An attorney from Hightstown recently scored a victory before the state Supreme Court.
By: Chris Karmiol and Scott Morgan
HIGHTSTOWN A borough attorney recently scored a victory for motorists’ rights before the state Supreme Court.
On March 4, the state Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision to require police officers in New Jersey to have a justifiable reason to request to search any motorist’s car, even when that motorist already has signed a consent-to-search form.
The case, argued by borough resident Edward Crisonino, who also is an attorney based in Westmont, centers on a 1997 case in which Stephen Carty was arrested on drug possession charges after his brother, Leroy Coley, was stopped for speeding on the New Jersey Turnpike. The ruling requires that every police officer in the state now furnish "articulable suspicion that a search would reveal evidence of criminal wrongdoing."
This ruling is in contrast to the U.S. Supreme Court’s stance that once a consent-to-search form has been signed, a motorist has no recourse to ask if a police officer has searched for a valid reason. Only New Jersey and Hawaii take the stance that motorists can challenge a police officer’s reasons to search their cars after a consent form has been signed.
Mr. Crisonino said the court’s ruling is allowable under the state constitution, which he said provides greater limits to police power than the federal government recognizes.
On March 27, 1997, Mr. Coley’s car, which was rented, was stopped by State Trooper Walter Layton for traveling approximately 75 mph along the New Jersey Turnpike, according to the case summary. The summary stated that Mr. Coley signed a consent-to-search form and that after doing so, the trooper conducted a pat down search of Mr. Coley and Mr. Carty.
According to the summary, Trooper Layton discovered cocaine on Mr. Carty and arrested him on charges of second-degree possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and third-degree possession.
According to the summary, Mr. Carty moved to suppress the cocaine evidence in the impending trial.
The court held the officer which pulled the two men over was within his rights in searching the vehicle because the rental papers for the car were not on-hand. "The trial court found that because there was no proof of ownership or the rental status of the vehicle, the trooper had the right to search the car to look for those credentials and to see if there was any evidence the car was stolen," the Supreme Court ruling said.
The pat-down search was conducted after the officer asked the two men if he could pat them down for safety reasons.
The trial court upheld the search was legal on the grounds that Trooper Layton was acting to ensure his own safety and, subsequently, denied Mr. Carty’s motion to suppress the cocaine evidence. He was sentenced to a six-year custodial term.
But in an appeal, Mr. Carty held the search of his person was not legal. The state Appellate Division concurred, saying "the trooper should have waited, before doing anything further, for confirmation from headquarters that he was dealing with a licensed driver who did not have his credentials with him. It noted that had the trooper done so, he could have issued the appropriate summons and let Coley and Carty go on their way and be done with the matter," the summary stated.
Mr. Crisonino said he is happy to know the police must now be held accountable for their actions.
"I have seen far too many abuses to the consent search," Mr. Crisonino said. He said he feels police have too much power and often intimidate motorists who do not know they can deny a police officer who wants to search their vehicles without a real reason.
"Ninety percent of the time, (the police) have no probable cause," he said.
One might suspect local police departments to have a reaction to the new ruling, but borough and township police said such policy already is business as usual.
East Windsor Police Chief William Spain noted that the ruling had already been upheld over 18 months ago in appellate courts. Chief Spain said the new ruling did not change anything, but merely upholds the decision.
"It’s the rule of law and we follow it," Chief Spain said.
Hightstown Police Chief James "Mickey" Eufemia said his officers, for a long time, have needed a viable reason to search a vehicle.
"Our officers … have to be able to articulate a reason to ask for a search," he said.
Despite local assurances, one state trooper who requested anonymity said the tough guidelines definitely hinder the job of a patrolling officer. An East Windsor officer also expressed frustration with the ruling. The officer said that police are trained to see signs, such as excessive sweating, shaking and fumbling, which suggest a driver might be hiding evidence.
The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey has another opinion. It contends that consent searches were subject to widespread abuse by law enforcement, and, according to the ACLU-NJ legal director, Ed Barocas, it enabled law enforcement to go on what he referred to as "fishing expeditions."
The consent search is one of the tools that was used in racial profiling, he explained.
"This is one step along the road of removing the stain of racial profiling," Mr. Barocas said, "but there’s still a lot of work to be done."