The New Jersey Police Chief Magazine | April 2024
Continued from previous page
confidence in the judiciary ' s commitment to safeguard equal protection rights , the court concludes the independent source doctrine does not apply in these circumstances . That exception allows a reviewing court to redact unlawfully obtained information to determine whether the remaining information is sufficient to justify a search . The court concludes that any such redaction remedy would undermine the deterrence of discriminatory policing and send a message to the public that reviewing courts are permitted to essentially disregard an equal protection violation so long as police also relied on information that was lawfully disseminated . The court reasons that if simple redaction were permitted in these circumstances , the independent source exception might swallow the exclusionary rule .
With respect to the inevitable discovery doctrine , the court holds it may apply in racial discrimination cases only if the State establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the discriminatory conduct was not flagrant . Because the State concedes it does not know why the dispatcher assumed the robber was Black , it cannot meet that burden . The court , therefore , reverses the denial of defendant ' s motion to suppress .
6 . Interlock issues post plea are to be resolved by court , not MVC State v . Coviello 252 N . J . 539 ( 2023 ) The sentencing court , and not the MVC , has the appropriate jurisdiction over defendant ’ s motion for sentencing credit concerning the IID requirement . Editor : This should also apply to IDRC issues
7 . Statement to Rutgers Police suppressed where Miranda not correctly given State v . Bullock 253 N . J . 512 ( 2023 ) Defendant ’ s statements in the courtyard and stationhouse were both properly suppressed . Under the totality of the circumstances , the courtyard statements must be suppressed because the Miranda warnings given in the courtyard were lacking and could not have apprised defendant of his rights such that any waiver and agreement to speak to police was knowingly , voluntarily , and intelligently made . By the time defendant arrived at the police department and was given full Miranda warnings , he had already admitted to the very crime that the officers were investigating .
Defendant had “ let the cat out of the bag ” with his admissions , see State v . Carrion , 249 N . J . 253 , 275-76 ( 2021 ), so the psychological pressure of having already confessed was not cured by the administration of Miranda warnings prior to the interview at the station .
8 . Hearing on reliability of new DWI Alcotest Machine 9510 & stay on use at trial State v . Cunningham , Order Docket # 087913 The Supreme Court granted direct certification in State v . Cunningham , ( A-38-22 ) to address the use of the new Alcotest 9510 , which the State represents is being used as a replacement for the Alcotest 7110 in driving while intoxicated ( DWI ) cases due to the manufacturer ’ s discontinuation of the 7110 device .
The Court imposed a limited stay of affected DWI matters , and appointed Judge Richard J . Geiger , J . A . D ., to serve as a Special Master to develop a record , conduct hearings , and make findings and conclusions regarding the scientific reliability of the Alcotest 9510 . This appointment is in addition to Judge Geiger ’ s regular Appellate Division assignment and responsibilities .
The State having opened this matter with the Court to address the use of the new Alcotest 9510 , which the State represents is being used as a replacement for the 7110 due to the manufacturer ’ s discontinuation of the 7110 device and the unavailability of certain replacement parts that are necessary for the 7110 ’ s operation , and
ORDERED that the matter is remanded to the Special Master to develop a record , conduct hearings , and make findings and conclusions regarding the scientific reliability of the Alcotest 9510 , which proceedings shall be scheduled on an accelerated basis ; and it is further
ORDERED that the Special Master shall provide to the Court a written update on the remand proceeding every ninety ( 90 ) days until the remand proceedings have concluded ; and it is further
ORDERED that , during the pendency of the remand proceedings and pending further order of this Court , a limited stay as imposed by this Order shall apply to all DWI matters involving the use of Alcotest 9510 machines in Municipal Courts and appeals in the Law Division and Appellate Division of Superior Court ; and it is further
ORDERED that DWI prosecutions and appeals based exclusively on the use of an Alcotest 9510 device ( i . e ., without other clinical or objective observational evidence ), are stayed unless otherwise provided by this Order ; …. 087913
9 . Exigent-circumstances exception to the warrant requirement does not justify the officer ’ s search a black bag State v . Anthony Miranda 253 N . J . 461 ( 2023 )
N . D . had apparent authority to consent to the officer ’ s search of the storage trailer . However , the exigent-circumstances
19
Continued on next page