NJ: “Our view of this testimony is that it represents a profound misunderstanding of the ‘narrow scope of the exigent-circumstance exception’ to the warrant requirement.”

“Our view of this testimony is that it represents a profound misunderstanding of the ‘narrow scope of the exigent-circumstance exception’ to the warrant requirement.” Brown v. State, 2015 N.J. Super. LEXIS 154 (September 11, 2015):

When Brown’s counsel asked why they had not considered applying for a telephonic warrant, the supervisor replied, “Because I would not have, nor would any other of the investigating personnel, been able to articulate that we had a reasonable expectation that the evidence would be destroyed or lost.” When asked by his own counsel whether applying for a telephonic warrant would have been appropriate after the detectives found the holster and jewelry in the car, the supervisor said, “Absolutely not.” When counsel asked why, the supervisor explained, “Because there’s no exigency there.” Finally, in response to counsel’s question about the reason for not applying for a telephonic warrant once the detectives secured the property, the supervisor said, “Because we took away the exigen[t] circumstances.” He agreed with his counsel’s statement that “[o]nce that property is in the control of [the detectives], … there are no exigent circumstances in terms of worrying about the destruction of evidence.”

When the officers finally obtained the warrant and searched Brown’s home, they did not find the locket they were looking for. The only item listed on the search warrant return was a black Nike backpack similar to the one witnesses reported the robbers carried. The lead investigator testified that although the bags were of the same type, none of the witnesses was able to say the bag found in Brown’s closet was the one carried by the robbers.

Our view of this testimony is that it represents a profound misunderstanding of the “narrow scope of the exigent-circumstance exception” to the warrant requirement and establishes beyond any doubt that the detectives’ entry into Brown’s home violated her rights under Article I, paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution of 1947. See State v. Lewis, 116 N.J. 477, 484 (1989).

This entry was posted in Emergency / exigency. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.