Archive for May 2011
State v Audubato
Yesterday, in State v Audubato (see below) the App Div held that use of flashing lights did not transform a field inquiry into a Terry ‘stop’ in a case where def was a already stopped in front of his own house. Field inquiries do not require any basis at all. In this case the court…
Read MoreKentucky v. King (Docket No. 09-1272, Decided May 16, 2011)
Summary In Kentucky v. King (Docket No. 09-1272, Decided May 16, 2011) the United States Supreme Court held that a warrantless entry based on exigent circumstances is reasonable when the police did not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct violating the Fourth Amendment. During the course of a controlled drug…
Read MoreState v. McLean, 205 N.J. 438 (N.J. 2011)
HELD: The opinion offered by the officer does not meet the requirementsneeded to qualify it as a lay opinion and permitting the officer to testifyabout his opinion invaded the fact-finding province of the jury.1. The familiar standards governing expert opinion testimony are found inthree separate rules. See N.J.R.E. 702, 703, 705. An expert is one…
Read MoreLaw Enforcement Notes
T HIS WEEK THE NJ SUPREME COURT RULED THAT if a law enforcement officer’s notes are lost or destroyed before trial, a defendant, upon request, may be entitled to an adverse inference charge. Defendant, charged with sexual assault, was interviewed by law enforcement officers at which time he acknowledged having sexual relations with the alleged…
Read MoreKentucky v. King
In Kentucky v. King the United States Supreme Court held that a warrantless entry based on exigent circumstances is reasonable when the police did not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct violating the Fourth Amendment. During the course of a controlled drug bust, officers in pursuit of a suspected drug…
Read MoreState v. Rehmann
On May 1, 2011 in State v. Rehmann, the Appellate Division ruled that the supervisor of a state police laboratory technician would be permitted to testify at the defendant’s drunk driving trial, even though the supervisor did not personally test the defendant’s blood sample. The Court reasoned that confrontation clause considerations normally require that all…
Read More