ATS Warrants: Time, Place and Manner of Execution
September 9, 2022 - Posted by Ed Esposito
The New Jersey Supreme Court decided a case in late August that arose from an arrest on an outstanding ATS (Automated Traffic System) warrant issued by a municipal court for failure to appear on a motor vehicle violation. In this case, State v. Steven L. Bookman (A-32-21), the Supreme Court disagreed with the Appellate Division and Trial Court which both previously ruled on the case in favor of the officers. However, the Supreme Court declined to adopt “a rigid, one-size-fits-all approach to the execution of all ATS arrest warrants because interactions between police officers and the public are inherently unpredictable and may give rise to tragic consequences.” Ibid. This article explores the Court’s review of the time, place, and manner in which the ATS warrant was executed.
The police in this case were investigating a person who was the subject of “a long-term investigation” for theft, and on the night of his arrest, police received a tip that he was outside his residence involved in a narcotics transaction. Police also received information that the subject was in the presence of a few other males. At the time this information was received, the police did not have a warrant to detain the subject of their investigation for the narcotics transaction, but they were aware that he had an outstanding ATS warrant.
Around 1:00 am the same night, 8 officers set out to arrest the subject of their investigation on the ATS warrant after a briefing was held. The location the police were headed was the exterior of the subject’s home on a street that consisted of a succession of closely aligned row houses in an area described as a “high-crime.” When the police arrived, they recognized the subject they were looking for and also observed another man standing next to him. Police exited their vehicles, announced “stop…police” and both men ran into a neighboring house next to the subject’s home. Police immediately chased both men and one detective encountered a male on the second level of the home in a prone position on the floor.
The detective asked him who he was and he provided a name, but not the name of the subject with the ATS warrant. He told the police he did not live there and ultimately admitted to having a knife and firearm in his possession while a frisk was being performed. This person was the defendant in this case after being arrested and charged with weapons offenses by the police.
The NJ Supreme Court ruled in its decision of this case that “considering the totality of the circumstances presented here,” the police “were not entitled to enter the [neighboring] residence under the hot pursuit doctrine.” Ibid. (Emphasis added.) The Court also stated that “[a]lthough police officers are permitted to enter the subject of an arrest warrant’s home when they have reason to believe the subject is inside, this rule does not extend to third-party homes. Moreover, the municipal court that issued the ATS warrant only authorized [that subject’s] arrest and the entry of his home, if necessary.” Ibid. (Emphasis added and internal citations omitted.)
The Court also concluded that “the officers knew that the ATS warrant was for a minor traffic offense and had no reason to suspect there was any risk of danger or destruction of evidence relevant to that warrant that may have justified a hot pursuit.” Ibid. In this case, the Court determined that the Police encountered these two men “based on a planned execution of the ATS warrant at 1:00 a.m., four months after it was issued. These distinctions highlight the fact that any exigency here was a direct result of the officers’ decision to unreasonably execute the ATS warrant. It is well established that officers may not rely on exigencies they create -- i.e., that would not have existed but for the officers’ unreasonable time, place, and manner of a warrant’s execution -- to bootstrap an otherwise unconstitutional action.” Ibid. (Internal citations omitted.)
Significantly, the Court also felt “compelled” to address the manner in which the ATS warrant was executed. According to the NJ Supreme Court:
The municipal court issued this ATS warrant for [the subject’s] failure to appear in response to a Title 39 violation. Four months appear to have passed with no action taken to make the arrest authorized by the warrant. Yet the record shows the tactical approach the police deployed was akin to the execution of a high-risk, no-knock warrant. The leader of the [team for the] police:
The New Jersey Supreme Court decided a case in late August that arose from an arrest on an outstanding ATS (Automated Traffic System) warrant issued by a municipal court for failure to appear on a motor vehicle violation. In this case, State v. Steven L. Bookman (A-32-21), the Supreme Court disagreed with the Appellate Division and Trial Court which both previously ruled on the case in favor of the officers. However, the Supreme Court declined to adopt “a rigid, one-size-fits-all approach to the execution of all ATS arrest warrants because interactions between police officers and the public are inherently unpredictable and may give rise to tragic consequences.” Ibid. This article explores the Court’s review of the time, place, and manner in which the ATS warrant was executed.
The police in this case were investigating a person who was the subject of “a long-term investigation” for theft, and on the night of his arrest, police received a tip that he was outside his residence involved in a narcotics transaction. Police also received information that the subject was in the presence of a few other males. At the time this information was received, the police did not have a warrant to detain the subject of their investigation for the narcotics transaction, but they were aware that he had an outstanding ATS warrant.
Around 1:00 am the same night, 8 officers set out to arrest the subject of their investigation on the ATS warrant after a briefing was held. The location the police were headed was the exterior of the subject’s home on a street that consisted of a succession of closely aligned row houses in an area described as a “high-crime.” When the police arrived, they recognized the subject they were looking for and also observed another man standing next to him. Police exited their vehicles, announced “stop…police” and both men ran into a neighboring house next to the subject’s home. Police immediately chased both men and one detective encountered a male on the second level of the home in a prone position on the floor.
The detective asked him who he was and he provided a name, but not the name of the subject with the ATS warrant. He told the police he did not live there and ultimately admitted to having a knife and firearm in his possession while a frisk was being performed. This person was the defendant in this case after being arrested and charged with weapons offenses by the police.
The NJ Supreme Court ruled in its decision of this case that “considering the totality of the circumstances presented here,” the police “were not entitled to enter the [neighboring] residence under the hot pursuit doctrine.” Ibid. (Emphasis added.) The Court also stated that “[a]lthough police officers are permitted to enter the subject of an arrest warrant’s home when they have reason to believe the subject is inside, this rule does not extend to third-party homes. Moreover, the municipal court that issued the ATS warrant only authorized [that subject’s] arrest and the entry of his home, if necessary.” Ibid. (Emphasis added and internal citations omitted.)
The Court also concluded that “the officers knew that the ATS warrant was for a minor traffic offense and had no reason to suspect there was any risk of danger or destruction of evidence relevant to that warrant that may have justified a hot pursuit.” Ibid. In this case, the Court determined that the Police encountered these two men “based on a planned execution of the ATS warrant at 1:00 a.m., four months after it was issued. These distinctions highlight the fact that any exigency here was a direct result of the officers’ decision to unreasonably execute the ATS warrant. It is well established that officers may not rely on exigencies they create -- i.e., that would not have existed but for the officers’ unreasonable time, place, and manner of a warrant’s execution -- to bootstrap an otherwise unconstitutional action.” Ibid. (Internal citations omitted.)
Significantly, the Court also felt “compelled” to address the manner in which the ATS warrant was executed. According to the NJ Supreme Court:
The municipal court issued this ATS warrant for [the subject’s] failure to appear in response to a Title 39 violation. Four months appear to have passed with no action taken to make the arrest authorized by the warrant. Yet the record shows the tactical approach the police deployed was akin to the execution of a high-risk, no-knock warrant. The leader of the [team for the] police:
- selected an unreasonable time of the day to execute the warrant (1:00 a.m. in a residential neighborhood);
- deployed an unreasonable number of officers -- eight -- to execute the traffic warrant arrest;
- unreasonably pursued [the defendant], a man who was neither named on the ATS warrant nor suspected of being involved in any criminal activity; and
- unreasonably entered the home of a third party without a warrant while pursuing [the defendant] and [wanted subject].