Supreme Court Opinions

Because a detective here repeatedly contradicted and minimized the significance of the Miranda warnings -- starting at the outset of the interrogation and continuing throughout -- the State cannot shoulder its heavy burden of proving defendant’s waiver was voluntary. The Appellate Division majority correctly concluded defendant’s statement had to be suppressed.

The Court affirms the judgment of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Messano’s published opinion. The Court requires that, going forward, a plaintiff claiming taxpayer standing in an action challenging the process used to award a public contract for goods or services must file a certification with the complaint. As to the merits of this appeal, the Court departs from the Appellate Division’s decision in only one respect: the Court does not rely on the leasing and financing arrangements contemplated by the BCIA and defendant County of Bergen.

The AOM statute does not require submission of an AOM to support a vicarious liability claim against a licensed health care facility based only on the conduct of its non-licensed employee.

Appellants should have included Tennessee as an "interested party" pursuant to Rule 2:5-1(d) when they filed their initial Notice of Appeal and Case Information Statement in the Appellate Division. Accordingly, the Court declines to reach the arguments advanced under Rules 4:33-1 and -2. The matter is remanded to the Appellate Division to permit appellants to file an amended Notice of Appeal and Case Information Statement that names Tennessee as an interested party pursuant to Rule 2:5-1(d).

Laurick relief and the principles underlying the prohibition against the use of uncounseled DWI convictions extend to the enhanced sentencing scheme in Section 26(b), and prior uncounseled convictions cannot be used as predicates to increase a loss of liberty for DWS. Furthermore, if a defendant obtains traditional PCR on a prior DWI or Refusal conviction and the State does not pursue a second prosecution, that vacated conviction cannot be used as a predicate in a Section 26(b) prosecution. In the present case, however, defendant was not entitled to Laurick relief in the first instance because he had counsel during his prior proceedings. Laurick is available only to defendants who were without counsel and not advised of their right to counsel during their DWI-related prosecutions.

The trial court’s order in this case was a decision premised on factual findings as well as legal conclusions, not an exclusively legal determination. A trial court’s order rejecting as a matter of law a claim of qualified immunity should not be designated as a final order appealable as of right under Rule 2:2-3(a), and federal law does not require the contrary result. In an NJCRA action, a defendant seeking to challenge a trial court’s order denying qualified immunity prior to final judgment must proceed by motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal in accordance with Rules 2:2-4 and 2:5-6.

The mode of operation rule does not apply to the sale of grapes in closed clamshell containers. Selling grapes in this manner does not create a reasonably foreseeable risk that grapes will fall to the ground in the process of ordinary customer handling. The Court stresses that dispositive motions should not be made or decided on the eve of trial, without providing the parties with a reasonable opportunity to present their cases through testimony and argument.

The Court declines to adopt the new rule prescribed by the Appellate Division and finds no plain error in the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress his statement to police. The Court also concurs with the trial court that the victim’s testimony at the pretrial hearing was admissible under N.J.R.E. 804(b)(1)(A)’s exception to the hearsay rule for the prior testimony of a witness unavailable at trial, and that the admission of that testimony did not violate defendant’s confrontation rights.

*OPRA does not permit access to internal affairs reports, but those records can and should be disclosed under the common law right of access -- subject to appropriate redactions -- when interests that favor disclosure outweigh concerns for confidentiality. The Court provides guidance on how to conduct that balancing test.

The palimony agreement, as written and signed, without the attorney review requirement, is enforceable. That portion of N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h), which imposes an attorney-review requirement to enforce a palimony agreement, contravenes Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution. The parties did not enter an oral palimony agreement.

Most personnel records are confidential under OPRA. But under the law’s plain language, certain items qualify as a government record including a person’s name, title, "date of separation and the reason therefor." N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10. To the extent that information appears in a settlement agreement, the record should be available to the public after appropriate redactions are made.

The Court agrees with the trial court that plaintiffs’ new theory should not have been considered given its late presentation. The Court nonetheless holds, for completeness, that plaintiffs’ new theory did not raise an issue of material fact. The Court reinstates summary judgment in favor of defendants and dismisses the complaint with prejudice. The Court also finds that Earle is entitled to derivative immunity.

The Three Strikes Law and the mandatory life-without-parole sentence imposed upon defendant under that statute do not violate the constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Further, Miller and Zuber have no application to adult defendants sentenced under the Three Strikes Law.

The only information the officer possessed at the time of the stop was the race and sex of the suspects, with no further descriptors. That information, which effectively placed every single Black male in the area under the veil of suspicion, was insufficient to justify the stop of the vehicle and therefore does not withstand constitutional scrutiny.

The only information the officer possessed at the time of the stop was the race and sex of the suspects, with no further descriptors. That information, which effectively placed every single Black male in the area under the veil of suspicion, was insufficient to justify the stop of the vehicle and therefore does not withstand constitutional scrutiny.

When an arrest occurs outside a home, the police may not enter the dwelling or conduct a protective sweep in the absence of a reasonable and articulable suspicion that a person or persons are present inside and pose an imminent threat to the officers’ safety. This sensible balancing of the fundamental right to privacy in one’s home and the compelling interest in officer safety will depend on an objective assessment of the particular circumstances in each case, such as the manner of the arrest, the distance of the arrest from the home, the reasonableness of the officers’ suspicion that persons were in the dwelling and likely to launch an imminent attack, and any other relevant factors. A self-created exigency by the police cannot justify entry into the home or a protective sweep. Here, a protective sweep was not warranted in the Radel case but was constitutionally justified in the Terres case.

When an arrest occurs outside a home, the police may not enter the dwelling or conduct a protective sweep in the absence of a reasonable and articulable suspicion that a person or persons are present inside and pose an imminent threat to the officers’ safety. This sensible balancing of the fundamental right to privacy in one’s home and the compelling interest in officer safety will depend on an objective assessment of the particular circumstances in each case, such as the manner of the arrest, the distance of the arrest from the home, the reasonableness of the officers’ suspicion that persons were in the dwelling and likely to launch an imminent attack, and any other relevant factors. A self-created exigency by the police cannot justify entry into the home or a protective sweep. Here, a protective sweep was not warranted in the Radel case but was constitutionally justified in the Terres case.

Lapsley’s injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment because the parking lot where she was injured was owned and maintained by the Township, adjacent to her place of work, and used by Township employees to park. Lapsley was therefore entitled to benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act.

*The statutory framework for sentencing juveniles, if not addressed, will contravene Article I, Paragraph 12 of the State Constitution. To remedy the concerns defendants raise and save the statute from constitutional infirmity, the Court will permit juvenile offenders convicted under the law to petition for a review of their sentence after they have served two decades in prison. At that time, judges will assess a series of factors the United States Supreme Court has set forth in Miller v. Alabama, which are designed to consider the "mitigating qualities of youth." 567 U.S. 460, 476-78 (2012).