The unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court continued in relevant part: Data supplied by the Attorney General corroborates to some extent what the Supreme Court majority in Glover described as the “commonsense” nature of an inference that the vehicle owner, despite having...
Judge Sabatino continued in relevant part: Here, the Court considers for the first time whether the analysis in Glover -- specifically involving driver’s license revocation laws in Kansas -- supports a comparable approach in New Jersey in a setting involving a car...
The Court continued in relevant part: In Delaware v. Prouse, the United States Supreme Court held that a detention of a motorist to check credentials is unreasonable, except in situations in which there is at least reasonable and articulable suspicion that a motorist...
The New Jersey Supreme Court continued in relevant part: Defendants moved to suppress the evidence found in the car. The trial court denied the motions. After being convicted for weapon possession by a jury, defendants appealed. They challenged the denial of their...
On May 30, 2023, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the Monmouth County case of State v. Jamire Williams. The principal issue concerned whether a license plate check revealing a registered owner with a suspended license provides a lawful basis for a motor vehicle...
Justice Sotomayor concluded with the following in relevant part: McIntosh's contrary arguments are unpersuasive. He points to the Rule's use of the word “must” to highlight its mandatory character, but such language standing “alone has not always led this Court to...
The United States Supreme Court majority continued in relevant part: Other cases similarly have recognized that certain deadlines, if missed, do not deprive a public official of the power to take the action to which the deadline applies. See, e. g., Barnhart v....
Justice Sotomayor continued in relevant part: A district court's failure to comply with Rule 32.2(b)(2)(B)'s requirement to enter a preliminary order before sentencing does not bar a judge from ordering forfeiture at sentencing subject to harmless-error principles on...
On April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court decided the cases of McIntosh v. U.S. The principal issue concerned the required procedure for a judge to order a forfeiture as part of a criminal sentencing. Justice Sotomayor wrote for a unanimous Court in relevant...
The three-judge panel concluded with the following in relevant part: In sum, we deem an augmented statement of reasons to be adequate to permit meaningful judicial review, thus ensuring the constitutional application of the JLA and Guidelines. We are unpersuaded by...