Facts: On the evening of March 16, 2014, two police officers from the Cliffside Park Police Department were dispatched to a multi-family building on Palisades Avenue in response to a call reporting a potential domestic violence situation. They learned the reported domestic altercation was coming from apartment number three. The officers knocked on the door of apartment three — defendant Andrew Fede's apartment. Defendant partially opened the door, which was secured with a chain lock. The officers and defendant could see one another. The officers identified themselves, told defendant they were investigating a domestic disturbance, and sought entry into his home to check on the well-being of the occupants. During the initial stages of their conversation, the officers learned that defendant lived with Stephanie Santiago. Defendant explained that she was away in South Carolina and he was alone in the apartment. Defendant insisted that the officers were at the wrong location. The officers requested entry to verify defendant's assertions. He refused.Defendant asked if they had a warrant. The officers explained they were acting under the community-caretaking doctrine and were permitted to enter his home without a warrant to ensure the welfare of the occupants. Defendant demanded a warrant. He remained by the door in view of the officers, refusing to unchain his lock.
Concerned about the possibility of domestic violence, the officers broke the chain lock on Fede's door and entered his apartment. The entry was uneventful, and after being instructed to move into the building's hallway, Fede stepped outside of his apartment and stood next to Zoklu as other officers searched the home. The search confirmed that defendant was alone in the apartment. The officers thereafter placed Fede under arrest for obstruction of the administration of the law under N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a) for failing to remove the chain lock from his door.
Decision: The N.J.Supreme Court held that Refusal to let police into home is not criminal interference. The Court stressed that the police officers had the right to enter defendant's home under the emergency-aid doctrine, which permits warrantless entry under circumstances like those presented in this case. Because defendant's refusal to remove the door chain did not constitute an affirmative interference for purposes of obstructing justice within the meaning of the obstruction statute, the Court reverses the judgment of the Appellate Division and vacates defendant's conviction. (A-53-17)State v. Fede.
A criminal conviction can have devastating effects on your future. If you or a family member have been charged with a crime, you need the assistance of an experienced criminal defense attorney.
I have over 25 years experience successfully representing clients charged with criminal offenses. Call me for a free consultation, and I'll explain the charges and how I can help.
All the Best!
Randy C. Redden
(856) 448-6200
Concerned about the possibility of domestic violence, the officers broke the chain lock on Fede's door and entered his apartment. The entry was uneventful, and after being instructed to move into the building's hallway, Fede stepped outside of his apartment and stood next to Zoklu as other officers searched the home. The search confirmed that defendant was alone in the apartment. The officers thereafter placed Fede under arrest for obstruction of the administration of the law under N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a) for failing to remove the chain lock from his door.
Decision: The N.J.Supreme Court held that Refusal to let police into home is not criminal interference. The Court stressed that the police officers had the right to enter defendant's home under the emergency-aid doctrine, which permits warrantless entry under circumstances like those presented in this case. Because defendant's refusal to remove the door chain did not constitute an affirmative interference for purposes of obstructing justice within the meaning of the obstruction statute, the Court reverses the judgment of the Appellate Division and vacates defendant's conviction. (A-53-17)State v. Fede.
A criminal conviction can have devastating effects on your future. If you or a family member have been charged with a crime, you need the assistance of an experienced criminal defense attorney.
I have over 25 years experience successfully representing clients charged with criminal offenses. Call me for a free consultation, and I'll explain the charges and how I can help.
All the Best!
Randy C. Redden
(856) 448-6200
RSS Feed