Major Cases in DRUG, DWI AND SERIOUS TRAFFIC CASES- PowerPoint May 2

1. Breath Test warnings now must be given in

Spanish
State v. Marquez 202 NJ 485 (2010) (A-35-09) 7/12/10
In this case involving a conviction fo ef!sing to
s!"#it to a che#ical "eath test$ the %o!t hol&s that
Ne' Jese()s i#*lie& consent la'$ N+J+,+A+ 39-4-50+2$
an& ef!sal la'$ N+J+,+A+ 39-4-50+4a$ e.!ie *oof that
an office e.!este& the #otoist to s!"#it to a
che#ical "eath test an& info#e& the *eson of the
conse.!ences of ef!sing to &o so+ /he state#ent
!se& to e0*lain to #otoists the conse.!ences of
ef!sal #!st "e given in a lang!age the *eson s*ea1s
o !n&estan&s+ 2eca!se &efen&ant 3e#an 4a.!e5
'as a&vise& of these conse.!ences in 6nglish$ an&
thee is no &is*!te that he &i& not !n&estan& 6nglish$
his ef!sal conviction is evese&+
2+ If not enough breath supplied on Alcotest officer
must read additional warnings
State v. Schmidt
194 NJ ,!*e+ 214 (A**+ 7iv+ 2010)
In this o*inion the co!t hol& that (1) the *olice ae
e.!ie& to co#*l( 'ith N+J+,+A+ 39-4-50+2(e) "( ea&ing
the stan&a& lang!age concening the conse.!ences of a
ef!sal to ta1e an Alcotest (*at t'o of the ,tan&a&
,tate#ent) 'hen a &efen&ant !ne.!ivocall( agees to
s!"#it to an Alcotest "!t then fails 'itho!t easona"le
e0c!se to *o&!ce a vali& sa#*le an& (2) the *olice have
1
the &iscetion to &iscontin!e the Alcotest an& chage the
aestee 'ith ef!sal 'itho!t affo&ing the aestee the
#a0i#!# eleven atte#*ts that the Alcotest #achine
*e#its+
2
!. "rior refusal to
ta#e breath test does
not count for !
rd
$%I
State v. %iancaglini
204 NJ 597(2011)
7efen&ant %iancaglini)s conviction in
2008 fo ef!sing to ta1e a "eathal(5e
test &oes not constit!te a *io conviction
fo *!*oses of &ete#ining he sentence
fo &iving 'hile into0icate& in 2008+
3
4+ $iscover& e'panded for speeding tic#ets
State v (reen 417 NJ ,!*e+ 190 (A**+ 7iv+ 2010)
In this case$ the co!t &eci&e& that a #otoist 'ho has "een chage& 'ith s*ee&ing
is entitle& to &iscove( es*ecting
(1) the s*ee&-#eas!ing &evice9s #a1e$ #o&el$ an& &esci*tion:
(2) the histo( of the office9s taining on that s*ee&-#eas!ing &evice$ 'hee he 'as
taine&$ an& 'ho taine& hi#:
(3) the taining #an!als fo the s*ee&-#eas!ing &evice an& its o*eating #an!als:
(4) the ,tate9s taining #an!als an& o*eating #an!als fo the s*ee&-#eas!ing &evice:
(5) the office9s log"oo1 of tic1ets 'itten on the &a( of &efen&ant9s allege& violation:
(8) the e*ai histo( of the s*ee&-#eas!ing &evice !se& to &ete#ine &efen&ant9s s*ee&
fo the *ast t'elve #onths: an&
(7) an( engineeing an& s*ee& st!&ies !se& to set the s*ee& li#it at the section of
high'a( 'hee &efen&ant9s s*ee& 'as #eas!e&+
/he co!t also fo!n& that the ,tal1e ;i&a s*ee&-#eas!ing &evice ha& not "een
*oven to "e scientificall( elia"le an&$ as s!ch$ the es!lts of its o*eation sho!l& not have
"een a&#itte& &!ing the #!nici*al co!t *ocee&ings o consi&ee& "( the ;a' 7ivision+
/he co!t e#an&e& the #atte to the ;a' 7ivision fo a *lena( heaing on the scientific
elia"ilit( of the ,tal1e ;i&a+ If it is &ete#ine& to "e elia"le$ then the #atte is e#an&e&
to the #!nici*al co!t fo tial afte the ,tate has *ovi&e& all of the &iscove( e.!ie& "(
this o*inion+
4
) School "rincipal can search vehicle on school
grounds.
State v. Best *+1 ,- 1++ .*+1+/
A school a&#inistato nee& onl( satisf( the lesse
easona"le go!n&s stan&a& athe than the *o"a"le
ca!se stan&a& to seach a st!&ent)s vehicle *a1e& on
school *o*et(
0. 1rror b& police dispatcher in invalid arrest warrant requires suppression of
evidence under ,- 2onstitution.
State v. 3and& (A-108-09)
/he &is*atche)s con&!ct < a&vising an office on the scene that thee 'as
an o!tstan&ing 'aant 'hen the 'aant containe& a &iffeentl( s*elle& na#e an&
a &iffeent &ate of "ith < 'as o"=ectivel( !neasona"le an& violate& the >o!th
A#en&#ent to the ?nite& ,tates %onstit!tion an& Aticle I$ @aaga*h 7$ of the
Ne' Jese( %onstit!tion+ 6vi&ence !ncovee& &!ing the seach inci&ent to the
aest #!st "e s!**esse&+
4 "assengers can be ordered out if belief of danger.
State v. Mai *+* ,- 1* .*+1+/
/he offices *esente& s!fficient facts in the totalit( of the
cic!#stances that 'o!l& ceate in a *olice office a
heightene& a'aeness of &ange that 'o!l& 'aant an
o"=ectivel( easona"le office in sec!ing the scene in a
#oe effective #anne "( o&eing the *assenge to e0it
the ca+ /hose sa#e cic!#stances a!thoi5e a *olice
office to o*en a vehicle &oo as *at of o&eing a
*assenge to e0it+ /h!s$ the sei5!e of the 'ea*on 'as
*o*e !n&e the *lain vie' &octine$ an& the sei5!e of
the holste an& loa&e& #aga5ine fo# the *assenge 'as
la'f!l as the f!its of a *o*e seach inci&ent to an
aest+
5
5. ,o %arrantless Search of Truc# Sleeper 2ompartment based on smell of weed.
State v. "ompa 414 NJ ,!*e+ 219 (A**+ 7iv+ 2010)

>ollo'ing his conviction of vaio!s &!g
offenses$ &efen&ant a**eale& the &enial of his
#otion to s!**ess in e0cess of thit( *o!n&s of
#ai=!ana sei5e& "( *olice 'itho!t a 'aant fo#
a closet in the slee*e ca"in of &efen&ant9s tacto
taile+
/he co!t hel& that the closel( eg!late&
"!siness e0ce*tion *e#itte& a 'aantless
a&#inistative ins*ection of cetain aeas of the
tacto-taile$ "!t concl!&e& that the seach t!ne&
!nla'f!l 'hen it *ogesse& into !neg!late& aeas
'itho!t the e0igent cic!#stances e.!ie& "(
,tate v+ @ena->loes$ 198 N+J+ 8$ 28 (2009)+
8
6. "olice cannot search home without warrant.
State v. -efferson
71! ,- Super. !77 .App. $iv. *+1+/
(1) In the a"sence of a 'aant o a ecogni5e&
e0ce*tion fo# the >o!th A#en&#ent9s 'aant
e.!ie#ent$ the *olice co!l& not la'f!ll( ente
&efen&ant9s ho#e to con&!ct a /e( t(*e &etention
an& investigation of &efen&ant+
(2) A *olice office9s 'e&ging heself in the &oo'a( to
*event &efen&ant fo# closing his font &oo 'as ent(
into the ho#e+
(3) /he *olice faile& to sho' eithe Ahot *!s!itA e0igent
cic!#stances o a co##!nit( caeta1ing e0ce*tion
fo# the 'aant e.!ie#ent+
(4) Altho!gh the *olice ent( 'as !nla'f!l$ &efen&ant
ha& no ight to esist *h(sicall($ an& the seach of his
*eson inci&ent to aest 'as la'f!l+
(5) %onsent to seach &efen&ant9s a*at#ent$ given "(
&efen&ant9s 'ife$ 'as tainte& "( the !nconstit!tional
*olice con&!ct an& 'as not sho'n to "e vol!nta(+
1+. -udge 2an Suspend $8 for Traffic 9ffense.
State v. Moran
202 NJ 311 (2010)
/he license s!s*ension *ovision of N+J+,+A+ 39-5-31$
'hich is *!"lishe& in the 4oto Behicle %o&e of the Ne'
Jese( ,tat!tes Annotate&$ is not Chi&&en$D an&
&efen&ant$ li1e all #otoists$ is *es!#e& to 1no' the
la'+ /o ens!e that license s!s*ensions #ete& o!t
*!s!ant to N+J+,+A+ 39-5-31 ae i#*ose& in a easona"l(
7
fai an& !nifo# #anne$ so that si#ilal( sit!ate&
&efen&ants ae teate& si#ilal($ the %o!t to&a( &efines
the te# C'illf!l violationD containe& in N+J+,+A+ 39-5-31
an& en!nciates sentencing stan&a&s to g!i&e #!nici*al
co!t an& ;a' 7ivision =!&ges
11. $efense counsel must advise criminal of
deportation consequences.
"adilla v. :entuc#& 1!+ S. 2t. 174! .*+1+/
@etitione @a&illa$ a la'f!l *e#anent esi&ent of the
?nite& ,tates fo ove 40 (eas$ face& &e*otation afte
*lea&ing g!ilt( to &!g-&isti"!tion chages in Eent!c1(+
In *ost conviction *ocee&ings$ he clai#s that his co!nsel
not onl( faile& to a&vise hi# of this conse.!ence "efoe
he entee& the *lea$ "!t also tol& hi# not to 'o( a"o!t
&e*otation since he ha& live& in this co!nt( so long+ Fe
alleges that he 'o!l& have gone to tial ha& he not
eceive& this incoect a&vice /he ?, ,!*e#e %o!t
hel& "eca!se co!nsel #!st info# a client 'hethe his
*lea caies a is1 of &e*otation$ @a&illa has s!fficientl(
allege& that his co!nsel 'as constit!tionall( &eficient+
1* $efendant must invo#e right to remain silent.
Berghuis v. Thomp#ins 130 ,+ %t+ 2250 (2010)
7efen&ant /ho#*1ins9 silence &!ing the inteogation &i&
not invo1e his ight to e#ain silent+ A s!s*ect9s 4ian&a
ight to co!nsel #!st "e invo1e& A!na#"ig!o!sl(+A 7avis
v+ ?nite& ,tates$ 512 ?+,+ 452$ 459+ Fa& /ho#*1ins sai&
that he 'ante& to e#ain silent o that he &i& not 'ant to
tal1$ he 'o!l& have invo1e& his ight to en& the
8
.!estioning+ Fe &i& neithe+
9
1!. 9";A limits cop& fees to actual costs
Smith v. 3udson 2ount&
711,- Super )!5 .A**+ 7iv+2010/
@laintiffs assete& in these thee la's!its that
&efen&ants have ovechage& the#$ an& othe #e#"es
of the *!"lic$ fo the co*(ing of goven#ent eco&s
#aintaine& at %o!nt( offices$ in violation of N+J+,+A+
47-1A-5(") 'ithin the G*en @!"lic Heco&s Act
(AG@HAA)$ an& the co##on la'+ /he A**ellate 7ivision
evese& the tial co!ts) o&es &is#issing *laintiffs9
co#*laints+
/he co!t const!e& N+J+,+A+ 47-1A-5(") to e.!ie
that$ !nless an& !ntil the ;egislat!e a#en&s G@HA to
s*ecif( othe'ise$ o so#e othe stat!te o eg!lation
a**lies$ the %o!nties #!st chage no #oe than the
easona"l(-a**o0i#ate& Aact!al costsA of co*(ing s!ch
eco&s+ /he "!&en of *oving o &is*oving
co#*liance 'ith that Aact!al costA #an&ate 'ill va($
&e*en&ing !*on 'hethe the chages in .!estion
e0cee& cetain fee levels i&entifie& in the secon&
sentence of N+J+,+A+ 47-1A-5(")+ 2eca!se of the li1el(
"!&geta( an& a&#inistative i#*acts of o! hol&ing$ 'e
#a1e this &ecision *os*ective$ effective at the o!tset of
the ne0t fiscal (ea$ an& &en( *laintiffs etoactive elief+
10
17. $%I defendants entitled to Alcotest
machine data
State v Maricic
417 NJ ,!*e+ 280 (A**+ 7iv+ 2010)
In this 7II #atte$ the %o!t hel& that
&efen&ant has the ight to &iscove
&o'nloa&e& Alcotest es!lts fo# the s!"=ect
inst!#ent fo# the &ate of last cali"ation to
the &ate of &efen&ant9s "eath test an& an(
e*ai logs o 'itten &oc!#entation elating
to e*ais of the s!"=ect Alcotest #achine$
'itho!t a sho'ing of *io 1no'le&ge of
fla'e& *oce&!es o e.!i*#ent+
11
1). "lea to indictable offense barred $%I
prosecution based on double <eopard& State
v 3and
418 NJ ,!*e+ 822 (A**+ 7iv+ 2010)
In this a**eal "( the ,tate$ the %o!t &ete#ine& 'hethe
a g!ilt( *lea to fo!th-&egee ceating a is1 of 'i&es*ea&
in=!( o &eath$ N+J+,+A+ 2%-17-2(c)$ *ecl!&e& &efen&ant9s
s!"se.!ent *osec!tion fo &iving !n&e the infl!ence (7II)$
N+J+,+A+ 39-4-50+
/he %o!t affi#e&$ e=ecting the ,tate9s ag!#ent that
the Asa#e evi&enceA test set foth in ,tate v+ 7e ;!ca$ 108
N+J+ 98$ cet+ &enie&$ 484 ?+,+ 944$ 108 ,+ %t+ 331$ 98 ;+ 6&+
2& 358 (1987)$ sho!l& not a**l( to g!ilt( *leas "!t sho!l&
instea& a**l( to the act!al evi&ence to "e *esente& at tial+
2eca!se &efen&ant9s o*eation of his #oto vehicle !n&e the
infl!ence of alcohol 'as the ec1less act !*on 'hich the
in&ict#ent 'as "ase& an& also "eca!se the ,tate e.!ie&
&efen&ant$ as *at of his *lea to the in&ict#ent$ to a&#it that
he o*eate& his #oto vehicle !n&e the infl!ence of alcohol$
his s!"se.!ent *osec!tion fo 7II 'as "ae& on &o!"le
=eo*a&( go!n&s
12
18+ Mun 2ourt not bound b& another 2ourt 9rder that $%I conviction could not be used
for enhanced penalt&
State v 1nright 418 NJ ,!*e+ 391 (A**+ 7iv 2010)
Afte &efen&ant9s conviction an& sentence in the
#!nici*al co!t as a thi&-ti#e 7II offen&e$ he
o"taine& a *ost-conviction o&e fo# a &iffeent
#!nici*al co!t in 'hich his secon& 7II conviction
ha& occ!e& confi#ing that conviction "!t &iecting
that no co!t co!l& !se it to enhance his sentence
on a s!"se.!ent 7II conviction+ /he %o!t hel&
that the #!nici*al co!t o&e 'as an eoneo!s
a**lication of ,tate v+ ;a!ic1$ 120 N+J+ 1$ an& that
on &e novo evie' of the thi& 7II conviction$ the
;a' 7ivision coectl( &ecline& to follo' the
#!nici*al co!t9s o&e+
13
17 "olice 2ould ,ot 8ift =p
Shirt for Terr& >ris#. State v.
"rivott 203 NJ 18 (2010)
2ase& on the totalit( of the
cic!#stances$ thee 'ee s*ecific an&
*atic!lai5e& easons fo the office to
con&!ct an investigato( sto* an& to fis1
&efen&ant @ivott+ Fo'eve$ the office)s
con&!ct in lifting &efen&ant)s shit
e0cee&e& the sco*e of a easona"le
int!sion that is *e#itte& as *at of a
/e( sto*+
14
15. Abandoned Bag "ermits Search.
State v. 2arva<al 202 NJ 214 (2010)
/he ,tate satisfie& its "!&en of
*oving "( a *e*on&eance of the
evi&ence that the &!ffel "ag 'as
a"an&one&+ %ava=al &enie& having
an( o'neshi* o *ossesso( inteest in
the "ag$ an& the *olice atte#*te& to
i&entif( othe *otential o'nes+ %ava=al
theefoe ha& no stan&ing to challenge
the 'aantless seach of the "ag+
15
19+ 2ar search requires e0igent cic!#stances: /ele*honic seach 'aants a**ove&
State v. "ena?>lores 198 NJ 8 (2009)
/he ,!*e#e %o!t affi#s its longstan&ing
*ece&ent that *e#its an a!to#o"ile seach 'itho!t a
'aant onl( in cases in 'hich the *olice have "oth
*o"a"le ca!se to "elieve that the vehicle contains
evi&ence an& e0igent cic!#stances that 'o!l& =!stif(
&is*ensing 'ith the 'aant e.!ie#ent+ Ihethe
e0igent cic!#stances e0ist is to "e &eci&e& on a case-
"(-case "asis 'ith the foc!s on *olice safet( an& the
*esevation of evi&ence+ /he %o!t also &ete#ines
that a 'aant o"taine& "( tele*honic o electonic #eans
is the e.!ivalent of an in-*eson 'aant an& &oes not
e.!ie *oof of e0igent cic!#stances+
18
*+. 9nce impounded the police were
required to obtain a warrant before
searching the vehicle.
State v Minitee 415 NJ ,!*e+ 475 (A**+ 7iv+
2010)
In these "ac1-to-"ac1 a**eals
concening the 'aantless seach of a
#oto vehicle$ the co!t hel& that the
e0igent cic!#stances that e0iste& at the
scene onl( *e#itte& the *olice to sei5e
the vehicle+ ?n&e o! ,tate9s
%onstit!tion$ once i#*o!n&e&$ the *olice
'ee e.!ie& to o"tain a 'aant "efoe
seaching the vehicle+
17
*1+ 60*et can testif( to la" e*ot if the(
'atche& J s!*evise& la" test
,tate v Heh#ann KK NJ ,!*e+ KK
A-3291-09/3
In see1ing to *ove &efen&ant9s "loo& alcohol
content in this 7II *osec!tion$ the ,tate calle& an
e0*et to testif( a"o!t the es!lts of a la"oato( test
*efo#e& on &efen&ant9s "loo& sa#*le "( anothe
technician+ In consi&eing &efen&ant9s ag!#ent that
the fail!e to *o&!ce the othe technician violate& the
ights g!aantee& hi# "( the %onfontation %la!se of
the ,i0th A#en&#ent$ the co!t hel& that in s!ch
cic!#stances the ,tate #!st call a 'itness 'ho has
#a&e an in&e*en&ent &ete#ination as to the es!lts
offee&+ /he co!t concl!&e& that a s!ogate 'itness
1no'ing nothing "!t 'hat is state& in anothe9s e*ot
'ill not satisf( a &efen&ant9s confontation ights "!t
nevetheless affi#e& an& fo!n& that the ,tate calle&
an a**o*iate 'itness "eca!se the 'itness s!*evise&
the testing *ocess an& signe& the la"oato(
cetificate+ 4-29-11
18
** Motion to suppress granted when
police did not obtain telephonic search
warrant for car. State v Shannon @@ ,-
Super. @@ .App. $iv. *+11/ A?*)76?+5T7
/he co!t evese& &efen&ant9s conviction of
*ossession of cocaine$ fin&ing his #otion to
s!**ess the cocaine fo!n& in a 'aant-less
seach of his Jee* sho!l& have "een gante&+
/he seach 'as not inci&ent to aest$ &i& not
occ! late at night$ the sto* 'as in a esi&ential
aea$ an& fo! As"!( @a1 @olice Gffices 'ee
at the scene 'ith &efen&ant$ 'ho 'as alone+
/he co!t fo!n& no e0igenc( e0iste& *!s!ant
to ,tate v+ @ena->loes 198 N+J+ 8 (2009)+ 02-
03-11
19
23 If defendant had prior 2$ canAt get "TI.
State v 9BBrien @@ ,- Super. @@ .App. $iv.
*+11/ A?716+?+6T*
/he .!estion *esente& is 'hethe a
&efen&ant 'ho *evio!sl( eceive& s!*eviso(
teat#ent !n&e the con&itional &ischage
stat!te$ N+J+,+A+ 2%-38A-1$ an& 'ho late
a**lie& fo an& o"taine& an o&e vacating the
con&itional &ischage$ #a( theeafte "e
a&#itte& into @/I+ /he co!t ans'e the
.!estion in the negative$ concl!&ing that
N+J+,+A+ 2%-43-12g an& H!le 3-28$ 3!i&eline
3(g) *ohi"it an( *eson *evio!sl( *lace& into
s!*eviso( teat#ent !n&e the con&itional
&ischage stat!te fo# s!"se.!ent a&#ission
into @/I$ 'hethe the con&itional &ischage is
late vacate& o not+ 2-10-11
20
24 @olice sho!l& not &esto( initial notes
State v. %.B. @@ ,-@@.A?5+?+6/
April *4 *+11
Afte *o&!cing thei final e*ots$ la'
enfoce#ent offices #a( not &esto( conte#*oaneo!s
notes of intevie's an& o"sevations at the scene of a
ci#e+ G! ci#inal &iscove( !les *ovi&e fo &iscove(
of all state#ents of 'itnesses an& *olice e*ots that ae
Cin the *ossession$ c!sto&( an& contol of the
*osec!to+D H!le 3-13-3 enco#*asses the 'itings of
an( *olice office !n&e the *osec!to)s s!*evision as
the chief la' enfoce#ent office of the co!nt(+ If a case
is efee& to the *osec!to follo'ing aest "( a *olice
office$ o on a co#*laint "( a *olice office$ local la'
enfoce#ent is *at of the *osec!to)s office fo
&iscove( *!*oses+ I#*le#entation of this etention an&
&isclos!e e.!ie#ent is &efee& fo thit( &a(s to allo'
*osec!tos s!fficient ti#e to e&!cate *olice offices+
/heeafte$ if an office)s notes ae lost o &esto(e&
"efoe tial$ a &efen&ant$ !*on e.!est$ #a( "e entitle& to
an a&vese infeence chage #ol&e& to the facts of the
case
21
*) 3earings ordered to determine reliabilit& of
different thermometer used to test alcotest
State v 3olland
A-4384-09/3
In a**eals fo# 7II convictions$ the co!t hel&
that Alcotest es!lts ae not *e se ina&#issi"le
si#*l( "eca!se the &evice has "een cali"ate& 'ith
a %ontol %o#*an( te#*eat!e *o"e instea& of
the 6tco-Fat the#o#ete vali&ate& "( the
,!*e#e %o!t in ,tate v+ %h!n+ 2eca!se the
eco& in these #attes$ ho'eve$ is ins!fficient to
s!**ot a fin&ing that the &igital the#o#ete !se&
'as s!"stantiall( si#ila to the 6tco-Fat &evice$
the co!t e#an& to the ;a' 7ivision fo a
consoli&ate& heaing to &ete#ine the elia"ilit( of
the %ontol %o#*an( *o"e$ incl!&ing 'hethe
&iffeences "et'een the t'o ha& an( i#*act at all
on the acc!ac( of the !lti#ate es!lts+ 04-05-11
22
@@@@ Ignition interloc# device required? over.1) *nd !rd refusals
>ee e#ail ne'slette on cases an& aticles on 4!nici*al %o!t Cercammen8awD,<laws.com
Beca##en fa#il( &og >i5"( sa(s /han1 (o! fo atten&ing o! *oga#L
'''+n=la's+co#
;ecent 2hanges in Municipal 2ourt 8aw
Ma<or 2ases in $;=( $%I A,$ S1;I9=S T;A>>I2 2AS1S
:enneth Cercammen 1sq.
*+)! %oodbridge Ave.
1dison ,- +5514
"ower"oint availableE
1mail Cercammen8awD,<laws.com
Ma& *! *+11
23