Top 20 Cases affecting Municipal Court for 2010

By Kenneth Vercammen, Esq.

1. Breath Test arnings no must !e gi"en in #panish
#tate ". Marque$ 202 NJ 485 (2010)
In this case involving a conviction for refusing to submi t to a
chemical breath test, the Court hols that Ne! Jerse"#s im$lie
consent la!, N%J%&%'% ()*4+ 50%2, an refusal la!, N%J%&%'% ()*4+ 50%4a,
re,uire $roof that an officer re,ueste the motorist to submi t to a
chemical breath test an informe the $erson of the conse,uences of
refusing to o so% -he statement use to e.$lain to motorists the
conse,uences of refusal must be given in a language the $erson
s$ea/s or unerstans% 0ecause efenant 1erman 2ar,ue3 !as
avise of these conse,uences in 4nglish, an there is no is$ute that
he i not unerstan 4nglish, his refusal conviction is reverse%
2. %f not enough !reath supplie& on 'lcotest, officer must rea&
a&&i tional arnings
#tate ". #chmi&t
1)4 NJ &u$er% 214 ('$$% 5iv% 2010)
In this o$inion the court hel that (1) the $olice are re,uire to
com$l " !ith N%J%&%'% ()*4+ 50%2(e) b" reaing the stanar language
concerning the conse,uences of a refusal to ta/e an 'lcotest ($art t!o
of the &tanar &tatement) !hen a efenant une,uivocall " agrees to
submi t to an 'lcotest but then fails !ithout reasonable e.cuse to
$rouce a vali sam$le an (2) the $olice have the iscretion to
iscontinue the 'lcotest an charge the arrestee !ith refusal !ithout
afforing the arrestee the ma.i mum eleven attem$ts that the 'lcotest
machine $ermi ts%
(. )rior refusal may count for (
r&
*+%
#tate " Ciancaglini
411 NJ &u$er% 280 ('$$% 5iv% 2010) cert grante
In this a$$eal from a 56I conviction, after $rior se$arate 56I an
refusal convictions, this '$$ellate $anel isagrees !ith the holing of
&tate v% 5i&omma 272 N%J% &u$er% (85 ('$$% 5iv% 1))(), an hol that
the $rior refusal conviction oes count to!ar ma/ing this a thir
offense% -he court feels this holing is consistent !ith a line of cases
both before an after 5i&omma concluing that a $rior 56I conviction
counts to!ar enhancement of the sentence im$ose for a refusal
1
conviction% &ee, e%g%, &tate v% -e/el, 281 N%J% &u$er% 502 ('$$% 5iv%
1))5)% -he court also hel that ouble 9eo$ar" oes not bar
reinstatement of the sentence originall " im$ose in the munici$al
court for a thir 56I offense, !hich !as reuce in the :a! 5ivision to
a sentence for a first 56I offense%
,. *isco"ery e-pan&e& for spee&ing tic.ets
#tate " /reen ;; NJ &u$er% ;; '+71))+ 08-4 11+ 0)+ 10
In this case, the court ecie that a motorist !ho has been
charge !ith s$eeing is enti tle to iscover" res$ecting
(1) the s$ee+ measuring evice<s ma/e, moel, an escri$tion= (2)
the histor" of the officer<s training on that s$ee+ measuring evice,
!here he !as traine, an !ho traine him=
(() the training manuals for the s$ee+ measuring evice an its
o$erating manuals=
(4) the &tate<s training manuals an o$erati ng manuals for the s$ee+
measuring evice=
(5) the officer<s log boo/ of tic/ets !ritten on the a" of efenant< s
allege violation=
(7) the re$air histor" of the s$ee+ measuring evice use to etermi ne
efenant< s s$ee for the $ast t!elve months= an
(8) an" engineering an s$ee stuies use to set the s$ee limi t at
the section of high!a" !here efenant< s s$ee !as measure%
-he court also foun that the &tal/er :iar s$ee+ measuring evice
ha not been $roven to be scientificall" reliable an, as such, the
results of its o$eration shoul not have been ami t te uring the
munici$al court $roceeings or consiere b" the :a! 5ivision% -he
court remane the matter to the :a! 5ivision for a $lenar" hearing
on the scientific reliabilit" of the &tal/er :iar% If it is etermi ne to be
reliable, then the matter is remane to the munici$al court for trial
2
after the &tate has $rovie all of the iscover" re,uire b" this
o$inion%
0. #chool )rincipal may search "ehicle on school groun&s.
#tate ". Best 201 12 100 320104
' school aministrator nee onl" satisf" the lesser reasonable
grouns stanar rather than the $robable cause stanar to search a
stuent#s vehicle $ar/e on school $ro$ert"
5. Error !y police &ispatcher regar&i ng in"ali& arrest arrant
requi res suppression of e"i&ence un&er 12 Consti tuti on.
#tate ". 6an&y
,12 12 #uper. ,72 3'pp. *i". 20104
-his a$$eal re,uire the Court to etermi ne !hether evience
foun uring the search incient to efenant< s arrest shoul have
been su$$resse because the is$atcher !ho incorrectl " informe the
arresting officer that there !as an outstaning arrest !arrant acte
unreasonabl" uner the circumstances, even though the conuct of
the arresting officer himself !as reasonable%
-he !arrant at issue, !hich !as ten "ears ol at the ti me, ha
the same birth month, but a ifferent birth a" an "ear% -he first
name on the !arrant !as a variant s$elling of efenant#s first name%
-he court conclue that su$$ression is re,uire an, conse,uentl ",
reverse the conviction base on NJ Constitution%
8. )assengers can !e or&ere& out if !elief of &anger.
#tate ". Mai 202 12 12 320104
-he officers $resente sufficient facts in the totali t" of the
circumstances that !oul create in a $olice officer a heightene
a!areness of anger that !oul !arrant an ob9ectivel " reasonable
officer in securing the scene in a more effective manner b" orering
the $assenger to e.it the car% -hose same circumstances authori3e a
$olice officer to o$en a vehicle oor as $art of orering a $assenger to
e.it% -hus, the sei3ure of the !ea$on !as $ro$er uner the $lain vie!
octrine, an the sei3ure of the holster an loae maga3ine from the
$assenger !as la!ful as the fruits of a $ro$er search incient to an
arrest%
8% 1o +arrantl ess #earch of Truc. #leeper Compart ment !ase&
on smell of ee&. #tate ". )ompa 414 NJ &u$er% 21) ('$$% 5iv%
2010)
(

>ollo!ing his conviction of various rug offenses, efenant
a$$eale the enial of his motion to su$$ress in e.cess of thirt"
$ouns of mari9uana sei3e b" $olice !ithout a !arrant from a closet
in the slee$er cabin of efenant< s tractor trailer% -he court hel that
the closel" regulate business e.ce$tion $ermi t te a !arrantl ess
aministrati ve ins$ection of certain areas of the tractor+ trailer, but
conclue that the search turne unla!ful !hen it $rogresse into
unregulate areas !ithout the e.igent circumstances re,uire b"
&tate v% ?ena+>lores 1)8 N%J% 7, 28 (200))%
7. )olice cannot search home ithout arrant .
#tate ". 2efferson
,1( 12 #uper. (,, 3'pp. *i". 20104
(1) In the absence of a !arrant or a recogni3e e.ce$tion from the
>ourth 'menment < s !arrant re,uirement, the $olice coul not
la!full" enter efenant< s home to conuct a -err" t"$e etention an
investigation of efenant%
(2) ' $olice officer<s !eging herself in the oor!a" to $revent
efenant from closing his front oor !as entr" into the home%
(() -he $olice faile to sho! either @hot $ursuit@ e.igent circumstances
or a communi t " careta/ing e.ce$tion from the !arrant re,uirement%
(4) 'lthough the $olice entr" !as unla!ful, efenant ha no right to
resist $h"sicall", an the search of his $erson incient to arrest !as
la!ful%
(5) Consent to search efenant< s a$art ment, given b" efenant< s
!ife, !as tainte b" the unconsti tutional $olice conuct an !as not
sho!n to be voluntar"%
10 2u&ge Can #uspen& *8 for +illful Traffic 9ffense.
#tate ". Moran 202 NJ (11 (2010)
-he license sus$ension $rovision of N%J%&%'% ()*5+ (1, !hich is
$ublishe in the 2otor Aehicle Coe of the Ne! Jerse" &tatutes
'nnotate, is not Bhien, C an efenant, li/e all motorists, is
$resume to /no! the la!% -o ensure that license sus$ensions mete
out $ursuant to N%J%&%'% ()*5+ (1 are im$ose in a reasonabl" fair an
uniform manner, so that similarl" situate efenants are treate
similarl", the Court toa" efines the term B!illful violationC containe
in N%J%&%'% ()*5+ (1 an enunciates sentencing stanars to guie
munici$al court an :a! 5ivision 9uges
4
11 *efense counsel must a&"ise criminal of &eport at i on
consequences.
)a&illa ". Kentuc.y 1(0 #. Ct. 1,:( 320104
?etitioner ?ailla, a la!ful $ermanent resient of the Dnite
&tates for over 40 "ears, face e$ortation after $leaing guilt" to
rug+ istribution charges in Eentuc/"% In $ost conviction $roceeings,
he claime that his counsel not onl" faile to avise him of this
conse,uence before he entere the $lea, but also tol him not to
!orr" about e$ortation since he ha live in this countr" so long% Fe
allege that he !oul have gone to trial ha he not receive this
incorrect avice -he D& &u$reme Court hel because counsel must
inform a client !hether his $lea carries a ris/ of e$ortation, ?ailla
has sufficientl " allege that his counsel !as consti tutionall " eficient%
12. *efen&ant must in"o.e right to remain silent.
Berghuis ". Thomp.i ns 1(0 &% Ct% 2250 (2010)
5efenant -hom$/ins< silence uring the interrogation i not
invo/e his right to remain silent% ' sus$ect<s 2irana right to counsel
must be invo/e @unambi guousl"%@ 5avis v% Dnite &tates, 512 D%&%
452, 45)% Fa -hom$/i ns sai that he !ante to remain silent or that
he i not !ant to tal/, he !oul have invo/e his right to en the
,uestioning% Fe i neither%
1(. 9);' limits copy fees to actual costs
#mith ". 6u&son County ,1112 #uper 0(< 3'pp. *i". 20104
?laintiffs asserte in these three la!suits that efenants have
overcharge them, an other members of the $ublic, for the co$"ing of
government recors maintai ne at Count" offices, in violation of
N%J%&%'% 48*1'+ 5(b) !ithin the G$en ?ublic Hecors 'ct (@G?H'@), an
the common la!% -he '$$ellate 5ivision reverse the trial courts#
orers ismissing $laintiffs< com$laints%
-he court construe N%J%&%'% 48*1'+ 5(b) to re,uire that, unless
an until the :egislature amens G?H' to s$ecif" other!ise, or some
other statute or regulation a$$lies, the Counties must charge no more
than the reasonabl "+ a$$ro.i mate @actual costs@ of co$"ing such
recors% -he buren of $roving or is$roving com$liance !ith that
@actual cost@ manate !ill var", e$ening u$on !hether the charges
in ,uestion e.cee certain fee levels ientifie in the secon sentence
of N%J%&%'% 48*1'+ 5(b)%
5
1,. *+% &efen&ants enti tl e& to 'lcotest machine &ata
#tate " Maricic ;;; NJ &u$er% ;; ('$$% 5iv% 2010) '+5248+ 08-4
8I(1I2010 In this 56I matter, the Court hel that efenant has the
right to iscover o!nloae 'lcotest results from the sub9ect
instrument from the ate of last calibration to the ate of efenant< s
breath test an an" re$air logs or !ritten ocumentati on relating to
re$airs of the sub9ect 'lcotest machine, !ithout a sho!ing of $rior
/no!lege of fla!e $roceures or e,ui$ment%
10. )lea to in&icta!l e offense !arre& *+% prosecution
!ase& on &ou!le =eopar&y
&tate v Fan 417 NJ &u$er% 722 ('$$% 5iv% 2010)
In this a$$eal b" the &tate, the Court etermi ne !hether a guilt"
$lea to fourth+ egree creating a ris/ of !ies$rea in9ur" or eath,
N%J%&%'% 2C*18+ 2(c), $reclue efenant< s subse,uent $rosecution for
riving uner the influence (56I), N%J%&%'% ()*4+ 50% -he munici$al court
9uge enie efenant< s motion to ismiss the 56I an rec/less
riving charges on ouble 9eo$ar" grouns% Gn a$$eal e novo to the
:a! 5ivision, Juge Er"an Connor, citing the @same evience@ test,
foun efenant< s $rosecution for 56I an rec/less riving !as
barre% Fe vacate the guilt" $leas an ismisse the charges%
15. Mun Court not !oun& !y another court or&er that &i
con"iction coul& not !e use& for enhance& penal t y #tate "
Enright 417 NJ &u$er% ()1 ('$$% 5iv 2010)

'fter efenant< s conviction an sentence in the munici$al court
as a thir+ ti me 56I offener, he obtaine a $ost+ conviction orer from
a ifferent munici$al court in !hich his secon 56I conviction ha
occurre confirmi ng that conviction but irecting that no court coul
use it to enhance his sentence on a subse,uent 56I conviction% -he
Court hel that the munici$al court orer !as an erroneous a$$lication
of &tate v% :auric/, 120 N%J% 1, an that on e novo revie! of the thir
56I conviction, the :a! 5ivision correctl " ecline to follo! the
munici$al court<s orer%
1: )olice Coul& 1ot 8ift >p #hirt for Terry ?ris.. #tate ".
)ri"ot t 20( NJ 17 (2010)
0ase on the totali t" of the circumstances, there !ere s$ecific
an $articulari3e reasons for the officer to conuct an investigator"
7
sto$ an to fris/ efenant ?rivott% Fo!ever, the officer#s conuct in
lifting efenant#s shirt e.ceee the sco$e of a reasonable intrusion
that is $ermi t te as $art of a -err" sto$%
1<. '!an&one& Bag )ermi ts #earch. #tate ". Car"a=al 202
NJ 214 (2010)
-he &tate satisfie its buren of $roving b" a $re$onerance of
the evience that the uffel bag !as abanone% Carva9al enie
having an" o!nershi$ or $ossessor" interest in the bag, an the $olice
attem$te to ientif" other $otenti al o!ners% Carva9al therefore ha no
staning to challenge the !arrantl ess search of the bag%
1)% 9nce impoun&e&, the police ere require& to o!tain a
arrant !efore searching the "ehicle. #tate " Minitee
415 NJ &u$er% 485 ('$$% 5iv% 2010) In these bac/+ to+ bac/ a$$eals
concerni ng the !arrantl ess search of a motor vehicle, the court harmoni3e the
seemingl " inconsistent holings in &tate v% 2arti n , 88 N%J% 571 (1)81) an &tate v%
?ena+>lores, 1)8 N%J% 7 (200)), b" fini ng that the e.igent circumstances that
e.iste at the scene onl" $ermi t te the $olice to sei3e the vehicle% Dner our
&tate< s Consti tuti on, once im$oune, the $olice !ere re,uire to obtai n a
!arrant before searching the vehicle%

20. #upreme Court affirms consti tuti onali t y of *omestic
Violence 'ct. Crespo ". Crespo 201 12 20: 320104
-he ?revention of 5omestic Aiolence 'ct is consti tutional%
Jugment of the '$$ellate 5ivision is affirme substantiall " for the
reasons e.$resse in the thorough o$inion of Juge >isher% Note J
Juge >isher !rote that iscover" can be orere b" -rial Juge%
'lthough this case eals $rimaril " !ith 5omestic Aiolence, the
iscover" as$ect is im$ortant !here there are simul taneous $ening
cases in 2unici$al Court an famil " court%
?ree email neslet t er on cases an& articles on Municipal
Court Vercammen8a@1=l as.com
8