In February, 2007, the state police were summoned to a home in Farmingdale, New Jersey.  There was a report that screams were emanating from the house. The male occupant answered the door dressed in a bathrobe.  He explained that the screams were from his girlfriend and that they were made in the fit of passion during sexual intercourse.  Shortly thereafter, the girlfriend appeared at the door dressed in a bathrobe and confirmed the boyfriend’s statement.

Notwithstanding the explanation, the state trooper requested identification and followed the occupant to his bedroom where the identification was located.  The defendant did not complain about the state trooper’s intrusion.  In the bedroom, the trooper smelled raw marijuana and saw the male occupant push a tray under his couch.  He also saw a bag with loose marijuana and some marijuana plants.  The search that followed uncovered fifteen marijuana/pot plants and 12.5 ounces of marijuana.  He was charged with a first degree offense.

When the defendant lost his motion to suppress evidence, he plead guilty to the crime of operating a facility for the production of marijuana/pot.  He received a sentence of ten years with a thirty-nine month parole disqualifier.  On appeal, this court concluded that the trooper’s entered the home was consistent with the community-care-taking exception to the Fourth Amendment and that was so even if the trooper had no particular reason to disbelieve the defendant and his girlfriend.

On September 19, 2009, the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition sponsored the annual Boston Freedom Rally, which is now in its 20th year.  An estimated 70,000 people visited a park where the rally was conducted.

Despite the occasion, there were only three arrests, which related to distribution.  Over 100 tickets issued, however, for possession of marijuana/pot.  These “tickets” are the product  of a new law in Massachusetts that effectively decriminalized possession of less than 1 ounce of marijuana/pot.
                                   
Although the Boston Police Department readily admitted that the crowd was rather tranquil, these law enforcement agents were frustrated by participants at the rally who followed the police with audio devices and video cameras to alert the crowd of their presence and to prevent illicit official conduct.

CRIMINAL LAW IN BERGEN AND PASSAIC COUNTIES:
THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL
(Part 2)