Pubdate: Sat, 27 Apr 2002
Source: Asbury Park Press (NJ)
Copyright: 2002 Asbury Park Press
Contact:  http://www.app.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/26
Author: Carol Gorga Williams

JUSTICES SAY A HUNCH NOT GOOD ENOUGH

The state Supreme Court, continuing a long tradition of favoring individual 
privacy rights over police powers, has ruled law enforcement authorities 
need more than a hunch about potential danger before searching a person 
arrested for a minor offense.

The case arises from a 1999 incident in Long Branch in which Detective 
Raymond Chaparro Jr. arrested someone for trespassing, a disorderly persons 
offense, and searched him. Police normally search people they arrest to be 
sure suspects don't have weapons.

Law enforcement officers say the decision could make it harder for them to 
work in drug-infested areas.

"The truth is the police are right, but so what?" Rutgers School of Law 
Professor George C. Thomas said. "The intention of the Fourth Amendment (of 
the Constitution) is to make policing more difficult, not to make it easier.

"The (state) Supreme Court takes a narrow view, if you are looking at their 
decisions from a police perspective. But the court takes a more robust 
view, if you are looking at the issue from a citizen's point of view."

The Fourth Amendment limits unreasonable searches and seizures.

When William Dangerfield noticed Chaparro and Detective Stanley Mooney 
approaching, he began to ride away on his bicycle until Chaparro grabbed 
his arm and stopped him, according to court records.

When Chaparro asked him what he was doing at Grant Court and why he tried 
to run, Dangerfield replied he was "doing nothing," the officer said.

Chaparro arrested Dangerfield for trespassing, searched him, and discovered 
two bags of cocaine in his front left pocket.

Dangerfield later was indicted for possession of cocaine.

The justices acknowledged that the Grant Court and Garfield Court federal 
housing complexes in Long Branch are plagued by drug activity. Drugs are 
often sold in the complexes by people who don't live there -- the reason 
there are signs warning against trespassing.

Police trying to reduce drug activity routinely ask people their reason for 
being there. If they cannot demonstrate a legitimate reason, police 
generally will arrest them for trespassing, authorities said.

Dangerfield later testified that he had gone to the housing complex to 
visit his son, who lived there with his mother.

A trial court judge found Chaparro did not have probable cause to arrest 
Dangerfield and suppressed the discovery of the cocaine, a decision 
affirmed by a state appellate panel.

In a unanimous decision Wednesday, the justices affirmed the appellate 
decision.

According to the justices, the right to search when an arrest is made has 
limits.

When, as in the Dangerfield case, an individual is not suspected of having 
committed a violent crime, "articulable facts of potential danger must be 
presented to justify a protective search for weapons," the justices found.

When the incident is a disorderly persons offense, police need not 
transport a person to the police station and thus have no need to conduct a 
body search, the justices found.

"We took that up" to the Supreme Court "because we believe officers' safety 
may be in jeopardy if police officers are not allowed to search in petty 
offenses," First Assistant Monmouth County Prosecutor Robert A. Honecker 
Jr. said. "We're concerned about it."

The cocaine case against Dangerfield will be dismissed, he said, as the 
office and the state attorney general work to develop guidelines for 
Monmouth County police officers for such cases.

Assistant Ocean County Prosecutor Francis R. Hodgson Jr. told police 
officers earlier this week during a lecture at the Ocean County Police 
Academy in Lakewood that the decision could make their jobs more difficult 
and potentially let drug dealers escape.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens