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
Mr. Sisto is very knowledgeable in the specific area of which he practices. I was beyond thankful for the end results of which could not have been achieved without Mr. Sisto's intervention.
Shawn H
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred is an excellent attorney. Even though we did not initiate the official pleading process, he deep dived into researching and sorted out my questions without any consultation fee. I highly recommend him!
Qianru Z
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I recently retained Mr. Fred Sisto to represent my son regarding a very serious legal matter. If not handled correctly these charges could have resulted in bad consequences for my son's future prospects. Mr. Sisto's knowledge of the criminal justice system is evident since he was able to get all charges dropped as well as getting them expunged from his record. If you need a criminal justice attorney who will respond quickly to all your questions and concern,as well as achieve a satisfactory solution to your case I strongly recommend Attorney Fred Sisto.
Joseph M
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred is a very knowledgeable and effective attorney. His knowledge of the law enables him to understand your issue, plan a strategy to address it and explain the strategy to you. He also possesses excellent communication skills that assist him interactions with other attorneys and judges.
Michael G
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 Sisto is compassionate! His forewarning his network about DUI checkpoints are vital to public interests! He does what it NEEDED by giving us advanced notifications about avoiding situations! Thank you Fred!
Joseph R
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I was very content with Fred’s services. He was extremely communicative throughout the entire process and I am happy with our results.
Lidia D
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I wholeheartedly recommend the legal services of Frederick Sisto. Mr. Sisto brings with him a wealth of knowledge, experience, and professionalism - qualities that make him highly effective at providing legal counsel.
John D
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Great attorney, responded very quickly to our emails and calls. The office staff is attentive and knowledgeable as well. Over all a great experience. Highly recommend him.
Alexandra L
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred Sisto is amazing!! Definitely recommend
Jen A