The federal Third Circuit
appellate panel held that the federal District Court erred by not suppressing
weapons found in Mr. Navedo’s apartment after Newark police detectives after
him arresting him as he was entering his apartment.
In the United States v.
Navedo two Newark police detectives were conducting an undercover
operation when they saw an individual (Pozo) walk over to Mr. Navedo open a book
bag, pulled an object which appeared to them as a handgun. The detective seeing this ran after Pozo and
Navedo catching and tackling Navedo as he was attempting to enter his
apartment. The detectives claim that the
apartment was open and that they tackled him inside the apartment (you really
believe this). Navedo was immediately
cuffed and inside the apartment were numerous handguns and rifles which the
detectives claim were in plain view (sure).
A motion to suppress was
filed, and denied by the District Court, and Navedo appealed to the Third
Circuit that the detectives did not have probable cause to arrest him because
mere flight is sufficient to arrest a suspect without probable cause. The court agreed with Navedo holding that
under the totality of the circumstances there was no evidence that Navedo was
engaged in any criminal activity.
Specifically, Navedo did not hold the gun, did not initiate the
encounter with Pozo, and did not appear to making a purchase of the handgun,
that the police had no right to arrest him, even if Navedo ran. In short, the appeals panel held that the
detectives were in essence attempting to transfer the reasonable suspension
which they had for Pozo on Navedo. The
court further relied on Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000), which
held that flight from the police is not an automatic reason or reasonable
suspicion for a brief “Terry Type” detention, because there are many reasons
why someone might want to get away from a police officers. In any event, they held that even if they had
reasonable suspicion to stop Navedo they certainly did not have probable cause
to arrest him under these facts.
This is a good case for
the defense because it encompasses many facts which regularly play out with
strike force arrests in the Essex, Hudson, Union, Passaic, and Middlesex County strike forces which typically detain and arrest suspects without
reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
If you are charged with a
federal or state crime or disorderly person’s offense it is highly recommended
that you seek the legal advice of an experienced New Jersey Criminal Defense
Attorney, the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.
Law Office of Vincent J.
Sanzone, Jr.
277
North Broad Street
P.O.
Box 261
Elizabeth (Union County), New
Jersey 07207
Office Phone No. (908)
354-7006
Cell Phone No. (201) 240-5716
NJ Federal Criminal
Lawyers, NJ State Criminal Lawyers, New Jersey Criminal Attorneys, NJ Criminal
Lawyers, NJ Criminal Defense Attorneys, N.J. Best Criminal Defense Attorneys,
NJ Best Criminal Defense Lawyers, Elizabeth NJ criminal lawyers, Union County
Criminal Lawyers, New Jersey federal trial lawyer, federal criminal trial
attorney, NJ criminal attorney, Federal Criminal NJ lawyer, Union County
criminal lawyer, Best Essex County Criminal Lawyers, Best Hudson Criminal
Lawyers
Dated: October 4,
2012
No comments:
Post a Comment