State v. Carjaval – NJ Supreme Court, June 2, 2010.

Based on information from a confidential informant, the police approached the defendant when he got off a bus from Miami to New Jersey to question him about where he was going. The defendant denied having brought any luggage with him from Miami and then police then asked everyone else on the bus to verify ownership of their luggage by using the claim ticket they had been given when they checked their luggage. After the other passengers verified their luggage one duffel bag remained, which the defendant denied ownership or knowledge of. Based on the fact that the bag appeared to be abandoned, the police searched the bag and found heroin pellets and a health card with the defendant’s name on it.

The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the defendant did not have standing to challenge the warrantless search of the bag because he had denied having any possessory or ownership interest in the bag and the police had attempted to find other potential owners among those on the bus. The Court found that he voluntarily and knowingly relinquished any rights he had to the bag and the facts did not suggest that the police were being coercive or overbearing. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the defendant acted consistent with someone who had no ownership interest in the bag.

Additional New Jersey Criminal Law information and Articles

Quereshi v. Cintas Corporation

Issue: Whether a judge of compensation must award counsel fees in addition to a penalty when an employer fails to make timely payment of temporary disability benefits and the appropriate standard to fashion the reasonable attorneys' fees allowed by statute.

Holding: the award of attorneys' fees is mandatory and the judge of compensation is not limited by the statutory formula governing fee awards following an award of benefits.

Facts: The employer failed to timely pay the temporary benefits as required by a previous order. The judge then assessed a penalty on the original award but did not award additional attorney fees. The Appellate Court found that the judge must award reasonable attorneys' fees when a petitioner has to incur legal fees to obtain the wrongfully or negligently withheld funds.

With respect to the size of the award of attorneys' fees, the court compared the statutory language of § 64 and § 28.1. The court noted that in § 64 there was a specific limit on the size of the award and in § 28.1 there was no corresponding limit. The language of § 28.1 suggests that reasonableness is bounded by the causal relation of the need to incur an attorney's fee to obtain previously award and expected benefits. The legislative history also supports this interpretation.

Searching Without A Warrant Leads to Suppressed Evidence

State v. Jefferson – App. Div. May 21, 2010.

The charges against the defendant arose form a warrantless search of his person and his residence. The police had detained the defendant to investigate his involvement in a reported shooting of a firearm. When the police went to speak with him he was inside his apartment building, which was not open to the public, and they were standing outside the door. When the defendant stepped back from the door it opened a little and one of the officers wedged herself inside and eventually arrested the defendant. The Appellate Division said that it was unreasonable for the officer to wedge herself through the door and that it was unreasonable for her to believe that she was permitted to move to the threshold to view defendant’s entire body, and not just the top half.

There is no warrant exception that authorizes police to enter a home to make a Terry-type investigative detention of a suspect. However, because the defendant pushed the door into the officer and resisted arrest, the officer lawfully arrested him at that point and conducted a search incident to arrest. The drugs they found on his person at that point were admissible as evidence. The police also found drugs when they subsequently searched the apartment of the defendant and the court found that those drugs should be suppressed, even though the defendant’s girlfriend had signed a waiver, because that evidence was the fruit of the unconstitutional entry into the hallway and the initial sweep of the apartment.

Read other New Jersey Criminal Law Articles

Amended NewJersey Seatbelt Law

[5/31/10 - 10:30 pm] The Legisture has amended the provisions of New Jersey's seatbelt law under NJSA 39:3-76-2(f) and (g) to require that all occupants of a passenger automobile, including adults who are seated in the rear utilize a seatbelt when the vehicle is being operated. Under the prior law, adults seated in the rear of a passenger automobile were not required to utilize a seatbelt.

As far as enforcement is concerned, a companion new statute, NJSA 39:3-76.2(n) categorizes seatbelt violations as secondary offenses, meaning that police must detain the vehicle for a different violation before issuing a summons and complaint for this offense.

Read other New Jersey criminal law articles