JUSTICES SAY A HUNCH NOT GOOD ENOUGH

The state Supreme Court, continuing a long tradition of favoring individual
privacy rights over police powers, has ruled law enforcement authorities
need more than a hunch about potential danger before searching a person
arrested for a minor offense.

The case arises from a 1999 incident in Long Branch in which Detective
Raymond Chaparro Jr. arrested someone for trespassing, a disorderly persons
offense, and searched him. Police normally search people they arrest to be
sure suspects don't have weapons.

Law enforcement officers say the decision could make it harder for them to
work in drug-infested areas.

"The truth is the police are right, but so what?" Rutgers School of Law
Professor George C. Thomas said. "The intention of the Fourth Amendment (of
the Constitution) is to make policing more difficult, not to make it easier.

"The (state) Supreme Court takes a narrow view, if you are looking at their
decisions from a police perspective. But the court takes a more robust
view, if you are looking at the issue from a citizen's point of view."

The Fourth Amendment limits unreasonable searches and seizures.

When William Dangerfield noticed Chaparro and Detective Stanley Mooney
approaching, he began to ride away on his bicycle until Chaparro grabbed
his arm and stopped him, according to court records.

When Chaparro asked him what he was doing at Grant Court and why he tried
to run, Dangerfield replied he was "doing nothing," the officer said.

Chaparro arrested Dangerfield for trespassing, searched him, and discovered
two bags of cocaine in his front left pocket.

Dangerfield later was indicted for possession of cocaine.

The justices acknowledged that the Grant Court and Garfield Court federal
housing complexes in Long Branch are plagued by drug activity. Drugs are
often sold in the complexes by people who don't live there -- the reason
there are signs warning against trespassing.

Police trying to reduce drug activity routinely ask people their reason for
being there. If they cannot demonstrate a legitimate reason, police
generally will arrest them for trespassing, authorities said.

Dangerfield later testified that he had gone to the housing complex to
visit his son, who lived there with his mother.

A trial court judge found Chaparro did not have probable cause to arrest
Dangerfield and suppressed the discovery of the cocaine, a decision
affirmed by a state appellate panel.

In a unanimous decision Wednesday, the justices affirmed the appellate
decision.

According to the justices, the right to search when an arrest is made has
limits.

When, as in the Dangerfield case, an individual is not suspected of having
committed a violent crime, "articulable facts of potential danger must be
presented to justify a protective search for weapons," the justices found.

When the incident is a disorderly persons offense, police need not
transport a person to the police station and thus have no need to conduct a
body search, the justices found.

"We took that up" to the Supreme Court "because we believe officers' safety
may be in jeopardy if police officers are not allowed to search in petty
offenses," First Assistant Monmouth County Prosecutor Robert A. Honecker
Jr. said. "We're concerned about it."

The cocaine case against Dangerfield will be dismissed, he said, as the
office and the state attorney general work to develop guidelines for
Monmouth County police officers for such cases.

Assistant Ocean County Prosecutor Francis R. Hodgson Jr. told police
officers earlier this week during a lecture at the Ocean County Police
Academy in Lakewood that the decision could make their jobs more difficult
and potentially let drug dealers escape.