On April 12, 2010, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, decided the case of State v. Germaine A. Handy, Docket No. A-1838-07T4. The Defendant, Germaine A. Handy, appealed after being sentenced by the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Cumberland County, based on the trial judge's decision denying his motion to suppress evidence found during the search incident to Handy's arrest because the dispatcher who incorrectly informed the arresting officer that there was an outstanding arrest warrant acted unreasonably under the circumstance even though the conduct of the arresting officer himself was reasonable. The Appellate Division ruled that the motion to suppress should have been granted.
The facts of the case involved the defendant being stopped for violating a no riding a bicycle on the sidewalk city ordinance in Millville, New Jersey. The police officers called the dispatcher to check for outstanding warrants. Handy told the police officer his name, which he spelled, and date of birth of March 18, 1974. The dispatcher reported back to the police that Handy had an outstanding warrant. During the search incident to arrest, the police officer discovered crack cocaine and marijuana. After the arrest, the dispatcher advised the police officer there was a discrepancy as to the date of birth on the warrant. Upon return to the police station to verify the warrant, the police officer also found out the first name on the warrant was spelled different than the defendants. The arrest warrant was for a "Jermaine O. Handy" date of birth March 14, 1972 address of Los Angeles, CA.
The basis of the defendant's appeal was that the dispatcher's unreasonable actions should have resulted in the suppression of the drugs found because the exclusionary rule applies when a police dispatcher's actions result in an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the U.S. Constitution, Amendments IV and XIV, and New Jersey Constitution Article I, Section 10.
The exclusionary rule operates to preclude prosecutorial use of evidence obtained from unlawful searches and seizures. The exclusionary rule does not apply to all instances where mistakes are made in executing a warrant. If the police officer's actions in executing a warrant are reasonable, there is no constitutional violation and thus no need to consider the availability of a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.
In this case, the police dispatchers conduct was unreasonable. The dispatcher inaccurately reported to the police offier in the field that there was an active warrant for the defendant. If the citizens' right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure is to be vindicated, then the exclusionary rule must be applied beyond the officer in the field and to the police employee who acts unreasonably in supplying critical, but inaccurate or incomplete, information under circumstances such as those in this case.
This case will have an impact on future criminal defense and law enforcement procedures. An experienced criminal defense attorney should always review any available dispatcher logs and report print outs for possible errors. Law enforcement agencies will require more training for police dispatchers to avoid errors. A dispatcher could also be called as a witness in a suppression hearing if the arrest and search in a case is based on information from the dispatcher. Advances in technology should avoid any dispatcher error if the dispatcher can electronicially send to the law enforcement officer in the field the documentation to be reviewed.
Sources:
