State of NJ v. Valencia, Case Study Example

On the fifteenth day of the month of may the year 1980, a detective attached to the police department of the Jersey city by the name James Scales saw Valencia entering into a house and coming out with a plastic bag and inserted it into an envelope, which the police man suspected it was illegal narcotics and he seized the bag then arrested the man. The detective  reported  the case to the coordinator, Richard Vogel, who went to his office to write an affidavit for a search warrant since the arrested man claimed there were large amounts of narcotics stored in that house. By the time he finished writing the affidavit, it was around midnight hence he could not get a judge at that time.

He decided to call the judge who he read to him the affidavit. The judge authorized the search orally and the detectives went on with their search into the building where they gathered evidence showing the presence of narcotics in the house. After the search the officers proceeded to judges home and were sworn a formal oath and the judge signed their search warrant which they had already conducted. The evidence gathered from the search was to be used in court against Valencia and other people who were found in possession of cocaine.

The Hearing Of the Case

When the evidence was presented to the court, there was a debate on the validity of the evidence generated from a search that was authorized by telephone without an oath to the officers and not written. The judge admitted that the evidence was not valid except for the little cocaine seized from Valencia.

Discussion

This type of search, authorized by the telephone is not considered as authorized search and it is for the detectives to explain to the judges that it was not possible to obtain a written search warrant. In the state of New Jersey, all authorized search warrants must be written and the detectives sworn an oath before and not after the search.

Conclusion

Considering the above case, it is evident that a telephoned authorization of a search warrant is not considered as an authorized search warrant and therefore the officers involved must prove beyond doubt that it was not possible to obtain a written search warrant at that time. The law enforcers in their duty to collect evidence from searches must bear in mind that they must have a written search warrant in which they have sworn an oath before a judge before they conduct any searches.

Work Cited

State of NJ v. Valencia Case Website http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/mcs/case_law/93_nj_126.pdf