Delayed Searches of a Person Incident to Arrest
May 15, 2023 - Posted by Ed Esposito
Earlier this month, the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld a delayed warrantless searches of a person incident to that person’s arrest in State v. Joao C. Torres (A-15-22). The Court endorsed and applied the two-factor test of State v. Lentz, 463 N.J. Super. 54, 70 (App. Div. 2020), authorizing the delayed warrantless searches of a person incident to that person’s arrest so long as both (1) the delay itself and (2) the scope of the search was objectively reasonable. Please note that this decision is about search of the arrestee’s PERSON and not items that were previously in the possession of an arrestee.
The circumstances of this recent decision (State v. Joao C. Torres) began after the defendant became a suspect in an axe murder. Detectives investigating the incident believed that the victim and defendant were the only two people in the house the previous night when the murder occurred. In the bedroom where the incident occurred, detectives observed a mattress soaked in blood and there was a significant amount of blood on the wall and ceiling. Within a few hours, the police located the defendant and placed him under arrest on an outstanding warrant at approximately 3:55 p.m.
After arriving at the police station, detectives interviewed the defendant and observed that he “had something on his hands,” and that he was “picking at his hands” and “rubbing his fingers.” (Ibid.) The defendant made incriminating admissions during the interview that provided the police probable cause to arrest him for murder. The interview ended when the defendant requested an attorney. One of the detectives consulted other officers “about the preservation of biological evidence” after the interview ended. (Ibid.) The detective’s observations and concerns about the risks of the evidence dissipating were documented in a written report, which specifically reflected that the detective had observed “possibly biological evidence located on [the defendant’s] sweatshirt.” (Ibid.) An assistant prosecutor advised the detective “to seize [the defendant’s] clothing and conduct swabs of his hands in anticipation of approval of a court authorized search warrant for same.” (Ibid.)
The police began processing the defendant at 6:42 p.m. They photographed the defendant from multiple angles; collected his sweatshirt; had him remove all clothing but his underwear; swabbed and inspected his fingernails, ears, and beard; and then had him remove his underwear and put on a plastic suit. Once the defendant had changed, he was told by the police that he was being charged with hindering and resisting. The police and the assistant prosecutor eventually reached the emergent duty judge at 8:03 p.m. The judge approved a warrant to take swabs from the defendant and to seize his clothing at 8:30 p.m. The laboratory analysis of the defendant’s sweatshirt identified traces of the victim’s blood.
Finding the police acted properly, the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the trial court and the Appellate Division decisions, which concluded that the “officers’ seizure of the sweatshirt was justified under the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement in the circumstances presented.” (Ibid.) The Court’s application of the two-factor test decided in Lentz, comes down to the objective reasonableness of both, the delay itself and, the scope of the search. According to the Court, “the totality of circumstances here establishes such reasonableness, particularly given the officers’ observation and video footage showing that defendant appeared to be removing some substance from his fingers and rubbing his clothing while he was being interviewed, as well as the risk that biological evidence would dissipate during the delay while the warrant application was processed.” (Ibid.)
It is well established that the police can search a person incident to their lawful arrest. The Court reiterated that by stating, “[e]ven in the absence of an arrest warrant, the search of the individual by law enforcement officers is lawful if they had probable cause to arrest the person being searched.” (Ibid.) The Court also reiterated that “[t]wo justifications underlie the search-incident-to-arrest exception: the need (1) to remove any weapons that the arrested person might possess and seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect an escape; and (2) to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee’s person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction.” (Ibid. Internal citations and quotes omitted.)
Earlier this month, the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld a delayed warrantless searches of a person incident to that person’s arrest in State v. Joao C. Torres (A-15-22). The Court endorsed and applied the two-factor test of State v. Lentz, 463 N.J. Super. 54, 70 (App. Div. 2020), authorizing the delayed warrantless searches of a person incident to that person’s arrest so long as both (1) the delay itself and (2) the scope of the search was objectively reasonable. Please note that this decision is about search of the arrestee’s PERSON and not items that were previously in the possession of an arrestee.
The circumstances of this recent decision (State v. Joao C. Torres) began after the defendant became a suspect in an axe murder. Detectives investigating the incident believed that the victim and defendant were the only two people in the house the previous night when the murder occurred. In the bedroom where the incident occurred, detectives observed a mattress soaked in blood and there was a significant amount of blood on the wall and ceiling. Within a few hours, the police located the defendant and placed him under arrest on an outstanding warrant at approximately 3:55 p.m.
After arriving at the police station, detectives interviewed the defendant and observed that he “had something on his hands,” and that he was “picking at his hands” and “rubbing his fingers.” (Ibid.) The defendant made incriminating admissions during the interview that provided the police probable cause to arrest him for murder. The interview ended when the defendant requested an attorney. One of the detectives consulted other officers “about the preservation of biological evidence” after the interview ended. (Ibid.) The detective’s observations and concerns about the risks of the evidence dissipating were documented in a written report, which specifically reflected that the detective had observed “possibly biological evidence located on [the defendant’s] sweatshirt.” (Ibid.) An assistant prosecutor advised the detective “to seize [the defendant’s] clothing and conduct swabs of his hands in anticipation of approval of a court authorized search warrant for same.” (Ibid.)
The police began processing the defendant at 6:42 p.m. They photographed the defendant from multiple angles; collected his sweatshirt; had him remove all clothing but his underwear; swabbed and inspected his fingernails, ears, and beard; and then had him remove his underwear and put on a plastic suit. Once the defendant had changed, he was told by the police that he was being charged with hindering and resisting. The police and the assistant prosecutor eventually reached the emergent duty judge at 8:03 p.m. The judge approved a warrant to take swabs from the defendant and to seize his clothing at 8:30 p.m. The laboratory analysis of the defendant’s sweatshirt identified traces of the victim’s blood.
Finding the police acted properly, the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the trial court and the Appellate Division decisions, which concluded that the “officers’ seizure of the sweatshirt was justified under the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement in the circumstances presented.” (Ibid.) The Court’s application of the two-factor test decided in Lentz, comes down to the objective reasonableness of both, the delay itself and, the scope of the search. According to the Court, “the totality of circumstances here establishes such reasonableness, particularly given the officers’ observation and video footage showing that defendant appeared to be removing some substance from his fingers and rubbing his clothing while he was being interviewed, as well as the risk that biological evidence would dissipate during the delay while the warrant application was processed.” (Ibid.)
It is well established that the police can search a person incident to their lawful arrest. The Court reiterated that by stating, “[e]ven in the absence of an arrest warrant, the search of the individual by law enforcement officers is lawful if they had probable cause to arrest the person being searched.” (Ibid.) The Court also reiterated that “[t]wo justifications underlie the search-incident-to-arrest exception: the need (1) to remove any weapons that the arrested person might possess and seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect an escape; and (2) to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee’s person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction.” (Ibid. Internal citations and quotes omitted.)