Investigatory Detentions (Part 2)

by | Mar 21, 2019 | Blog, Criminal Law, Monmouth County, New Jersey, Ocean County

The Court continued in relevant part: The officers then asked Reevey and the other occupants of the room for their identification. The officers relayed the occupants’ information to dispatch to check for outstanding warrants. Officer Harris stated that the occupants of the room were not allowed to leave until the results of their individual warrant checks came back. The occupants were released from the scene on an individual basis, as each was cleared by the dispatcher.

Officer Harris did not issue any noise violation summons.  He testified that the “investigation was complete when Reevey agreed to turn the noise down and he decided not to give her a summons for the ordinance violation.” When asked, however, why he and the other officers did not leave once Reevey turned the music down, Officer Harris explained that it is standard police practice to obtain a person’s identification in the course of issuing a summons for violation of a noise ordinance. According to Officer Harris, one of the reasons that identification is obtained is in the event of a callback to that location. The officers detained the occupants for a total of about twenty minutes while awaiting the results of the warrant checks.

The results of the warrant checks began to come back at 12:21 a.m., and at least three individuals were released. Woodard was cleared at 12:23 a.m. but either chose to stay on the premises or was not released. The warrant check for Chisum came back positive for warrants at 12:32 a.m., and he was placed under arrest. After handcuffing Chisum and escorting him into the hallway, Officer Harris conducted a search incident to arrest and patted Chisum down for weapons, revealing a handgun tucked into his waistband. The handgun was retrieved, and Chisum was secured in the hallway.  Officer Harris ordered the remaining occupants in Room 221 to place their hands above their heads and informed them that they would all be patted down for weapons. The pat-down of Woodard revealed that he also possessed a handgun. The handgun was seized, and Woodard was placed under arrest.  Chisum and Woodard were indicted for weapons offenses.

The court did not address the contradictory nature of Officer Harris’s testimony. He claimed that it is standard practice to obtain identification in the course of issuing a summons while also claiming that he did not issue a summons.

Excellent rating
Based on 288 reviews
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
The most important thing an attorney can do for their client is get results in the courtroom. Fred Sisto did this for me, and did so in such a professional and communicative manner that I would absolutely recommend him to anyone in New Jersey who is dealing with criminal charges. Fred was able get results when other attorneys did not. I definitely recommend speaking with him.
Brian C
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Very informative.
Patrick S
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Mr. Sisto and his entire staff were courteous, professional and got our case handled quickly and to the best outcome. Great lawyer. Highly recommend.
Bryan B
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
My son was represented better than I could have ever imagined. His needs were put first and was treated as a friend rather than a number. His/ our opinions were valued and our doubts were always reassured. We couldn’t have asked for a better attorney out there!!! Thanks so much!
Danielle T
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred was extremely helpful and knowledgable. He made the whole process as painless and easy as possible.
Toli C
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Thank you !
Billy F
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
From the beginning Fred was fast to respond to my initial inquiry (while he was on vacation) when other lawyers took a week or never even responded. Fred was professional, understanding of my situation and on point with the the expected timelines due the delays COVID had put on the courts. The courts had objections on a few occasions and forced me to appeal on another but, Fred stood his ground for me and followed through until my matter was resolved as I expected. I recommend Mr. Sisto if you are in need his services. I will definitely use him again if I ever need to.
Steve
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Mr. Sisto was not only a knowledgeable and excellent lawyer, he was compassionate and understanding during this difficult time. I found Mr. Sisto to always be available and he services were affordable and effective. You will not find a better lawyer.
Joseph S
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Very knowledgeable with expungement!!! Thanks again!!!
Nicole B
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I recently utilized his exceptional services and would highly recommend them to anyone seeking legal advice.
Mark A