April 2026 | The New Jersey Police Chief Magazine 34
Continued from Page 29
11 Defendants in Domestic Violence case may invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in response to specific questions M. A. v. J. H. M 260 N. J. 522( 2025)
Although the Fifth Amendment does not afford a defendant in a PDVA FRO hearing blanket immunity, a defendant may invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in response to specific questions that raise reasonable risks of self-incrimination, and no adverse inference may be drawn from the exercise of that right. The PDVA immunity provision contained in N. J. S. A. 2C: 25-29( a) is not coextensive with the privilege against self-incrimination and is therefore insufficient to safeguard a defendant’ s rights under the Fifth Amendment. Full opinion Criminal Law- Recent Cases Vercammen Law at https:// njcriminallaw. blogspot. com / 2026 / 03 / defendants-in-domestic-violencecase. html
12 Automobile search exception for Police did not apply to backpack State v Bryant 482 N. J. Super. 37( App. Div. 2025) Defendant was charged with the illegal possession of a firearm and other offenses. He appeals the denial of his motion to suppress a gun that police found after opening his companion ' s backpack without a search warrant.
Two police officers encountered the companion on the street after she and defendant got out of a parked car that had been described in a Be-On-the-Lookout( BOLO) report of a recent shooting. After defendant fled the scene, the police handcuffed the companion and put her in the back seat of a police car. The police then secured her belongings, including her backpack, in the front seat of the squad car. She told the police she thought defendant had put a weapon in her backpack at an earlier time. The police immediately opened the backpack without seeking a warrant. The prosecution solely invoked the automobile and the exigent circumstances exceptions to the warrant requirement and did not rely on consent-to-search nor other exceptions.
In reversing the suppression denial, the court holds:( 1) defendant had standing to challenge the backpack search;( 2) the automobile exception to the constitutional warrant requirement does not apply because the backpack was not the fruit of the automobile search; and( 3) the State failed to demonstrate exigent circumstances to justify the immediate necessity to open the backpack, which was secured in a police car and not accessible to the either the handcuffed companion or defendant.
13 Foreign Defendant permitted to appear virtual where not permitted in US State v Reyes-Rodriguez 480 N. J. Super. 526( App. Div. 2025)
In this interlocutory appeal, the Appellate court considers the propriety of a bench warrant issued by the Law Division following defendant’ s failure to appear in person for a pretrial conference, even though he appeared virtually at this conference and nearly all prior court hearings. A non-citizen of the United States and Mexican national, defendant was deported after he was indicted for third-degree endangering the welfare of a child, N. J. S. A. 2C: 24- 4( a)( 1), and fourth-degree criminal sexual contact, N. J. S. A. 2C: 14-3( b). The motion judge issued the bench warrant, at the State’ s request, to serve as a detainer should defendant illegally reenter the United States or if the State elected to extradite defendant from Mexico. The State thereafter acknowledged it was unlikely to extradite defendant on the third- and fourth-degree charges. The motion judge denied defendant’ s ensuing motion to vacate the bench warrant and dismiss the indictment. On appeal, the App court affirmed the order denying defendant’ s motion to dismiss the indictment but reversed and remanded for the motion judge to vacate the bench warrant and permit defendant to appear remotely at all proceedings, including trial. The court was persuaded, under the evolving jurisprudence, the judge erroneously denied defendant’ s reasonable request to appear virtually at an otherwise in-person trial in view of defendant’ s inability to legally reenter the United States and physically appear in court. The App court concluded defendant’ s virtual appearance is a reasonable accommodation given the circumstances presented in this case, not only to afford defendant an opportunity to contest the charges, but also to ensure the victim’ s rights are protected.
Kenneth Vercammen is an Edison, Middlesex County, NJ trial attorney where he handles Criminal, Municipal Court, Probate, Civil Litigation and Estate Administration matters. Ken is author of the American Bar Association ' s award-winning book Criminal Law Forms and often lectures to trial lawyers of the American Bar Association, NJ State Bar Association and Middlesex County Bar Association. As the Past Chair of the Municipal Court Section he has served on its board for 10 years. He is admitted to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Author: Drug and DWI Defense- Forms and Pleadings( 2021) New Jersey Specific Bound book with Forms for NJSBA