Top 25 Cases affecti ng Municipal Court

for 12- 6- 2010

By Kenneth Vercammen, s!"
#o $iscussion of recent Municipal
Court casela% %oul$ &e complet e
%ithout first mentioni ng the most
import ant case in the past 25 years-
State v. Chun 194 NJ 54 (2008). Here the #'
(upreme Court hel$, subject to certain
condi tions the !"cotest breath testin#
$achine is scienti%ica""& re"iab"e and that its
resu"ts are ad$issib"e in drun' drivin#
(rosecutions.
1
)*+ 1" )*+ )ismisse$ ,n$er (pee$y
Trial *here More than -60 )ay .apse"
State v. )setse'as 411 NJ Su(er 1
(!((. *iv. 2009)
)he court reversed the +a, *ivision
conviction and re-uired dis$issa" o% the *./
char#e due to a vio"ation o% de%endant0 s ri#ht
to a s(eed& tria". )he e1tensive de"a& in
adjudicati n# this $atter caused so"e"& b& the
state0s re(eated "a(ses in (re(aration and
the %ai"ure to secure its ,itnesses in%rin#ed
on de%endant0 s due (rocess ri#hts.
2
)*+ 2" +n )*+ case (tate must pro/i$e
20 minute o&ser/ati on of $ri/er prior to
&reath test &y clear an$ con/incing
e/i$ence, &ut arresting officer can
testify as part of 20 minutes
(tate / ,gro/ics 410 NJ Su(er. 482
(!((. *iv. 2009)
)his !((e""ate (ane" he"d that the State is
on"& re-uired to estab"ish that the test
subject did not in#est re#ur#i tate or ("ace
an&thi n# in his or her $outh that $a&
co$(ro$ise the re"iabi"i t& o% the test resu"ts
%or a (eriod o% at "east t,ent& $inutes (rior
to the ad$inistrati on o% the !"cotest. )he
State can $eet this burden b& ca""in# an&
co$(etent ,itness ,ho can so attest.
2
)*+ -" #o se!uestrati on of $efense
e0pert in )*+ case
(tate /" 1opo/ich 405 NJ Su(er. 292
(!((. *iv. 2009)
*e%endant0 s conviction is reversed3 the
tria" court erred ,hen it ru"ed that
de%endant0 s e1(ert ,as subject to a
se-uestration order and ,ou"d not (er$i t the
e1(ert to ,atch the tria" testi $on&.
4
)*+ 2" )estruction of Vi$eo Tape may
1ermi t )*+ )efen$ant to Vacate 3uilty
1lea" State v. 4ustaro 411 NJ Su(er 91
(!((. *iv. 2009)
)he court considered de%endant0 s a((ea"
%ro$ the denia" o% a (ost5 sentence $otion to
vacate his ("ea o% #ui"t& to drivin# ,hi"e
into1icated. )he $otion ,as (redicated on a
c"ai$ that the state ,ithhe" d e1cu"(ator&
evidence but b& the ti$e the $otion ,as
%i"ed the evidence 6 a videota(e recorded b&
the ca$era in the arrestin# o%%icer0s (atro"
car 6 had been destro&ed throu#h reuse in
accordance ,ith the (o"ice de(art $ent 0 s
(rocedures. )he court conc"uded that
de%endant %ai"ed to estab"ish that he ,ou"d
not have ad$i t ted to drivin# i% he had access
to the videota(e (rior to the ("ea and the
court %urther conc"uded that the denia" o% his
$otion ,as %u""& consistent ,ith a (ro(er
a(("ication o% the (rinci("es set %orth in State
v. Slater 198 N.J. 145 (2009).
5
4efusal 5" Breath Test %arnings no%
must &e gi/en in (panish
(tate /" Mar!ue5 202 NJ 485 (2010) (!5255
09) 7812810
/n this case invo"vi n# a conviction %or
re%usin# to sub$i t to a che$ica" breath test
the Court ho"ds that Ne, Jerse&9s i$("ied
consent "a, N.J.S.!. 29:45 50.2 and re%usa"
"a, N.J.S.!. 29:45 50.4a re-uire (roo% that an
o%%icer re-uested the $otorist to sub$i t to a
che$ica" breath test and in%or$ed the
(erson o% the conse-uences o% re%usin# to do
so. )he state$ent used to e1("ain to
$otorists the conse-uences o% re%usa" $ust
be #iven in a "an#ua#e the (erson s(ea's or
understands. ;ecause de%endant <er$an
4ar-ue= ,as advised o% these conse-uences
in >n#"ish and there is no dis(ute that he did
not understand >n#"ish his re%usa" conviction
is reversed.
?
4efusal 6 +f not enough &reath supplie$
on 6lcotest, officer must rea$ a$$itional
%arnings
(tate /" (chmi$t
194 NJ Su(er. 214 (!((. *iv. 2010)
/n this o(inion the court ho"d that (1) the
(o"ice are re-uired to co$("& ,ith N.J.S.!.
29:45 50.2(e) b& readin# the standard
"an#ua#e concernin# the conse-uences o% a
re%usa" to ta'e an !"cotest ((art t,o o% the
Standard State$ent) ,hen a de%endant
une-uivoca""& a#rees to sub$i t to an !"cotest
but then %ai"s ,ithout reasonab"e e1cuse to
(roduce a va"id sa$("e and (2) the (o"ice
have the discretion to discontinue the
!"cotest and char#e the arrestee ,ith re%usa"
,ithout a%%ordin# the arrestee the $a1i $u$
e"even atte$(ts that the !"cotest $achine
(er$i ts.
7
4efusal 7" Con$o 1ar8ing 3arage is
9uasi- pu&lic for 4efusal Violation"
(tate /" Bertran$
20: #' (uper" 5:2 ;6pp" )i/" 200<=
*e%endant0 s conviction %or re%usin# to
(rovide breath sa$("es N.J.S.!. 29:45 50.2 is
a%%ir$ed. )he (ar'in# #ara#e o% a hi#h5 rise
condo$i ni u$ that he"d 254 cars and the use
o% ,hich ,as restricted to residents o% that
bui"din# consti tuted a @-uasi5 (ub"ic areaA %or
(ur(oses o% the statute.
8
4efusal :" 1rior refusal counts for -
r$
)*+
(tate / Ciancaglini
411 NJ Su(er. 280 (!((. *iv. 2010) cert
#ranted
/n this a((ea" %ro$ a *./ conviction a%ter
(rior se(arate *./ and re%usa" convictions
this !((e""ate (ane" disa#rees ,ith the
ho"din# o% State v. *iSo$$a 2?2 N.J. Su(er.
275 (!((. *iv. 1992) and ho"d that the (rior
re%usa" conviction does count to,ard $a'in#
this a third o%%ense. )he court %ee"s this
ho"din# is consistent ,ith a "ine o% cases both
be%ore and a%ter *iSo$$a conc"udin# that a
(rior *./ conviction counts to,ard
enhance$ent o% the sentence i$(osed %or a
re%usa" conviction. See e.#. State v. )e'e"
281 N.J. Su(er. 502 (!((. *iv. 1995). )he
court a"so he"d that doub"e jeo(ard& does not
bar reinstate$ent o% the sentence ori#ina""&
i$(osed in the $unici(a" court %or a third
*./ o%%ense ,hich ,as reduced in the +a,
*ivision to a sentence %or a %irst *./ o%%ense.
9
4efusal < 4efusal $oes not merge into
)*+
(tate / c8ert 410 NJ Su(er. 289 (!((. *iv.
2009)
! conviction %or re%usa" to sub$i t to a
breath e1a$inati on cannot be $er#ed ,ith a
*./ conviction. Such a ("ea a#ree$ent
vio"ated a(("icab"e $er#er (rinci("es as ,e""
as the Court0s <uide"ines %or B(eration o%
C"ea !#ree$ents in the 4unici(a" Courts o%
Ne, Jerse&.
10
(earch 10" Car search re!uires e0igent
circumstances> #o automatic auto
e0ception> Telephonic search %arrants
appro/e$
(tate /" 1ena- ?lores 198 NJ ? (2009)
)he Su(re$e Court a%%ir$s its
"on#standi n# (recedent that (er$i ts an
auto$obi"e search ,ithout a ,arrant on"& in
cases in ,hich the (o"ice have both (robab"e
cause to be"ieve that the vehic"e contains
evidence and e1i#ent circu$stances that
,ou"d justi%& dis(ensin# ,ith the ,arrant
re-uire$ent. .hether e1i#ent
circu$stances e1ist is to be decided on a
case5b&5 case basis ,ith the %ocus on (o"ice
sa%et& and the (reservation o% evidence.
)he Court a"so deter$i nes that a ,arrant
obtained b& te"e(honic or e"ectronic $eans is
the e-uiva"ent o% an in5 (erson ,arrant and
does not re-uire (roo% o% e1i#ent
circu$stances.
11
)isco/ery 11 )isco/ery e0pan$e$ for
spee$ing tic8ets
State v Green A-6199-08T4 11-09-10 cert denied
In this case, the court decided that a motorist who has been charged with
speeding is entitled to discovery respecting (1) the speed-measuring device's
make, model, and description; (2) the history of the officer's training on that
speed-measuring device, where he was trained, and who trained him; (3) the
training manuals for the speed-measuring device and its operating manuals; (4)
the State's training manuals and operating manuals for the speed-measuring
device; (5) the officer's log book of tickets written on the day of defendant's
alleged violation; (6) the repair history of the speed-measuring device used to
determine defendant's speed for the past twelve months; and (7) any engineering
and speed studies used to set the speed limit at the section of highway where
defendant's speed was measured. We also found that the Stalker Lidar
speedmeasuring device had not been proven to be scientifically reliable and, as
such, the results of its operation should not have been admitted during the
municipal court proceedings or considered by the Law Division. We remanded
the matter to the Law Division for a plenary hearing on the scientific reliability of
the Stalker Lidar. If it is determined to be reliable, then the matter is remanded to
the municipal court for trial after the State has provided all of the discovery
required by this opinion.
12
(earch 12" 1olice cannot search car
passenger compart ment if occupant
alrea$y arreste$"
6ri5ona /" 3ant 12< (" Ct" 1710 ;200<=
Co"ice $a& search the (assen#er
co$(art $ent o% a vehic"e incident to a
recent occu(ant0 s arrest on"& i% it is
reasonab"e to be"ieve that an arrestee $i#ht
access the vehic"e at the ti$e o% the search
or that the vehic"e contains evidence o% the
o%%ense o% arrest. ;e"ton overru"ed.
12
(earch 1- (chool 1rincipal can search
/ehicle on school groun$s"
(tate /" Best 201 #' 100 ;2010=
! schoo" ad$inistrator need on"& satis%&
the "esser reasonab"e #rounds standard
rather than the (robab"e cause standard to
search a student9s vehic"e (ar'ed on schoo"
(ro(ert&
14
(earch 12" rror &y police $ispatcher in
in/ali$ arrest %arrant re!uires
suppression of e/i$ence un$er #'
Consti tuti on"
(tate /" @an$y
212 #' (uper" 2<2 ;6pp" )i/" 2010=
)his a((ea" re-uired the Court to
deter$i ne ,hether evidence %ound durin#
the search incident to de%endant0 s arrest
shou"d have been su((ressed because the
dis(atcher ,ho incorrect" & in%or$ed the
arrestin# o%%icer that there ,as an
outstandi n# arrest ,arrant acted
unreasonab"& under the circu$stances even
thou#h the conduct o% the arrestin# o%%icer
hi$se"% ,as reasonab"e.
)he ,arrant at issue ,hich ,as ten &ears
o"d at the ti$e had the sa$e birth $onth
but a di%%erent birth da& and &ear. )he %irst
na$e on the ,arrant ,as a variant s(e""in#
o% de%endant9s %irst na$e. )he court
conc"uded that su((ression is re-uired and
conse-uent" & reversed the conviction based
on NJ Constituti on.
15
Search 15 " 1assengers can &e or$ere$
out if &elief of $anger"
(tate /" Mai 202 #' 12 ;2010=
)he o%%icers (resented su%%icient %acts in
the tota"i t& o% the circu$stances that ,ou"d
create in a (o"ice o%%icer a hei#htened
a,areness o% dan#er that ,ou"d ,arrant an
objecti ve" & reasonab"e o%%icer in securin# the
scene in a $ore e%%ecti ve $anner b& orderin#
the (assen#er to e1it the car. )hose sa$e
circu$stances authori=e a (o"ice o%%icer to
o(en a vehic"e door as (art o% orderin# a
(assen#er to e1it. )hus the sei=ure o% the
,ea(on ,as (ro(er under the ("ain vie,
doctrine and the sei=ure o% the ho"ster and
"oaded $a#a=ine %ro$ the (assen#er ,as
"a,%u" as the %ruits o% a (ro(er search
incident to an arrest.
1?
Search 1?. #o *arrantl ess (earch of Truc8 (leeper
Compart ment &ase$ on smell of %ee$" (tate /" 1ompa 414 NJ
Su(er. 219 (!((. *iv. 2010)

Do""o,i n# his convicti on o% various dru# o%%enses de%endant a((ea"ed
the denia" o% his $otion to su((ress in e1cess o% thi rt& (ounds o% $arijuana
sei=ed b& (o"ice ,i thout a ,arrant %ro$ a c"oset in the s"ee(er cabin o%
de%endant0 s tractor trai"er. )he court he"d that the c"ose" & re#u"ated
business e1ce(ti on (er$i t ted a ,arrant" ess ad$i nistrati ve ins(ecti on o%
certai n areas o% the tractor5 trai"er but conc"uded that the search turned
un"a,%u" ,hen it (ro#ressed into unre#u"ated areas ,ithout the e1i#ent
circu$stances re-uired b& State v. Cena5D"ores 198 N.J. ? 28 (2009).
17
(earch 17" 1olice cannot search home
%ithout %arrant "
(tate /" 'efferson
21- #' (uper" -22 ;6pp" )i/" 2010=
(1) /n the absence o% a ,arrant or a
reco#ni=ed e1ce(tion %ro$ the Dourth
!$end$ent 0 s ,arrant re-uire$ent the
(o"ice cou"d not "a,%u""& enter de%endant0 s
ho$e to conduct a )err& t&(e detention and
investi#ation o% de%endant.
(2) ! (o"ice o%%icer0s ,ed#in# herse"% in the
door,a& to (revent de%endant %ro$ c"osin#
his %ront door ,as entr& into the ho$e.
(2) )he (o"ice %ai"ed to sho, either Ahot
(ursui tA e1i#ent circu$stances or a
co$$uni t& careta'in# e1ce(tion %ro$ the
,arrant re-uire$ent.
(4) !"thou#h the (o"ice entr& ,as un"a,%u"
de%endant had no ri#ht to resist (h&sica""&
and the search o% his (erson incident to
arrest ,as "a,%u".
(5) Consent to search de%endant0 s a(art$ent
#iven b& de%endant0 s ,i%e ,as tainted b& the
unconsti tuti ona" (o"ice conduct and ,as not
sho,n to be vo"untar&.
18
(entencing 1:" 'u$ge Can (uspen$ ).
for Traffic Affense"
(tate /" Moran
202 NJ 211 (2010)
)he "icense sus(ension (rovision o%
N.J.S.!. 29:55 21 ,hich is (ub"ished in the
4otor Eehic"e Code o% the Ne, Jerse&
Statutes !nnotated is not @hidden F and
de%endant "i'e a"" $otorists is (resu$ed to
'no, the "a,. )o ensure that "icense
sus(ensions $eted out (ursuant to N.J.S.!.
29:55 21 are i$(osed in a reasonab"& %air and
uni%or$ $anner so that si$i"ar"& situated
de%endants are treated si$i"ar"& the Court
toda& de%ines the ter$ @,i""%u" vio"ationF
contained in N.J.S.!. 29:55 21 and enunciates
sentencin# standards to #uide $unici(a"
court and +a, *ivision jud#es
19
(entencing 1< )efense counsel must
a$/ise criminal of $eport at i on
conse!uences"
1a$illa /" Kentuc8y 1-0 (" Ct" 127-
;2010=
Cetitioner Cadi""a a "a,%u" (er$anent
resident o% the Gnited States %or over 40
&ears %aced de(ortati on a%ter ("eadin# #ui"t&
to dru#5 distributi on char#es in Hentuc'&. /n
(ost conviction (roceedin#s he c"ai$s that
his counse" not on"& %ai"ed to advise hi$ o%
this conse-uence be%ore he entered the ("ea
but a"so to"d hi$ not to ,orr& about
de(ortati on since he had "ived in this countr&
so "on#. He a""e#es that he ,ou"d have #one
to tria" had he not received this incorrect
advice )he GS Su(re$e Court he"d because
counse" $ust in%or$ a c"ient ,hether his ("ea
carries a ris' o% de(ortati on Cadi""a has
su%%icient" & a""e#ed that his counse" ,as
consti tuti ona"" & de%icient.
20
(entencing 20" ?our ?actors re!uire$
to %ith$ra% guilty plea
State v. S"ater 198 NJ 145 (2009)
Jud#es are to consider and ba"ance %our
%actors in eva"uati n# $otions to ,ithdra, a
#ui"t& ("ea:
(1) ,hether the de%endant has asserted a
co"orab"e c"ai$ o% innocence3
(2) the nature and stren#th o% the
de%endant 9s reasons %or ,ithdra,a"3
(2) the e1istence o% a ("ea bar#ain3 and
(4) ,hether ,ithdra,a" cou"d resu"t in un%air
(rejudice to the State or un%air advanta#e to
the accused. )his de%endant has $et his
burden and is enti t"ed to ,ithdra, his #ui"t&
("ea in the interest o% justice.
21
(entencing 21 #o 1oints on ,nsafe <7" 2
if More than ?i/e Bears &et%een
Affenses"
Cate" v. Ne, Jerse& 4otor Eehic"e
Co$$ission 200 NJ 412 (2009)
)he unsa%e drivin# tic'et is no (oints
%or o%%ense one and t,o. )he 2
rd
#ives the
driver 4 (oints un"ess there is $ore than 5
&ears bet,een the 2
nd
and 2
rd
o%%ense. )he
Su(re$e Court he"d Gnder N.J.S.!. 29:45
97.2(e) the e1e$(ti on (rovision %or
assessin# $otor vehic"e (ena" t& (oints %or an
unsa%e drivin# o%%ense that occurs $ore than
%ive &ears a%ter @the (rior o%%enseF @the (rior
o%%enseF re%ers on"& to the $ost recent
(recedin# o%%ense based on both a ("ain
readin# o% the statute and a revie, o% the
"e#is"ati ve histor&. )hus the 4otor Eehic"e
Co$$ission correct" & i$(osed $otor vehic"e
(oints on Cate" %or havin# a %ourth unsa%e
drivin# conviction in 2007 on"& one &ear
a%ter the date o% her (rior third unsa%e
drivin# o%%ense.
22
Miran$a 22" 1olice $i$ not al%ays nee$
to rea$mi nister Miran$a %arnings
State v. N&ha$$er 197 NJ 282 (2009)
)he tria" court did not err in %indin# based
on the tota"i t& o% the circu$stances that
N&ha$$er 'no,in#" & vo"untari" & and
inte""i#ent" & ,aived his 4iranda ri#hts under
both %edera" and state "a,. )hus the tria"
court did not abuse its discretion in
ad$i t ti n# N&ha$$er9s con%ession into
evidence. Durther a de%endant cannot assert
that he ,as denied his ri#ht o% con%rontati on
under the %edera" and state consti tuti ons
un"ess he %irst atte$(ts to cross5e1a$ine
the ,itness on the core accusations in the
case. N&ha$$er had the o((ortuni t & to
cross5 e1a$i ne the chi"d5 victi $ at tria" about
her out5 o%5court testi $on& i$("icati n# hi$ in
the cri$e but chose not to do so3 there%ore
he cannot c"ai$ that he ,as denied his ri#ht
o% con%rontati on.
22
Miran$a 2-" Miran$a Violation cannot &e
6sserte$ &y Co- $efen$ant "
(tate /" Baum 1<< #' 207 ;200<=
*e%endant (assen#er 4oore9s $otion to
su((ress evidence %ound durin# a
,arrant" ess search o% the vehic"e in ,hich he
,as ridin# shou"d have been denied because
he did not have standin# to ar#ue that the
driver9s ri#ht a#ainst se"%5 incri $i nati on ,as
vio"ated and because the search ,as not
unreasonab"e.
24
Miran$a 22" )efen$ant must in/o8e
right to remain silent"
Berghuis /" Thomp8ins 120 S. Ct. 2250
(2010)
*e%endant )ho$('i ns0 si"ence durin# the
interro#ati on did not invo'e his ri#ht to
re$ain si"ent. ! sus(ect0s 4iranda ri#ht to
counse" $ust be invo'ed Auna$bi #uous"&.A
*avis v. Gnited States 512 G.S. 452 459.
Had )ho$('i ns said that he ,anted to
re$ain si"ent or that he did not ,ant to ta"'
he ,ou"d have invo'ed his ri#ht to end the
-uestionin#. He did neither.
25
Trial 25" ,( (upreme Court 4ules .a&
4eport #ot 6$missi&le in Criminal Case"
Melen$e5- )ia5 /" Mass 12< ("Ct" 2527
;200<=
*e%endant0 s dru# conviction is reversed
,here the tria" court0 s ad$ission o% the
(rosecution0 s certi%icates b& "aborator&
ana"&sts statin# that $ateria" sei=ed b&
(o"ice and connected to *e%endant ,as
cocaine o% a certain -uanti t& vio"ated
(eti tioner0s Si1th !$end$ent ri#ht to
con%ront the ,itnesses a#ainst hi$.
2?
26a +gnition interloc8 $e/ice
re!uire$- o/er" 15, 2n$, -r$ , refusals
27
26&" Constructi /e possession is
$ecision &y trier of fact, not e0pert
(tate /" 4ee$s
1<7 #' 2:0 ;200<=
27" 4e&ut t a&l e presumpti on a roa$ sign
is properl y poste$
(tate / (mith
20: #' (uper" 2:2
;6pp" )i/" 200<=
2:" (i0- month 6lcotest inspection
$oes not apply until after March 17,
200:"
(tate /" 1olloc8
207 #' (uper" 100
;6pp" )i/" 200<=
28
2<" 1T+ can &e con$itione$ on a plea
to a traffic offense" (tate /" Mosner
207 #' (uper" 20
;6pp" )i/" 200<=
-0" *arrantl ess (earch of house to
Chec8 on ,nat t en$e$ Chil$ 1ermi t t e$
,n$er Communi ty Careta8i ng" (tate /"
Bogan
200 #' 61 ;200<=
-1" Three year ol$Cs statements
a$missi&le un$er ten$er years
e0ception to hearsay" (tate /" Co$er
1<: #' 251 ;200<=
#' 4,.( A? V+)#C #'4 4,. :02"
@earsay is not a$missi&le e0cept as
pro/i$e$ &y these rules or &y other la%"
is not a$missi&le e0cept as pro/i$e$ &y
29
these rules or &y other la%"
-2" #e% trial or$ere$ %here 'u$ge
con$ucte$ !uestioning of $efense
e0pert "
(tate /" ACBrien
200 #' 520 ;200<
--" A146 limits copy fees to actual
costs
(mith /" @u$son County
211#' (uper 5-: ;6pp" )i/" 2010=
?ree email ne%slet t er on cases an$
articles on Municipal Court
Vercammen.a%D#El a%s"com
Vercammen family $og ?ri5&y says
Than8 you for atten$i ng our programF
%%%" nEl a%s"com
20