The majority opinion continued in relevant part: Schmerber demonstrates that an exigency exists when (1) BAC evidence is dissipating and (2) some other factor creates pressing health, safety, or law enforcement needs that would take priority over a warrant application. Because both conditions are met when a drunk-driving suspect is unconscious, Schmerber controls. A driver’s […]
Blood Draws And Unconscious Drivers (Part 2)
Justice Alito continued in relevant part: BAC tests are Fourth Amendment searches. A warrant is normally required for a lawful search, but there are well-defined exceptions to this rule, including the “exigent circumstances” exception, which allows warrantless searches “to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence.” Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U. S. 141, 149. In McNeely, […]
Blood Draws And Unconscious Drivers (Part 1)
On June 27, 2019, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Mitchell v. Wisconsin. The principal issue was whether a driver’s lack of consciousness permits a warrantless blood draw. Justice Alito wrote for the majority and held in relevant part as follows: Petitioner Gerald Mitchell was arrested for operating a vehicle while intoxicated […]
Undisclosed Charges and Miranda Rights (Part 4)
The Court continued: A.G.D., detectives questioned the defendant at his home about allegations of sexual abuse. 178 N.J. at 59. The detectives did not tell the defendant that a warrant for his arrest had been issued. The defendant confessed to the alleged sexual abuse and was subsequently convicted of related offenses. Before trial, the defendant […]
Undisclosed Charges and Miranda Rights (Part 3)
Justice Fernandez-Vina continued: A few moments later, Detective Mera mentioned that they had charges against Vincenty. Vincenty then stated that he did not get a letter from a judge about the charges and asked the detectives what the charges were. The officers showed Vincenty a list of the charges and explained to Vincenty that he […]
Undisclosed Charges and Miranda Rights (Part 2)
The New Jersey Supreme Court continued: Detective Mera explained that the police identified Vincenty from the video recording of the attack and sought his assistance to identify the second assailant on the video recording. Detective Mera told Vincenty that “the judge already charged him,” explained that they obtained Vincenty’s DNA from the mask, and informed […]
Undisclosed Charges and Miranda Rights (Part 1)
On March 11, 2019, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the Hudson County case of State v. Adrian A. Vincenty. The principal issue was whether the defendant’s statements to detectives must be suppressed when the detectives failed to inform him that charges had been filed against him. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Fernandez-Vina held […]
Stalking Statute (Part 4)
Judge Suter continued: “Vague and overly broad laws criminalizing speech have the potential to chill permissible speech, causing speakers to silence themselves rather than utter words that may be subject to penal sanctions.” Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 871-72 (1997). “The degree of vagueness that the Constitution tolerates-as well as the relative importance of […]
Stalking Statute (Part 3)
The Appellate Division continued: Defendant posted multiple videos in the MonkeyCom series to YouTube. The “RU Burger Farms” and “Coming Soon” videos could reasonably be interpreted as expressing defendant’s intent to kill and consume J.R.’s dog, whom she had specifically purchased to protect her from defendant. Defendant’s lewd comments about J.R.’s alleged sexual acts in […]
Stalking Statute (Part 2)
The three-judge panel continued: “The Legislature framed the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice with a conscious deference to the right of free expression.” There are certain limited categories of speech, however, that are criminalized. These include: “speech that is integral to criminal conduct, speech that physically threatens or terrorizes another, or speech that is […]
- 1
- 2
- 3
- …
- 6
- Next Page »
English
Spanish