony, Judge Jane B. Bobadilla grabbed defendant's hand and seized the bag. When Yurkovic again asked defendant what he had in his hand, defendant moved his hand toward his mouth. Defendant did not respond initially and when asked the questions a second time, he stood up and took a "fighting stance." He asked defendant what he was doing in the backyard and what he was holding in his hand. Yurkovic observed a black plastic bag protruding from defendant's right hand. Yurkovic testified at the suppression hearing that defendant appeared startled when he heard the officers approaching and told them that he had been drinking all night and was resting. They found him sitting on the step of a private residence at the end of the alleyway. The officers called for backup and followed defendant. Both officers were familiar with defendant, and Bobadilla, who identified him by sight, knew that he was not a resident of the area. The charges arose out of events that occurred on Jduring which New Brunswick Police Officers John Yurkovic and James Bobadilla observed defendant go down an alleyway in a residential area at 5:28 a.m. He was sentenced to a term of four years concurrent to a term he was then serving. Tully, Deputy Attorney General, of counselįollowing denial of defendant's motion to suppress, he entered a plea of guilty to one count of third degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS), N.J.S.A. Jersey, attorney for respondent (Maura K.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |