the warrant requirement provide independent justification
for the search. State v. Lark, 163 N.J. 294 (2000).
When a police officer observes unusual conduct which
leads to a reasonable conclusion that criminal activity is
“afoot” and that the person observed is armed and
dangerous, the police officer may approach the individual,
identity himself and if still concerned about his or others’
safety, the officer can conduct a pat down search for
weapons. Terry. v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868,
1883, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Less than probable cause
can justify this limited intrusion but objective reasonable-
ness is required. State v. Thomas, 110 N.J. 673, 679-80
(1988). In determining the propriety of a pat down search,
there is greater concern for an officer’s safety when the
individual searched has been stopped for a suspected crime
and the criminal activity actually was observed. State v.
Dale, 271 N.J. Super. 334, 338 (App. Div. 1994).
A generalized search for weapons cannot be validated
under Terry; rather, the officer must point to particular
facts from which he or she can reasonably infer that the
individual is dangerous. Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 93-
94, 100 S.Ct. 338, 343, 62 L.Ed.2d 238 (1979); State v.
Thomas, 110 N.J. at 679; State v. Green, 313 N.J. Super.
385, 394 (App. Div. 1998) (group of person not suspected
of criminal activity could not be dispersed). Events can
occur in the course of the encounter between police and
suspect which will justify a protective search. State v.
Thomas, 110 N.J. at 681. The mere fact that drug dealers
often carry weapons will not be enough to support a Terry
frisk. Id. at 682-83. While knowledge of a defendant’s
criminal history is not enough to justify an investigative
stop, that knowledge can play a part in the decision to
conduct a pat down search. State v. Valentine, 134 N.J. 536
(1993).
The police, who have probable cause to believe that
evidence of a crime is in a residence, may temporarily
detain and individual and prevent him from entering the
residence unaccompanied by police to ensure that evidence
is not destroyed while the police diligently obtain a search
warrant. Illinois v. McArthur, 121 S.Ct. 946 (2001) (police
officers acted properly in preventing defendant from
entering his home while they obtained a warrant to search
premises).
Prior to the filing of a criminal complaint, the Attorney
General or County Prosecutor may move for an order
authorizing the temporary detention of a person and
compelling that person to submit to “non-testimonial
identification procedures.” R. 3:5A. “Evidence of physical
characteristics” includes fingerprints, palm prints, foot-
prints, handwriting exemplars, blood and urine samples
and appearance in a lineup. R. 3:5A-9. In order to obtain
such an order, the State must demonstrate to the court that
a crime has been committed and is under active
investigation, that there is a reasonable and well-grounded
basis to believe that the person may have committed the
crime, that the results of the physical characteristics
obtained will significantly advance the investigation and
determine whether the person committed the crime and
physical characteristics sought cannot otherwise practica-
bly be obtained. R. 3:5A-4.- Arrest
To effectuate an arrest, the police must have probable
cause to believe that the defendant had or was in the process
of committing a crime. State v. Contursi, 44 N.J. 424, 428-
29 (1965). The “formal language of arrest” need not be
used; if the individual’s liberty of movement is restrained,
then an arrest has occurred. Id. at 433.While a search to produce grounds for an arrest is
invalid, id., if the arrest is independently valid, evidence
uncovered during the search will not be suppressed merely
because the arrest did not precede the search. Id.; State v.
Doyle, 42 N.J. 334, 343 (1964).The police may search the personal effects of a person
under lawful arrest as part of a routine administrative
procedure at a police station incident to booking and
jailing the suspect. Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 643,
103 S.Ct. 2605, 2606, 77 L.Ed.2d 65 (1983); State v.
Jackson, 268 N.J. Super. 194, 205 n.5 (Law Div. 1993).J. Police Action Based On Citizen’s Tips, Informant’s
Tips or Anonymous Tips- Citizen’s Tips
When the source of a tip is an ordinary citizen, the
assumption is that the person is trustworthy and motivated
by factors consistent with law enforcement goals. As such,
information provided by a citizen to a police officer
concerning a criminal event ordinarily would not require
further exploration or verification of the citizen’s personal
credibility or reliability before the police take action based
upon the tip. State v. Davis, 104 N.J. 490, 506 (1986).
This assumption is further heightened when the tipster
gives a sworn statement which subjects the tipster to civil or
criminal liability. Sanducci v. City of Hoboken, 315 N.J.
Super. 475, 482 (App. Div. 1998).