Now that summer is in full swing and the new school year is fast approaching, house parties with large crowds of young adults seem to be a common occurrence. If the party produces a lot of noise so as to distract and disrupt the neighbors from the quiet enjoyment of their own property, the police will inevitably be called to respond to a noise ordinance complaint. The officer's actions during the response call must be put under scrutiny as he/she could have violated 4th Amendment rights protecting against illegal search and seizure.
Recently, in the New Jersey Appellate Division case of State v. Kaltner, a group of Monmouth University students all living together in an off campus house in Long Branch (not affiliated with the University) decided to throw a party. The party became loud enough to disturb the neighbors who responded by calling the Long Branch Police. Once the police arrived and knocked at the door, a partygoer opened the door and invited them to step in. Once inside, Long Branch Police Officers began searching for the residents of the home so that they could instruct them to keep the noise level down. The officers split up and scattered throughout the house. One officer in particular ventured upstairs and began looking around. The lone officer testified that while upstairs he noticed a controlled dangerous substance that he recognized from his training as well as other drug paraphernalia. The officer confiscated the drugs and arrested the individual who owned them. At trial, the judge opined that the search performed by the Long Branch Police Officer was in fact violative of the 4th Amendment's protection against illegal search and seizure thus not allowing the evidence collected as a result of that search to be admitted at trial.
On appeal, the three-judge Appellate Panel agreed and affirmed the lower court ruling with clear deference to the 4th Amendment. Because the Long Branch Police Officers were invited inside the house, the question or issue that the Appellate Division needed to decide was whether or not the Police acted lawfully in fanning out to find the people within the house that were responsible for throwing the party which is how the illegal drugs were discovered.
A number of arguments were raised by the State. In particular, a general "community caretaking" argument posed an interesting debate in the case. The Appellate Division judges deduced that this case turned on whether "the objective reasonableness of the police action in executing their service function" was satisfied. The court ruled that fanning out to find the people responsible for the party was not objectively reasonable because there was no need to do so. There were numerous partygoers that could have sought the responsible party for the officers along with a number of other approaches. The goal of the police visit was to abate the nuisance, not to search the house for the homeowner. Given those circumstances, the judges ruled that the search was unlawful. In a clear manner calculated to avoid a brightline rule, the Court limited its opinion to the case at hand claiming that each search and seizure case must be decided on a case-by-case basis to determine if the police were in fact objectively reasonable.
Search and seizure issues constantly arise, as the line can sometimes be blurry. Although some police officers seem to abuse their power, it could be just that they are unsure of the law. If you believe that you have been the victim of an illegal search and seizure, contact an experienced New Jersey criminal defense attorney to discuss the facts of your case. Call the experienced NJ criminal defense attorneys of Villani & DeLuca, P.C. for a free initial consultation today. Call (732) 892-9050 to reach the Point Pleasant Beach Law Offices of Villani & DeLuca, P.C.
