In this archive episode, Dennis reviews and reminds us of the importance of Miranda, especially when suspects are under arrest in the eyes of the law. Recorded on 05/19/2018.

State of NJ v. O’Neal 2007 – Based on the observations made by law enforcement officers, there was probable cause to search and arrest O Neal. The police officer s question to O Neal that elicited his response without prior Miranda warnings violated Miranda.https://law.justia.com/…/supreme…/2007/a-94-05-doc.html

State of NJ v Judge (1994) In a motor vehicle setting the court ruled – “The smell of burnt marijuana gave rise to an inference that would lead a police officer of ordinary prudence and experience conscientiously to entertain a strong suspicion that additional contraband is present in the automobile.

The suspected marijuana could reasonably have been located in the passenger compartment and or on the person of the occupants of the vehicle.

This confirmed that Trooper Acevedo was correct in removing passengers and searching them when he detected the odor of burnt marijuana inside of the vehicle.

Although no formal arrest of defendant was announced when he was directed to step out of the vehicle, he was in reality under arrest for violating N.J.S.A. 39:4-49.1 and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10.

Recently, our Supreme Court limited an arrest pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:5-25 for traffic offenses. State v. Pierce, supra, 136 N.J. at 191-211, 642 A.2d 947.

But Pierce permits an arrest for a violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-49.1 because it directly implicates public safety. Id. at 205, 642 A.2d 947. Pierce also acknowledges that probable cause to believe a violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-49.1 has occurred, means the vehicle stopped ordinarily contains evidence at risk of destruction. Id. at 210-11, 642 A.2d 947.https://www.leagle.com/decision/1994469275njsuper1941449