April 2026 | The New Jersey Police Chief Magazine 27
Continued from Page 12
4 Immigration enforcement officials can 6 FRO reversed cyber-harassment under N. J. S. A. consider factors such as location, race, 2C: 14-14( a)( 1), because defendant did not commit accent, language spoken and type of a lewd act by bragging about her sexual prowess employment regarding stop Noem v. Vasquez- and did not threaten to inflict injury A. C. VS. R. S 483 Perdomo US Supreme Court 146 S. Ct. 1( 2025) N. J. Super. 47( App Div 2025)
• Defendant appealed from a final protective order entered
In a 6-3 decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that immigration enforcement officials can consider factors such as location, race, accent, language spoken and type of employment in deciding whether there is a reasonable suspicion to stop and temporarily detain an individual in order to ascertain his lawful presence in the United States. The Court also held that the challenge to the government ' s conduct was not properly before the federal courts on standing grounds. The ruling effectively grants a stay of a district court ruling the contrary.
Source Muni-Mail See programs online by our friend Bob Ramsey and co-speaker: https:// gardenstatecle. com / new-cleprograms-from-2025 /
Opinion at Criminal Law- Recent Cases Vercammen Law https:// njcriminallaw. blogspot. com / 2026 / 03 / immigration-enforcement-officialscan. html
5 Warrant was not required here during an Active Fire with Exigency State v. Caneiro 262 N. J. 288( 2025) The Supreme Court held that Under the totality of the circumstances in this case, the police acted in an objectively reasonable manner to meet an exigency that did not permit time to secure a warrant. No bright-line rule governs the question of exigency, and determining whether the exigency exception to the warrant requirement applies requires courts to conduct an objective, fact-sensitive analysis. Drawing de novo legal conclusions from the facts found by the trial judge, the Court finds that here, time was of the essence, delay was not reasonable, and seizure of the DVR by the police without a warrant was justified by exigent circumstances. Full opinion at Criminal Law- Recent Cases Vercammen Law
https:// njcriminallaw. blogspot. com / 2025 / 12 / warrant-was-not-required-hereduring. html against her and in favor of plaintiff pursuant to the Victim ' s Assistance and Survivor Protection Act( VASPA), N. J. S. A. 2C: 14-13 to-21. The trial court concluded defendant violated VASPA by, among other things, committing cyberharassment when she sent plaintiff a text message containing lewd language and threatened to contact plaintiff ' s employer regarding plaintiff ' s relationship with defendant ' s husband.
•
• However, the court rejected defendant ' s assertion a text message is not a " communication [] in an online capacity " under N. J. S. A. 2C: 14-14( a)( 1). Because text messages can be sent via a cellular network or the internet, they are a form of online communication. Given the ubiquity of texting and the court ' s interpretation of the Legislative intent of VASPA to afford victims maximum protection of the law, the court concludes the Legislature did not intend to exclude text messages as a form of online communications under N. J. S. A. 2C: 14-14( a)( 1).
•
• The court also held a threat against one ' s job by contacting an employer can be a form of threat against property under N. J. S. A. 2C: 14-14( a)( 1). However, defendant did not violate the statute because the record is devoid of any evidence showing she intended to do anything other than inform plaintiff ' s employer about the relationship between plaintiff and defendant ' s husband, which is not the sort of conduct actionable under N. J. S. A. 2C: 14-14( a)( 1). Dec 1, 2025.
•
• Full opinion at Criminal Law- Recent Cases Vercammen Law https:// njcriminallaw. blogspot. com / 2026 / 02 / froreversed-cyber-harassment-under. html
•
• 7 No right to jury trial or insanity defense in 3 rd offense DWI State v Baverov 482 N. J. Super. 344( App. Div. 2025)
•
• The issues in this appeal are whether defendant ' s conviction for a fifth offense of driving while intoxicated( DWI) should be reversed on the ground that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by refusing to present a psychiatric defense and whether defendant was entitled to a jury trial given the 180-day sentence imposed. The court affirms the tenet that DWI is a strict-liability offense for which mental-state defenses are unavailable and that