We are searching data for your request:
Fruit of the poisonous tree inevitable discovery doctrine (not for use in New Jersey)
In New Jersey, it is unconstitutional for the state to use the “fruit of the poisonous tree” for the purpose of introducing evidence which was gathered illegally or which was coerced. The inevitable discovery doctrine does not apply in New Jersey to show that the illegally seized evidence was admissible. The inevitable discovery doctrine is a legal analysis for the admission of illegally seized evidence, not for a prosecutor’s use of illegally obtained evidence in the initial trial or subsequent trials. For example, a prosecutor may use illegally obtained evidence from a federal investigation if the prosecutor was not involved in the illegal search and seizure. If the defendant is on trial for murder, the prosecutor may introduce the illegally obtained and recorded video at trial even though it was seized during a search of a nightclub where the murder took place. If the defendant goes to trial on a weapons charge, the prosecutor may use illegally obtained evidence about a prior burglary if the defendant was on trial for another burglary.
When the inevitable discovery doctrine is used to try to introduce illegally obtained evidence, the initial illegal search or seizure usually takes place during a raid by police or federal agents. When a raid occurs, the law enforcement officers do not usually announce themselves. The officers enter the property and search for drugs or other items. They often find other items in plain view. There is a real concern that the officers may find illegal drugs or other items when conducting a search. For this reason, it is very common for police officers to seize whatever items they find while conducting a search.
When the defendant is charged with a crime and the police are conducting a raid, the officers typically do not have to obtain a search warrant. If an officer comes across something in plain view that appears to be illegal, then the officer may seize the item and may continue the search in the future. There are some exceptions to the plain view doctrine, but in most circumstances, the officer may seize items he finds during the search.
Once the officer finds the item in plain view, he must decide whether the evidence is going to be allowed at trial. If the police can show that it was inevitable that the evidence would be discovered, then the evidence is admissible at trial. Under the inevitable discovery doctrine, the fact that the evidence was discovered does not matter. Instead, the question is whether it was inevitable that the evidence would be discovered. The officer who discovered the evidence must testify at trial. His testimony can be very persuasive to the jury because he is in the best position to observe and to testify about whether the officers were going to search the area and seize the evidence anyway.
In addition, the defendant may not be able to claim that the search or seizure was illegal. Generally, the officer who seizes items during a search has an adequate basis for probable cause. The law provides for the seizure of items without having to obtain a warrant or even to tell the defendant he is under arrest.
It is important for the defense lawyer to find out if the officer who conducts a search or seizure has an adequate basis for probable cause. In the future, when the officer conducts a search, he should have his justification for the search recorded in his police report.
The admissibility of evidence at trial also depends on whether the judge will allow the defense lawyer to question the officer about his investigation of the crime. The defense lawyer will be able to use the officer’s report to find out if the investigation was thorough. He also may be able to use the officer’s report to find out how certain the officer is about his own opinion. For example, the officer might testify that he thought it was clear the marijuana was for personal use when it was seized and that he had the ability to seize the marijuana. At trial, the defense lawyer might then question the officer about the possibility of whether there might be a drug dog with the officer that could have smelled the marijuana.
The seizure of the gun is also admissible if the officer has a good reason to be certain that the gun was involved in a crime. Once the gun has been found, the officer then may search the person who has possession of the gun. If the person with the gun gives consent to search the person or property, the officer is authorized to seize the weapon without the need to show probable cause. However, if the person who is searching the person and property refuses consent, the officer will need to demonstrate probable cause for the search.
In the case that the defense lawyer is seeking the return of a seized gun and is unsure if the officer had probable cause to arrest the person, he might try to make a motion to suppress the evidence from the officer’s search or seizure of the gun. To do this, the lawyer will likely have to make a motion to suppress the evidence. The motion must demonstrate the officer’s failure to properly follow his department’s policy regarding how the department searches a person’s property or when they seized a person’s property. The attorney should also be able to show that the officer did not have a good reason for arresting the defendant and that he was therefore, not permitted to conduct a search or seizure.
When an individual is arrested and charged with possession of marijuana, he will likely have a long legal battle ahead of him. The burden of proof for possession of marijuana is very low, and the burden of proof will usually be on the defendant to demonstrate that he was not aware of the marijuana. This will be difficult, because the police will likely search the individual’s property and may seize any marijuana that they find during that search.