Fred Sisto | Criminal Attorney | Ocean and Monmouth County

Call Us Today
732-898-3232

  • Home
  • Criminal Defense Services
    ▼
    • Drug Crimes
      ▼
      • Drug Manufacturing
      • Intent to Distribute Narcotics
      • Prescription Drug Crimes
      • Leader of Narcotics Trafficking Network
    • Weapons Charges
      ▼
      • Prohibited Weapons and Devices
      • Manufacture, Transport, etc. of Weapons
      • Illegal Possession of a Gun
      • Possession of Weapons for Unlawful Purposes
    • Expungements
    • Theft Attorney
    • Violent Crimes
      ▼
      • Robbery/Burglary
      • Manslaughter
      • Extortion
      • Assault
      • Sexual Offenses
    • Arson
    • DUI / DWI
      ▼
      • Alcohol DUI
      • Drug DUI
      • Refusing a Breath Test
    • Driving with A Suspended License
    • Property Forfeiture
    • Anti-Drug Profiteering
    • Juvenile Delinquency
  • Español / Spanish Speaking Attorney
  • About
    ▼
    • Testimonials
    • Defending Cases In
      ▼
      • Monmouth County
      • Ocean County
  • Blog
  • Contact
    ▼
    • Receive a Call From Fred
  • DUI Checkpoint Alerts
  • Results
  • Payment Options
  • Home
  • Criminal Defense Services
    • Drug Crimes
      • Drug Manufacturing
      • Intent to Distribute Narcotics
      • Prescription Drug Crimes
      • Leader of Narcotics Trafficking Network
    • Weapons Charges
      • Prohibited Weapons and Devices
      • Manufacture, Transport, etc. of Weapons
      • Illegal Possession of a Gun
      • Possession of Weapons for Unlawful Purposes
    • Expungements
    • Theft Attorney
    • Violent Crimes
      • Robbery/Burglary
      • Manslaughter
      • Extortion
      • Assault
      • Sexual Offenses
    • Arson
    • DUI / DWI
      • Alcohol DUI
      • Drug DUI
      • Refusing a Breath Test
    • Driving with A Suspended License
    • Property Forfeiture
    • Anti-Drug Profiteering
    • Juvenile Delinquency
  • Español / Spanish Speaking Attorney
  • About
    • Testimonials
    • Defending Cases In
      • Monmouth County
      • Ocean County
  • Blog
  • Contact
    • Receive a Call From Fred
  • DUI Checkpoint Alerts
  • Results
  • Payment Options
Home >> Justice Alito’s Understanding of Search Warrants

May 10, 2015 by Fred Sisto

Justice Alito’s Understanding of Search Warrants

This brings us to Alito’s dissent. He begins with some vague language that search warrants are “normally drafted by nonlawyers in the midst and haste of a criminal investigation” and cites to United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 108, 85 S.Ct. 741, 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965).  However, that quote from Ventresca concerned the quantum of evidence required for probable cause.  No part of the Ventresca opinion excused the absence of probable cause to search places or people (in the case of Doe, his wife and daughter).

This language is followed by Alito’s assertion that the ‘commonsense and realistic’ reading is that the issuing magistrate intended to authorize a search of all the occupants of the premises and that the warrant did so.  In support of this bald assertion, Alito focuses on the intent of the officers, as opposed to the intent of the issuing judge, or more importantly, the plain language of the search warrant.

Alito continues that “At their depositions, both of the officers who signed the affidavit explained why they did not note in the box in question that the warrant authorized a search of all occupants of the premises. They stated that there simply was not room in that box.”  Even if this pathetic explanation could be believed, it ignores the fact that it was the officers and other law enforcement officials who were responsible for drafting the affidavit which did not provide for a “large enough box”.  Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that the officers were incapable of writing smaller, modifying the size of the box that they created, or attaching an additional piece of paper that provided them with more room to write.  See Groh, a case cited by Alito and the majority, and holding that “Because petitioner himself prepared the invalid warrant, he may not argue that he reasonably relied on the Magistrate’s assurance that the warrant contained an adequate description….” Id. at 124 S.Ct. at 1293.

Moreover, it is well established in New Jersey and at the federal level that an otherwise insufficient affidavit cannot be rehabilitated by subsequent testimony concerning information not disclosed by the affiant when he sought the warrant. State v. Marshall, 398 N.J. Super. 92, 101 (App. Div. 2008).  See also Whiteley v. Warden, Wyo. Penitentiary, 401 U.S. 560, 565 n. 8, 91 S.Ct. 1031, 1035 n. 8, 28 L.Ed.2d 306, 311 n. 8 (1971) (holding that “an otherwise insufficient affidavit cannot be rehabilitated by testimony” at a later suppression hearing “concerning information possessed by the affiant when he sought the warrant but not disclosed to the issuing magistrate” because “[a] contrary rule would … render the warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment meaningless”); Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 4.3(a) at 505 (4th ed. 2004).

Note that while the Doe opinion addressed the civil case brought on behalf of the aggrieved wife and daughter, it is clear that Alito would have also found the search valid under the fourth amendment in the criminal context.  He wrote, “I would hold that the warrant did in fact authorize a search of all persons on the premises, including Jane and Mary Doe.”

In light of the foregoing, it is no wonder that Justice Alito’s nomination was formally opposed by the ACLU (an organization for which fellow Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg served as General Counsel). The ACLU has only taken this step two other times in its entire history, the last time being with the nomination of Robert Bork who was rejected by a 58–42 vote in the Senate in 1987. In releasing its report on Alito, the Executive Director justified the decision saying that “At a time when our president has claimed unprecedented authority to spy on Americans and jail terrorism suspects indefinitely, America needs a Supreme Court justice who will uphold our precious civil liberties. Alito’s record shows a willingness to support government actions that abridge individual freedoms.”

Filed Under: Blog, Criminal Law, Warrants Tagged With: Criminal Law, Legal Procedures

Testimonials

Fred is a stickler for detail and communicates with clients very, very well. He is smart and astute. I would recommend him unconditionally.

Tom O   

I would highly recommend Mr. Sisto. He is very insightful and proficient, yet still down to Earth. Fred is great at communicating and breaking down the facts. But most importantly, he excels at getting results.

Bill K   

Thanks to Fred I have no criminal record whatsoever.

Luke A   

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   
See More Testimonials

Recent Posts

  • Marijuana and Diversionary Programs (Part 4)
  • Marijuana and Diversionary Programs (Part 3)
  • Marijuana and Diversionary Programs (Part 2)
  • Marijuana and Diversionary Programs (Part 1)
  • Jurisdiction and Subsequent Prosecutions (Part 2)
  • Jurisdiction and Subsequent Prosecutions (Part 1)
  • Statutes of Limitations and DNA Evidence (Part 3)
  • Statutes of Limitations and DNA Evidence (Part 2)

Recent Speaking Engagement

Site Disclaimer

Attorney Referral Fees

Frederick P Sisto has earned Lawyer Legion's recognition for Community Leadership
 
Top Criminal Defense Attorney in Brick

Law Office of Frederick P. Sisto

Point Pleasant Office*:
302 Hawthorne Ave, Suite 1
Point Pleasant Beach, NJ 08742

Brick Township Office*:
223 Drum Point Road, Suite 1
Brick Township, NJ 08723

Sea Girt Office*:
2150 NJ-35,
Suite 225
Sea Girt, NJ 08750

Phone: 732-898-3232
Fax: 201-508-3393
*Office visits by appointment only.

Representing clients throughout all court jurisdictions of New Jersey.

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CRIMINAL TRIAL ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION, NO ASPECT OF THIS ADVERTISEMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY

en English
en Englishes Spanish