1. Auto Exception to Search Applicable only if Exigent
Circumstances State v. Santiago ___ NJ Super. ___ (App. Div. 1999). A-896-97T2
decided March 30, 1999. The "automobile exception" justifies a police
search of an automobile without a warrant only if there are exigent
circumstances that render it "impracticable" to first obtain a
warrant. When police have possession of a parcel and have it turned over to
defendant by a "controlled delivery," police cannot later search
defendant's automobile and the parcel without a warrant, since it was not
impracticable to have first obtained a search warrant, and whatever
"exigency" may have existed was created by the police themselves.
2. Police cannot Search for Driver Identification in Minor
Motor Vehicle Stop State v. Lark ___ NJ Super. ___ (App. Div. 1999).
A-3388-97T4 decided March 30, 1999. Under the federal and state constitutions,
following a motor vehicle stop for a minor traffic violation, a police officer
may not enter the vehicle to search for proof of the driver's identity even
though the driver has failed to produce his driver's license and may have lied
about his identity. The officers lacked probable cause to believe a crime had
been committed. The dictum in State v. Boykins, 50 N.J. 73 (1967), does not authorize
the search.
3. Spouse has no Financial Responsibility for other Spouse's
Surcharges Clark v. Clark 324 NJ Super. 587 (Ch. Div. 1999). Motor vehicle
insurance surcharges authorized by N.J.S.A. 17:29A-35b(2) and assessed against
a spouse before the filing of a divorce complaint were non-marital debts for
which the non-assessed spouse bore no financial liability. [Source NJ Lawyer
Sept. 20, 1999]
4. Police Questioning at Hospital not Custodial
Interrogation State v. Choinacki 324 NJ Super. 19 (App. Div. 1999). Where
defendant was not physically detained at the hospital or subjected to
continuous police supervision for a substantial period of time prior to giving
her statements, the questioning of defendant both in the emergency room and the
intensive care unit did not constitute custodial interrogation, and her
statements were properly admitted despite the absence of Miranda warnings.
[Source NJ Law Journal July 17, 1999]
5. Drug Bags from motel brought to Police Station Suppressed
State v. Padilla 321 NJ Super. 96 (App. Div. 1999). Where bags containing the
defendants' personal property were brought to police headquarters from the
defendants' motel room after the defendants were arrested, the police had to
give each defendant the opportunity to consent to a police inventory search or
to make an alternative disposition of the property. [Source NJ Lawyer May 17,
1999]
6. No Brady Violation where Prosecutor Failure to Supply
Facts where Evidence Supports Conviction Anyway Strickler v. Greene ___ US ___
(1999). No. 98-5864 decided June 17, 1999. There was no Brady violation in the
prosecutor's failure to disclose materials in police files that cast serious
doubt on significant portions of an eyewitness' testimony, where evidence of
records strongly supports conclusion that petitioner would have been convicted
of capital murder and sentenced to death even if that witness had been severely
impeached or her testimony excluded entirely. [Source NJ Law Journal June 28,
1999]
7. Marijuana observed by police in house for sale admissible
State v. Ferrari 323 NJ Super. 54 (App. Div. 1999). The Law Division erred by
suppressing marijuana initially observed in the defendant's condominium by
police officers posing as potential purchasers of the condominium; the officers
did not violate the defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy. [Source NJ
Lawyer July 19, 1999]
8. Request for Credentials is a Stop State v. Egan ___ NJ
Super. ___ (Law Div. 1999). Appeal No. 0107-98 decided July 2, 1999.
Unsupported by probable cause or reasonable suspicion, a police officer's
request of credentials from the driver of a parked vehicle constituted a
"stop"; was more than minimally necessary to dispel the officer's
naked suspicion; and not justifiable as a "field inquiry." The fruits of the stop are, therefore,
suppressed.
9. Resident Only Parking Ordinance not Invalid State v.
Marain 322 NJ Super. 444 (App. Div. 1999). A resident-only parking ordinance is
not invalid as a violation of the provision of N.J.S.A. 39:3-42, which confers
exclusive authority on the State to license or permit use or operation of motor
vehicles.
10. Gang Ordinance Unconstitutional City of Chicago v.
Morales ___ US ___ (1999). No. 97-1235 decided June 10, 1999. Where police can
order a group of people to disperse if they suspect one of them is a gang
member, this city ordinance violates the U.S. Constitution. [Source Lawyers
Weekly USA No. 9915901]
11. Warrantless Search Conducted 13 Hours after tip does not
Violate Fourth Amendment Maryland v. Dyson ___ US ___ (1999). No. 98-1062
decided June 21, 1999. Where police conducted a warrantless search of a car 13
hours after receiving a tip that it would be used to transport cocaine that
evening, this didn't violate the Fourth Amendment. [Source Lawyers Weekly USA
No. 9915949]
12. Use of Co-Defendants' Confession without Testimony is
Violation of Sixth Amendment Lilly v. Virginia ___ US ___ (1999). No. 98-5881
decided June 10, 1999. Where an accomplice's confession was used as evidence
against a defendant even though the accomplice refused to testify, this
violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses. [Source
Lawyers Weekly USA No. 9915903]
13. No Additional Suspension Where Substantial Hardship DMV
v. Henry 01-MVH-0402 (OAL). Under the circumstances where respondent's motor
vehicle record has been free of significant violations for a substantial period
of time, where suspension of his privileges will work some hardship, and
where there is evidence that he, at
least of late, recognizes that driving privileges come with concomitant
obligations, the ALJ orders that, in lieu of the Division's proposed maximum
180-day suspension of a respondent's driving privileges for operating a motor
vehicle while his license was already suspended in violation of N.J.S.A.
39:3-40, he be issued a warning instead. [Initial decision dated March 16,
1999.] [Source NJ Law Journal June 28,
1999]
