N.J. Supreme Court: Cop violated Monmouth student's privacy by seizing drugs during noise complaint

Unfortunately I feel the judge made a mistake, I read the artical and do not agree with the defense arguement. The officers were doing the right thing and the officers did not do "full-scale search", they were looking for a person and came across a crime. A cursory search is NOT a full scale search, if the judges would allow me I would be glad to do a cursory search and a full scale search of their houses to demonstrate the difference. I agree that a warrant is needed for a full scale search, have you ever seen a full scale search? drawers emptied, beds lifted, closets emptied, things taken apart, furnature moved....etc.... a cursory search is walking into open areas and looking for a human, minimum intrusion, no drawers, furnature moved etc., if it is not a place that a human would NORMALLY be then it is not checked. Bottom line, they were looking for a person and spotted cds in plain view. GOOD BUST!!

conducting a cursory search for a resident, looking into a open door and seeing cds and paraphernalia does not constitute a search. Their intent was not to search for drugs but discovered them in plain view. If looking into drawers and such I would understand their stance on the illegal search ......but COME ON!!! So let me get this right, If I am invited into a house and can not find the resident, i go upstairs and see a person raping a women in a room with an open door the rapist would go free if I did not leave and get a warrant first? plain view is plain view wether it is a crime of violence or drugs. these officers did nothing unreasonable, they did not storm the house or force their way in......they were invited in. I am sure we have all been at a large out of control party or two, and I am sure the occupants of the dwelling have always been bend over backwards with assistance in identifying the residents so we have never had to go look for them (especially after the second call there where one of the people promised to keep it down the first time you were there!). But let's say the occupants were not cooperative in identifying the residents, I must now stop and get a warrant? Now back to the off the wall comment.....if a rape was taking place or a young person dies as a result of cds use and it was later discovered the police had been there....inside the house......and did not look for the residents which could have resulted in the saving of the life or the stopping of a rape.......then the officer would be in the spotlight for not doing a thorough job. I would rather lose dope and have a case tossed than finding out I could have prevented a major crime or saved a life but did not because I did not do a complete job when on the scene in the first place.

Oh I get it now. Noise complaints legalize drugs in NJ!

"Slippery slope" may be a fallacy in other arguments, but in the legal realm there's an equivalent that is a real threat: the legal precedent. While it may not have served the spirit of "justice" in this particular case, the judge's ruling does mean that a legal precedent isn't created for applying the plain sight rule while looking for the owner to discuss a noise complaint.

Funny how it is OK for everyone else to know the guy is a pill peddler yet when LE gets involved somehow now his rights have been trampled. The same people that are cheering this decision are the same ones aghast at how prescription pills have become such a major problem. They are also the same ones who will curse LE when their precious little Johnny or Joanie dies from an OD of something they injected, snorted, or smoked without knowing exactly what it was. People are so stupid. So, can't find the tenants and search the residence to look for them because people are too scared to point the finger, find prescription meds packaged for resale and distribution IN PLAIN VIEW and we are the violators? Parallel universe of stupidity.