COUNSEL R MILLION MILLION R GOOD NORP TRSHGS ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR WILLIAM P.
MILLER BERGEN COUNTY PRRS OFFERS ON BEHALF THE STATE. MURMUR ON ON
ME OF IN MUR MUR. PERSON PERSON AL SON PER ROEN 1ST ASSISTANT DEPARTMENT PUBLIC
DEFENDER TER. SINCE SIN SIN SIN FROM THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
NEW JERSEY FOUNDATION. THE COURT: WEM CAN YOU TELL ME COUNSEL S
MR. MILLER, PLEASE GO AHEAD. MILLION MILLION, MILLER. APPELLANT:
2-MINUTE MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. THIS CASE IS ABOUT EXIGENCY AND THE STATE
SUBMITS THAT AT APPROXIMATELY 7:39 P.M. ON AUGUST 16TH, 2011, THE BERGEN
COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE FACED ONE. PRIOR TO THAT MOMENT, AT AROUND 8:00 A.M.,
A BODY EXECUTED VIA GUNSHOT AND FOUND BURNED BEYOND RECOGNITION IN AN
ABANDONED SUV WAS FOUND ON A RESIDENTIAL STREET. THE ENSUES INVESTIGATION WAS
COMPLEX, IMMEDIATE AND GEOGRAPHICALLY DISPERSED. OF NOTE THE A DAN BOND SUV
WAS HAVE PURSUANT SO BARREN THE AS REON STOUT USING A FINGERPRINT AND
OB STAIN IS CELL PHONE LOCATION DATA. DETECTIVE WERE SEN TO BROOKLYN TO ENTER
HOW STOUT'S FAMILY AND FRIENDS. EARLY EVENING AS INFORMATION POURED
INTO HEADQUARTERS FROM ALL DIRECTION, INVESTIGATORS RELIEFLD THAT THE EVIDENCE
POINTER AT DEFENDANT. HE HAD TOLD A WITNESS THAT HE WAS WITH STOUT
THE PRIOR DAY, WHICH WAS IMPOSSIBLE GIVEN STOUT'S CELL PHONE RECORDS, HE WAS
THE LAST PERSON KNOWN TO BE WITH STOUT, HIS FACE WAS DEPICT TD ON A FAKE
LICENSE FOUND NEAR THE DRIVER'S SEAT IN A THE BAN DON SUV. WHEN THAT THAT HE HAVE
WAS PEESD TOGETHER, TN VR AN NEED NEED ARROWS FOR DEFENDANT CELL PHONE
RECORDS. THE RECORDS HAD THE POWER TO REVEAL DEFENDANT'S EXACT LOCATION, HIS
PRIOR LOCATION, HIS PRIOR CONTEXT LN CONFIRM WHETHER THE PHONE WAS
ACTUALLY HIS. IN SEEK THOSE RECORDS, INVESTIGATORS HAD REASON TO FEAR
THAT ANY DELAY INT (ADD DANGER OF VIOLENCE TO THE OS AND POLICE OR FURTHER
REVVED DESTRUCTION. LOOK AT THE OBJECTIVE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CRIMES
WERE SEER NUS, MURDER, DID HE SAY KRAFGS HUMAN REMAINS AMONG OTHERS, THE THREATS
OF EVIDENCE VUKZ WAS REAL, SUS SPEKTS HAD ART SAID IN MOTION A GRUESOME
PLAN TO GROI EVIDENCE BY BURNING THE BODY AND LEEFBING IN ABANDONED VEHICLE AND
MOOFRD FROM THE CRIME SCENE AND HE COULD RETURN AT WILL. FURTHER EVIDENCE
DESTRUCTION WAS LIKELY, AS POLICE HAD NOW RECOVERED THE MURDER WEAPON OR THE
VICTIM'S PHONE, THE DEBT WAS ACTUALLY BY LYING TO OTHERS IN STOUTS WHEREABOUTS,
BY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE HE A BAN DOBD THE BODY AND VEHICLE,
HIS ABILITY TO FLEE WAS ENHANCED BY HIS DEMONSTRATED ACCESS TO MEANS OF DISGUISING
HIS DENT T AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE SFRAUCH LEN LICENSE FOUND IN THE
VEHICLE. THE THREAT OF FURTHER VIOLENCE WAS GREAT. DEFENDANT
WAS LIKELY ARMED AND HAD JUST COMMITTED MURDER, TEAMS OF INVESTIGATORS WERE IN
IMMINENT DANGER OF ENCOUNTERING HER AS THEY CAN SATISFIED BOOK LYNN WHERE
THE DEFENDANT LIVE AND CONTACT THE THE VICTIM'S SOERL CIRCLE OF WHICH DEFENDANT
WAS INVOLVED. AND THE TIME IT WOULD TAKE TO GET A WARRANT WOULD HAVE BEEN
SUBSTANTIAL, AS FOUND BY JUDGE, THESE TYPE OF WARRANTS TAKE TIME OF XOENS ANY
DELAY ON THEIR PART WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO DELAY FROM THE SERVICE PROVIDER IF
THE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES FORM WAS NOT COMPLETED. AS DETERMINED
BY THE MOTION COURT THE STATE MET ITS BER DONE BY THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE THAT
THE CELL PHONE WERE ARES PROBABLE CAUSE AND EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES.
ON DEFENDANT'S APPEAL, THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPPRESSED BY, THEY A VOIND THE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION OF EXIGENCY AND LOOK TO THE STATUTE. VERY BRIEFLY
THE STATE SUBMITS THE STAFF TOWER ANALYSIS WAS FLAWED AS SUPPRESSION IS KIN
CLUEDED A AS REMEDY UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE WIRETAP ACT. WHERE THE STATE
SEEKS NOW IS NOT AN ARMED BEGUN NAN OR A MURDER EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT.
THE STATE SEEKS TO ERLT PERMIT OF THE WELL RND RULING HAD POLICE FACED
A DANGEROUS AND FRAUGHT SITUATION WHEN THEY REASONABLY REQUESTED DEFENDANT'S
CELL PHONE RECORDS WITHOUT A WAR REASON. THAT CONCLUDES MY OPENING
REMARKS. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: PUTTING THE EX JEN SEEN
A FACT BASE ISSUES TO ONE SIDE, YOU'RE RELYING ON WHAT REMEDIES THE STATUTE DOES
AND DOES NOT PROVIDE, FOR VIOLATION, CORRECT. AND YOUR TRP TAGS OF SECTION
34 IN PARTICULAR WHICH SAYS THERE'S CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LIEKT BUT NOT
SUPPRESSION IN THIS CASE, IS THAT FAIR. APPELLANT: THAT'S FAIR.
THE COURT: DO YOU EVER THE SECTION OF SECTION 34 IN FRONT
OF YOU? APPELLANT: I DO. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER:
SEM DES AND SANCTIONS DISDESCRIBED THE IDENTIFIED SECTIONS ARE THE ONLY
JUDICIAL REMEDIES AND SANCTIONS FOR NONCONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS OF SOME
OTHER SECTIONS. WHAT DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF NONCONSTITUTIONAL AND THE
IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS STATUTE WHICH IS SPEAKING ABOUT STATUTORY SECTIONS
TO MEAN? APPELLANT: THE WAY I READ THE LIMITATIONS PROVISION
IS THAT WHICH SECTION 29 C 4 IS FOLLOWED OR ANY SECTION OF SECTION 29, THERE'S
THE REMEDY SET FORTH IN THE STATUTE, BUT IF THE DEFENSE SEEKS SUPPRESSION,
THEN THE TRADITIONAL EXIGENCY ANALYSIS, USUALLY PERFORMED WHEN THE STATE ARGUES
THE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD APPLY AND THE FACTOR SET FORTH IN STATE
V. JOHNSON WOULD BE ABL LIEFD. THE STATE SUBMITS IS THE STATUTE REALLY DOESN'T
SPEAK TO SUPPRESSION, THE STATUTE TALKS ABOUT WHEN SELF-SERVICE PROVIDERS
SHALL TURN OVER THESE ROFRPTDZ IT DOESN'T PURPORT TO LIMIT THESE ARE THE ONLY
TIME POLICE CAN REQUEST THESE RECORDS. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER:
I'M ASKING A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FEGS R WHAT IS THE PHRASE NONCONSTITUTIONAL
VIOLATIONS MEAN TO YOU AND PERHAPS MR. MUR ROS SKI CAN HELP US AS WELL IN
THE CONTEXT OF A DISCUSSION OF THESE STATUTORY SECTIONS? LEGISLATURE GETH AT
THERE? THE A HARD TO TELL WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES THEY ARE REFERRING TO
BUT THE CLEARLY NOT REFERRING TO THESE CIRCUMSTANCES BEFORE THE COURT. THEY'RE
TALK ABOUT PERHAPS WHEN THESE SECTIONS WHICH IS NOT ONLY SECTION 29
ARE VIOLATED IN A CRIMINAL SENSE AS PROVIDED THERE OR IN THE CIVIL SENSE, SEEK
SOME ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, THEN THE REMEDIES PROVISIONS WOULD APPLY. BUT IF
THERE'S A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, THESE STATUTES ARE NOT REALLY PURPORTED
TO ADDRESS THAT. AND THAT'S WHAT. JUSTICE PATTERSON: THE
IS A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE IF THERE IS A FOUR AND AMENDMENT VIOLATION OR A
VIOLATION OF THE STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ON SEARCH AND SEIZURE, IF THERE
IS, COMPLETELY IN THE COMMON SLAW ALAW OR COMPLOETLY UNDER THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS, THE STATUTE WEREN'T THERE, AND THERE'S FOUND TO BE A
VIOLATION OF THE DEFENDANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, IS A #13REGS UNDER THE
STATUTE? APPELLANT: YES, THEN THE STAUTS THE STATE SUBMITS
IF THERE WAS EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES SUPPRESSION WOULD BE A REMEDY, BUT THAT'S
NOT SUPPRESSION IS NOT A REMEDY THAT'S PROVIDED UNDER THE STATUTE, IT WOULD BE
A REMEDY THAT'S AVAILABLE UNDER CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES.
JUSTICE ALBIN: I TAKE IT THAT YOUR EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES ARGUMENT IS
PREMISEDED ON A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE AND YOU ARE NOT CHALLENGING THE
CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE ITSELF ARE YOU? APPELLANT: NO, I'M NOT
CHALLENGING THERE'S A ARGUMENT THE DEFENSE IS MAKE THERE'S NOT A EXIGENCY
AND IF THAT ARGUMENT ACCEPTED THE RECORDS WOULD BE SUPPRESSED.
JUSTICE ALBIN: YOU'RE ACCEPTING THAT AS OF THE DATE OF THESE EVENTS IN WHAT,
2011, THAT ARTICLE 1, PARL 7 PROTECTED CELL PHONE RECORDS AND ALSO CELL
DATA RECORDS? APPELLANT: YES, THAT'S RIGHT. JUSTICE
PATTERSON: THE WHOLE ISSUE IS YOU STAND AND FALL WITH EXIGENCY.
APPELLANT: THAT'S CORRECT, THE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES EXCEPTION WITHIN THE STATUTE
WASN'T FOLLOWED AND AUTOMATICALLY SUPPRESSION MUST APPLY, THAT WASN'T
EVEN REALLY PRESENTED TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION. THE WAY THE APPELLATE DIVISION
USED THE STATUTE WAS REALLY RAY SUA SPONTE. THE STATE WOULD LIKE TO
NOTE IN THE APPELLATE DIVISION DECISION THEY DON'T DISCUSS THE LIMITATION ON
RECOMMEND KNEES THAT IS EX EXCLUSIVE AT THE THE REMEDIES SEK IN SECTION 34
AND THE STATE SUBMITS THAT'S REALLY TELLING THAT THE STATE WAS MADE BY THE APPELLATE
DIVISION R. JUSTICE LA VECCHIA: THERE WAS A FLOORED
STATUTORY NAL SIS IN THE APPELLATE DIVISION SDISHGS I THINK YOU SAID THAT IN
YOUR INITIAL PRESENTATION, IS THAT CORRECT? APPELLANT:
THAT'S CORRECT, THAT'S. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: LET'S TALK ABOUT
EXIGENCY T CAN WE LOOK ITS TOE TAELT THE CIRCUMSTANCES DURING THE
INVESTIGATION TO ASSESS WHETHER THIS WAS A MATTER OF EXIGENCY?
APPELLANT: YES, YOUR HONOR. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: LOOK AT THE VERY
END, DAYS AFTER THE MURDER, THERE'S A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH THE
DEFENDANT ON THE 18TH AND THE POLICE DON'T RUN OUT TO GRAB HIM, FIND HIM, TALK
TO HIM IMMEDIATELY, THEY ALLOW HIM TO COME IN BY PUBLIC TRAFRNS POUR
TAGS THE NEXT DAY ON HIS OWN? APPELLANT: YES, THAT'S CORRECT. ROB.
CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: HOW DOES THAT COMPORT WITH THE NOTION
THESE WERE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES THROUGHOUTS THE INVESTIGATION?
APPELLANT: WHAT HAPPENED ONCE THESE RECORDS WERE RECEIVED WASN'T REALLY
COVERED AT THE MOTION HEARING. DEFENDANT, DEFENSE COUNSEL ASKED THE
QUESTIONS OF THE DETECTIVE BASED ON THAT CONVERSATION THAT HAPPENED REALLY TO
GET TO THE POINT THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE REASONABLE FOR THE DETECTIVE TO
JUST CALL DEFENDANT'S NUMBER ONCE HE HAD IT, RATHER THAN MAKE THIS EXIGENT
CIRCUMSTANCE SOCIAL SECURITY REQUEST FOR THE KF RECORDS. BUT THE STATE SUBMITS
THAT, YOU KNOW, IT WASN'T ADDRESSED BUT THE #125I9, THE DETECTIVES WERE
LOOK FOR THE DEFENDANT THE ENTIRE TIME, ONCE THE DAYS PASSED WE DON'T KNOW WHAT
ELSE OCCURRED DURING THE INVESTIGATION, NO OTHER BIAS HAS BEEN FOUND
AND ONCE THE DEFENDANT REACHED OUT TO POLICE, AND VOLUNTEERED TO COME IN, THE
STATE SUBMITS IT WAS REASONABLE POLICE DECISION TO ALLOW HIM TO COME IN
AT THAT POINT. JUSTICE ALBIN: HOW DOES THAT COMPORT WITH YOUR
ARGUMENT THAT EARLIER WHEN YOU YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN LESS EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM
THAT HE'S ARMED WITH A GUN, HE'S A DANGER TO THE POLICE, HE'S A DANGER TO THE
PUBLIC, BUT NOW HE CALLS UP, OESHGS YOU'RE TAKING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION,
SEE YOU WHEN YOU GET HERE. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE FIRST PAFRT YOUR ARGUMENT,
EXIGENCY AND THIS SORT OF, OKAY, COMMON COME IN WHEN YOU CAN ON PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION. DOESN'T SEEM TO JIVE. APPELLANT: YES, WELL,
THE STATE SUBMITS THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN REASONABLE TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO
COME IN ONCE HE VOLUNTEERED THAT HE WOULD BE WILLING TO COME N IT ALSO WOULD HAVE
BEEN, REASON AR FOR POLICE TO GO SEARCH FOR HIM IN THAT MOMENT.
JUSTICE ALBIN: HOW DO YOU KNOW HE HAD THI CONTACTED HM HE WOULD HAVE BEEN WILLING
TO KOMENT IN FROM THE BEGINNING. APPELLANT: THE STATE SUBMITS
THE RECORDS OF HIS CELL PHONE WAS TURNED OFF AND ONCE DAYS HAD PASSED,
YOU KNOW, THE EXIGENCY EVENTUALLY DISSIPATES, AFTER DAYS GONE BY AND HAD HE THEY
HADN'T FOUND ANY FURTHER VICTIM, ATS THIS POISON IT'S REASONABLE FOR
POLICE TO ALLOW HIM TO COULD IN. THE FOCUS OF A JEKS EXIGENCY CIRCUMSTANCE RGS
THE RICHLSs KNOWN TO THE PLEASES ONCE HAD HE MAKE THE REQUEST. THIS RECORD
DOESN'T REALLY COVER HOW POLICE WERE K LOOG FOR HIM THE ENTIRE TIME BUT
ONCE THE POLICE ALSO MADE THE EXIGENCY REQUEST IT WAS REVEAL ARE THE DEFENDANT
'S FON WAS KURN TURNED OFF, THE POLICE COULDN'T HAVE CALLED HIM IF THEY
TRIED. JUSTICE ALBIN: IN THE RECORD IS IT ESTABLISHED HOW MUCH
TIME THE WOULD HAVE TAKEN TO SECURE AN AFFIDAVIT FOR THE CELL SITE RECORDS?
APPELLANT: IN THE JUDGE'S DECISION, HE SUBMITS THAT THESE
TYPE OF WARREN TAKE TIME. JUSTICE ALBIN: I KNOW THAT'S WHAT HE SAID,
OKAY, THAT'S WHAT HE'S, I'M TALKING ABOUT NOW IN THE EVIDENCE, NOT WHAT
THE JUMP SAID JUDGE SAID ON HIS OWN. AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT'S EVEN BASED
ON. IN THE RECORD DID YOU SUBMIT ANY INFORMATION ON THE AMOUNT OF TIME
THAT IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN TO SECURE ONE OF THE, THESE WARRANTS?
APPELLANT: I MEAN THAT'S, THE TESTIMONY FROM DETECTIVE FRAFR WAS THAT FRAY SHER
IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN TOO LONG FOR HIM TO WRITE A COMMUNICATION DATA WARREN
BASED ON HIS EVALUATION OF CIRCUMSTANCES. JUSTICE TIMPONE: WHAT'S
TOO LONG. APPELLANT: SPECIFIC TIME WASN'T SET FORTH AND
FOULING IT TAKES TO COMPOSE A XHUN OCCASION DATA WARRANT BASED ONTS CIRCUMSTANCES
THE IT DOES INCLUDED IN, IT WAS MOVED IN EVIDENCE, AND INCLUDED IN DEFENDANT
'S APPELLATE APPENDIX AND YOU CAN TELL BY K LOOK 8 THE THESE AREN'T SIMPLE WARREN
TO CREATE THE MORE COMPLICATED, THERE'S A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, DISRECEIPT
TERMINOLOGY USED AND THE JUDGE'S FINDING WAS BASED ONTS FAK HE IS A COMMUNICATION
DATA WARRANT JUDGE AND HAS EXPERIENCED IN HOW LONG IT TAKES TO DRAFT
THEM. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: HELP US UNDERSTAND THIS. AUGUST
16TH, EVENING HOURS. FRPT THE STATE TELL US US THERE WASN'T TIME TO GET A WARRANT
BECAUSE THIS SUSPECT WAS ARMED AND CONSIDERED EXTREMELY DANGEROUS AND
POSED A THREAT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT. 48 HOURS LATER IT APPEARS FROM
Z THE POLICE CONDUCT THEY NO LONGER BELIEVE THAT. WHAT HAPPENED? THAT
JUSTIFIES THE DIFFERENCE IN APPROACH? APPELLANT: SURE. WHAT POLICE
DID ONCE THEY GOT THESE RECORDS, IT WASN'T REALLY DEVELOPED AT THE
MOTION HEARING. THE FOCUS, I SUBMIT REASONABLY IS THE ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR FOCUSED
ON THE CIRCUMSTANCE SOCIAL SECURITY LEADING UP TO THE DEFENDANT'S
DETERMINATION OF THE SITUATION WAS EXIGENT. THEY DIDN'T COVER HOW HARD THEY LOOKED
THROUGH BROOKLYN FOR HIM ONCE THEY GOT THOSE RECORDS, YOU KNOW THE RECORDS
DIDN'T REVEAL THE G P S LOCATION SO SHE DIDN'T HAVE AN EXACT LOCATION SO THE AVENUE
WASN'T PURSUED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL EITHER. THEY JUCHT RAISED THE PHONE CALL.
CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: SLOILT DIFFERENT QUESTION, WHY IS HE
ARMED AND EXTREMELY DANGEROUS AND A THREAT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT ON THE 16TH BUT
NOT ON THE 18TH? APPELLANT: WELL, WHAT'S IN THE ROAR THE
EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO FURTHER BODIES WERE FOUND, DAYS HAD PASSED WITHOUT
ANY FURTHER VIOLENCE, AND, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE FACT,
THE #125I9 SUBMITS ISN'T REALLY THE HEART OF THE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES
ANALYSIS. IT WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE. IF THERE HAD BEEN A MURDER OVER THAT 2-DAY
PERIOD, AN ADDITIONAL MURDER THE STATE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO POISON TO
THAT AS EVIDENCE THAT THE SITUATION WAS EXIGENT AT THE TIME DETECTIVE FRAY SHER.
CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: I SAID THOUGHT YOU IS HE THE TOTALITY
OF THE INVESTIGATION COULD BE CONSIDERED, IS THAT NO LONGER YOUR POSITION?
APPELLANT: I'M SORRY, I MISS UNDERSTOOD YOUR QUESTION WHEN
YOU ASKED THAT. I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT YOU MEANT FACT THE KNOWN TO POLICE
AFTER THEY REQUESTED THE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES. THE STATE SUBMITS
THE EXIGENCY ANALYSIS IS WHAT POLICE KNOW AT THE TIME. THE HEARING WASN'T DEVELOPED
ABOUT WHAT POLICE DID AFTERWARDS, IT WASN'T CONTESTED THAT POLICE WERE
COMBING BROOKLYN. JUSTICE ALBIN: YOU CONSIDERED THE WARRANTS
OBTAINED IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARDS, WARRANTS BEFORE, WARRANTS AFTERWARDS, WHY DON'T
YOU TELL US HOW MANY WARRANTS WERE OBTAINED? APPELLANT:
THERE WAS A C D W FOR THE 4 TELEPHONE THAT WAS SMITD ON THE 19TH, DESHL LONG
THERE WAS A WIRETAP. JUSTICE ALBIN: START WIT FIRST WHAT ARE
WENT, THE SECOND WARRANT I WANT TO SEE HOW DIFFICULT IT WAS FOR THE
PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE TO GEET THESE WARRANTS. APPELLANT:
SURE. Z. APPELLANT: SENT ON 7:39 P.M. ON THE 16TH. EARLIER
THAT DAY THERE WAS A SEARCH WARRANT DRAFTED FOR THE AUTOMOBILE THAT WAS FOUND
THAT WAS SIGNED AT AROUND 1:20 P.M. JUSTICE ALBIN: THERE WAS
NO DLT TEE GETTING A JUDGE? APPELLANT: NO, THERE WAS NOT
ANY DIFFICULTY GETTING THE JUDGE AT THAT MOMENT. BUT THE DELAY, IT'S NOT
THE C D WCHLTS' NOT OHM THE DELAY. JUSTICE ALBIN: TELL US WERE THERE
OTHER WARREN. APPELLANT: SURE THE RECORD REVEALS AT 9:15
A.M. AFTER THE NEXT DAY AFTER THE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES FORM WAS SENT
OUT, THEN A K D W WAS SIGNED AND I BELIEVE A WIRETAP ORDER WAS SIGN AS WELLY
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. JUSTICE ALBIN: WAS THERE ANY PROBLEM
SECURING A JUDGE AT THAT HOUR? Z. JUSTICE ALBIN: DO WE KNOW
HOW LONG IT TOOK. NTS NOT THE RECORD HOW LONG IT TOOK. EXACTLY.
JUSTICE LA VECCHIA: AT THE TIME THAT THE REQUEST WAS MADE TO THE TELECOMMUNICATION
CARRIER AND WHERE YOU DIDN'T APPLY FOR THE WARRANT WAS THE KNOWN TO
THE POLICE THAT THE DFT'S PICTURE WASN'T FOUND ON DRIVER'S LICENSE IN THE CAR.
APPELLANT: I THINK THE RECORD IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE POLICE
KNEW THEY HAD LOOKED UP INFORMATION ONCE THEY GOT A ASSOCIATION SOESHLTHD WITH
HIM AND HIS NAME THEY FOUND A PHOTOGRAPH OF HIM AND A GOVERNMENT DATABASE
AND DETECTIVE FRAFR TESTIFIED AT A COUPLE OF POISON IN THE TRANSCRIPT THAT HE
ONLY REQUESTED EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES FORM AFTER HE MATCHED, HE
RECOLLECTION NIEFRTS THAT FACE FROM THE LICENSE THAT WAS FOUND NEAR THE DRIVER'S
SEAT. FOU THE NUMBER WAS SLS VERIFIED, IT WAS THE NUMBER THEY GOT FROM BRIAN
DONE BAR, THEY ALSO SPOKE TO THE MOTHER TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS MANNING'S
NUMBER AS WELL. JUSTICE ALBIN: YOUR AEFR SAERS ARE ARGUING
THAT THIS IS, YOU'RE EVER GAUGED IN GENERALIZING ASSUMPTION, BUT THEY'RE LOOK
FOR LIKE A MURDER EXCEPTION AND THEY'RE SAYING THAT YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO LOOK
TO SPECIFIC ARTICULABLE FACTS IN THIS CASE RAFRN GENERALIZED ASSUMPTIONS AS TO
HIS DANGER STOT PUBLIC, IMMEDIATE DANGER TO THE PUBLIC AND IMMEDIATE DANGER TO
LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THEN THEY GO THROUGH EXAMPLES, CARPENTER, YOU KNOW,
IF IT'S A TERRORISM KATS' ONE THING, IF IT'S A CEREAL MURT IT'S ANOTHER, HOW
DO YOU RESPOND TO THOSE ARGUE MANY. MR. MILLER: THE STATE
SUBMITS THAT WE'RE NOT LOOKING AN ARMED BEGUN MAN EXCEPTION. THERE'S
DISCREET FACTS EVIDENCING A PLAN OF EVIDENCE DESTRUCTION THAT WAS SET IN MOTION,
THE POLICE HAD NO IDEA WHERE THE CRIME SCENE WAS ALLOWING THE DEFENDANT TO
RETURN, THE BODY HAD BEEN BURNED AND MOVED FROM THE I HAVE CRIME SCENE, BURNED
TO REASONABLY TO TO HOOID HIS DEN AT THE. JUSTICE ALBIN:
WHAT IS THAT OTHER THAN THIS EVIDENCE THAT HE KILLED SOMEONE, THAT HE'S GOING
TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE, HE'S ON A RAMPAGE OR, IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE OTHER THAN
A COMPLETED CRIME. APPELLANT: WELL THE STATE SUBMITS MORE THAN
JUST A MURDER THAT TOOK PLACE, THE ACT TO COVER UP THE CRIME WAS ABSOLUTELY TER
IF I GO. THE BODY WAS BURNED TO THE FOURTH DEGREE AND LEFT ON A RESIDENTIAL
STREET. POLICE DID NOT EVEN KNOW. JUSTICE ALBIN: NO ONE
IS MINIMIZING THAT. SO THERE WAS A MURDER AND THE MURDERER DOES NOT WANT
PEOPLE TO FIND THAT HE'S THE MURDERER. OKAY. WHAT IS THERE TO BELIEVE THAT
HE, IS GOING TO COMMIT OTHER CRIMES? MR. MILLER: THE STATE
SUBMITS BURNING THE BODY DEMONSTRATES, YOU KNOW, CITE GRUESOMELY THE LENGTH
HE WOULD A VOID CAPTURE, HE'S BEEN SEEN BY OTHER KIT WIT INTO WHO SAW THE CAR
DROPPED OFF AT 4:20 A.M. HE'S SEEN LEAVING ON FOOT FROM THAT CAR IN A RES
DEN AREA, POLICE DIDN'T KNOW, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE RECORD THAT REVEALS HE
EVER EVEN LEFT THAT AREA OR HOW HE GOT OUT OF THAT AREA. THERE'S NO RECOVERY
OF THE GUN, THERE'S NO RECOVERY RFT VICTIM'S CELL PHONE, POLICE ARE
CANVASSING BROOKLYN LOOK FOR STOUT'S FAMILIAR AND FREFRND WHICH DEFENDANT WAS
ONE, AND WERE VERY LIKELY TO RUN INTO HIM. HE LIEBLG STILL HAD THE FIRE
HIM WHEN THEY DID, AND YOU KNOW THERE'S BASED ON THE NATURE THE MURDER --
JUSTICE LA VECCHIA: HOW CAN WE KNOW HE STILL HAD THE FIRE YARJS I MEAN
ISN'T THAT A LITTLE BIT OF SPECULATION? MR. MILLER: WELL,
THE ALTERNATIVE IS THAT HE DISCARDED IT IN LATES PLACE WHERE THE PUBLIC COULD
GET TO IT, BUT IT'S STILL, REASONABLE TO ASSUME HE, VEK VK I'M TRYING
TO UNDERSTAND HOW COULD WE CABIN IF WE ACCEPT YOUR ARGUMENT EXIGENCY HERE, HOW
DOES IT GET CABINED TO THE NEXT CASE WHEN THEY'RE A MURDER AND THE STATE
IS ARGUABLY SIMILARLY ABOUT DANGEROUSNESS AND PHONE SHUL DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE
THAT WITHOUT POINTING TO SOMETHING I AM NINT OR ACTUAL THAT'S ABOUT TO
HAPPEN LIKE, YOU KNOW, DRUGS BEING FLUSHED DOWN THE TOILET, BEHIND A CLOSED DOOR
WHEN THE POLICE ARE TRYING TO GET IN, YOU KNOW, HELP US HERE BECAUSE IT
SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE MAKING GENERIC, SOME GENERIC ARMTHS IN FAVOR OF THOSE BOTH
POINTS TO SPROESHTHS JEN SEE. SNOOT FACT THERE WAS A MURDER, THE SERIOUSNESS
OF THE CRIME AND ARE THE FACT DEFENDANT MAY HAVE BEEN ARMED, THAT'S
ALWAYS BEEN ROOKD BY THE CORE AS SERIOUS FAKTS IN DETERMINING WHETHER THERE WAS
A EXIGENCY. THE IN TERMGS OF THE ADDITIONAL FACTS HERE THE STATE SUBMITS
THERE'S REALLY A LOT TO WORK WITH. THERE'S THE DEMONSTRATE THE DESTRUCTION
OF EVIDENCE, THE DEMONSTRATED PLAN TO HIDE THE CRIME SCENE FROM POLICE,
HE'S ACTIVELY MASKING HIS INVOLVEMENT IN THE CRIME BY LYING TO OTHER WITNESSES,
THOSE WITNESS MAY BE IN DANGER IF THE DEFENDANT REEL LEASE THEY HAD SPOKEN TO
POLICE. JUSTICE LA VECCHIA: CAN I STOP YOU BECAUSE
THERE'S BEEN SOME DESTRUCTION OF THE EVIDENCE THERE IS IMMINENT RISK OF OTHER
DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE, DON'T YOU HAVE TO POINT TO SOMETHING THAT YOU THINK
IS IMMINENTLY LIKELY TO BE DESTROYED OR WHAT? I MEAN IS IT JUST THAT
BECAUSE THERE HAD BEEN SOME EFFORT TO CONCEAL A CRIME THERE'S GOING TO MORE.
MR. MILLER: I THINK THERE'S MORE THAN JUST THAT ONE EFFORT
THAT'S IN THE PAST. I THINK HE HAD SHOWN THAT HE'S AND CONTINUOUSLY MASKING
THIS INVOLVEMENT, HE'S LYING ABOUT WHAT HE IS TO OTHER WITNESSES AND,
YOU KNOW, HAD HE ACCESS TO A HE USED A FAKE ID AS DEMONSTRATED BIT ID IN THE
CAR SO IT'S VERY POSSIBLE THAT HE WAS GOING TO BE ABLE TO FLEE AND EVADE
CAPTURE. AND IN TERMS OF THE MOST IMMINENT FACT THAT STATE SUBMITS SHEER THAT
POLICE WERE VERY LIKELY TO ENCOUNTER HIM AT ANY MOMENT WHEN THEY WERE
CANVASSING LOOK LYNN WERE HE LIVES WITH PEOPLE HE KNOWS AND LOOG K FO HIM.
JUSTICE ALBIN: THIS IS JUST PART I'M STILL TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. YOU
SEDZ AGAIN HE'S LIKELY TO HAVE A HANDGUN AND YET THE POLICE SPEAK WITH HIM ON
THE PHONE, HE SAID I'M TAKING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, THANK YOU. SEE
YOU WHEN HE GET HERE. I JUST DON'T SEE THE CONSISTENCY. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT?
MR. MILLER: THE STATE DAYS LATER, AFTER THEY HAD BEEN
CERTAINING FOR HIM AND THE RECORD DOESN'T REVEAL WHAT EXACTLY THE POLICE LEARNED
IN THE MEANTIME, BUT I MEAN DAYS HAD PASSED BY THAT POIVENLT.
JUSTICE ALBIN: DID SHE LEARN THAT WAS LESS DANGEROUS TWO DAYS LATER.
MR. MILLER: AS TIME PASSES THERE'S LESS REASON TOS THERE'S AND ONGOING MRAVEN
VIOLENCE, HE CALL PLEASE IS INDICATIVE HE WOULD BE LESS AVENUE THREAT
THAN HE IS AT THE TIME WHEN POLICE REALLY HAD NO IDEA. JUSTICE
PATTERSON: AFRT FACT, WHERE DO AFTER THE FACTS LEARNED AFTER THE CRITICAL MOMENT
WITH REGARD TO EXIGENCY FIT IN WITH THE ANALYSIS IN EITHER DIRECTION?
AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS IF IN FACT YOU, THE POLICE HAD LEARNED DAYS LATER
THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD BEATS 10 UP A WITNESS OR IP TIN DATE ADD WIT
NESHGS THREATENED A WITNESS RGS WOULD THAT BE A FACT THAT YOU COULD USE TO SUPPORT
EXIGENCY EVEN THOUGH IT HAPPENED AFTER THE MOMENT WHEN THE OFFICER DECIDED TO
SIMPLY MAKE THE REQUEST? MR. MILLER: YOUR HONOR, I DON'T THINK
SO. IEN THE ANALYSIS IS WHAT THE POLICE KNOW AND OBJECTIVELY LOOK AT
THAT AT THE TIME THEY REQUEST. JUSTICE PATTERSON: YOU WOULDN'T BE CLIMG
THAT A LATER EVEN IN EITHER DIRECTION IS RELEVANT TO THE EX JEN, TOTALITY
OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES ANALYSIS. MR. MILLER: IF THERE HAD A RASH OF
MURTS AFTER WE REQUESTED THE RECORDS, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE FAIR
FOR THE STATE TO SAY LOOK NOW WE WERE RIGHT, JUST BY CHANCE, THEREFORE THE --
JUSTICE PATTERSON: DO YOU KNOW IF THERE'S ANY LAW ON THAT
QUESTION, AND SPECIFICALLY A LAW ON WHETHER THE WAY IN WHICH THE INVESTIGATION
UNFOLDS AFTER THE FACT IN, YOU KNOW, HELPING ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER IS
RELEVANT TO THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIGENCY ANALYSIS?
APPELLANT: I'M SOERN, YOU WERE, I DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC CASE ON THAT.
CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: PLEASE FINISH YOUR ANSWER. APPELLANT:
IN LOOK AT THE ANSWER I DIDN'T SEE ANY CASE LAW AFTER THE FACT EVENTS HAD BEEN
USED HE'D VALIDATE THE EX SCOMBREN SEE OR UNDERCUT IT. CHIEF
JUSTICE RABNER: KIT BE LIMITED SO CLEANLY IN TIME? IN THIS CASE YOU HAVE NO
APPLICATION FOR A WARRANT AT 7:39, SUPPOSE AN HOUR AND A HALF LATER
THE POLICE DID OBTAIN A WARRANT FOR SOME OTHER ASPECT WORK THAT BE REL VEN TO THE
A NAL JIS. APPELLANT: WELL I THINK THAT WOULD BE USEFUL IN
EVALUATING THE OFFICER'S CREDIBILITY IF THEY SAID THEY DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO MAKE
A WARRANT AND IMMEDIATELY AFTER DID THE RECORD SHOW THEY DID HAVE TIME
MAKE A WARRANT I THINK IT WOULD SEVERELY UNDERCUT THE CREDIBILITY OF THEIR INITIAL
DETERMINE NATHS WHEN THEY'RE DESCRIBING HOW LONG IT TAKES TO WRITE THESE BUT
I DON'T THINK IT WOULD DIRECTLY GO INTO THE EXIGENCY ANALYSIS.
JUSTICE ALBIN: ARE YOU TELLING US THAT IF YOU HAD GOTTEN ONE OF THESE COMMUNICATIONS
DATA WARRANTS AT LET SAY 11:00 P.M. AND THE DEFENDANT WAS ENGAGED IN
SHOOTING PEOPLE AT 1:00 A.M., THAT YOU WOULDN'T BE COMING BEFORE US AND ARGUING
THAT THAT EVIDENCE SHOWS YOU THE DIRE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE POLICE
WERE OPERATING AND THE REASON WHY IT WAS OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE FOR THEM TO SECURE
THAT DATA BAR RENT, YOU WOULDN'T BE LOOKING TO THE EVIDENCE.
APPELLANT: I WOULD NOT BE ARGUE K TO ME THE Aly IN A SIS IS WHAT THE POLICE KNOW
AT THE TIME THEY'RE MAKING THIS EX JEN CIRCUMSTANCE REQUEST. HOW IT
UNFOLDS AND HOW REASONABLE THEIR A MAL SIS, HOW THE UNFOLDS, I MEAN THAT'S A MAT
TER OF CHANCE. THE STANDARD HERE IS SUBSTANTIAL LIKELIHOOD OF EVIDENCE
BEING DESTROYED OR THE PUBLIC OR POLICE BEING IN DANGER. WE DON'T HAVE TO PROVE
IT ACTUALLY HAPPEN. JUSTICE ALBIN: BASED ON YOUR ARGUMENT FOR
THE COMMUNE COMMUNE, COMMUNICATIONS DATA WARRANT WOULD THE ALSO THE BASED ON EXIGENT
CIRCUMSTANCES? APPELLANT: WELL IT'S TOUGH TO SAY THAT BECAUSE
THE URGENCY OF THE SEARCH ALSO DEPENDS ON WHAT WE EXPECT THE SEARCH TO UNCOVER.
HERE THE POLICE REQUESTED RECORDS THAT HAD THE POWER TO REVEAL EXACTLY
WHERE DEFENDANT WAS, WHETHER HE EVER LEFT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHO ELSE MIGHT HAVE BEEN
IN DANGER. I GUESS THE THE SEFRNT HOUSE WOULD DEPEND WHETHER THERE WAS
EVIDENCE THEY RETURNED THERE AFTER THE CRIME OR WHAT POLICE KNEW, IT'S HARD TO
ADDRESS THAT HYPOTHETICAL BUT THERE'S CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE I SUBMIT
THAT IT WOULD BE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES. JUSTICE ALBIN: ARE WE TAUBLING
ABOUT PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SECURING OF THE COMMUNICATIONS DATA WARRANT?
THE IS THAT THE STANDARD? APPELLANT: YES, POSSIBLE COULD YOU SAY.
JUSTICE ALBIN: PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE HE WAS VOFRL IN THE
MURDER? APPELLANT: I BELIEVE SEARCHES IT'S PROBABLE CAUSE
TO BELIEVE THAT THE EVIDENCE OF CRIMINALITY WOULD BE UNSUFFERED. BUT THE EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE AGAINST DENSE THE DEFENDANT IS CLEERM RELATED TO THAT.
THE COURT: YOU WERE ASKED ABOUT THE BREADTH OF THE RULE YOU WERE ASKING FOR HERE.
IS A FACTOR THAT DISTINGUISHES THIS CASE THE EXTREME NATURE THAT THIS
DEFENDANT UNDERTOOK TO DESTROY EVIDENCE? APPELLANT: I WOULD SUBMIT.
CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: BURNING A BODY AND LEAVING IT IN PUBLIC?
APPELLANT: WHERE, I THINK AMICUS BRIEF TALKS ABOUT THIS
BEING A GARDEN VARIETY HOMICIDE. THAT REALLY ISN'T A CASE IN WHAT BERGEN COUNTY'S
EXPERIENCE THE CIRCUMSTANCE HERE WERE ABSOLUTELY TERRIFYING AND I THINK
SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT AND LATER DETERMINING THE LENGTHS POLICE WENT
IN AVOIDING DLAN TRYING TO LOCATE DEFENDANT. TN A VOID FURTHER
VIOLENCE OR EVIDENCE OF DESTRUCTION. JUSTICE PATTERSON: IS IT YOUR
CONTENTION IS THE COMBINATION OF THE FACTORS THAT APPEAR AT THE TIME,
THE BODY BEING BURNED, LEFT IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA WHERE ANYBODY COULD HAVE WALKED
IN ON THE SITUATION OBVIOUSLY THE PRESENCE OF FAKE ID SHOWING THAT THE
DEFENDANT HAD SOME WHEREWITHAL, INTENSIFY THE OFFICER'S CONCERN THAT THE NEXT
THING THAT THE DEFENDANT MIGHT DO TO AVOID, TO AVOID BEING INKRM 98ED IN
THIS CRIME IS START KNOCKING OFF SOME OF THE WITNESSES WHO HE KNEW HAD RELEVANT
INFORMATION. APPELLANT: THAT'S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT YOUR
HONOR, OR EVEN CONFIRMED VIOLENTLY WITH MREESHGZ HE'S GONE TO DEMONSTRATED LENGTHS
TO AVOID TAKE ANY RESPONSE ANLTS FOR THIS CRIME. I THINK IT'S VERY
REASONABLE. JUSTICE LA VECCHIA: CODEFENDANT AS IDENTIFYING
HIM AS BEING WITH THE SIM THE NIGHT OF THE ALLEGED MURDER SO IT'S NOT LIKE THE
POLICE DIDN'T HAVE INFORMATION FROM OTHER PEOPLE KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT THE
DEFENDANT AND ABOUT THE VICTIM AND THE IFRTS ASSISTANCE AVENUE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THEM. APPELLANT: STRONG THE SUGGESTED THAT IF NOT THE CULPRIT,
DEFENDANT HAD INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT HAD HAPPEN. JUSTICE LA
VECCHIA: WERE THERE OTHER SUSPECTS THAT HAD NOT BEEN ROLL OUT AT THAT POINT?
APPELLANT: NOTHING IN WAS SHOWN IN THE RECORD ABOUT OTHER
SUSPECTS THAT WERE BEING CONSIDERED WITH THE DETECTIVES AT THAT POINT. VEK VK
YOU CAN REPRESENT THE STATE HAD FOCUSED ALL THEIR ATTENTION ON THIS
DEFENDANT WHEN THEY MADE HIS EXIGENT APPLICATION? APPELLANT: YES,
I CAN REPRESENT THAT. THE INVESTIGATION WAS STILL ON GOING, TEAMS OF DETECTIVES
WERE STILL OUT CANVASSING BROOKLYN BUT HERE DETECTIVES WERE FOLLOWING
INFORMATION THATS WAS POISONS AT ONE SUSPECT AND THAT WAS THE DEFENDANT.
JUSTICE PATTERSON: YOU WERE ASKED WHETHER THERE WAS A SHOWING AT THE
HEARING OF WHAT SPECIFIC EVIDENCE WAS IN VIEW OF THE OFFICERS IN DANGER OF
BEING DESTROYED. IN THE IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH OF THIS OFFENSE,
WERE THE OFFICERS IN A POSITION TO KNOW WHAT THE EVIDENCE MIGHT BE THAT WAS OUT
THERE THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE DESTROYED? APPELLANT: ABSOLUTELY
NOT. ESPECIALLY WHEN DEFENDANT HAD GONE TO LENGTHS TO HIDE THE CRIME SCENE
FROM POLICE. THE ABILITY OF DOEFT RETURN THERE AT WILL IS A SIGNIFICANT
FACTOR. JUSTICE PATTERSON: SO IF YOU WERE TO, AND YOU WERE
ASKED BY JUSTICE LAVECCHIA ABOUT CABINING IN THIS CASE VERSUS OTHER CASES, YOU'VE
OBVIOUSLY STATED THAT THIS IS NOT, YOU'RE NOT ASKING FOR MURDER
EXCEPTION FOR THE WAR REPUBLIC REQUIREMENT FOR THIS TYPE OF WARRANT OR ANY OTHER.
WHAT IS THE (PULLED PRINCIPLE THAT DIFFERENTIATES THIS CASE FROM OTHER
MURDER CASES? APPELLANT: I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOUR HONOR THAT
IT'S THE DEMONSTRATED EVIDENCE DESTRUCTION THAT THE GRUESOME NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE
DESTRUCTION, THE EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT WAS ONGOING IN HIS EVER FORTS T
HIDE HIS INVOLVEMENT, THE EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTED THAT HE HAD ACCESS AND MEANS
TO ENHANCE HIS ABILITY TO FLEE AS WELL, THE EXISTENCE OF THE FIREARM THAT HAD
THOT BEEN RECOVERED, BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE
IN THIS CASE LED POLICE TO REASONABLY CONCLUDE THAT THE DELAY IN OBTAINING THE
WARRANT AND WRITING THE WAR RNT AND HAVING THE SIR VS PROVIDER RESPOND
TO THAT WARRANT WOULD CONTINUE WHAT THEY HAD ALREADY KNOWN TO HAVE OCCUR.
JUSTICE ALBIN: THE DELAY WAS WHAT, WE DON'T NOISHGS AN HOUR LETS EE SAY,
2 HOURS, MAYBE LESS IF, THEY COULD GET IT FROM THE TELEPHONE WARRANT, 45
MINUTES, WE DON'T EVEN KNOW. AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT THAT PERIOD OF TIME IS THE
BREAKING POINT EVEN THOUGH YOU CAN'T IDENTIFY THE DESTRUCTION OF WHAT
EVIDENCE OR ANY PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD BE IN DAN JERD.
APPELLANT: THERE IS NO TESTIMONY ON THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT THE, OF DELAY ON THE
SERVICE PROVIDER'S END, BUT THE STATE SUBMITS THAT THE EXISTENCE OF THE
EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES FORM IN AND OF ITSELF WHICH REQUIRES THE OFFICER TO SWEAR
THAT THERE IS AN EXIGENCY IN ORDER GET THESE RECORDS WHICH CAME IN 20
MINUTES, IS STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT WILL IS GOING TO BE A LONGER TLA IF THEY DON'T
GO THROUGH THAT PROCEDURE AND THIS, THE DETECTIVE MAY NOT HAVE KNOWN WHAT
THE DELAY MAY HAVE BEEN. THERE'S A NUMBER OF SERVICE PROVIDERS AND THEIR WILLINGNESS
TO COOPERATE WITH POLICE, YOU KNOW, IT VARIES. SO HE MAY NOT HAVE KNOWN,
BUT IT JUST MAY HAVE BEEN A CHANCE THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY LONG THAT
IN HIS DETERMINATION MADE GETTING THE WARRANT AND HOEPG THE CELL SERVICE
PROVIDER WOULD HONOR THEIR REQUEST TO RUSH, TO PUT OUGHT RUSH ORDER ON COMPILING
THIS INFORMATION. JUSTICE SOLOMON: WASN'T THAT ONE OF THE
ISSUES THAT IT WASN'T SO MUCH IT WAS IN PART SERNL THE TIME TO GET THE
WARRANT AND PRESENT IT TO A JUDGE, BUT MUCH LONGER PERIOD OF TIME THAT THESE
WARRANTS TYPICALLY ARE HANDLED BY A, I GUESS COUNSEL'S CONSULTED AND
THE RECORDS ARE ACTUAL OBTAINED, WASN'T THE TIME PERIOD THAT WAS MOST AT ISSUE?
APPELLANT: THAT TIME PERIOD IS DEFINITELY AT ISSUE.
JUSTICE SOLOMON: WASN'T THAT THE ONE THAT THEY EMPHASIZED, THEY TALK ABOUT,
TALKED ABOUT THE TIME THAT IT WOULD TAKE? APPELLANT: WHEN
THEY TALK ABOUT THE TIME IT WOULD TAKE, IT'S, IT IS EMPHASIZED, I'M NOT SURE
IF IT'S EMPHASIZED MORE THAN THE TIME IT WOULD TAKE TO DO THE, TO COMPOSE
A C D W, DETECTIVE FRAFR TALKS ABOUT THE DELAY BEING TOO LONG.
JUSTICE SOLOMON: ALSO THERE'S MENTION THE FIREARMS, THE GUNS WE DON'T KNOW WHERE
IT IS, HE'S ALREADY TRIED TO DESTROY THE BODY. THE GUN WAS WITH A FRIEND.
WHEN DID THEY FIND THAT OUT AND WHEN IF AT ALL THE GUN ACTUAL RECOVERED, I DON'T
REMEMBER SEEING THAT. APPELLANT: THE GUN WAS NEVER RECOVERED.
THE TRIAL RECORD REVEALS THAT IT WAS NEVER FOUND. JUSTICE
SOLOMON: THEY DID LEARN THAT IT WAS APPARENTLY GIVEN TO A FRIEND.
APPELLANT: THE SOME OF THE STATEMENTS INDICATE THAT, SOME OF THE STATEMENTS WERE
LATER REKANTD, IT'S NOT REALLY CLEAR WHERE THE GUN ENDED UP.
BUT BASED ON YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SERVICE PROVIDER'S DELAY THE STATE EMPHASIZES
SOME OF THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS REQUESTED THE CELL PHONE RECORDS WAS
PROSPECTIVE, THE G P S PING THAT THE POLICE REQUEST, YOU KNOW, THAT EVIDENCE
COULD HAVE CHANGED AT A POINT OMOMENT THE PHONE TURD OUT TO BE OFF. SO THE
SELF-SERVICE PRO VIET WASN'T ABLE TO PING DEFENDANT'S MOAN AND PROVIDE POLICE
WITH HIS EXACT LOCATION. BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WAS VERY TEMPORAL AND IF
THE PLEADS DIDN'T REQUEST IT IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THERE LATER OIRT MAY HAVE
BEEN A DIFFERENT LOCATION LATER OR THE PHONE MAY HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OF.
THE COURT: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ANYONE, ANYTHING WOULD YOU LIKE AT THIS
HS POINT. MR. MILLER: NOW,. MR. MUROSKI. MURMUR THE MUR
MUR ARE THE STATE THIS IS A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION. THE DEFENDANT HAS ASKED
S HE ASSERTS A CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION OF WASH RENT REQUIREMENT AND HE
ASKED FOR SUPPRESSION, HOWEVER THE DEFENDANT REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE HE'S ASKING
FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL SUPPRESSION BECAUSE AVENUE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION,
CONSTITUTIONAL EXCEPTIONS TO THAT WARRANT REQUIREMENT ALSO APPLY AND THE
EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES EXCEPTION DOES APPLY TO THIS CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION.
A THIS IS NOT A STATUTORY CASE. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER:
CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHEN UNDER SECTION 29 AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SECTION 29 DO
YOU LOCK AT STAFF TOWER AS OPPOSED TO CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES. MUR MUR.
AMICUS CURIAE: IF THE STATUTE SDNG FOLLOW TO THE LETTER THAT
WOULD TRIGGER THE POTENTIAL FOR THOSE STATUTORY REMEDIES. OF CIVIL REMEDIES
AND CRIMINAL REMEDIES BUT 1 THING IS FOR CERTAIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDY
OF SUPPRESSION DOES NOT OBTAIN FOR A STATUTORY VIOLATION UNLESS THE LEGISLATURE
MADE IT CLEAR THAT IT WOULD, AND THEY'RE FULLY CAPABLE OF DOING THAT WHEN
THEY WANT TO. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: THAT'S WHAT I'M STRUGGLING
WITH, YOU HAVE A STATUTE, YOU HAVE ARGUABLY A VIOLATION OF THAT STATUTE AND REMEDIES
THAT FROM THE STATUTE. AT WHAT POINT DO YOU SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO LOOK
AT THAT, WE'RE GOING TO CAR CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK, WHERE IS THE DIVIDING LINE.
AMICUS CURIAE: WHEN THE POLICE OBSERVED THE CONSTITUTION
WE'RE NOT SAYING IS THE POLICE HAD, THEY STAFFED THIS BY HAVING REASONABLE GROUND.
WE'RE SAYING THEY HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE AND THEY HAD EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES.
THEY SATISFIED THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT'S EXISTED THROUGHOUT, THAT
EXISTED AT THE TIME OF THIS SEARCH, THAT THE PLEADS, THEY WANT TO SEARCH
WITHOUT A WARRANT THEY NEED PROBABLE CAUSE AND EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES. AND THEY
HAD THAT HERE. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: I'M NOT ASKING ABOUT THE
FACTS OF THIS CASE. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS A LITTLE UNUSUAL LANGUAGE
IN A STATUTE THAT DOESN'T SAY VIOLATIONS OF THIS STATUTE CALL FOR DOT DOT DOT,
IT SAYS NONCONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS CALL FOR THAT. AMICUS
CURIAE: A VIOLATION OF A STATUTE, A VIOLATION OF THE LETTER OF STATUTE IS A
TECHNICALLY A NONCONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION. IT'S A STATUTORY
VIOLATION. IF THAT VIOLATION ALSO VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION, THEN YOU HAVE TO
LOOK AT CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES AS A CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION. THE 2
SEPARATE TRACTS NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE YOU DON'T PIN GIN HOLE AETS EITHER STATUTORY
OR CONSTITUTIONAL, IT COULD BE BOTH AT THE SAME TIECHLT IF, YOU'RE TRYING TO
SATISFY STATUTE YOU ALSO HAVE TO SATISFY THE CONSTITUTION.
JUSTICE PATTERSON: IT WOULD BE A TECHNICAL VIOLATION OF THE STATUTES THAT DOESN'T
IMPLICATE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OR STATE TUL RIGHTS OF THE DEFENDANT.
AMICUS CURIAE: IT DOES NOT. ONLY MIGHT AFFECT HIS STATUTORY RIGHTS BUT THOSE
STATUTORY RIGHTS ARE ONLY PROTECTED BY STATUTORY REMEDIES. YOU DON'T
PROTECT STATUTORY RIGHTS WITH CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES. JUSTICE
PATTERSON: IF HIS STATUTORY RIGHTS, IF HIS STATUTORY RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED, BECAUSE
THERE WAS AN ERROR OR AN INTENTIONAL VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE, WHY IS
THAT NOT ONLY A CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION. AMICUS CURIAE:
FIRST OF ALL WE COULD SAY THE STATUTE WAS FOLLOWED, THE POLICE, THERE WAS EXIGENT
CIRCUMSTANCES AND BUT THE BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION SETS MONEY MULL
BEHAVIOR FROM THE POLICE, IT SETS UP A REQUIREMENT OF POLICE BEHAVIOR THAT THE
VIOLATION OF WHICH BRINGS WITH IT THE RATHER DRASTIC REMEDY OF SUPPRESSING
EVIDENCE AS A RESULT. STATUTES THAT ARE VIOLATED DON'T
NECESSARILY -- JUSTICE PATTERSON: I GET THAT AS A GENERAL
PROPOSITION, BUT WHAT'S DIFFICULT TO ENVISION HERE IS WHAT, IF THE STATUTE WAS
VIOLATED AND DEFENDANT'S RIGHTS UNDER THE STATUTE WERE VIOLATED, THE DEFENDANT
IS, THERE'S GOT TO BE A SEARCH AND SEIZURE IMPLICATION TO THAT, ISN'T
THERE OR IS THERE KUSH CURE IN ADDITION TO THE STATUTE. JUSTICE
LA VECCHIA: IS IT BECAUSE THERE COULD BE VIOLATIONS BY THE CARRIER AND ON THE
PARTIES THAT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY, THEY WOULD HAVE I LAET THE STATUTES
PROCEDURES BUT NOT NECESSARILY BE A STATE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION.
AMICUS CURIAE: PRECISELY. JUSTICE ALBIN: I'M TRY LONG TO GET AT THIS
TIME STRAIGHT BECAUSE UJ YOUR MAKING A VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD ARGUE MANY.
YOU'RE NOT CHALLENGING THE EXACT THAT IN 2011 ARTICLE 1 PARAGRAPH 7 APPLIED
NOT ONLY TO THE SECURING OF PHONE DATA BUT LGS CELL SITE DAT TASHGS
YOU'RE NOT CONTESTING THAT, CORRECT? AMICUS CURIAE: NO, BUT ALSO
THE EX SESSIONS TO THAT CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT. JUSTICE
ALBIN: I UNDERSTAND, YOU'RE ARGUING THAT EX JEPT CIRCUMSTANCES APPLY AND IF THEY WERE
(THERE'S NO CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION. AMICUS CURIAE: I ALSO
THE AC L U A AGREES WITH SUTS PROP FER ANALYSIS ANALYSIS.
JUSTICE LA VECCHIA: YOU SAID THEY HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE, ARE YOU SAYING THEY HAD
PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST THIS INDIVIDUAL? AMICUS
CURIAE: THEY A WELL GROUNDED SUSPICION THAT HE WAS INVOLVED IN THE MURDER. YES,
THEY DID HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST HIM, HE WAS LYING ABOUT HIS WHERE
ABOUTS, HE HAD, OBVIOUSLY HAD A MURDER AND YOU HAD SOMEONE WHO HAD, WAS WITH HIM,
WAS SUSPECTED TO BE WITH THE VICTIM, THAT THE SHEER FACT HE'S LYING
ABOUT HIS WHEREABOUTS AND SAID WHO WAS HILL AND HAD ACCESS TO THE DEFENDANT CERTAINLY
IS A STRONG INDICATION THERE'S PROBABLE CAUSE TO SUSPECT HIM IN THIS
MURDER. VEK VK I CAN THAT QUESTION VEK VK I ASK THAT KEGS BECAUSE WE'RE DEALING
WITH A ZIGS WHERE YOU'RE K LOOG FOR LOCATION DATA ABOUT AN INDIVIDUAL,
NOT YOU, THE STATE IS K LOOG FOR LOCATION DATA AND YOU KNOW IN EARLS WE SAID WE
IMPOSING A WARRANT REQUIREMENT BECAUSE WE THINK THAT'S WHAT THE
CONSTITUTION REQUIRES HERE IN NEW JERSEY. BUT WE ACKNOWLEDGE EXIGENCY EXCEPTION.
SO WAFT DOES THE PROBABLE CAUSE PIECE HAVE TO SHOW, IS IT
ENOUGH TO FOCUS ENOUGH ATTENTION OF PROOF OF CRIMINALITY BY THAT INDIVIDUAL IN ORDER
TO JUST TIE LOCATION DATA, IT CAN'T JUST BE, I DON'T THINK, BECAUSE
I'M HAVING TROUBLE LOGICALLY MAKING THIS KEK, THAT THERE MIGHT BE EVIDENCE OF
CRIMINALITY ON HIM OR, I'M HAVING TROUBLE CONNECTING THE DESTRUCTION OF
EVIDENCE PIECE TO THE PROBABLE CAUSE REQUIREMENT FOR EX JEN --
AMICUS CURIAE: HE LEF THE FAKE LICENSE IN THE CAR, STE LEFT ARE THE FAIK LICENSE
IN THERE HE'S LYING ABOUT HIS WHEREABOUTS, CERTAINLY THAT'S HIGHLY
SUSPICIOUS THAT HE'S INVOLVED, WHETHER HE WAS THE ACTUAL SHOOTER OR NOT PERHAPS
THEY DON'T KNOW THAT FOR SURE UT -- VEK I'M NOT TRYING TO ENGAGE YOU.
JUSTICE LA VECCHIA: I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE LEVEL OF EVIDENCE THAT SHOULD BE
PRESENT TO JUST TO ALLOW FOR RK NIGS OF THE EXIGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES FOR
LOCATION DATA THE AND AVOID THE WAR REPRESENT REQUIREMENT BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO
ME SIMPLY POINTING TO THE POTENTIAL DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE BY SOMEONE
DOESN'T MAKE ONE PART OF THE EXIGENCY ANALYSIS. AMICUS CURIAE: I THINK
IT'S RATHER CLEAR THAT EXIGENCY, THE DESTRUCTION OF THE EVIDENCE WOULD BE
BY THIS PARTICULAR DEFENDANT. IT WAS THIS PARTICULAR DEFENDANT THAT LIED ABOUT
BYING WITH THE VICTIM AND LIED ABOUT HIS WHERE BOUSHGS THIS PARTICULAR
DEFENDANT WHICH LEFT HIS FAKE ID IN THE VICTIM'S CAR, IT'S REASONABLE TO FOCUS
ON THIS PARTICULAR DEFENDANT. JUSTICE LA VECCHIA: AND HE'S,
DO YOU AGREE THAT WE NEED TO MAKE THE FOCUS ON WHY THE LOCATION DATA,
THE LOCATION OF THIS INDIVIDUAL IS ESSENTIAL TO THE PROBABLE CAUSE DETERMINATION,
WAS THE BECAUSE THE HE A NOT LIKE HE WAS EXIGENCY TO GO SEARCH THIS
INDIVIDUAL'S HOUSE. IT'S TO FIND HIM. IT'S. AMICUS CURIAE: AND IN
FACT THE HE A ALSO OBJECTIVE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT HE COULD HAVE BEEN
IN DANGER AS WELL. OR SOMEONE ELSE COULD HAVE BEEN IN DANGER, WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT WHO ELSE COULD HAVE BEEN IN DANGER, CERTAINLY MR. DONE BAR WHO HAD GIVEN
INFORMATION IT WAS DAMAGING TO THE DEFENDANT, HE WAS A WITNESS TO THE
DEFENDANT'S LIE, HE COULD HAVE BEEN IN DANGER, THERE WAS A WITNESS WHO HAD SEEN
SOMEONE WALK AR WAY FROM THE CAR. JUSTICE LA VECCHIA: ARE YOU
AGREEING WITH MOW THEN THERE HAS TO BE A VERY POISONED EXIGENCY PROBABLE
CAUSE ANALYSIS IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY AVOIDING THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT IN TLOU CELL PHONE
DATA INFORMATION. AMICUS CURIAE: IT HAS TO BE PARTICULARIZED
CERTAINLY. JUSTICE ALBIN: ISN'T IT TEST AND TELL ME IF
I'M MISTAKEN, IT HAS TO BE OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE BASIS TO BELIEVE THAT
IN THE TIME THAT IT WOULD TAKE TO GET A WARRANT, THERE'S AN OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE
BASIS TO BELIEVE THAT THE PARTICULAR DEFENDANT WILL DESTROY EVIDENCE
OR CAUSE HARM TO SOMEONE? THAT'S THE STANDARD, CORRECT? AMICUS
CURIAE: CERTAINLY. JUSTICE PATTERSON: ISN'T THERE A ADDITIONAL
FACTOR HERE NOT JUST A WAR KENT RENT TO FO GO IN AND A SEARCH AR PHONE THERE'S
RESPONDER ON AT THE OTHER SIEM WHO HAS TEAM OF LAWYERS WHO ARE GOING TO GET INVOLVED
IN THIS SO IT'S THE TIME IT WOULD, IN THIS SITUATION IT WOULD BE THE
TIME WOULD IT TAKE AT A GET A WARRANT, EXECUTE THE WARRANT AND THEN GET A RESPONSE
BECAUSE THAT'S THE UNKNOWN HERE. AMICUS CURIAE: I THINK
SOMETHING HAS BEEN SAID YOU HAVE A WR RENT EARLIER, YOU HAVE A CAR RENT
FOR THE CAR EARL YSHG, THAT'S NOT EXACT THE THE SAME AS GETTING THE COMMUNICATION
WARRANT LATER. AND THE RESPONSE TO THIS FORM WAS ONLY 20 MINUTES. ONE THING
WE COULD BE FAIRLY COULDN'T FELONY OF THE WARRANT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
OBTAINED AND SPONED TO IN 20 MINUTES. SO WE KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THIS APPLYING
FOR THIS EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES FORM PROVIDE ADD SUBSTANTIAL ABL BENEFIT
IN TIME AND AT THE TIME THAT THAT FORM WAS SUBMITTED, THE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE
OBJECTIVELY EXIGENT R SOMEONE WAS SMOT IN THE HEAD AT LEAST ONCE, HE WAS
SHOT FOUR TIMES. THE BODY WAS BURNED, SO YOU HAVE. JUSTICE LA
VECCHIA: IF THAT WAS TRUE WHY DIDN'T THEY GRAB HIM IMMEDIATELY IF WHEN THEY FOUND
HIS LOCATION. AMICUS CURIAE: THAT HAPPENED AFTER THE FACT,
I THINK MR. MILLER IS CORRECT IN THAT THE RECORD WASN'T DEVELOPED IN THAT
REGARD. THE POLICE SAY YOU WANT TO TALK TO THE POLICE STATION, WAS NT TO GO
TO THE POLICE STATION, WHO KNOW WHAT IS PLANS THEY HAD FOR HIM ON HIS
WAY TO THE POLICE STATION. MAYBE THEY WERE GOING TO JUMP HIM ON HIS WAY THERE,
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING TO TRANSPIRE PO ON THE WAY. AL THAT'S
SORT OF GUESSING. MOST MURDERS ARE REALLY, REALLY GREW SOUCHLT.
JUSTICE ALBIN: MANY OF THEM ARE, SO THE QUESTION IS WHEN DOES A WARRANT KICK
IN AND THE QUESTION IS IN THE TIME THAT IT WOULD TAKE TO GET A WARRANT,
DO YOU HAVE PARTICULARLY RIEFD INFORMATION THAT WOULD CREATE AN OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE
BASIS TO BELIEVE THAT SOMEONE IN PARTICULAR IS IN DAWN JER THOR SOME
PIECE OF EVIDENCE WILL BE DESTROYED AND LIKE WHERE IN THE RECORD HAS THAT BEEN
DEVELOPED? AMICUS CURIAE: IT WAS DEVELOPED IN THE RECORD
THAT THIS INDIVIDUAL VIOLENTLY KILLED SOMEONE WHO THE HE WAS SUSPECTED OF POSSIBLY
HAVE I LENLY KILLING SOMEBODY HE CONSIDERED TO BE HIS COUSIN AND HE
TRIED TO BURN THE BODY AND THEN HE OBVIOUSLY WAS SOMEONE WHO WAS DECEPTIVE BECAUSE
HAD HE A FAKE LICENSE IN THE CAR, HE'S, HE LIED ABOUT BUYING WITH HIM,
HE DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER LIE, HE'S LYING ABOUT AND IF HE'S LYING ABOUT THAT,
I TRYING TO DESTROY A BODY HE WOULD TRY TO DESTROY A GUN. JUSTICE
PATTERSON: IS THERE ANY REQUIREMENT ON THE STATE TO IDENTIFY THE WITNESSES WHO
ARE IN DAN JER OR IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC EVIDENCE AT A POINT WHEN THIS IS
EVOLVING, IT'S MOVING VERY QUICKLY AND THEY'RE JUST AT THE BEGIN OF THIGS
INVESTIGATION. AMICUS CURIAE: IT'S NOT PROOF YAVRMENTD.
JUSTICE PATTERSON: I'M NOT SAYING PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. BECAUSE I THINK
SOME OF THE QUESTIONS HAVE REALLY CHARACTERIZED THE TASC AS YOU HAVE
TO IDENTIFY WHO, YOU DIDN'T TELL WHO WAS IN DANGER, YOU DIDN'T TELL WHAT WAS IN
DANGER IN TERMS OF THE HE HAVE. AMICUS CURIAE: THAT WOULD BE
TOO RESTRICTIVE OF A TEST FOR EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, WHEN LIFE IS AT STAKE
WE NODE NO NAMED PERSON TO BE IN PRN I B THIS APPELLATE. FACT SOMEONE COMMITS
NIS URTD AND IT THE EX MRIKS ABL CONSIDERED TO BE HIS CAN YOU SAY TIN HE
TRIES TO BURN THE BODY HE TRY, HE ABANDONS IT IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD,
EATS OBVIOUSLY NOT THINKING CLEARLY, IT'S REASONABLE TO SUSPECT HE'S A DANGER
ON THE LOSE. JUSTICE FERNANDEZ-VINA: WOULDN'T EVERY
MURDER PROVIDE EX JEPT CIRCUMSTANCE, YOU DON'T KNOW WHO IT THEY'RE TRYING TO HIDE
THE MURT THEY MAY HAVE A WEAPON THE MURDER WEAPON. AMICUS
CURIAE: NOT NECESSARILY. JUSTICE FERNANDEZ-VINA: ANY CIRCUMSTANCES
WERE THE WHERE THE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES WOULDN'T AP FLY ANY ANY.
AMICUS CURIAE: SMOES SOMEBODY SHOT SOMEONE AND WALKED AWAY,
THAT MAY NOT IMPLICATE THE BURPG OF A BODY. JUSTICE
FERNANDEZ-VINA: HE'S TRYING TO HIDE HIS DEPARTMENT AT THE. KUSH CURE IT'S THE
NO THE SAY THAT AS BURNING A BODY, AS CAN ACTUALLY LYING TO YOUR FRIENDS
AND THE VICTIM'S FRIENDS ABOUT YOUR LOCATION, ABOUT SOMEONE WHO HAS CAKE DENT
IF THE. JUSTICE FERNANDEZ-VINA: MOST PEOPLE SAY I
DIDN'T DO IT, IT WASN'T ME. AMICUS CURIAE: WE'RE ASKING FOR A TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES TEST WHICH IS AN OBJECTIVE TEST AT THE TIME THE
THIS CASE IS OF GARDEN VARIETY MURDER, THIS CASE IS AN A TEMP TO DESTROY
THE BODY. WE DON'T SEE TOO MANY CASES WHERE THE BODY ITSELF IS BEING TOTALED,
THEY WERE ATTEMPTING TO DESTROY THIS EVIDENCE TOTALLY. THERE WAS A FAKE ID
IN THERE THAT'S INDICATION. JUSTICE ALBIN: MANY MURDER CASES,
I WON'T SAY MOST, ENGAGE SOME FORM OF COVER UP. THE PERSON WHO COMMITS
THE CRIME IS TRYING NOT TO GET CAUGHT. YOU KNOW DISCARDS THE GUN. MAY RUB OUT
THE FINGERPRINTS, LIE TO PEOPLE, THAT IS. AMICUS CURIAE: HE'S
IN THE PROCESS OF DOING, HE'S ACTIVELY IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO DESTROY
EVIDENCE, AETS NOT LIKE WELL HE THEORETICALLY MIGHT WANT TO DO THAT, NO, HE'S
ACTUALLY STRIEING TO DO THAT, HE'S NTS MIDST OF DOING IT.
JUSTICE PATTERSON: YOOR SAYING A GASOLINE FIRE IN A RES DEM NEIGHBORHOOD IN A
CAR IS A VERY EX TRIEM MEASURE TO NAK IN THE IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH OF A CRIME?
AMICUS CURIAE: IT IS AN EXTREME MEASURE, YOU SOMEONE WHO
YOU CONSIDER TO BE YOUR COUSIN AND DEBT GETTING SHOT AND THE MEDICAL EXAMINER
CONFIRMED THAT, TOO, THIS PERSON WAS SHOT BEFORE THEY WERE BURNED AND WE
KNOW THAT THIS INDIVIDUAL IS LIE LONG, HOW MANY TIMES DO THE POLICE HAVE IN A
GARDEN BAR VARIETY MURDER EVIDENCE THAT HE'S LYING ABOUT HAVING BEEN WITH
THE VICTIM. WE KNOW THAT TIES INTO THE VICTIM AND KNOW HE'S ACTIVELY TRYING TO
CONCEALED ACTUALLY PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AND I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT A CASE TO
THIS COURT WHEN UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES AND STATE VERSUS MINIMUM THEE THE
FACT THAT THERE'S BEGUN MAN ON THE LOSE AND A GUN IS UNACCOUNTED FOR IS
CONSIDERED HIGHLY EX JEPT CIRCUMSTANCES, HERE THERE IS A BEGUN MA ON THE LOSE,
A GUN IS UNACCOUNTED FOSHGS THOSE ARE HIGHLY EX JEPT CIRCUMSTANCES, NOW WE'RE
NOT SUGGESTING THAT THAT ALONE MEETS THE TEST. WE ADHERE TO THE TOTALITY
OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES TEST, OBJECTIVE TEST, AT THE TIME THE MRIK IS MADE, BUT
THOSE ARE TWO VERY HIGHLY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES. THEY SHOULD NOT BE
DIMINISHED, NOT ONE FAK FOR AMONG RPS MANY, THEY'RE EXTREMELY POWERFUL
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD BE PROM MANLY MENTIONED IN EVERY CASE BUT YOU LOOK AT THE
ENTIRE IS AND WHEN YOU LOOK ITS ENTIRE CASE HERE FOR THE REASONS MR.
MILLER DISCUSSED AND I DISCUSSED, IT IS VERY EX SUBSEQUENT AND THE STATE IS CONCERNED
ABOUT THE NOTION THAT IT HAPPENED AFTER THE FACT IS DISPOSITIVE. IT'S
NOT SO MUCH THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE, THE PRODUCT OF THE SEARCH WHETHER THEY EVIDENCE
TURNS YOU UT UP OR DOESN'T NEVER MATTER, IT NEVER MAKTSD. THE SAME THING
IS TRUE FOR AN EX JENTS CIRCUMSTANCE SOCIAL SECURITY TEST YOU DON'T DO A EXIGENT
CIRCUMSTANCE SOCIAL SECURITY NAL SIS OH A COUPLE OF HOURS LATER IT WASN'T
REALLY THAT EXIGENT, IT'S THE EXIGENCIES T EXIST AT THE TIME.
JUSTICE ALBIN: I HARD YOU SAY NOT DISPOSITIVE. THAT SOUNDS REASONABLE ARE YOU
SAYING YOU WOULD NEVER APPEAR BEFORE THIS COURT AND ARGUE THAT EVENTS
IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARDS SHINE LIGHT ON THE EXIGENCY THAT OCCURRED WHEN THE APPLICATION
WAS MADE? AMICUS CURIAE: THOSE EVENTS WERE TOTALLY UNFORESEEN
AND UNPREDICTABLE I WOULD IMAGINE THE COURT WOULDN'T ALLOW THE STATE TO MAKE
THAT ARMG. BUT IF THE EVENTS WERE FORESEEABLE -- JUSTICE
ALBIN: I'M ASKING YOU WOULD YOU MAKE THE ARGUMENT CURE KURTS' BEEN A FACTUAL,
ELICITED IN THE FACTS WHAT TRANSPIRED, OF COURSE, BUT ONE WOULD NOT
BE SAYING THESE REASON THE MAKE OR BREAK CIRCUMSTANCES. JUSTICE
ALBIN: I GET UT BUT I'M ASKING YOU WHETHER OR NOT THAT WOULD BE A FACTOR.
AMICUS CURIAE: A VERY SMALL FACTOR IT WOULDN'T OVERRIGHT THE EXISTING
PREEXISTING FACTOR, IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT A SEARCH TURNS UP.
JUSTICE SOLOMON: YOU WOULD TRY BUT YOU WOULD FAIL. AMICUS CURIAE:
YEAH. I MEAN IF WE SAID, SWELL OF COURSE THE SEARCH WAS G THE POLICE FOUND THE
EVIDENCE, I WOULD BE LAUGHED OUT COURT, THE SAME IS THROUGH FOR THE
OPPOSITE THE POLICE DO THE SEARCH AND DIDN'T FIND WHAT THEY WERE K LOOG FOR BT
THEY FOUND SOMETHING ELSE IS AS LONG AS IT WAS REASONABLE WHEN THEY
ACTED. THAT'S THE TEST FOR PROBABLE KAUSHGS THAT'S THE TEST FOR A SEARCH AND
SEIZURES IT'S THE TEST FO EXIGENCY LTHS' AN OBJECTIVE TEST. AND IT IS FROZEN
IN TIME. JUSTICE PATTERSON: IT IS APPROACH IN TIME. I HAVE
1 MORE QUESTION FOR YOU WHAT IS THE PRO SAYS BY WHICH A C D W COULD BE APPLIED
FOR BY PHONE, THERE'S BEEN A REFERENCE HERE, OBVIOUSLY KNOW 1 CAN POSSIBLY
KNOW WHAT A PROCESS EXACTLY TO THE MINUTE WOULD TAKE BUT IF YOU HAD A JUDGE ON
CALL, THE AFFIDAVIT IS PREPARE, WOULD THE AFFIDAVIT BE ACTUALLY FULLY
PREPARED AND THEN THE CALL IS MADE TO THE JUDGE AND THE AFFIDAVIT IS READ TO THE
JUDGE. AMICUS CURIAE: THEIRS A ROW VIEW PROCESS, ATTORNEYS
GET INVOLVED AND STANDARDS HAVE TO BE MET AND ETS A A PROCESS THAT, IT'S WHAT
UNPREDICTABLE AS TO SKABLTHS HOW LONG IT'S GOING TO TAKE.
JUSTICE PATTERSON: I WAS FOE KUCHG ON WAUN ASPECT OF IT BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE THE
TIME TO GO TO SEE A JUDGE, YOU HAVE A WRITTEN AFFIDAVIT, THE JUDGE REVIEWS
THE AFFIDAVIT. ON A TELEPHONE WARRANT WITH COMPLICATED AFFIDAVITS, WHAT'S THE
PROCESS TO CONVEY THE INFORMATION THAT'S IN THE AFFIDAVIT TO THE JUFRNGS ARE
THEY RED, I BELIEVE IT'S READ TO THE. AMICUS CURIAE: AFTER THE EVER
PHONE. JUSTICE PATTERSON: THE EVIDENCE WOULD BE FULLY PRO
PAIRED BUT THN READ TO THE JUDGE. YOU CAN'T SKIP, THE AFFIDAVIT JUST BECAUSE
IT'S BY PHONE. CURE SECURE THE FULL AFFIDAVIT THAT'S SIGNED BY THE OFFICE
AND REVIEWED BY AT LEAST ONE ATTORNEY AND SO IT'S A NOT A PROCESS WE JUST DIAL
A JUDGE'S NUMBER AND YOU'RE IN BUSINESS IT WOULD NOT, I A WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY
HOUMG THE WOULD TAKE BUT I'M COMFORTABLE TO SAY IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE THAN
THE 20 MINUTES THAT'S EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES. JUSTICE
ALBIN: ARE YOU SAYING THAT PT A POLICE OFFICER CANNOT CALL UP THE JUDGE WHEN
THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRING AN IMMEDIATE WARRANT, GET SWORN IN
OVER THE TELEPHONE AND CONVEY THE INFORMATION? CURE COULD YOU REMEMBER MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THE ATTORNEY HAS TO BE INVOLVED IN THAT DECISION, AN
ATTORNEY HAS TO BE CALLED FIRST. JUSTICE SOLOMON: ARE YOU AWARE OF
ANY WARRANT, WIRETAP WARRANT BEING GIVEN OVER THE PHONE EVER?
AMICUS CURIAE: IT'S USUALLY A VERY, SOL SOM I'M ASKING ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT EVER
HAPPENING? AMICUS CURIAE: ACTUAL I CAN'T SIGH WITH 1 HEN
PERCENT CERTAINTY. I CAN'T SAY IT NEVER HAPPEN BUT IT'S DEFINITELY NOT IS THE
PREFER PRACTICE. JUSTICE SOLOMON: YOU SEE A LOT OF THESE I
ASSUME COMING THROUGH YOUR OFFICE AND DELTS WITH A LOT OF THEM?
AMICUS CURIAE: I'VE SEEN A NUMBER OF THEM. JUSTICE SOLOMON: HAVE YOU
EVER SEEN ONE THAT WAS DONE OVER THE PHONE. AMICUS CURIAE:
I HAVE NOT MYSELF. JUSTICE ALBIN: THIS ISN'T A WIRETAP, THOUGH.
CURE KURTS' A C D W. IT'S A PROCESS THAT IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN LONGER
THAN 20 MINUTES AND IN EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES AND ASSUMING EXIGENT
CIRCUMSTANCES IS PRESENT, 20 MINUTES IS A LOT BETTER THAN THAT WARRANT WOULD
HAVE TAKEN, IF LIFE IF, EVIDENCE WAS IN JEOPARDY OF BEING DESTROYED IN LIFE HUNG
IN THE BALANCE, TWEN MINUTES IS A LOT BETTER THAN WERE WHAT WHAT ARE
REPRESENT WOULD GIVE YOU THN THAT'S ATS TAFRN ABL DIFFERENCE AND WE DON'T KNOW
HOW LONG THAT WARREN WOULD BE, SO THAT WARRANT WOULD HAVE, IT WAS OBTAINED
AFTER THE FACT IS REALLY QUITE IRRELEVANT. AND YOU KNOW JUDGES DON'T ALWAYS DROP
WHAT THEIR DOING TO ADD DROES THESE, SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO GET IN LINE WITH
WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE JUDGE IS DOING THAT DAY, THIS IS I THINK DURING
CLOSE TO THE WORK I'M. THE THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT WARRANTS TAKE X A TIME
AND I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S A WARRANT FOR THE CAR IS NECESSARY IS
DISPOSITIVE THE WAR REPRESENT FOR THE CAR TOOK A COUPLE OF HOURS. THIS FORM
TOOK 20 MINUTES AND 20 MINUTES IS A LOT BETTER THAT UNDER AN EXIGENT SET OF
CIRCUMSTANCES, WE WOULD WANT A FORM THAT GETS THAT EVIDENCE TO THE POLICE IN
20 MINUTES RATHER THAN WAIT FOR HOWEVER LONG A WARRANT MIGHT TAKE. AND FOR THOSE
REASONS, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL REVERSE HAVE THE APPELLATE DIVISION WHICH
IS NOT ACTUALLY BY IET PARTY OR BRIEFED THAT ADDRESS THE EX JENTS CIRCUMSTANCES
IS ARGUMENT INTO REVERSE THE APPELLATE DWINGS AFFIRM THE TRIAL COURT'S
RULING L. THE COURT: RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: SUMMARIZED
XALT WHAT IS GLOWING ONG IN IN CASE WHEN HE SAID THAT THIS CASE INVOLVED
A MOID AND A MOIDER WHO DOESN'T WANT ANYONE TO KNOW HE WASED MOID RER IS THATS'
THIS CASE FRMENTS THAT'S PRESUMABLY MOST DP NOT ALL OTHER MOID CASES. THAT
CAN'T BE ENOUGH FOR EXIGENCY. THERE IS NO LIMITING PRINCIPAL IN WHAT THE STATE
IS ASKING THIS COURT TO DO. IT CAN'T BE THAT THERE WAS A BURNED BODY THAT
WANT BE OUR LIMIT WILL GO PRINCIPAL. THE LIMITING PRINCIPAL HAS TO BE A TRUE
ACTUAL EXIGENCY. AND IT IS THE STATE'S BURDEN TO PROVE THAT EXIGENCY. SO WHEN
THE STATE SPECULATES TO THIS COURT ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF TIME IT MAY HAVE
TAKEN TO GET A WARRANT, THEY SHOULD HAVE A V ESTABLISHED THAT ON THAN RECORD THERE
WAS NEVER ANY EVIDENCE IN THIS RECORD WHERE THE COP SAID I MADE THIS
DECISION BECAUSE I KNEW IT WAS GOING TO TAKE X AMOUNT OF HOURS TO GET A WARRANT
AND I COULDN'T TAKE THAT TIME TO DO IT. IT'S ALSO 20 MINUTES ISN'T REALLY THE
RELEVANT TIME PERIOD HERE. AT 4: 30 IN THE AFTERNOON THE POLICE LEARNED
THEY HAD SPOKEN TO THE WITNESS OR THE FRIEND IN BROOKLYN AND THE POLICE HAD LEARNED
THAT THERE WAS SOME INFORMATION THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD SPOKEN TO THIS PERSON,
HAD GIVEN HIM INCONSISTENT INFORMATION, THE POLICE LOOKED AT THE PICTURE, THEY
DEVELOPED SOME OF THEIR SUSPICIONS ABOUT THE DEFENDANT. THAT WAS AT 4.
306789 IN THE AFTERNOON. THEY REQUESTED AT 7: 30, 7: 39 P.M. THEY REQUESTED
JINTS CIRCUMSTANCES INFORMATION FROM THE PHONE CARRIER. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT
HAPPENED DURATION THOSE 3 HOURS WE DON'T KNOW WHY A WARRANT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN
OBTAINED DURATION THOSE 3 HOURS. THERE IS NO. JUSTICE SOLOMON:
I AM SORRY WHAT IS YOUR POSITION WITH RESPECT TO AFTER THE FACT DEVELOP NLTS
HOW IT ALL TURNED OUT IN EITHER DIRECTION, ARE THEY IN OR ARE THEY OUT OF THE AND THE
SIS. RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: THERE IS A DISTINCTION ON THE ONE
HAND UKS HAFZ AFTER THE FACT SAY SOMEONE ELSE HAD BEEN KILLED AFTER THE FACT.
THAT'S NOT GOING TO GO BACK AND JUSTIFY RETROACTIVELY THE EXIGENT
CIRCUMSTANCES. JUSTICE SOLOMON: AND THE REASON YOU WOULD
ASHGS PATS. JUSTICE PATTERSON: PAT VERY STRONGLY ON KEEPING
THAT OUT IS BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT KNOWN TO THE POLICE AT THE TIME.
RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: IT'S NOT RELEVANT TO WHAT THE POLICE KNEW AT THE TIME.
RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: Q. SOAKS THAT SO THAT IS TSD TEST WHAT
THE MRISZ FLEW AT THE TIME? RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: RIGHT WHAT
WE KNOW IN THIS SITUATION IS DIFFERENT KWEEF POLICE MANLING A CLAIM THAT
THEY BLEEFZ THAT THERE WERE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES. THIS EVEN WE HAVE EVIDENCE
OF HOW THE POLICE ACTED IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS THAT DREL CONTACTS DOUBT
ON THE CREDIBILITY AND THE VALIDITY OF THAT POSITION. WE ARE NOT TRYING TO
INTRODUCE SOME NEW THING THAT HAPPENED SOME NEW EVENT LIKE SOMEONE BEING KILLED,
WE'RE SAYING THE WAY THAT THE POLICE ACTED IN THE DAYS FOLLOWING IS VERY INCONSISTENT
WITH THE CLAIM THAT THEY MADE. JUSTICE PATTERSON: BUT ARE
THOSE TWO ANALYTICALLY ANY DIFFERENT? BECAUSE IF EVENTS HAVE TRANSPIRED
AND THERE WAS A SECOND AND THIRD MOID, ON THE NIGHT AND THE STATE WERE SGLIES WAS
COMING INTO SAY WE APPELLANT IT THEN, WE IT TURNED OUT OUR SUSPICIONS WERE
CORRECT THEY WERE MORE THAN REASONABLE AND GUESS WHAT, GOING TO REASONABLENESS
FOR THESE SKWENTS ENTHS WHY IS THAT AND LIT CLI DIFFERENT FROM WHAT YOU SAY IS
A DIFFERENT SITUATION WHICH IS THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE A REASONABLE BASIS
TO BE HAVE THOSE CONCERNS? RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: BECAUSE THE FIRST
INCIDENT WHERE SAY THERE IS ANOTHER MOID IS THEY'RE TRIEGS TO USE THIS SPRALT
IJS DENT THAT HAPPENED TO BOLSTER THEIR CLAIM. AND YOU CAN'T BOLSTER WHETHER
THERE WAS AN EXIGENCY AT THE TIME BY THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT THEN DID
SOGS ELSE WRONG. THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN WHEN YOU HAVE A POLICE MAKESING A CLAIM
WHEN HAD TO ACT THIS WAY BECAUSE THERE WAS A MAD GUN MAN ON THE LOOKS AND
WE WERE SCARED AND WE THOUGHT WE WERE AT RISK WE THOUGHT THE POLICE WATT AT RISK,
AND THEN SOMETHING HAPPENS IN THE CLOSE FUTURE THAT DIRECTLY CASTS DOUBT ON
THAT SOL SOLT WHY IS THAT DIFFERENT? BOTH POST EVENTS EFFECT THE PRIOR DECISION.
HOW IS THAT ANY DIFFERENT? RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: THEY EFFECT
THE CREDIBILITY OF THE OFFICER. SO THE SECOND. JUSTICE SOLOMON:
DOESN'T THE FORMER. RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: NO A SECTION MURDER
DOOS THAN EFFECT THE CREDIBILITY OF THE OFFICER THE. RESPONDENT'S
ATTORNEY: SURE IT DOES I WAS RIGHT. JUSTICE SOLOMON: SOL.
RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: BUT THAT IS NOT GOING TO THEIR KREKT
THAT IS AFTER THE FACTS JUSTIFYING WHAT THEY DID. BUT WHETHER THERE WAS ANOTHER
MURDER OR NOT ANOTHER MOID DOESN'T MAKE THE OFFICER NOER OR LESS CREDIBILITY
WHEN HE IS CLAIMS HE WAS AKING IT MAYBE MAKES HIM RIGHT BUT IT DOESN'T MAKE HIM
MORE OR LESS CREDIBLE. JUSTICE SOLOMON: RIGHT VERSUS VONG
RIGHT VOS VONGS LET ME ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION HOW DO YOU ESTABLISH NUMBER
ONE AND NUMBER TWO ARE YOU HAVE YOU HAVE HEARD OF A C D W BEING GRANTED OEFRLT
PHONE? RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: I WOULD HAVE NO, I HAVE NOT
BUT THAT SNOTD VERY MEANINGFUL BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH THAT.
JUSTICE SOLOMON: I AM JUDGE US ASKING IJ JUDGE US CURIOUS. A. KNOW E I
DON'T SOL SOLG I WILL ASK YOUR COLLEAGUE HOW DO YOU DIMINISHING NINLT #23450E.
A. I THINK HERE THIS IS A COMPLETE LACK OF ANYTHING AND WHEN THE STATE
SAYS. JUSTICE SOLOMON: BUT ISN'T IT I AM JUST ASKING
DISTINGUISHING IT FROM THE FACT BECAUSE ARNTS THE FACTS SOMEWHAT SIMILAR AND ISN'T
THE ONLY DISTINCTION WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THE FACT HERE?
RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: I THINK WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THE FACT IS VERY RELEVANT.
JUSTICE SOLOMON: I AM NOT ASKING RELEVANT. IS THAT THE DIFFERENCE?
RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: THAT IS CERTAINLY A VERY SIGNIFICANT
DANT DIFFERENCE ABSOLUTELY. JUSTICE PATTERSON: IF THERE WAS AN AFTER
THE FACT EVENT THAT AFFECTED THE CREDIBILITY OF THE OFFICERS
REASONABLENESS DETERMINATION AT THE TIME AND I AM NOT GETTING INTO WHAT THAT WOK,
SHOULD THAT COME IN IF THAT EXISTS IN A DIFFERENT CASE? SEE WHAT I MEAN? IN
THE NEXT CASE IF A TRIAL COURT WERE TO ASSESS AN AFTER THE FACT EVENT TO BE RELEVANT
TO THE CREDIBILITY OF THE OFFICERS ASSESSMENT AT THE TIME OF THE EXIGENCY
DETERMINATION, SHOULD THAT TRIAL JUDGE LET THAT AFTER THE FACT EVENT IN?
RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: IF IT GOES TO THE CREDIBILITY OF THE OFFICERS' CLAIM.
AND THAT'S WHAT IT DOES HERE THAT'S TS DIFFERENCE PATS PAT IF IT BOELS FERS
THE CREDIBLE I NOT GETING INTO WHAT IT IS. RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY:
BOELS TERS CREDIBLE PALTD FAT YOU ARE MAKING A GOOD ASHTH FOR YOUR CLIENTS
IF IT IS HURTS THE CORRECT IT COULD MS IF IF IT BOELS TERS IT SHOULDN'T WHAT IF
AN AFTER THE FACT EVENT WERE TO BOLSTER THE KREKT OF THE OFFICER SHOULD THE TRIAL
COURT LET THAT IN? RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: IF I WERE STANG
HERE AND WE HAD A SITUATION WHERE THE POLICE CLAIMED EXIGENCY AND THE POLICE
SPENT THE NEXT 48 HOURS SEARCHING EVERY WHERE, UNCOVERING EVERY ROCK TRYING TO
FIND THIS DEFLT, I DEENT KNOW THAT I WOULD HAVE GOOD OF AN ARGUMENT TO SAY
THAT THAT'S NOT AT LEAST SOMEWHAT RELEVANT TO YOUR CONSIDERATION.
JUSTICE ALBIN: THE DISTINCTION YOU ARE MAKESS AS I AM LISZ EVENING TO YOU IS THE
DIFFICULTIES SFINGS BETWEEN A COURSE OF CONDUCT ON THE PART OF POLICE
THROUGHOUT AS OPPOSED TO SOME OTHER EXTERNAL EVENT THAT IS BEING USED TO AFTER THE
FACT COLLATERALLY ATTACK THE POLICE. RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY:
RIGHT SOME OTHER EVENT AFTER THE FACT THAT WOULD SAY WOULD YOU YOU HAVE REALLY
MUTD HAUFK RIGHT BECAUSE HE DID GO KILT SOME WOON ELSE THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN SOMETHING
THAT HAPPENS THAT SHOWS GOES TO THE CREDIBILITY OF WHAT THE OFFICERS ARE
CLANLING PRECIPITATED THEIR ACTIONS THEY'RE CLAIMING WE HAD TO ACT, WE HAD NO CHOICE,
WE HAD AN ARMED GUN MAN ON THE LOOZ WEEDS TO GET HIM IT WAS IMMEDIATE WE
COULDN'T GET A WARRANT. AND THEN FOR THE NEXT 2 DAYS YOU HAVE THE OFFICERS ACTING
COMPLETELY INCONSISTENT WITH THAT. JUSTICE PATTERSON: SO IF
THE MIER I WILL JUST FINISH AND HAND OVER THE MIKE TO MY COLLEAGUE HERE SO
IF THE OFFICERS CONTINUED TO AFTER THE EXIGENCY DETERMINATION IF THE OFFICERS CONTINUED
TO INTENSELY LOOK EVERY WHERE, THAT SHOULD COME IN. RESPONDENT'S
ATTORNEY: I DON'T THINK IT'S DETERMINE NATIVE BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD HAVE
A VERY STRONG ARGUMENT FOR SAYING THAT THE COURT COULDN'T AT LEAST LOOK
AT THAT. JUSTICE LAVECCHIA: MISS PRONE, IN THE WRITTEN APPLICATION
FOR EXIGENCY THERE WAS REFERENCE TO THE SUSPECT BEING ARMED, BEING DANGEROUS.
LATER ON NOW WE ARE HEARING IN THE APPLICATION OF THAT WITH REGARD TO
THAT ITS RELATION TO DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE TELL US YOUR POSITION ON WHAT IF ANY
ROLE SOMEONE WOULD SAY SPECULATION ABOUT DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE SHOULD PLAY OR
COULD PLAY IN AN EXIGENCY ANALYSIS. RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: NONE WHEN
IT'S JUST MERE SPECULATION. THERE HAS TO BE A PARTICULARS LIESED: THERE
IS AMGS THE POCK THAT A DEFENDANT WILL DESTROY EVIDENCE. ALWAYS. AND THAT CAN'T
BE A LIMITING PRINCIPAL THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING PARTICULARIZED, SOME REASON
TO BELIEVE AND THE EXAMPLE I THINK YOUR HONOR GAVE EARLIER IN A DRUG CASE WHEN
THEY BELIEVE THE DEFENDANT. JUSTICE FERNANDEZ-VINA: BURN
A BOTD I PERHAPS. A. NOIR. Q. BURJS TS BODY PERHAPS?
A. I DON'T SEE HOW BURNING BURNING THE BOTD I SLOWS HE DIDN'T WANT TO
GET CALL THE MOST MURDERS ALL MURD RERS DON'T. Q. ISN'T IS THAT
DESTROYING EVIDENCE OF BALLISTICS, SOME TYPE OF REASON THAT MIGHT BE A TRIBL
ABL TRACE ABL TO THE DEFENDANT? A. HE CERTAINLY IS TRYING TO COVER UP WHAT HE
DID. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: SUPPOSE YOU HAD A CASE WITH TEN
STRANDS OF EVIDENCE OUT THERE AND THE SUSPECT HAD ALREADY TAKEN STEPS TO DESTROY
HALF OF THEM, WOULD THAT BE A BASIS TO ARGUE ON THE STATE'S PART DESTRUCTION
OF EVIDENCE CREATES AN EXIGENCY. RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: IF THEY COULD
POINTS TO PARTICULARIZED REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS ADDITIONAL
EVIDENCE OUT THERE, SPECIFIC EVIDENCE THAT THEY BELIEVED THE DEFENDANT HAD THE MEANS
AND THE INTENT TO DESTROY, THEN YES PATS PATS HOW DO THEY SFOBLT PLEA KNOW
WHAT THAT IS AT THIS STAGE IN THEY FIND A BODY THEY FIND AN ID YOU KNOW OBVIOUSLY
YOU KNOW THE FACTS VERY WELL, HOW COULD THEY POSSIBLY BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY
FOR A COURT HERE IS A LIST OF EVIDENCE WE THINK IS OUT THERE THAT IS IN DANGER?
RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: I THINK THAT'S WHY THIS IS A VERY FLAIR
ROW EXCEPTION. I WOULD IMAGINE IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES THEY CAN'T DO THAT THEN THERE
IS NOT EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES. JUSTICE LAVECCHIA: WOULD YOU
SAY IF THEY CAN'T MAKE THAT APPLICATION THEY WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ABLE TO
MAKE IT ND NGDZ A WARRANTS SO THEY CAN'T DO IT UNDER A WARRANT APPLICATION THEY
SHOULD THAN BE ABLE TO DO IT JDZ AN I DLANL OF JIRNGS?
RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: I AM NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
JUSTICE LAVECCHIA: WOULDN'T THE SAME KIND OF DEMONSTRATION WITH PARTICULARITY BE
NECESSARY FOR A WARRANT APPLICATION AND TO SAY I HAVE EXIGENCY I DON'T HAVE
TO SHOW THE SAME LEVEL OF PARTICULAR LIES SAGS UNDER AN EXIGENCY EXPLANATION THAN
WE'RE DIVORCEING THE TWO? RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: YES, I AGREE
REQUEST THAT YOUR HONOR. JUSTICE ALBIN: THE OTHER PIECE OF
IT IS WHORT THE TIME OF WHICH IT WOULD TAKE TO GET THE WARRANT IS THE ^
BRAKING ^ BREAKING POINT THAT IF I GO TO GET THE WARRANTS IT IS GOING TO GETS DOE
STRIED. RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: CORRECT.
JUSTICE ALBIN: THERE HAS TO BE A SHOWING THAT THE LOSS OF TIME IS REALLY GOING
TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: EXACTLY. SO WIE
REALLY NEED TO START WITH WHAT IT IS AFRN THEN WE NEED TO KNOW HOW, WHEN,
WHY, WE THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE DESTROYED. WE DON'T EVEN KNOW HERE THE
DIFFERENCE IN TIME THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETWEEN THE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES
REQUEST AND THE WARRANT. SO NOW WE'RE SPECULATING THAT SOME UNKNOWN PIECE OF
EVIDENCE COULD BE DESTROYED AT SOME UNKNOWN TIME AND SOME UNKNOWN ADDITIONAL
AMOUNT OF TIME THAT IT TAKES TO GET A WARRANT WOULD HAVE MADE THE DIFFERENCE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS SOLT BUT IT IS WHATS THAN UNNOIN THEDZ TAUKSD TO A
NEW JERSEY OF WITNESSES ALONG THE LINE WHO HAD PROVIDED EVIDENCE THAT THIS DEFENDANT
WAS THE TARGET AND THEY YOU HEARD THE STATE SAY WE WERE CONCERNED HE JUST
BURNED KILLED HIS COUSIN AND BURNED THE BODY AND WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THEM.
RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: IT'S A DONE ACT RIGHT? THERE WAS A
MURDER THERE WAS A BODY BURNDZ THERE IS NOTHING THERE IS NOTHING THAT THE STATE
POINTS TO. JUSTICE SOLOMON: YOU ARE ASKING.
RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: I AM SORRY SAIL SAIL YOU ARE ASKING ABOUT WHAT ARE THE THINGS
THAT WERE AT RISK AND TS STATE STOOD UP HERE FOR PROBABLY LONGER THAN THEY HAD
TO AND SAID THERE WAS A BURNED BODY OF HIS COUSIN WHO HAD CAN SHOT AND THERE WERE
THESE OTHER WITNESSES BECAUSE WE EVER TALK TO THEM THEY KNEW HIS WHEREABOUTS,
THEY PRETTY MUCH POINTSED THE FINGER AT HIM, ISN'T THAT EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE NOT TO MENTION THE GUN WHICH THEY NEVER
RECOVERED ISN'T THAT EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT?
RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: NO BECAUSE THERE IS NO RISK. THAT BODY WAS BURNED THAT'S
DONE. JUSTICE SOLOMON: THEY HAVE A GUN YOU CAN SHOOT THE
WITNESS YOU COULD SET THAT BODY ON FIRE. RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: BUT
THE MAJORITY OF MURDERS HAVE A GUN AND THEY COULD SHOOT A WITNESS THERE IS
ALWAYS WITNESSES OR THERE IS OFSH WITNESSES. JUSTICE SOLOMON: I
KNOW BUT YOU JUDGE US SAID WHAT EVIDENCE, WHAT WHAT IS IT THAT WAS AT RISK AND
I'M JUST REPEATING WHAT THE STATE SAID ARNTD YOU IGNORING THAT?
RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: NO. SO THE BODIES' NOT AT RISK RIGHT WE ESTABLISHED THAT
BECAUSE IT'S DONE WHAT THEY DID WITH THE BODY WHAT WAS DONE WITH BOTD I WAS
DONE. SO NOW THE STATE NEEDS TO SHOW WHAT EVIDENCE IS AT RISK OF BEING
DESTROYED. JUSTICE SOLOMON: ISN'T THAT WHAT THEY SAID? OTHER
WITNESSES. RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: BUT THERE IS NO BASIS TO
CONCLUDE THAT. JUSTICE SOLOMON: I GET YOU I AM SORRY.
CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: IF TLDZ BEEN NO EVIDENCE OF DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE
IN THIS CASE YOU WOULD STEP FORWARD WITH AH VERY REASONABLE ARGUMENT AND SAY
THIS IS COMPLETE SPECULATION ON THE PART OF THE STATE CORRECT? SO HERE YOU HAVE
DEMONSTRABLE EVIDENCE THAT'S QUITE STREEM, DOESN'T THAT FACTOR INTO WHETHER THERE
IS A BASIS TO ASSESS DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE AS ONE OF THE RISKS AT STAKE?
RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: IT'S THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW -- SO PRESUMABLY ANY
DEFENDANT IS GOING TO TRY TO COVER UP THE CRIME, WHETHER IT'S BURNING THE
BODY IT'S BUR REEG THE BODY IT IS OH E DOE V. PORITZ POSING FRLT BODZ I IN SOME
WAY. AND MY POSITION IS MAYBE IT'S PARTICULARLY WHO ARE RIVENGS THAT THE
BODY WAS BURNED BUT THAT DOESN'T TAKE US OUT OF THE WHAT CARPENTER REFERS TO AGS
THE MIND RUN INVESTIGATION. THIS IS AN INVESTIGATION OF SOMETHING THAT
ALREADY HAPPENED. AND THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW FOR THE POLICE TO POINT TO WITH
ANY TYPE OF PARTICULARITY OF WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE. THAT
IS GOING TO CREATE THE RISK OF DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE OR INJURY TO A WITNESS.
THAT'S JUGS PULL OUT OF NOWHERE THERE IS NO THERE IS NOTHING TO TURN TO EXCEPT
THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A WITNESS TO SUGGEST THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS GOING TO KILL
A WITNESS. I MEAN, YOU COULD SAY ANY MURDER DEFENDANT COULD HAVE AN IN
SEN I HAVE TO KILL A WITNESS. THERE HAS TO BE A LIMITING PRINCIPAL AND THE STATE
AS MUCH ANS THEY TALK ABOUT THE BURNED BODY AND THAT THIS ISN'T A MA THAN
WITH A FWUN EXCEPTION OR THIS ISN'T A MURDER EXCEPTION, IN THE END THATS' EXACTLY
WHAT THEY THEY ARE ASKING THIS COURT FOR, BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT OFFERED ANY
PARTICULARIZED SUSPICION. AND WITHOUT PARTICULARIZED SUSZ PETITION, IF ALL
THAT YOU ARE RELYING ON IS THAT THIS WAS AN OFFENSE COMMITTED WITH A GUN AND THE
MURDERER WASN'T CAUGHT YET, THEN THAT'S A MURDER EXCEPTION TO THE EXIGENT
CIRCUMSTANCES DOCTRINE. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: MISS PRONE I WRAN TO
MANY COME BACK TO TIMEING FO ARE A MOEM TIMEING WITH RESPECT TO OBJECTING
TANK A WARRANT. C D W WARRANTS ARE TECHNICAL WARRANTS YOU WOULD FREE WITH THAT
RIGHT. RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: CORRECT. CHIEF JUSTICE
RABNER: SO THEY TAKE SOMETIME TO CRAFT. HOWEVER MUCH TIME THEY TAKE THAT'S A
FAIR PART OF THE ANALYSIS, CORRECT. RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: IF IT WERE
ESTABLISHED IN THE RECORD. I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH TIME THEY TAKE
AND IS THE IT WAS RNL IFRNLT THE COURT CAN'T GET AGAIN SETTING AN I SIDE THE PROO
E SIZE NEW JERSEY OF MRINLS THAT IT MIGHT TAKE HOWEVER LOJS #I9 TAKES IS
A LEGITIMATE CONSIDERATION IN ASSESSING EXIGENCY. RESPONDENT'S
ATTORNEY: CORRECT. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: AND TIME FOR REVIEW
WOULD MS BE FOORD IN AS A LEGITIMATE CONCERN IN ASSESSING EXIGENCY.
RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: I THINK AS LONG AS IT WERE ESTABLISHED ON P RECORD THAT THERE
IS A TIME FOR REVIEW I DON'T ACTUALLY I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROCESS IS.
CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: YOU DON'T THINK IT COURT CAN'T TAKE NOTICE
THAT WHEN WE KNOW THESE MATTERS ARE GOING TO BE ASSESSED DOWN THE READ WITH CARE
AS THEY ARE RIGHT NOW, WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE ATTORNEYS INVOLVED IN REVIEWING?
RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: THEY MAY HAVE ATTORNEYS INVOLVED IN
REVIEWING. THAT VERY WELG MAYBE THE CASE. I DON'T KNOW THAT FROM THIS RECORD.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROCESS WOULD HAVE BEEN FOR THEM TO OBTAIN A WARRANT
IN THIS RECORD. JUSTICE SOLOMON: WASN'T THIS JUDGE THE WIESH
TAP JUDGE AND HADN'T SHE DONE THESE KINDS OF WARRANTS BEFORE? IN OTHER WORDS,
SHE TALKED BRIEFLY ABOUT THE TIME IT WOULD TAKE. IS THE JUDGE ENTITLED TO
CONSIDER THAT IN LIGHT OF HER EXPERIENCE. RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: I
MEAN I THINK CERTAINLY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION AND ALSO WHAT YOU WERE SAYING
JUSTICE RABNER, SURE YOU CAN TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE LONGER TO
GET A WARRANT THEN IT'S GOING TO TAKE TO DO AN EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES.
JUSTICE SOLOMON: NO BUT IMPLICITLY THIS IS THE WARRANT JUDGE, SHE KNOWS WHAT
IT TAKES TO GET IT, CAN'T SHE TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT SHE MADE THE JUDGMENT
IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN A WHILE IT WOULD THAT I HAVE TAKEN TIME.
RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: WHAT DOES THAT MEAN. JUSTICE SOLOMON: ALL RIGHT
I WILL HAVE TO ASK HER. RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: DOES THAT MEAN
THAT THE 3 HOURS THEY HAD WASN'T ENOUGH? MABL IT DID TAKE A WHILE BUT MAYBE
THEY COULD HAVE DONE IT. Q. 3 HOURS SGLURNLTS THERE IS NOTHING IN THE
RECORD TO STHOE THAT THEY COULDN'T SOL SOLT SHOULD BE BE REMANDING TO THE
JUDGE TO EXPLAIN WHAT SHE MEANT IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN A LONG TIME?
RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: NO THE STATE HAD ITS OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE A RECORD TO ESTABLISH
EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES AND THEY FAILED TO DO SO. THE STATE SKO HAVE INTRODUCED
OEFRTS OF HOW LONG IT TYPICALLY TAKES TO OBTAIN A WARN. AND THAT IT WAS MORE THAN
3 HOURS AND THAT THEY HAD TO DO IT THEY DIDN'T DO THAT. JUSTICE
LAVECCHIA: YOUR ARTHD IN A NUT SHEM IS WHEN THIS COURT ISSUED ITS ERLS DECISION
WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRIVACY IN LOCATION DATA AND WE EXPECTED A
WARRANT AND WE CAN'T HAVE EXIGENCY BLOWING A HOLE IN THAT EXPECTATION WITHOUT REALLY
A GOOD EXPLANATION FOR WHY IT CAN'T BE MET. RESPONDENT'S
ATTORNEY: THAT IS EXACTLY MY POSITION YOUR HONOR. CHIEF JUSTICE
RABNER: THANK YOU MISS PRONE. MR. SIN INS. MR. SININS: MAY IT PLEASE
THE COURT. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO FOCUS THE COURT'S ATTENTION ON RTD CAN SGLIEKT
EXACT EVIDENCE THAT WE ARE TALK CAN ABOUT BECAUSE THAT REALLY WASN'T
REALLY DISCUSSED YET IN ARGUMENT AND I THINK IT'S HIGHLY RM AND POINTS UNTHE
A KILLING LEASE LEELG IN THE STATE'S POSITION. THERE WERE
3 PIECES OF ECHTS THAT THE EMERGENCY APPLICATION TO THE PROVIDER ASKED FOR,
CURRENT REAL TIME G P S LOCATION, HISTORICAL, HISTORICAL LOCATION, AND
CALL RECORDS. ONLY ONE OF THOSE THINGS HAS ANYTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH AN
EXIGENCY. THERE IS NO EXIGENCY FOR A CALL RECORD. THERE IS NO EXIGENCY
FOR HISTORICAL RECORDS. THOSE HAVE TO DO WITH SOLVING CRIME. THAT HAS NOTHING
TO DO WITH AN EXIGENCY. SO REALLY WHAT THE STATE IS SAYING IS WE WANTED
TO FIND THIS GUY. AND JUSTICE LAVR YA HAD ASKED THE QUESTION WELL DID YOU EVER
PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST THIS GUY? BECAUSE IF YOU HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO
ARREST THIS GUY, THEN WHY NOT GET AN ARREST WARRANT FOR IN GUY AND THEN WE ONE
EVEN BE TALKING ABOUT ANY OF THIS STUFF. BUT THEY DIDN'T HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE
TO ARREST HIM THEY SUSPECTED HIM THERE WAS AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION
AND UNDERSTAND BLEE THE POLICE WANTED TO SOLVE THIS CRIME.
JUSTICE SOLOMON: BUT IF THE PHONES' TURNED OFF, DOESN'T HIS TOSHGS CALIFORNIA
CELL SITE INFORMATION TELL YOU WHERE HE MIGHT BE? THE PHONE WENT OFFER
AT 15 MINUTES AGO WE KNOW WHERELY WAS 15 MINUTES AGO. DOESN'T THAT HELP YOU FIND
HIM? MR. SININS: IT MIGHT HELP YOU FIND HIM BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY
ASKED FOR THOSE THAT THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY ASKED FOR NECESSITY ASKED FOR DAYS
WORTH OF DATA: JUSTICE SOLOMON: I GOFRP YA BUT HIS KOSHG
TALG DAT IN SOME FASHION ON KRELG SITE LOCATION MIGHT GIF YOU WHERE HE IS.
MR. SININS: I WOULD AGREE DEPENDING ON WHICH THE PHONE WAS TURNED OFF:
JUSTICE SOLOMON: OKAY OKAY. A. BUT WHEN THEY MADE SUCH AN EMERGENCY
APPLICATION THEY HAD NO IDEA THE PHONE WAS OFF SO WHEN THEY MADE THAT APPLICATION
THEY WERE SEEK SHG TO SELL VERY THE CRIME THEY WEREN'T SAYING TO THEMSELVES WELL,
THE PHONE MAYBE OFF SO WE NEED THE HISTORICAL DATA THEY WANTED DAYS WORTH
OF DATA IT IS NOT RELEVANT TO WHERE YOU WERE 3 DAYS AGO IN THAT APPLICATION. THERE
MUST BE PATS FAT YOUR POSITION WAS THAT ONLY THE CURRENT DATA WOULD BE
RELEVANT TO FINDING HIM BUT PERHAPS SOME HISTORICAL DALT AN WOULD BE.
MR. SININS: SOME HISTORICAL DEPENDING ONLY WHEN THE PHONE WAS TURNED OFF I SUPPOSE
ONE COULD LOGICALLY TAKE THAT INFORMATION ANNEX TRAP ULTIMATE AND MAYBE DO
A SEARCH FOR SOMEONE IN THAT AREA. THAT WOULD MAKE LOGICAL SENSE:
JUSTICE PATTERSON: WHAT ABOUT THE LAST PERSON HE'S KAULDZ THEORETICALLY
FIVE TIMES IN THE LAST -- IN YOU KNOW 2 HOURS AGS THE PERSONAL HE WAS ON THE
FO EVEN WITH, WHY WOULDN'T THAT PERSON BE THE CELL PHONE NEW JERSEY OF THAT PERSON
IN THE CALL RECORDS BE RELEVANT TO FINDING SOMEBODY WHO MAYBE AT LARGE? IN OTHER
WORDS THIS IS THE FERN HE'S BEEN TALKING TO ALL NIGHT WE CAN CALL THAT PIRN AND
SAY HAVE YOU SEEN HIM IS HE WITH YOU. MR. SININS: I SPOKE EAST YOU
COULD I SUPPOSE IT POTENTIALLY COULD BE RELEVANT TO THAT OR PERHAPS NOT
RELEVANT. BUT WHAT WE BUT WHAT THEY WHAT THE POLICE WERE TRYING TO DO WAS TO
FIND HIM IMMEDIATELY UNDER THE EXIGENCY. THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE CLAIMING THERE
AN IS JINGS BUT THERE REALLY WASN'T AN EXIGENCY. THERE WASN'T AN EXIGENCY
BECAUSE EXIGENCY JUSTIFIES THE SEIZURE OF CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED INFORMATION
THAT IS CONNECTED SOMEHOW TO THE EXIGENCY. THERE IS NO CONNECTION
HERE BETWEEN THE EXIGENCY AND THE INFORMATION SOUGHT. THERE IS NO DANGER THAT
A DRUGS ARE GOING TO BE FLUSHLTD DOWN THE TOILET THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE
THAT SOMEONE WAS BEING HELD WHOSE TAJ, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY THINGS OF
THAT NATURE. SO HERE THERE WAS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN A PURPORT THE EXIGENCY
AND THE NEED FOR THIS INFORMATION TO JUSTIFY WHAT WE'RE WHAT THE POLICE
DID. EVEN GOING BEYOND THE ABSENCE IN THE RECORD FOR A BASIS TO SAY WHY IT WOULD
TAKE SO LONG EVEN GOING BEYOND THAT. THE STATE'S THE FLAW IN THE STATES ARTHD IS ALSO REFLECTED IN RESPONSE TO YOUR HONOR'S QUESTIONING THIS MORNING
IS AS THE STATE GAVE TODAY, WELL, THE EXIGENCY DISSIPATED AT THAT POINT,
REALLY? HOW DID THE EXIGENCY DISSIPATE? THE ANSWER WAS WELL THERE WERE NO MORE
MURDERS. HOW DO WE KNOW THAT? THERE WAS NO MORE MURDERS IN THE STUJ
IN THE 2-DAY PERIOD? THERE WERE NO MORE MURDERS IN THE STATE OF KNOW SHG IN
THE 2-DAY PERIOD? THAT MAKES NO SENSE: JUSTICE PATTERSON:
YOU ARE ARGUEING FOR AFTER THE FACT EVIDENCE TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE
EXIGENCY ANALYSIS. MR. SININS: I THINK IT BELIES THE THE AFTER THE FACT
EVIDENCE INCLUDING THE WARRANTS THAT WESH MADE THE 28 PAGE WIRETAP APPLICATION
THAT THE STATE SAW FIT TO DO, THE FACT THAT THE POLICE ALLOWED THIS GUY TO COME
IN ON HIS OWN, THAT AFTER THE FACT EVIDENCE IS HIGHLY RELEVANT TO BELIE
THE STATE'S PURPORTED EXIGENCY HERE: JUSTICE PATTERSON: AND IF IN A
DIFFERENT CASE AFTER THE FACT AND AFTER THE FACT EVIDENCE BOLTS TERS THE
CREDIBILITY OF THE STATE'S APPLICATION, SHOULD 245 BE ALLOWED IN? MR. SININS:
PERHAPS BUT NOT NTSDZ THE EXAMPLE THAT YOUR HONOR HAD GIVEN BEFORE PAT PATD INL
JUST SAYING AS A PREYOU WERE SAYING THAT AFTER THE FACT EVIDENCE THAT BELIES
THE CREDIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION SHOE BE ALLOWED IN I AM SORRY JUST LET ME
FINISH: MR. SININS: I APOLOGIZE: JUSTICE PATTERSON: IF
IN FACT AFTER THE FACT EVIDENCE BOELS TERS THE CREDIBILITY OF THE STATE'S
PRESENTATION ON EXIGENCY, SHOULD THAT BE ALLOWED IN? MR. SININS: IF FOR EXAMPLE
THE STATE'S APPLICATION SAYS X I WILL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. A WITNESS SAID THAT
SOMEONE WAS WEARING A THE SUSPECT WAS WEARING A GREEN SHIRT QUESTION
HE FLED FROM SUCH AND SUCH A LOCATION, AND THEN THEY FOUND OUT AFTER THE FACT
DAYS LATER WHEN THEY FOUND THE SUSPECT AND HE HAPPENED TO BE WEARING A
GREEN SHIRT, AND THEN THE APPLICATION THE UNDERLYING APPLICATION AND THE
CREDIBILITY OF THE AFFIANT OR THE WITNESS IS QUESTIONED BASED UPON THAT APPLICATION,
I THITD MAYBE FAIR TO SAY THAT YOU CAN'T REALLY GO AFTER THE KREBLTS
OF THAT WITNESS WITHOUT SEEING THE FULL SCOPE OF THIS. BUT THE EXAMPLE:
JUSTICE PATTERSON: I DON'T WANT TO I UNDERSTAND YOU ARE GIVING KNEE AN EXAMPLE
OF WHERE IT COULD BE BUT IF IN FACT AFTER THE FACT INFORMATION BOELS TERS
THE CREDIBILITY OF THE STATE'S EXIGENCY PRESENTATION TO THE JUDGE AT THE TIME,
AND YOU GAVE ONE EXAMPLE, BUT AS A GENERAL PROPOSITION SHOULD THAT ALSO BE
ADMISSIBLE. MR. SININS: NO BECAUSE BECAUSE WHEN ONE ASSESSES THE
STATE'S APPLICATION YOU NEED TO KNOW AND TO CABIN WHAT DID THE STATE KNOW AT THAT TIME
FAT PAT OKAY SINL SIN AND EITHER AN AS WE KNOW FROM OTHER FOURTH AMENDMENT
ANALYSIS THERE MAYBE A VERY EXCUSE ME THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A VERY MISS LIEDING
PRESENTATION TO A JUDGE. THERE MAY HAVE BEEN MATERIAL FACTS OMITTED FROM THE
APPLICATION. BUT IT'S NOT FAIR TO SAY WELL, THIS PERSON WAS PRESS YEJTD
AND THEY FOUND OUT WHAT THEY FOUND OUT LATER EVEN THOUGH THEY FABRICATED TO THE
JUDGE BEFORE THEY DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THAT BUT THEY WERE PRESHS YEBTS
AND THEY GOTS IT RIGHT I DON'T THINK THAT IS FAIR: JUSTICE ALBIN:
A GOOD DISTINCTION I TAKE THE THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AFTER THE FACT
INFORMATION AND A COURSE OF CONDUCT ON THE PART OF POLICE THAT UNDERMINES THE CREDIBILITY
OF THEIR STATEMENT THAT THERE WAS AN OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE EXIGENCY.
MR. SININS: CORRECT. CORRECT. WHAT I FINE TROUBLING IN THE
STATE'S POSITION HERE IS THERE IS NO LIMIT TAGS. THERE IS NO LIMIT
TAGS AND NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE EVIDENCE SEIZED HAVE ANY CONNECTION TO THE EXIGENCY
OR REALLY BE AT RIFK OF BEING LOST. AND THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE THIS CASE.
YOU HAVE INFORMATION BEING HELD BY A CELL PHONE PROVIDER SAFELY SECURED GUY
A CELL PHONE PROVIDER. THERE IS NO THIS IS NOT A CONNECTION CASE WHERE THE
POLICE HAVE TO BUS THE DOWN A DOOR TO PREVENT THE DRUGS FROM BEING
DESTROYED. THIS IS THAT IS THAT IS A KWINT SENTAL EXAMPLE OF WITH AN EXIGENCY
MAY BE RELEVANT HERE. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THAT HERE. THE
PURPORTED EXIGENCY I GUESS, RELATES TO THE POLICE DESIRE, ONE, TO FIND THIS PERSON
WHO IS A PERSON OF INTEREST, FOR WHOM THEY DID NOT YET HAVE AN ARREST
WARRANT, OR TO ACTUALLY SOLVE THIS CRIME. AND THEN ONCE THEY DID THE EXIGENCY
APPLICATIONS TO THE PROVIDER AND GOT THE INFORMATION, THEY USED THAT INFORMATION
TO BOOTSTRAP THEIR LATER APPLICATIONS WHICH THEY SPENTS APPARENTLY HOURS
DOING. THEY FELT IT WAS NOT AN EMERGENT SITUATION THEY WOULD SIT AND LISTEN
TO A WIRETAP I GUESS. THEY THOUGHT THAT WAS NOT ONLY DO MAKTS WIRETAP
APPLICATION BUT THEY THOUGHT THAT WAS THE WAY TO GO IN THIS INVESTIGATION. AND
THEN DAYS LALTER AFTER THEY DID THAT AND MR. MANING CALLED THEM THEY SATD
HERE WHY DON'T YOU TAKE NEW JERSEY TRANSIT OR THE PATH AND COME ON AND IN AND
WE'LL TALK TO YOU WHEN YOU GET HERE. THAT BELIES ANY NOTION OF EXIGENCY.
CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: OTHER QUESTIONS ANYONE? THANK YOU. MR.
SININS: TURN US: CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: MR. MILLER REBUTTAL
AND AS PART OF YOUR REBUT ALLEGE CAN YOU ADDRESS MR. SIN'S ARGUMENT THAT THE MATERIAL
SOUGHT WENT BEYOND THAT WHICH WOULD BEAR ON EXIGENCY? APPELLANT'S
ATTORNEY: SURE. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: CALL RECORDS ET CETERA.
APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY: SURE FRM WELL FIRST THE GCHLTD SGLOOCHLT
PS LEAKS THERE WAS INL MENTS IN A PASS WEEK TERLDZ THAT KOFSHLG DESTROYED AT ANY
ANYONE BUT YOU FLOO ED FO REQUEST ALL OF THESE RECORDS ALTOGETHER FOR THEM
TO MAKE SENSE. THE CASE CITED BY THE STATE IN OUR BRIEF TO THIS COURT U.S. V.
CAR BALANCE LOW THE STATE REQUESTED THE C S I THE CALL DETAIL RECORDS THE
SKRIEBLER INFORMATION IN ADDITION TO THE G PS LOCATION. AND YOU NEED THIS INFORMATION
IN ORDER FOR THE G PS LOCATION TO MAKE ANY SENSE. YOU KNOW, THE SUBSCRIBER
INFORMATION FOR THIS NUMBER TURNED OUT THE PHONE WAS NOT ACTUALLY REGISTERED TO
DEFENDANT THE POLICE WERE ABLE TO FIND OUTS THAT IT WAS HIS KWIRL FRENLTDZ
PHONE BUT IT'S MOBL THAT THEY HAD THE WRONG NUMBER. THE DANGER INHERENT IN LOEK
ING THE WRONG PERSON WHO YOU INTUS S EK PO BEEN AN I ARJ IN YOUR RER ONCE
YOU HAVE THEIR GOOD PS LOCATION IT JUST DOESN'T IT'S UNREASONABLE TO REQUEST JUST
THE GUILTY PLEAS BY ITSELF. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: HOW MANY
DAYS OR WHAT TIME PERIOD FORLT CALL RECORDS AND THE HISTORICAL LOCATION
INFORMATION WERE ASSAULT? APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY: THERE WASN'T AN IQ
FOR DAYS THEY REQUESTED THE DAY PRIOR AND THE DAY OF THE REQUEST FOR THE
CALL CELL SITE LOCATION DATA AS THIS COURT EARNINGS MEDICATIONED IN ERLS IN COVERING
HOW THIS CREDITS I WORKS IT CAN GIVE YOU THE METERS TO WHERE THE INDIVIDUAL
IS LOCATED. IT COULD BE HE IS STILL THERE AS JUSTICEAL BIN POINTED OUT IT COULD
BEEN IN A HE NEVER LEFT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THE ABANDONED BODY AND VEHICLE
WAS FOUND POLICE DID NOT KNOW THAT. IT'S VERY POSSIBLE HE WAS HOLD UP IN A HOUSE
IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD OR EVEN GA IJ IN SOME TYPE OF CAR JASHGING TO GET OUTS
OF THERE THE POLICE DIDN'T KNOW HOW HE GOT OUT OF THERE IT'S AN INCREDIBLY ODD
AREA TO LEAVE A BURNED BODY IN AN ABANDONED VEHICLE. POLICE REASONABLY
THOUGHT THAT OTHERS MIGHT BE IN DANGER. FOR THOSE REASONS AND THE
CALL DETAIL RECORDS YOU KNOW, THE CELL SITE LOCATION DATA AND THE CALL DEE
TAME RECORDS THEY KIND OF OPERATE TO GO THE CELL SITE LOCATION DATA OFTEN SHOWS
THAT A NUMBER WAS DIAL AT A CERTAIN POINT AND WHEN THAT NUMBER WAS DIELTD THEN
THE PHONE HILT OFF A KRELG PHONE TO YOUR SO YOU KNOW THE INFORMATION IS ALL INTEREST
ER RELATED KWGS THE GUILTY PLEASS INFORMATIONAL ALT ARE YOU ARGUEING I
DON'T THINK YOU ARE BUT ARE YOU ARGUEING THAT THE POLICE HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE
THAT HE HAD COMMITTED THE CRIME AT THE TIME THAT THEY SOUGHT THE EXIGENCY
C W C D W WARRANT. APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY: I BELIEVE THAT THEY
DID HAVE PROBABLE CAUSALAL SO YOU HAD YOU BELIEVE THAT THEY HAD PROBABLE CAUSE
TO ARREST HIM THIS EVEN. APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY: I DO YOUR HONOR.
JUSTICE ALBIN: AND SO WHY DIDN'T THEY GO OUT AND ARREST HIM.
APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY: THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHERE DEFENDANT WAS THERE IS NOTHING
IN THE RECORD THAT SHOWS THAT THEY KNEW DEFENDANT'S LOCATION THATS' WHY THEY
REQUESTED THE G WS FOESHGS SO THEY COULD FINE HIM AND THAT PLACE IN THE FO EDGE
CALL DAYS LATER ALLEGE ALLEGE AFTER THEY GOT THAT INFORMATION DID THEY GO OUT
AND TRY TO ARREST HIM. APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY: AGAIN THE ASSISTANT
ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR DURING THIS MOTION HEARING RIEBL BLEE FOCUSED ON RG
THE POLICE KNEW AT THE TIME WHEN THEY MADE THEIR EXIGENCY REQUEST THEN THE TESTIMONY
STOPS. THIS TELEPHONE CALL THAT HAS NOW TAKEN RAISED IMPORTANCE 2 DAYS LATER
WHERE DEFENDANT VOLUNTEERED TO TURN HIMSELF IN, YOU KNOW THE WITNESS WASN'T EVEN
A PAERT TO IN A TELEPHONE CALL. THAT TELEPHONE CALL WAS RAISED BY THE
DEFENSE TO SAY THAT THERE WAS NEVER AN EXIGENCY AND THAT THE MORE PROPER COURSE
OF POLICE CONDUCT WOULD HAVE BEEN TO CALL DEFENDANT AT THE JUMP AND ASK
HIM TO TURN HIMSELF ON TURN HIMSELF IN. SO FOR THOSE. JUSTICE
ALBIN: DID TLE KNOW WHERE HE LIFRTD. APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY:
THERE IS NOTHING THE DEFENDANTS ADDRESS WAS HARD TO PINPOINT AT THIS TIME THE
DUNBAR SAID THAT HE HAD RESIDED SOMEWHERE IN BROOKLYN, IT TURNED OUT THAT HE ALSO
HAD AN EVENING WILL WOOD RESIDENCE ASSOCIATED WITH HIS WITH HIS RECORDS
THAT THE POLICE LOOKED UP LATER ABOUT YOU POLICE WEREN'T ABLE TO FIEJD HIM AT THAT
POINT PALTS PAT IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THEY DECIDED IT WAS SAFERER FOR THE PUBLIC
AND SAVEER FOR OFFICERS TO HAVE HIM COME TO THE POLICE STATION WHERE HE WOULD NOT
PRESUME BLOO E GET THROUGH WITHOUT WITH A WEAPON ON HIM THAN TOGS OUT THERE
AND IN A RESZ DEPOSITION AREA SOMEWHERE AND TRY TO TRY TO ARREST HIM.
APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY: THAT'S CORRECT YOUR HONOR AND AT THE TIME THE PHONE CALL
WAS MADE, IT'S -- THIS WITNESS WASN'T A PAERT TO THE PHONE CALL WHERE
DEFENDANT OFFERED TO TURN HIM 234 IN IT IS NOWHERE IN THE RO RD THAT TEFT SUGGESTED
WHY DOENTSD YOU KONL GET KNEE NOW I'LL TURN MYSELF IN RIGHT NOW. HERE'S WHERE
I'M LOCATED ROO IT NOW. THERE IS KNOWING IN THIS ROSHD TO SUGGESTS THAT
POLICE DELAYED AT ALL AND IT WAS A REASONABLE DECISION TO HAVE HIM TURN HIMSELF
ON TURN HIMSELF IN WITHOUT A LETTERING TO HIM THAT HE WAS THE PRIME SUSPECT
AT THAT MOMENT. JUSTICE LAVECCHIA: ARE YOU SERGEANT THAT GO
THAT WAS DONE IN TENG LOOK E OR ARE YOU ANSWER GOES THE QUESTION IS IT POSSIBLE
THAT AS THE SPECULATION ON THIS RECORD THAT'S WHAT WAS GOING ORN.
APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY: IT'S POSSIBLE BUT BASED 0 THAN THIS RECORD BUT THE SUGGESTION
BY DEFENSE COUNSEL THAT POLICE DID NOTHING FOR 2 DAYS WHEN THEY HAD THESE
CELL PHONE RECORDS THAT IS NOWHERE IN THIS RECORD AND IS AN COMPLIETLY UNREEBLG
ASSUMES. JUSTICE PATTERSON: THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD
ON THAT IF I AM SORRY CLEEF GO AHEAD IFRMENTD PLEASE. JUSTICE
PATTERSON: NO GO AHEAD PLEASE. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: THE KERJ THAT
I THINK YOU HAVE HEARD VOICED IS NOT THAT THE POLICE WERE DOING NOTHING,
BUT THAT YOU HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS CONSIDERED ARMED AND EXTREMELY DANGEROUS
AT THE TIME THE APPLICATION THE RECORDS ARE SOUGHT WITHOUT A WARRANT, BUT
SIEGELY IS NOT CONSIDERED THAT WAY 2 DAYS LATER. APPELLANT'S
ATTORNEY: I'M NOT SURE IF THAT WHAT'S DESCRIBED IN THAT PHONE CALL REVEALS THAT
THAT MAY HAVE BEEN THE EARLIEST TIME THEY COULD GET HIM TO TURN HIMSELF
IN. THERE IS NOTHING IN THAT PHONE CALL THAT HE SAID I'M LOCATED RIGHT HERE.
OR I'M WILLING TO COME IN RIGHT NOW. THAT MAY HAVE BEEN THE EARLIEST TIME
THEY WERE ABLE TO APPREHEND HIM THERE IS NO INDICATION THEY KNEW WHERELY WAS AND
PURPOSELY DIDN'T GO GET HIM OR DELAYED THE INTERVIEW I THINK THOSE ASSUMPTIONS
ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD HERE. AND. JUSTICE PATTERSON: IF THE
KAUSHLG US A PROOEFRP TIM #2I78 ISN'T THE QUESTION REALLY ON THE PHONE WHEN
THE POLICE ARE TALKING TO HIM TELL USZ WHERE YOU ARE WE WILL COME AND GET YOU AND
SAVE YOU AND SAVE YOU THE RIDE IN. APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY: THAT'S
NOT CLEAR WHERE WHETHER THAT KWHAS WHETHER KWLEE LEADS TOELG THEN THAT'S
WHERELY WAS TIMG TIM ISN'T IN A THE QUESTION SFLOO DWLIE DON'T KNOW FWR THIS ROSHD.
JUSTICE TIMPONE: 2003 DON'T KNOW SORRY YOU MISS RATHER THAN
SAYING YOU KNOW GET ON PUBLIC TRANSPORT TAGS AND COME IN TOMORROW, WONTS THE PROPER
QUESTION WOVEN TELL THE US WHERE YOU ARE AND WE'LL COME AND GET YOU AND
BRING YOU IN. APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY: WIE DOEJ KNOW IF POLICE
ASKED THAT QUESTION OR NOT. JUSTICE TIMPONE: NO NECESSITY DIDN'T
APPARENTLY. APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY: THEY MIGHT HAVE.
THIS WITNESS WASN'T PARTD I TO THAT TELEPHONE CALL THIS TELEPHONE CALL IS REFERENCED
VERY TANGENTIALLY IN THE RECORDS THAT WE EVER BEFORE THIS COURT. AND IT'S NOW
TAKEN OUT SUED SIZED IMPORTANCE THE STALT SFLITS THAT'S NOT REALLY FAIR
THAT'S NOT THE WAY THE DEFENSE WAS KOUFRPG THAT TELEPHONE CALLING.
CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: IDENTIFY WHO YOU ARE WHEN YOU ARE SAYING THIS WITNESS.
APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY: DETECTIVE FRASZERLY WAS NOT THE PARTY TO THE PHONE
CALL WITH DEFENDANT WHEN HE CALLED THAT WAS DETECTIVE I BELIEVE IT WAS DETECTIVE
GAR I BOESH AT THE TIME A DIRN POINT OF CONTENTION REGARDS GOES THIS RECORD
IS THAT THE POLICE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WHEN THEY FOUND OUT DEFENDANT'S PHONE NUMBER
AND THAT DEFENDANT HAD GIVEN A POSSIBLE LOCATION FOR HIM THE PRIOR DAY.
THE RORTD REVEALS THAT THAT CONVERSATION HAPPENED IN BROOKLYN WITH DETECTIVES
BETWEEN 430 AND 5:00 P.M. THAT INFORMATION HAD TO MAKES IT BACK TO THE TO
LIEUTENANT ANSWER LOT TEE WHO WAS THE POINT PERSON FOR THE INVESTIGATION BACK DOWN
TO DETECTIVE PHRASEER WHO WAS MATCHING THE VICTIM'S CELL PHONE RECORDS AT
THE TIME AND THE DETECTIVE PHRASEER STILL HAD TO IDENTIFY THE LICENSE AT THAT POINT
AS BELONGING TO DEFENDANT AND POLICE TOOK THE TIME TO VERIFY MAN GOES' PHONE
NUMBER WITH STOUTS' MOTHER SO POLICE DIDN'T GET THIS INFORMATION LEADING TO MAN
ING TO DEFENDANT AND HIS NUMBER AND THEN WAIT UNTIL 730 THEY WERE CONDUCT
ING THIS INFORMATION AND IT TOOK TIME FOR THIS EVIDENCE TO MAKE ITS WAY FROM GREEN
BROOK BROOKLYN BACK TO PRANL US AN THAN TO MAKES SENSE TO THE OFFICERS WHO
EVENTUALLY FILED THE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES REQUEST FORM.
CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: THANK YOU COUNSEL. THANK YOU TO ALL COUNSEL VERY FINE ARGUMENT
WE WILL TAKE THE MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT