The NJ Police Chief Magazine Volume 26, Number 6 | Page 30

The New Jersey Police Chief Magazine | January 2020
Continued from previous page
6. Resident could not be convicted of obstruction for not letting police in house State v. Fede 237 NJ 138 (2019)
The Court stresses that the police officers had the right to enter defendant’s home under the emergency-aid doctrine, which
permits warrantless entry under circumstances like those presented in this case. Because defendant’s refusal to remove the door
chain did not constitute an affirmative interference for purposes of obstructing justice within the meaning of the obstruction
statute, the Court reverses the judgment of the Appellate Division and vacates defendant’s conviction. (A-53-17)
7. Miranda violated here where detectives failed to advise subject of charges State v. Vincenty 237 NJ 122 (2019)
The record reveals that the detectives failed to inform Vincenty of the charges filed against him when they read him his rights and
asked him to waive his right against self-incrimination. That failure deprived Vincenty of the ability to knowingly and intelligently
waive his right against self-incrimination. Pursuant to A.G.D., Vincenty’s motion to suppress should have been granted. (A-40-17).
8. Weapons search not permitted here after DV TRO State v. Hemenway 2019
The beneficent goal of protecting domestic violence victims must be accomplished while abiding by well-established constitutional
norms. Before issuing a warrant to search for weapons under the Act, a court must find that there is
(1) probable cause to believe that an act of domestic violence has been committed by the defendant;
(2) probable cause to believe that a search for and seizure of weapons is necessary to protect the life, health or well-being of a
victim on whose behalf the relief is sought; and
(3) probable cause to believe that the weapons are located in the place to be searched. Transposed into the context of a domestic
violence search warrant for weapons, probable cause requires that the issuing court only have a well-grounded suspicion. (A-19-
18)
9. For DWI PCR on prior uncounseled DWI proceeding, neither an indigent nor a non-indigent defendant must show
that the outcome would have been different had he been represented State v. Patel decided August 7, 2019
To secure relief from an enhanced custodial sentence for a subsequent DWI conviction, a non-indigent defendant must establish
that in the earlier uncounseled DWI proceeding,
(1) he was not advised or did not know of his right to counsel and
(2) had he known of his right to counsel, he would have retained a lawyer. A defendant contending he was indigent must establish
that in the earlier uncounseled DWI proceeding (1) he was not advised and did not know of his right to appointed counsel, (2) he
was entitled to the appointment of counsel under the applicable financial means test, R. 7:3-2(b), and (3) had he been properly
informed of his rights, he would have accepted appointed counsel.
Because denial of counsel is a structural defect in the proceeding, to secure relief from an enhanced custodial sentence, neither an
indigent nor a non-indigent defendant must show that the outcome would have been different had he been represented. The Court
removes the five-year limitation in Laurick petitions and amends Rule 7:10-2(g)(2), effective immediately, to provide the
following: “(2) Time Limitations. A petition seeking relief under this Rule may be filed at any time.” Here, Patel’s unrebutted
certifications established that his 1994 plea was uncounseled, and he had no obligation to establish that he would not have pled
guilty or been convicted at trial had he been represented by counsel. The Court therefore reverses the judgment of the Appellate
Division and remands the matter for proceedings consistent with this opinion. (A-13-18)
10. New DWI Statute Revises certain drunk driving penalties; expands use of ignition interlock devices.
New Dwi law starting December 1 requires Ignition Interlock Device for anyone who owns a car but Reduced DL suspension
New laws signed expanding the use of ignition interlock device for those convicted of drunk driving offenses and of refusing breath
tests. The legislation (S824) also reduces the length of license suspension and forfeitures for these offenses. New law took effect
December 1, 2019
 This law requires that first time offenders install ignition interlock devices (IID), at a cost to the offender.
IIDs and suspensions from then on are based upon the severity of the offense.
Below is a portion of the NJ Bar Association DWI seminar moderated by Miles Winder we participated in:
First-time offenders with BAC of: 0.08 to 0.10
Suspension 90 days New Law: suspension Until install of interlock and proof to MVC
Interlock 6 months – 1yr discretionary (after suspension) 3 months after install Source: NJ Bar San Juan seminar
First Offense 0.10 to 0.15 - must install ignition interlock at own cost
Suspension old 7-12 months New Law: suspension Until install of interlock and proof to MVC
Interlock old Discretionary 6 months -1yr (after suspension) new 7-12 months after install
28
Continued on next page