search. Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. at 251, 111 S.Ct. at
1803, 114 L.Ed.2d 297; State v. Leslie, N.J. Super.
(App. Div. 2001); State v. Younger, 305 N.J. Super. at 256-
- A suspect may delimit “as he chooses” the scope of the
search but if the consent reasonably would be understood
to be unlimited, the constitution does not require a more
explicit authorization. Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. at 252,
111 S.Ct. 1801, 114 L.Ed.2d 297. A consent to search
attributable to police misconduct cannot justify the search.
State v. Smith, 155 N.J. 83, 101 (1998), cert. denied, 525
U.S. 1033(1998).
Conspicuous signs at the airport warning of the
inspection of persons entering the area puts individuals on
notice that by proceeding through the area, they are
impliedly consenting to a search. United States v. Hezbrun,
723 F.2d 773, 775-76 (11th Cir. 1984); State v. Ascensio,
257 N.J. Super. 144, 150-51 (Law Div. 1992), aff’d., 277
N.J. Super. 334 (App. Div. 1994), certif. denied, 140 N.J.
270 (1995).
The extraction of blood over a defendant’s objection
and without a warrant is reasonable if there are exigent
circumstances making it unreasonable to obtain a warrant,
the officers acted reasonably under the circumstances and
the sample was taken in a medically acceptable manner.
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 768-71, 86 S.Ct.
1826, 1826-28, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966); State v. Ravotto,
333 N.J. Super. 247, 252-55 (App. Div. 2000), certif.
granted, 165 N.J. 677 (2000), (blood can be extracted from
defendant suspected of drunk driving without his/her
consent and the defendant may be restrained in order to
extract a blood sample).
D. Home Searches
Warrantless searches of homes must be subjected to
particular scrutiny and are presumptively unreasonable
unless probable cause and exigent circumstances exist.
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586, 100 S.Ct. 1371,
1380, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980); State v. Hutchins, 116 N.J.
457, 463 (1989). Hot pursuit, Warden v. Hayden, 387
U.S. 294, 298, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 1545-46, 18 L.Ed.2d 782
(1976), can justify entry. See State v. Jones, 143 N.J. 4, 19
(1995) (police officers acting pursuant to valid arrest
warrant have a right to pursue fleeing suspects into a private
residence); State v. Josey, 290 N.J. Super. 17, 24-25 (App.
Div. 1996), certif. denied, 146 N.J. 497 (1996) (police
officers who observed defendant selling drugs properly
pursued him into apartment to effect arrest). See also State
v. Liberatore, 293 N.J. Super. 580, 587 (Law Div. 1996),
aff’d., 293 N.J. Super. 535 (App. Div. 1996) (police officer
properly pursued defendant onto porch of house to arrest
defendant for resisting arrest).However, it is unreasonable for police officers in hot
pursuit of an individual suspected of numerous motor
vehicle and disorderly persons offenses to make a
warrantless entry into the suspect’s home to effectuate an
arrest. State v. Bolte, 115 N.J. 579, 580-81 (1989), cert.
denied, 493 U.S. 936 (1989); State v. Holland, 328 N.J.
Super. 1, 9-10 (App. Div. 2000) (burning odor of
marijuana emanating from residence did not justify
warrantless entry into home because it demonstrated at
most that disorderly persons offenses were being
committed).Where the police reasonably believe that the premises
recently have been or are being burglarized, they can enter
the premises without a warrant. State v. Faretra, 330 N.J.
Super. 527, 531-34 (App. Div. 2000).The threatened removal of evidence from a home can
constitute exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless
home entry. The issue becomes whether the physical
character of the premises is conducive to surveillance as an
alternative to a warrantless entry. State v. Lewis, 116 N.J.
477, 485 (1989). Even when a warrantless search is
justified by exigent circumstances, it must be strictly
limited by the exigency that justified it. State v. Stupi, 231
N.J. Super. 284, 288-89 (App. Div. 1989).Exigent circumstances permitting home entries in
drug cases depend upon the degree of urgency involved and
the amount of time necessary to obtain a warrant,
reasonable belief that the contraband is to be removed,
possibility of danger to the police guarding the site while a
search warrant is sought, information indicating the
defendants are unaware police are on their trail and the
ready destructibility of contraband. State v. Hutchins, 116
N.J. at 469-71. Where police enter a residence for
legitimate reasons, not to arrest or search a defendant,
anything they see and seize in plain view is not tainted by
the absence of a warrant. State v. Perry, 124 N.J. 128, 148-
50 (1991).If the police enter a home with consent and return 30
minutes later to effectuate an arrest, the separate entries are
components of a single, continuous, integrated police
action which does not require a warrant for entry. State v.
Henry, 133 N.J. 104, 116 (1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 984
(1993). Once properly in the home, the police may fan out
to conduct a protective sweep of the area if a reason exists to
believe they are in danger from others who may be in the
residence. This “fan out” cannot be a pretext to search for