Legal Updates

Please note: ESPOS Test Prep provides "LEGAL UPDATES" as a resource to assist candidates and law enforcement personnel. However, no changes to existing policies, procedures, rules and regulations are recommended without the direct guidance of and consultation with your respective agency’s legal advisor.  We only provide updates to keep you informed. 

ATS Warrants: Time, Place and Manner of Execution ​

September 9, 2022 - The New Jersey Supreme Court decided a case in late August that arose from an arrest on an outstanding ATS (Automated Traffic System) warrant issued by a municipal court for failure to appear on a motor vehicle violation. This article explores the Court’s review of the time, place, and manner in which the ATS warrant was executed according to the NJ Supreme Court. Click here to read more.  ​

NJ Appellate Court Rules on Consent to Search Objects Belonging to a Third Party​

August 12, 2022 - A recent NJ Appellate Court decision clarified that an adult defendant's aunt and mother did not have authority to consent to a search of closed containers belonging to the defendant even though they were discovered in his mother’s room inside of his aunt’s house.  Click here to read more.  ​

K-9 Sniffs and the NJ Automobile Exception​

July 15, 2022 - The Appellate Division recently published a decision in State v. Kyle A. Smart, Docket No. A- 2334-21 (App. Div. 2022), which involved the warrantless search of vehicle under the automobile exception to pursuant to State v. Witt, 223 N.J. 409, 450 (2015). The Court in its decision agreed the police could not have secured a warrant before the vehicle was stopped and, therefore, determined that the police did not "sit" on probable cause. However, the Court did disagree with the State's argument that probable cause under the circumstances was unforeseeable and spontaneous within the meaning of Witt.  Click here to read more.  ​

Tinted Windows and Traffic Stops​

July 1, 2022 - In State v. Smith (2022), the New Jersey Supreme Court clarified when an officer’s observation of a motor vehicle’s tinted windows will justify a traffic stop.  Click here to read more.  ​

US Supreme Court Eliminates the “Special Need” Requirement for Carry Permits​

June 24, 2022 - In New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen (2022), the United States Supreme Court invalidated New York state’s system for issuing concealed firearm permits, ruling that New York’s law requiring applicants to demonstrate “proper cause,” that is, a “special need for self-protection,” violates the Second Amendment. Writing for the Court, Justice Thomas specifically mentioned that carry permit laws in California, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey shared New York’s constitutional flaw.  Click here to read more.  ​

US Supreme Court: No Right to Sue for a Miranda Violation​

June 24, 2022 - In Vega v. Tekoh (2022), the United States Supreme Court addressed the question whether an individual may sue a police officer under 42 U.S.C. §1983, based on the allegedly improper admission of an “un-Mirandized” statement in a criminal prosecution.  Click here to read more.

New Directives Restrict When Warrant Arrests Can be Made​

June 23, 2022 - On June 23, 2022, the latest AG Directive (2022-06) will take effect and require all law enforcement officers to follow the recently issued Directive (04-22) of the New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts concerning municipal court bench warrants. The new directives state that individuals encountered with “qualifying warrants” should generally not be subject to a custodial arrest, a search, or handcuffing, unless issuing the notice on scene poses a safety risk or probable cause that a crime has been committed or a pre-existing circumstance—independent of the warrant—justifies such action.  Click here to read more.  ​

NJ Attorney General Revises Vehicle Pursuit Policy​

April 29, 2022 - On April 29, 2022, the New Jersey Attorney General issued Law Enforcement Directive 2022-4, which revised the Motor Vehicle Pursuit Policy.  Click here to read more.  ​

Malicious Prosecution Claims Clarified by US Supreme Court​

April 23, 2022 - After extensive analysis, the US Supreme Court settled the issue surrounding the elements of a malicious prosecution tort, holding that that “a Fourth Amendment claim under §1983 for malicious prosecution does not require the plaintiff to show that the criminal prosecution ended with some affirmative indication of innocence. Click here to read more.  ​

Advice of Future “Possible Charges” Need Not be Given Prior to Interrogation​

March 18, 2022 - On March 16, 2022, the New Jersey Supreme Court concluded that the Appellate Division’s new rule established in State v. Sims requiring officers to tell an arrestee, not subject to a complaint-warrant or arrest warrant, what charges he may face before interrogating him “is unwarranted and impractical."   Click here to read more.  ​

“Hands-Free” Cell Phone Use Case Decided by NJ Appeals Court​

March 13, 2022 - On March 9, 2022, the New Jersey Appellate Division published a decision interpreting our motor vehicle law governing the use of a hands-free and hand-held wireless communication device while driving. In short, the Court’s ruling makes it clear that pressing a series of numbers on a wireless device or phone to access its applications while operating a motor vehicle is a violation of N.J.S. 39:4-97.3.    Click here to read more.  ​

NJ Supreme Court Clarifies Rules of Protective Sweeps ​

January 31, 2022 - The New Jersey Supreme Court recently had the opportunity to review two cases concerning the protective sweep of a home that occurred when an arrest was made outside the home.  As a brief reminder, protective sweeps are quick and limited to an area that could harbor an individual posing a danger.  Click here to read more.  ​

NJ Attorney General Issues Directive on the Execution of Warrants ​

December 31, 2021 - The New Jersey Attorney General issued Law Enforcement Directive 2021-12 regarding “no-knock” warrants on December 7, 2021.  This new Directive went into effect on December 21, 2021, and sets forth procedures that all law enforcement officers must follow when executing “no-knock” warrants and when utilizing “flash bang” devices. It also sets forth general restrictions with respect to executing a search warrant at a premises.  Click here to read more.  ​

NJ Court Rules that Knock and Announce Rule Violations Will Require Evidence to be Suppressed ​

December 10, 2021 - The recent Appellate Division ruling in State v. Caronna, states that when police flagrantly violate a knock and announce requirement in a search warrant, the enhanced protections provided under our New Jersey Constitution will require the suppression of any evidence seized.  Click here to read more.  ​

NJ Appellate Court Rules the “Reckless Disregard” Portion
          Of the Terrorist Threat Statute Unconstitutional ​

December 9, 2021 - In State v. Fair (App.Div. 12-9-2021), the Appellate Division held that “[t]he reckless-disregard portion of N.J.S. 2C:12-3(a) is unconstitutionally overbroad because it has the capacity to criminalize speech and expressions protected by the First Amendment.  Click here to read more.  ​

Appellate Court Allows Second Pat-down Under Certain Circumstances​

November 10, 2021 - In the recently published decision of State v. Josue A. Carrillo, Docket No. A-4889-18 (App. Div. 2021), our Appellate Division Court ruled on the lawfulness of a second Terry frisk that occurred during the same police-citizen encounter.   Appellate Court Allows Second Pat-down Under Certain Circumstances.  Click here to read more.  ​

Court Clarifies Rules Regarding Passengers in a Stopped Motor Vehicle​

October 12, 2021 - In mid-September, the Appellate Division ruled in State v. Boston (A-4752-17) that “[i]n a routine traffic stop where the driver has to be arrested on an open traffic warrant, the officer's asking whether a passenger is a licensed driver is reasonable; but when the passenger claims he does not possess a license, the officer's further demand for identification from the unlicensed passenger in the absence of particularized suspicion is not.”  Click here to read more.  ​

Clarifying the “License Plate Frame” Issue​

August 5, 2021 - In State v. Carter, (8-2-2021), the New Jersey Supreme Court combined two cases to decide the reach of N.J.S. 39:3-33 as it applies to license plate frames.   Click here to read more.  ​

NJ Supreme Court Further Analyzes In-Custody for the Purposes of Miranda

July 10, 2021 - In mid-June, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued an opinion in State v. Zakariyya Ahmad, which sets forth more context to the “in-custody” status of a person who is questioned by the police for the purposes of Miranda.  In short, the Miranda warnings are required when the police are going to interrogate someone who is in their custody.  However, what “in-custody” means for the purposes of Miranda can be confusing since there are so many variables when a subject is not actually placed under arrest prior to be questioned by the police.  Click here to read more.  ​

AG Issues New IA Policy and Directive

June 10, 2021 - On June 7, 2021, the Supreme Court of New Jersey upheld the validity of the Major Discipline Directive as previously issued by the New Jersey Attorney General (AG). This resulted in the AG issuing Directive 2021-6 on June 9, 2021, along with a revised Internal Affairs Policy and Procedures (IAPP), which went into effect immediately.  Although the most recent version of the IAPP is over 90 pages, the most notable changes are summarized in this article. Click here to read more.  ​

US Supreme Court Rules on Community Caretaking and Home Entries

May 17, 2021 - In Caniglia v. Strom (US 5-17-21), the United States Supreme Court addressed the question whether law enforcement’s community caretaking duties create a stand-alone doctrine that justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home. The answer, according to the Court, is NO! Here, the Court refused to recognize the “community caretaking” rule as a “freestanding” Fourth Amendment category.  Click here to read more.  ​

New Guidance Issued on Interactions Between Law Enforcement and Members of the Press at Public Protest

May 11, 2021 - In late April, the New Jersey Attorney General issued guidance on interactions between law enforcement and members of the press at public protests.  Although law enforcement officers recognize that members of the public have a First Amendment right to peaceably assemble, there are situations when unlawful conduct may occur at a protest.  To ensure that the rights afforded to our citizens under our Constitution are balanced with sound public safety methods, the new guidance sets forth best practices for law enforcement and press at protests.  Click here to read more.  ​

AG Directive Protecting Tenants from Illegal Eviction

April 3, 2021 - On March 30, 2021, the New Jersey Attorney General issued a directive protecting tenants from illegal evictions.  This directive was in response to the increased number of complaints and unlawful actions by landlords since the eviction moratorium has been in place as a result of the COVID pandemic. The law regarding unlawful evictions and the role of law enforcement in preventing illegal evictions dates back to 2006 when 2C:33-11.1 was signed into law. The new directive also supersedes the former AG policy from 2009 concerning the unlawful eviction law.  Click here to read more.  ​

US Supreme Court Rules that an Unsuccessful Attempt to Stop a Suspect is a “Seizure.”

March 28, 2021 - In Torres v. Madrid (US 3-25-21), the United States Supreme Court addressed the question whether a seizure occurs when an officer shoots someone who temporarily eludes capture after the shooting. The answer, according to the Court, “is yes: The application of physical force to the body of a person with intent to restrain is a seizure, even if the force does not succeed in subduing the person.”   Click here to read more.  ​

NJ Marijuana Decriminalization and Cannabis Legalization

Updated March 26, 2021 - Update to the section on "Special Rules for Those Under the Age of 21" after P.L.2021, c.38 was signed into law.

March 16, 2021 - On November 3, 2020, the citizens of New Jersey voted (with a 67% rate of approval) to pass a constitutional amendment decriminalizing marijuana for persons 21 years of age or older. The constitutional amendment, which took effect on January 1, 2021, was followed with the passage of three extensive pieces of legislation on February 22, 2021. This has changed the legal status of marijuana and hashish and the way law enforcement officials may treat those suspected of the possession or use of those substances.   Click here to read more.  ​

NJ Eyewitness Identification Procedures Revised

March 14, 2021 - Recently, the New Jersey Attorney General revised the procedures that law enforcement officers must follow when composing, conducting and recording out-of-court identifications made by an eyewitness. The changes were prompted by two separate New Jersey Supreme Court decisions in 2019 that ultimately led to the Court adopting revised rules for recording an out-of-court identification (Rule 3:11).  Click here to read more.  ​

Asking Occupants to Step Out of a Vehicle

February 11, 2021 - When a vehicle is lawfully stopped by the police, there are times when officers can ask the occupants to step out of the vehicle.  However, there are specific decisions from our Courts that guide us on this topic and the rules are not the same for drivers and passengers.  Click here to read more.  ​

NJ Appellate Court Rules in Miranda Waiver Case Prior to Charges Being Filed

April 11, 2021 - The State filed for a “stay” of the Appellate Court’s decision and they were seeking to have the case reviewed by the New Jersey Supreme Court.  The State's request for a stay of the lower court’s decision was granted and the New Jersey Supreme Court will be reviewing the decision in this matter. 

January 11, 2021 - On January 4, 2021, the Appellate Division published their decision in State v. Anthony Sims, Jr., (Docket No. A-2641-17T2), which included a partial dissenting opinion by one judge on the panel (more on that later). In the Court’s decision, they now extend the NJ Supreme Court's holdings in State v. A.G.D., 178 N.J. 56 (2003), and State v. Vincenty, 237 N.J. 122 (2019), which requires the police to inform a defendant subject to custodial interrogation of the specific charges filed against them before they can waive their Miranda rights to “also apply to an interrogee who was arrested and questioned prior to any charges being filed, where the arrest was based upon information developed through an earlier police investigation.” Sims, Jr., supra.  Click here to read more.  ​

US Supreme Court to Decide Whether an Unsuccessful Attempt to Stop a Suspect is a "Seizure."

December 5, 2020 - In Torres v. Madrid, (US 19-292), the US Supreme Court agreed to address whether an unsuccessful attempt to detain a suspect by the use of physical force constitutes a Fourth Amendment “seizure.” In the court below, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it did not, and in favor of the police. 769 Fed. Appx. 654 (2019).​  Click here to read more.  ​

US Supreme Court to Decide Warrantless “Hot Pursuit” Home Entry for a Minor Offense

December 5, 2020 - In Lange v. California, (U.S. 20-18) (cert. granted 10-19-20) the United States Supreme Court agreed to decide the issue whether a police officer may make a warrantless home entry when the officer is in pursuit of a person of whom the officer has probable cause to believe has committed a jailable misdemeanor offense.​  Click here to read more.  ​

Home Entries ​

December 4, 2020 - Many times, officers are confronted with a situation where they are at the doorstep of a person’s home and they need decide if they can lawfully enter. However, the decision to enter – or not to enter – is one that must be made considering many different cases involving home entries that have been decided by our courts.  Click here to read more.  ​

NJ Attorney General Issues Directive Establishing “Statewide Handle with Care” Program​

November 1, 2020 - Due to the complex nature of handling incidents involving children, the NJ Attorney General has issued several policies throughout the years that guide law enforcement officers on how to handle a variety of situations. There are policies on child abductions, handling acts of delinquency and there are even procedures on handling the anonymous surrender of a newborn baby. Add to that list the newest policy, Attorney General Directive 2020-09 – Establishing “Statewide Handle with Care” Program, issued on October 6, 2020.  Click here to read more.  ​

US Supreme Court Rules on "Owner is the Driver" Assumption

Posted April 16, 2020 - May a law enforcement officer, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, initiate an investigative traffic stop after running a vehicle’s license plate and learning that the registered owner has a revoked driver’s license? In Kansas v. Glover (U.S. 2020), the United States Supreme Court said: yes!  Click here to read more.  ​

The Use of a K-9 During a Motor Vehicle Stop in NJ

Posted January 15, 2020 - From time-to-time there is confusion as the proper and lawful use of a canine to conduct a sniff during a motor vehicle stop. Recently, the New Jersey Supreme Court has decided cases that directly address the issue of using a canine in this setting. Click here to read more.  ​

US Supreme Court Rules in Retaliatory Arrest Claim Case

Posted December 14, 2019 -  In Nieves v. Bartlett, 139 S.Ct. 1715 (2019), the United States Supreme Court held that the existence of probable cause to arrest will defeat a claim that the police retaliated against a person for his or her protected First Amendment speech.  Click here to read more.  

NJ Supreme Court Rules on Obtaining a Second DNA Buccal Swab After the First was Suppressed

Posted October 6, 2019 -  Are there any circumstances under which the police may obtain a new buccal swab for DNA, when the previously obtained sample was declared unlawfully obtained and suppressed? In State v. Camey (N.J. 2019), the New Jersey Supreme Court said yes!   Click here to read more.  

High Court Permits Warrantless Blood Draws From Unconscious Drunk Drivers

Posted July 3, 2019 - Is a warrant required for a blood test when an officer has probable cause to believe a motorist has been driving while under the influence of alcohol, but the motorist is unconscious and cannot be given a breath test? Recently, in Mitchell v. Wisconsin (U.S. 2019), the United States Supreme Court said no.   Click here to read more.  

Tow and Impound of Vehicle Does Not Alter NJ Automobile Exception

Posted May 5, 2019 -  In early May, the Appellate Division reversed a trial court ruling that ordered the suppression of evidence seized during a motor vehicle stop on the basis that a search conducted under the New Jersey Automobile Exception was improper because the police had sufficient grounds to tow and impound the vehicle. In a published decision, State of New Jersey v. Juan Rodriguez (A-0180-18T4), the court held that “the police officers were not required to impound [the] defendant's vehicle in order to search it under the circumstances presented.  Click here to read more.  

US Supreme Court Limits Excessive Forfeitures as Criminal Penalties

Posted February 28, 2019 - In Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. ___ (2019), the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled that states cannot impose excessive fees, fines and forfeitures as criminal penalties. The Court’s decision underscores that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “excessive fines” applies to states and localities as well as the federal government.
 Click here to read more.  

No Delay in Transportation of Arrestee for Prayer

Posted July 1, 2018 - If an officer places a suspect under arrest and orders the suspect to enter a police vehicle for transportation to jail, does the suspect have a right to delay that trip by insisting on first engaging in prayer? Recently, in Sause v. Bauer, (US 6-28-18), the United States Supreme Court said no! Once placed under arrest, the suspect does not have a right to delay that trip by insisting on first engaging in prayer—“conduct that, at another time, would be protected by the First Amendment.”  Click here to read more.  

US Supreme Court Protects Cell Phone Location Information

Posted June 24, 2018  -  Does an individual have a constitutional right of privacy in his or her cell-phone location information? Recently, in Carpenter v. United States (US 6-22-18), the United States Supreme Court said yes! The question before the Court was how to apply the Fourth Amendment to the personal location information maintained by a third party and law enforcement’s “ability to chronicle a person’s past movements through the record of his cell phone signals.”  The United States Supreme Court held that the Government’s acquisition of cell-site records revealing the location of a cell phone whenever it made or received calls was a Fourth Amendment search. Click here to read more.  

Driveway Car Searches Unlawful Without a Warrant

Posted May 31, 2018  -  Does the automobile exception permit a law enforcement officer, uninvited and without a warrant, to enter the curtilage of a home in order to search a vehicle parked at the top of the home’s driveway? Recently, in Collins v. Virginia, 584 U.S.  ___ (2018), the United States Supreme Court said no! “The automobile exception does not afford the necessary lawful right of access to search a vehicle parked within a home or its curtilage because it does not justify an intrusion on a person’s separate and substantial Fourth Amendment interest in his home and curtilage.” Click here to read more.  

Megan’s Law: Lifetime Registration Requirements for Juvenile Sex Offenders Held Unconstitutional

Posted May 15, 2018  -  In State In Interest of C.K. (NJ 2018), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that N.J.S. 2C:7-2(g) is unconstitutional as applied to juveniles adjudicated delinquent as sex offenders. The Court held that “subsection (g)’s lifetime registration and notification requirements as applied to juveniles violate the substantive due process guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution.”  Click here to read more.  

NJ Appellate Court Sends Harsh Message in Police Interpreter Case

Posted April 22, 2018  -  A NJ Appellate Court sends a harsh message to Departments that rely on police officer interpreters during custodial interrogations of non-English-speaking suspects. In State v. A.M. (App.Div. 2018), the Appellate Division held that defendant’s incriminating statements should have been suppressed because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary decision to waive his Miranda rights.  Click here to read more.  

US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Police in a Deadly Force Case

Posted April 16, 2018  -  In Kisela v. Hughes, 584 U.S. ___, (2018), a §1983 civil rights lawsuit involving an officer’s use of deadly force, the United States Supreme Court held that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because his actions did not violate “clearly established law.”  Click here to read more.  

US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Police in D.C. House Party Case

Posted January 29, 2018  -  In District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 577 (2018), the United States Supreme Court rejected a claim made by sixteen trespassing partygoers that the police lacked probable cause to arrest them.  The circumstances unfolded at about 1:00 a.m. in the middle of March, when District of Columbia police officers responded to a complaint about loud music and illegal activities at a house described as “vacant” by the caller, a former neighborhood commissioner.  Upon arrival, several neighbors confirmed that the house should have been empty.   Click here to read more.  

NJ Supreme Court Clarifies the Malfunctioning Taillight Issue

Posted January 31, 2018  -  In State v. Sutherland (NJ 2018), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that Title 39 requires a motor vehicle to have two working rear lamps, with at least one working lamp on each side.  The trial court found the stop unlawful, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding that the relevant motor vehicle statutes were ambiguous and, based on Heien v. North Carolina, the officer’s stop of Sutherland’s car was based on a reasonable mistake of law, and therefore did not require suppression.  The New Jersey Supreme Court disagreed and reversed.   Click here to read more.  
Click here to return to ESPOS News & Info.