2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975) (individual brought to
police station without probable cause or warrant for
custodial interrogation was illegally “arrested” and in-
custody statements were not admissible despite
intervening Miranda warnings); State v. Johnson, 118
N.J. 639 (1990) (custodial interrogation for ten hours
illegal); State v. Hurtado, 219 N.J. Super. at 23
(transportation of defendant who violated a municipal
ordinance to verify defendant’s identity was a valid
detention, but warrantless arrest and detention on
misdemeanor was unlawful).
However, a person may be brought to the police
station to verify identity. Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S.
640, 103 S.Ct. 2605, 77 L.Ed.2d 65 (1983); State v.
Lark, 163 N.J. at 294; Hurtado, 219 N.J. Super. at 23.
Police may also bring a person to the police station for
questioning for a limited time. State v. Smith, 307 N.J.
Super. 1, 9 (App. Div. 1997), certif. denied, 153 N.J. 216
(1998). Unlike custodial interrogation, Miranda rights
do not attach in an investigatory detention. Ibid; see also
State v. Timmendequas, 161 N.J. 515, 615 (1999).
2. On-The-Street...........................................................................................................................
Police can approach people on the street for a “field
inquiry” without having specific grounds for suspicion.
State v. Maryland, 327 N.J. Super. 436 (App. Div. 2000),
certif. granted, A-118-99, N.J. (2000); State v.
Contreras, 326 N.J. Super. 528 (App. Div. 1999); State v.
ex. rel. J. G., 320 N.J. Super. 21 (App. Div. 1999).
A police officer may not stop and detain an individual
against his or her will for the purpose of requiring that
person to prove identification, unless he has a reasonable
suspicion that the person is or was engaged in criminal
activity. See Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. at 47, 99 S.Ct. at
2637, 61 L.Ed.2d at 357; State v. Lark, 319 N.J. Super.
618 (App. Div. 1999), aff’d, 163 N.J. 294 (2000); State
v. Alexander, 191 N.J. Super. 573 (App. Div. 1983),
certif. denied, 96 N.J. 267 (1984). A statute requiring
that persons who loiter or wander on the streets must
provide “credible and reliable” identification is
unconstitutionally vague although the initial detention
may be justified. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 103
S.Ct. 1855, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983).
3. Airports
Where an involuntary detention of an individual
exceeds the limits imposed by Terry, the individual’s
consent to search his luggage may be tainted by the illegal
detention. In United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544
100 S.Ct. 1870, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980), the Court ruled
that defendant was not “seized” within the meaning of
the Fourth Amendment as her airline ticket and
identification were returned after inspection by federal
agents. Her consent to the search of her luggage,
therefore, was voluntary. In light of all the circumstances,
a reasonable person would have believed she was free to
leave. Cf. Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 103 S.Ct. 1319,
75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983) (where defendant’s ticket and
identification were not returned, his luggage was seized
and he was not advised that he need not consent to the
search of his baggage, the defendant was illegally
detained in violation of Terry, since there was no probable
cause to arrest). See United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. at
1, 109 S.Ct. at 1581, 104 L.Ed.2d at 1 (agents had
reasonable basis to stop suspect as drug courier who paid
$2,100 for tickets in cash, possessed in excess of $4,000
in cash, had unchecked luggage, spent less than 48 hours
in city and traveled under possible alias).4. Dwellings...................................................................................................................................
A search warrant for contraband carries with it the
limited authority to detain the occupants of the premises
while a proper search is conducted. Michigan v. Summers,
452 U.S. 692, 101 S.Ct. 2587, 69 L.Ed.2d 340 (1981).
See also State v. Hall, 253 N.J. Super. 84 (Law Div. 1990),
aff’d, 253 N.J. Super. 32 (App. Div. 1991); State v.
Meighan, 173 N.J. Super. 440 (App. Div. 1980), certif.
denied, 85 N.J. 122 (1980); State v. Galvin, 161 N.J.
Super. 524 (Law Div. 1978).5. R. 3:5A Investigative Detention
Before a formal criminal complaint is filed against an
individual, the County Prosecutor or Attorney General
may ask a judge of the Superior Court to issue an Order
compelling a suspect to submit to nontestimonial
identification procedures in order to obtain evidence of
physical characteristics. R. 3:5A-1 to 5A-9. These
physical characteristics include fingerprints, palm prints
and blood samples.The suspect is given 36 hours prior notice of an
application for an Order of temporary detention unless
the judge finds the application is emergent. R. 3:5A-3.
To obtain such an order the State must demonstrate that:
(a) a crime was committed and is under investigation,
and (b) there is reasonable and well-grounded suspicion
that the suspect committed the crime, and © the results
obtained will “significantly advance” the investigation
and determine if the suspect committed the crime, and
(d) there is no other practical way to obtain the suspect’s