Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website.

Search

  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JEAN-ODLIN JEAN-NOEL (MA 2023-024, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2639-23 Appellate June 3, 2025
  • NJ PROPERTYLINK LLC, ET AL. VS. ADT CORPORATION, ET AL. (L-0451-23, SUSSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3586-23 Appellate June 3, 2025
  • WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ETC. VS. ASTHER HERRERA, ET AL. (F-003086-18, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0144-24 Appellate June 3, 2025
  • EARLE ASPHALT COMPANY VS. COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER, ET AL. (L-1067-24, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0638-24 Appellate June 3, 2025
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MAURICE E. JOHNSON (23-12-0939, CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3221-23 Appellate June 3, 2025 Summary A-3221-23      This case presents a novel constitutional question arising from the execution of a communications data warrant (CDW) that authorized the surreptitious installation of a global positioning system (GPS) device on a vehicle to electronically monitor its movements.  The initial plan was to install the device while the vehicle was on a public street or in a public parking lot.  When that failed, the State Police decided to install the device while the vehicle was parked on defendant's driveway.  The CDW did not expressly authorize entry onto the driveway.       In determining whether the State Police violated defendant's constitutional rights when they went on his driveway to perform the installation, the court considers a series of sub-questions, including:  was the portion of the driveway where the subject vehicle was parked part of the "curtilage" of defendant's home? If so, did the State Police have an "implied license" to step onto the private driveway and proceed to the subject vehicle to install the GPS device?  If they did not have such license, did the CDW itself implicitly authorize their entry?  Or were they required to obtain express judicial authorization to enter onto defendant's residential property, either in the initial CDW application or by going back to the judge who issued the CDW when they abandoned their initial plan to install the device while the vehicle was parked on public property?       The court concludes the driveway was part of the curtilage of defendant's home. The court further holds the State failed to establish that the State Police had "implied license" under the curtilage doctrine to approach the vehicle to install the GPS device, noting the State Police turned away from the pathway leading to the front door as they proceeded to the subject vehicle to attach the device.  Additionally, the court  holds that the implied license caveat to the curtilage doctrine would not in any event authorize police to enter the driveway for the purpose of installing a GPS device, since that is not something visitors would be expected or permitted to do.       The court thus concludes the State Police entry constitutes a search.  The court also holds the CDW did not authorize that search, stressing the plain language of the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution requires a search warrant to particularly, not impliedly, describe the place to be searched.       The court adds that it would have been a straightforward matter for the State Police to supplement the CDW once their initial plan to install the GPS device on public property was frustrated. Recognizing the exclusionary rule serves an educative function, the court reminds police and prosecutors that having a strong basis for obtaining a search warrant does not excuse the requirement to get one before conducting a search.  The court explains there is no probable cause exception to the warrant requirement; probable cause is a threshold prerequisite for a warrant, not a substitute for one.       The court notes the State at oral argument acknowledged that going forward, the better practice would be for police to preserve the option to enter upon a target's private property when installing a GPS device by asking the warrant judge for such authority when initially applying for a CDW or by seeking an amendment to the CDW if the practical need to enter upon private residential property later arises.  The court adds that such prudence would help to protect both the constitutional rights of the target of the investigation and the admissibility of evidence derived from the GPS tracking. Close
  • Greater New Jersey Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church v. Borough of Stratford 000354-2024 Tax June 2, 2025
  • JORGE J. JIMENEZ-PEGUERO VS. ROYAL PACKAGING, LLC, ET AL. (L-8045-19, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3493-22 Appellate June 4, 2025
  • JOHN DOE 1 VS. ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA (L-0137-20, CAPE MAY COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2944-22 Appellate June 4, 2025
  • WILLIAM COLEMAN VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS) A-1992-23 Appellate June 4, 2025
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANTHONY A. PEOPLES (96-02-0520, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2330-23 Appellate June 4, 2025
  • CAROL TAYLOR VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ETC. (TEACHERS' PENSION AND ANNUITY FUND) A-2441-23 Appellate June 4, 2025
  • UNIVERSAL DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION II, LLC VS. EUROPEAN CAR CARE, LLC, ET AL. (LT-008994-23, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2449-23 Appellate June 4, 2025
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JAMES P. FLETCHER (22-11-0221, SUSSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2489-23 Appellate June 4, 2025
  • MICHAEL SHAW VS. TOWN OF KEARNY, ET AL. (L-0650-22, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2537-23 Appellate June 4, 2025
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. IVERY BRINSON (14-05-1420, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2616-23 Appellate June 4, 2025
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. K.H. (22-04-0600, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1741-22 Appellate June 4, 2025 Summary A-1741-22 Defendant K.H. appeals from his jury trial convictions for aggravated sexual assault and burglary.  He claims DNA evidence police collected from him should have been suppressed because his consent to the buccal swab test was coerced.  He argues inter alia that it was unlawful for detectives to ask for consent after he invoked his Miranda rights, citing the court's recent decision in State v. Amang , __ N.J. Super. __ (App. Div. 2025).  The present case probes the underlying rationale and boundaries of the bright line rule established in Amang .  In that case, the court held that under the New Jersey Constitution, police may not ask a person in custody to grant consent to a search if they had previously asserted the right to confer with an attorney during the administration of Miranda warnings.  In adopting that bright line rule, the court stressed the unique ability of attorneys to protect the Fifth Amendment rights of a client undergoing custodial interrogation.  The court in the present appeal makes clear the categorical rule announced in Amang is triggered only by an arrestee's assertion of the right to confer with counsel.  It is not triggered by a defendant's assertion of the right to remain silent.  Although it is not disputed that defendant in this case invoked his Miranda rights, the motion court did not make a specific finding on whether defendant requested to confer with an attorney, as he claims.  The court concludes that a remand for further factfinding is unnecessary in this case because in any event, the motion court correctly found that defendant's DNA would ultimately have been obtained under the inevitable discovery doctrine.  The court notes, however, the Miranda waiver form used in this case, like the one used in Amang , documents whether the arrestee invoked Miranda rights, but does not memorialize whether they asked to confer with counsel, asserted the right to remain silent, or asserted both rights guaranteed under Miranda .  That distinction is important not only with respect to applying the Amang rule but also to ensure compliance with Fifth Amendment case law that precludes police from reinitiating custodial interrogation after the arrestee has asserted the right to counsel.  The court recommends that the Attorney General and county prosecutors review existing Miranda waiver forms to consider whether they should be revised to facilitate documenting whether an arrestee asserted the right to confer with counsel. Close
  • DCPP VS. T.I., ET AL., IN THE MATTER OF H.B., ET AL. (FN-10-0107-20, HUNTERDON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-4045-21 Appellate June 5, 2025
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. A.T.B. (22-06-0590, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2415-22 Appellate June 5, 2025
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOSEPH D. KEARNEY (16-10-1645, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3595-22 Appellate June 5, 2025
  • IN THE MATTER OF JAMES BARTOS, ET AL. (NEW JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION) A-3814-22 Appellate June 5, 2025