Koch was convicted in Municipal Court of underage consumption of alcohol on private property. The judge imposed a $250 fine, and $33 court costs. At a trial de novo in the Law Division, the court found Koch guilty of the same charge and imposed the same sanctions. The appellate panel reverses, concluding that the Law…
In Davis v. United States (Docket No. 09–11328, Decided June 16, 2011), the United States Supreme Court held that searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule because suppression would do nothing to deter police misconduct and would come at a high cost to both the truth…
In Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009), the United States Supreme Court held that where there is no possibility that an arrestee could reach into the area that law enforcement officers seek to search, the justifications for the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement—protecting arresting officers and safeguarding evidence of the offense of…
In New Jersey, however, N.J.S.A. 34:15–36, defines “employee” as “synonymous with servant, and includes all natural persons, including officers of corporations, who perform service for an employer for financial consideration [.]” FN5 (emphasis added). Service performed in exchange “ ‘for financial consideration’ is a cardinal legal requirement in [workers’] compensation for the creation of the…
In Voss v. Tranquilino (Docket No. A-110-09, Decided June 1, 2011) the New Jersey Supreme Court held that N.J.S.A. § 39:6A-4.5(b)—prohibiting driving while intoxicated (DWI) offenders involved in accidents from suing for recovery of economic or noneconomic loss—does not preclude negligence suits against licensed alcohol servers. That is, N.J.S.A. § 39:6A-4.5(b) is coexistent with the…
Late last week New Jersey’s Supreme Court decided in State v. Schmidt that once a person gives initial consent to providing a breath sample, no further action by the police is necessary to provide additional warnings to him in the event he does not provide adequate breath samples. In other words, teh defendants have to…
Yesterday, in State v Audubato (see below) the App Div held that use of flashing lights did not transform a field inquiry into a Terry ‘stop’ in a case where def was a already stopped in front of his own house. Field inquiries do not require any basis at all. In this case the court…
Summary In Kentucky v. King (Docket No. 09-1272, Decided May 16, 2011) the United States Supreme Court held that a warrantless entry based on exigent circumstances is reasonable when the police did not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct violating the Fourth Amendment. During the course of a controlled drug…
HELD: The opinion offered by the officer does not meet the requirementsneeded to qualify it as a lay opinion and permitting the officer to testifyabout his opinion invaded the fact-finding province of the jury.1. The familiar standards governing expert opinion testimony are found inthree separate rules. See N.J.R.E. 702, 703, 705. An expert is one…
T HIS WEEK THE NJ SUPREME COURT RULED THAT if a law enforcement officer’s notes are lost or destroyed before trial, a defendant, upon request, may be entitled to an adverse inference charge. Defendant, charged with sexual assault, was interviewed by law enforcement officers at which time he acknowledged having sexual relations with the alleged…