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 >> Legal Defense Against Stale Warrants: Part 3

November 24, 2015 by Fred Sisto

Legal Defense Against Stale Warrants: Part 3

In the face of a lack of binding precedent in New Jersey, a good attorney will analyze precedent from other jurisdictions in an effort to buttress an otherwise novel argument in New Jersey. In United States v. Elliott, 576 F. Supp. 1579, a 1984 federal case from the Southern District of Ohio, the Court refused to affirm a warrant that was issued due to bits of marijuana being found in a home’s garbage. The Court held in relevant part that:

 

Furthermore, the nature of the evidence is not such that its continued presence in the home is probable. To the contrary, this refuse is merely the waste product of past marijuana use. Moreover, it is unclear when that past use occurred, when the garbage was removed from the house or even when it was scheduled to be picked up. Even assuming weekly garbage collection, the contraband may well have been evidence of marijuana use five days prior to the examination of the garbage. Without corroboration, we cannot say that this supports a conclusion of the probable presence of contraband on the day of the search.

 

Here, the Elliott Court suggested that without additional corroboration indicating that there was a “continuing pattern of criminal acts”, the passage of only five days, as opposed to 18 days or more, is enough to make a warrant “stale” and the evidence seized as a result subject to suppression.

 

The Elliott Court continued:

We can conceive of the argument that the anonymous complaint and the affiant’s surveillance, despite their deficiencies, are corroborative of the contraband found in the garbage, and therefore permit the conclusion of the continued presence of contraband. Given the nature of the contraband found in this case, we find this argument unpersuasive. The waste products of marijuana use do not, of themselves, indicate any continuing presence of contraband in the home. As for the complaints and the surveillance, it is difficult to perceive how information which was pertinent perhaps weeks or months before can permit the inference of a current continued presence of contraband, even assuming that such information may have indicated a continued presence at that earlier time. Such conjecture is more appropriate in the discussion of possibilities than it is in the discussion of probabilities.  

Thus, there is a strong argument that the passage of multiple weeks makes a warrant stale “per se”. Equally strong is the Court’s counter-argument to law enforcement’s common claim that they uncovered evidence “of a continuing offense.” The Elliott Court drew an important distinction between what was once “continuing”, i.e. a week where multiple drug sales were made last year, and a “presently continuing” crime involving evidence that multiple sales were made within the last few days.

 

The Elliott Court continued:

We are aware of cases in which evidence of drug use discovered in the defendant’s garbage contributed to or provided the sole basis for the determination of probable cause. See United States v. Sumpter, 669 F.2d 1215 (8th Cir.1982); United States v. Reicherter, 647 F.2d 397 (3d Cir.1981). However, in Sumpter the presence of marijuana in the garbage was accompanied by an anonymous tip received three days prior, and the hearsay statements of the garbage carrier that on the day of the garbage search, several cars had made short stops at the defendant’s home during the time it took to collect the refuse in the alley.

Reicherter is somewhat more instructive for the purposes of this case. There, probable cause rested entirely on the evidence found in the defendant’s garbage. However, the evidence was collected on three separate occasions, thus indicating a continuing presence of contraband in the defendant’s home. Significantly, the instant case involves a single search of the defendant’s garbage, an examination that yielded perhaps a small amount of discarded marijuana cigarettes and stems. We do not think that such evidence of a single instance of past use, even in the immediate past, renders the continued presence of contraband reasonably probable.

 

These paragraphs from the Elliott Opinion provide yet another sub-issue to be considered when challenging a warrant search. That is, the Court suggests that alleging one drug buy from a home is not enough to demonstrate “a continued presence” of drugs, whereas three drug buys would be sufficient. Whether or not two buys is enough is a question that you will want contested by an attorney that focuses his or her practice on criminal defense and appellate work, as opposed to a “general practitioner” that dabbles in criminal defense or someone purporting to be a “criminal defense lawyer” even though they have no jury trial or even criminal motion practice experience.

In a footnote, the Elliott Court aptly stated that “To conclude that such a single instance provides sufficient probable cause for a search warrant would be to subject to a full and probing search, the home of a cocktail party host, whose guests, perhaps unbeknownst to him, indulge in illicit substances and discard the residue. We are not prepared to say that such searches are reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.”

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

  • Plea Agreements and New Charges (Part 1)
  • Youth and Withholding Imprisonment (Part 2)
  • Youth and Withholding Imprisonment (Part 1)
  • 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)

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