Inevitable Discovery and Independent Source Doctrines (Part 1)

by | Jun 23, 2019 | Blog, Criminal Law

On May 13, 2019, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the Monmouth County case of State v. Nathan Shaw. The principal issues involved the applications of the inevitable discover and independent source doctrines.

Justice Timpone wrote for a unanimous Court and held as follows: In this case, the Court considers whether evidence found in a motel room and vehicle and defendant Nathan Shaw’s statement to police should have been suppressed. Jasmine Hanson was staying at the Crystal Inn motel in Neptune City. She called the front desk to complain she had been bitten by bed bugs. The motel owner inspected Hanson’s room using his pass key. He saw a plastic bag containing what he suspected were narcotics and called the police. Officer Jason Rademacher had the motel owner lead him to Hanson’s room where, again using his pass key, the motel owner unlocked the door for the officer to enter. Inside, Rademacher saw what appeared to be drugs, as well as a measuring cup and scale. A criminal history check on Hanson revealed an outstanding traffic warrant and a recently issued traffic summons on a 2012 black Chevrolet Tahoe, and its plate number.

Rademacher transported the evidence to the station and returned in an unmarked vehicle to wait for Hanson’s arrival. Shortly thereafter, the black Tahoe pulled into a parking space. The front passenger was Keon Bolden, Hanson was in the driver’s seat, and in the back seat were Shakera Dickerson and Shaw. Rademacher arrested Hanson. The officer asked to search the Tahoe; Hanson refused consent. A drug-detection canine was brought to perform an exterior sniff of the vehicle.  The officers conducted warrant checks on the remaining passengers. Only Dickerson’s came back positive.  She was arrested and placed in a second patrol car.  Shaw and Bolden were patted down and seated in separate patrol cars, uncuffed. Hanson again refused to consent to a search of the vehicle.

The way that these drugs were seized by the police is fundamentally unfair to the defendant. Logic dictates that she did not reasonably expect that the hotel owner would enter her room after she left or she would have put her drugs away. The owner likely watched her leave, then entered without permission, then saw a way to have her evicted from the room after taking her money by calling the police about drugs as opposed to remedying the bed bug issue.

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
Fred completely exceeded all expectations with the result of my case.
John M
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I love the insight! It helps to keep my kids out of troubel!
Michael G
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Great!!! , got my case handled in the exact manner that I was told and would recommend to everyone else in need of legal representation .
Raumelis R
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Best criminal defense lawyer in ocean county!!
Austin A
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Called back within 10 minutes,very easy to talk to. Not judgmental at all. I am hopeful about the outcome.
Colleen H
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred helped me in a civil matter and was very attentive to my needs and responsive to my emails. Also very detail-oriented and timely. Highly recommend.
Kristen C
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Very knowledgeable within every aspect of the law. Highly recommend his talent for your criminal defense.
Will S
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Hired Mr.Sisto to handle a case of mine a couple of months ago and while the service was okay the customer service was awful. When I had inquired about a charge I was unsure of on my bill, Mr. Sisto immediately got defensive and had the unprofessionalism to ask me if I “was high” for asking this question. I wonder if Mr. Sisto asks all of his clients this question or only the ones who have jobs in the cannabis industry? Regardless, I don’t believe this was an appropriate question to ask, regardless of the industry one works in, and therefore Mr. Sisto needs to heavily work on his customer service. Edit: Mr. Sisto had the UNPROFESSIONALISM to reach out to my family and ask them to ask me to take down my review instead of reaching out directly towards me when it was I who was his client, not my family. Clearly speaks to the unprofessionalism surrounding this practice. This has not been the only time Mr.Sisto has gone directly to my family instead of me, his client, for important legal matters and I will not seek out his services again. For those who may not understand Spanish, the email starts with “You should speak to your daughter regarding the review she has just published.” Edit to Response: As an attorney, one should be able to make appropriate questions and comments regardless if a client is “uncooperative” or “disrespectful.” The fact that rather than apologizing for the awful interaction with your firm, and I was not released “within hours” as you claim shows how low value your firm is and how you openly instead chose to harass my family through email for my initial review rather than actually revomy case which I ended up doing and you chareged me for . Regardless of results, your character speaks volumes and anyone who reads this would know better than to give their money to an awful person such as yourself. What a shame
Ximena C
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Great experience overall having Frederick P Sisto as my attorney. Sisto understands his client, very insightful and is an expert in his field. Truly a professional and marvelous individual.
Maybelin R
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
For the people. For the little guy My legal bully
Glennlykesmusic