Continued from previous page
The New Jersey Police Chief Magazine | May 2025
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
Trial court should have carefully watched video where police did not wait before search State v Nieves 476 N. J. Super. 405( App Div. 2024)
In this appeal from an order denying defendant ' s motion to suppress evidence seized following the 5:00 a. m. execution of a knock-and-announce search warrant at a residence, the court finds the law enforcement officers did not wait a reasonable period after knocking and announcing their presence before forcibly breaching and entering the home ' s front door.
The court determines that based on the circumstances presented, the officers ' forcible entry into the home after waiting less than five seconds after knocking and announcing their presence was unreasonable and rendered the subsequent search of the home and seizure of evidence unconstitutional. The court determines the exclusionary rule requires suppression of the evidence, reverses the order denying the suppression motion, and remands for further proceedings.
Smelling pot after valid stop permitted search pre change in law State v Baker 478 N. J. Super. 116( App. Div. 2024) In this matter, the court considers whether the trial court properly denied defendant ' s motion to suppress evidence seized after a search of the vehicle defendant was operating following a traffic stop. When the officer approached defendant ' s vehicle, he noticed a burnt smell of marijuana emanating from it. The officer did not intend to search the vehicle at that point. However, after the dispatcher informed the officer defendant had an outstanding warrant necessitating defendant ' s arrest, and the officer smelled a perceptible odor of raw marijuana on defendant ' s person as they sat together in the patrol car, the officer decided to search the vehicle.
The court concludes that the officer ' s testimony regarding the odors established probable cause for the subsequent search of the vehicle. In addition, the finding of probable cause arose in unforeseeable and spontaneous circumstances. There were not two stops as argued by defendant. The discovery of the warrant and new smell emanating from defendant ' s person permitted the officer to continue the investigation. The search was permissible under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement as articulated in State v. Witt, 223 N. J. 409( 2015). The court affirms the order denying defendant ' s suppression motion.
Limiting pull over for Tinted window given pipeline retroactivity State v Haskins 477 N. J. Super. 630( App. Div. 2024) In this appeal, the court held that the rule announced in State v. Smith, 251 N. J. 244, 253( 2022), that " reasonable and articulable suspicion of a tinted windows violation arises only when a vehicle ' s front windshield or front side windows are so darkly tinted that police cannot clearly see people or articles within the car," should be afforded pipeline retroactivity. The court also determined a defendant who had not filed a notice of appeal when a retroactive decision was issued, but was subsequently granted leave to file as within time under Rule 2:4-4 and State v. Molina, 187 N. J. 531, 535-36( 2006), is deemed within the " pipeline " for retroactivity purposes.
Police could do short inventory search at the scene of impounded DWI car State v Courtney 477 N. J. Super. 630( App Div. 2024) In State v. Witt, our Supreme Court held police cannot conduct a search pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement once a vehicle has been towed away and impounded. 223 N. J. 409, 448-49( 2015). John ' s Law generally requires police to impound a vehicle for at least twelve hours when the driver is arrested for driving while intoxicated( DWI). This case addresses the novel question of whether police may conduct a search under the automobile exception when they are required to impound a vehicle pursuant to John ' s Law, but the vehicle has yet to be removed from the scene of the stop. A-3844-22 published.
The trial judge suppressed a handgun found under the front passenger seat, reasoning that because the officers were required to impound the vehicle, they were also required to obtain a search warrant even though the search occurred roadside. After considering the plain text and rationale of Witt, the court reverses the suppression order, holding the inherent exigency justifying a warrantless search at the scene continues to exist so long as the detained vehicle remains at the location of the stop.
The court reasons the inherent exigency is not abated by the fact the vehicle will eventually be removed from the scene. Nor is such exigency abated when the decision is made to remove the vehicle, regardless of whether the decision is made in the exercise of police discretion or in compliance with a statutory impoundment mandate.
Leaving suitcase behind in Penn station permitted police to search without warrant State v. Gartrell 256 N. J. 241( 2024)
15
Continued on next page