On March 5, 2024, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the Camden County case of State v. Shlawrence Ross. The principal issue concerned the propriety of the issuance of a warrant to search a hospital for a bullet that was removed from the defendant during surgery.
Justice Fabiana Pierre-Louis, my law school classmate, wrote for the unanimous Court in relevant part: In this appeal, the Court considers whether the State can obtain physical evidence from a hospital — a bullet extracted from defendant’s body via surgical procedure — pursuant to a search warrant. On December 3, 2017, defendant Shlawrence Ross allegedly exchanged gunfire with police officers. Officers arrested defendant and transported him to Cooper University Hospital to obtain treatment for his gunshot wounds. Defendant was later indicted for attempted murder and other offenses, and the prosecutor’s office asked the hospital whether any bullet or metal fragments were removed from defendant’s body. A hospital employee responded that an X-ray located a bullet in defendant’s abdomen, but the treating physician did not remove it.
In June 2022, on the advice of counsel, defendant underwent elective surgery to remove that bullet. Defense counsel coordinated with the hospital to have her investigator take possession of the bullet after the surgery. Post-surgery, however, the hospital’s director of security contacted law enforcement regarding the removal of the bullet and did not turn it over to the defense. The State applied for an ex parte search warrant to obtain from Cooper Hospital the bullet and any fragments removed from defendant’s body during the elective surgery. The State also applied for a subpoena seeking all medical records regarding defendant’s treatment and transportation. The trial court denied the applications, finding that the discovery rules shielded the bullet from the State’s access because the bullet’s existence was the result of defense counsel’s “conscious litigation choice.” The trial court did not explain its reasons for denying the subpoena. Concluding that the Fourth Amendment, rather than the Sixth Amendment and reciprocal discovery rules, was the appropriate legal framework, the Appellate Division reversed and remanded to the trial court to determine whether probable cause existed to issue a search warrant and a subpoena. The Court granted leave to appeal.
The implied facts indicate that the defense attorney and/or the defense investigator were deceived by hospital staff. Hospital staff likely alerted the prosecutor’s office of the defense plan, which alerted the prosecutor to seek a search warrant.
