Call Now For Help


NJ Vehicle Search Ruled Illegal By Court


by in Criminal Appeals

State v. Ender F. Pompa, ? N.J. Super. ?, 2010 N.J. Super. LEXIS 114 (July 2, 2010) – Conviction reversed, case remanded for suppression of evidence and new trial. “Defendant was convicted of various drug offenses after more than thirty pounds of marijuana were seized from the sleeper cabin of his tractor trailer…. [T]he closely regulated business exception permitted a warrantless administrative inspection of certain areas of the tractor trailer, but the search turned unlawful when it progressed into unregulated areas without the exigent circumstances required by State v. Pena-Flores, 198 N.J. 6, 28 (2009)…. [T]he Trooper was entitled to conduct an administrative inspection of defendant’s vehicle pursuant to applicable regulations and the purposes for which those regulations were adopted…. [T]he Level II inspection was permitted and authorized entry into the sleeper cabin since the federal regulations extend that far. However, the regulations do not encompass closets or personal belongings located inside a sleeper cabin and, as a result, the closely regulated business exception cannot form the basis for a warrantless search into those areas. Even if we assume Trooper Budrewicz entered the sleeper cabin for the purpose of conducting a safety check, … , the search inside the cabin’s closet and the opening of the baggage within that closet exceeded the letter and intent of the regulations applicable to sleeper cabins. In short, the search of the cabin’s closet exceeded ‘the spatial scope’ of the administrative inspection…. In deferring to the trial judge’s finding that the Trooper was able to smell raw marijuana in the sleeper cabin, we agree probable cause existed to search further into the sleeper cabin. However, in applying the requirements of Pena-Flores, mere proof of an unexpected vehicle stop and probable cause did not permit a warrantless search beyond the limits of the administrative inspection in the absence of exigent circumstances. As a result, the evidence seized from the closet in the vehicle’s cabin and the additional evidence seized without a warrant thereafter could not be lawfully used against defendant at trial.”






*No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey | Rating Methodology | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
The information contained in on this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by The Law Offices of Anthony J. Vecchio and while we endeavor to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to The Law Offices of Anthony J. Vecchio or the information, products, or services contained on for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
The results of verdicts and settlements mentioned herein are not typical. Case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. Case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case.

Site by Law Firm Website Designers / Criminal Defense/DWI Lawyer Marketing.