Denial of suppression Mt where police had probable cause to stop car State v. Gibson

 Denial of suppression Mt where police had probable cause to stop car State v. Gibson

Defendant appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance and the denial of his motion to suppress evidence.

Defendant appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance and the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Officer surveilling residence saw defendant exit house, approach a Buick, hand the driver an object, and saw driver hand defendant money. Officers stopped Buick, found 49 bags of heroin, stopped defendant's car and arrested him with $520 in cash. Officers returned to the residence, defendant's uncle signed a request to search defendant's bedroom and officers found 185 bags of heroin and 37 vials of cocaine. Trial judge denied the motion to suppress evidence from the Buick, but granted it as to the evidence seized from the residence. Defendant argued police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the Buick. Court agreed. The only evidence presented was the experienced officer's good faith belief he had seen a drug deal. Without further corroborating evidence, the exchange the officer saw, in which he admitted he could not see what defendant gave Buick driver, was just as consistent with innocence as guilt. State's argument that trial judge erred during the hearing in suppressing evidence as to what street source told police was not before the court since State did not cross-appeal. source https://www.law.com/njlawjournal/almID/1641846059NJA341019/

Driver suspended for going 73 in 25 zone State v. Fish

 

Driver suspended for going 73 in 25 zone State v. Fish

Defendant appealed his convictions for reckless driving and operating an unregistered vehicle. Case Number: A-2027-18

Defendant appealed his convictions for reckless driving and operating an unregistered vehicle. Officers observed defendant participating in a car race in which both vehicles were traveling in excess of 75 miles per hour on a residential street with a speed limit of 25. Officers stopped both vehicles. Driver of other vehicle was arrested for an unrelated offense and defendant was issued summonses. Defendant pled not guilty in municipal court and chose to represent himself but was later appointed counsel. The case was relisted three times to allow defendant to request discovery from the State, but he never did so. Officers testified, court found them credible and found defendant guilty of both charges. Defendant's Law Division trial also found him guilty of both offenses and imposed the same sentence that had been imposed by the municipal court. Defendant argued State failed to timely provide discovery and municipal court abused its discretion in imposing a license suspension. Court found record showed defendant never made a proper request for officers' body cam or dash cam recordings, State did produce the recordings and defendant acknowledged receipt. Court found both judges' finding that defendant's conduct was willful and wanton was amply supported by credible evidence in the record. source https://www.law.com/njlawjournal/almID/1642019665NJA202718/