NJ: Search not suppressed because bodycam wasn’t turned on

New Jersey has a bodycam directive that was apparently violated by the officers not turning theirs on before a search. Failure to turn on the bodycams was not a constitutional violation, and the court refuses to suppress. In addition, “the trial court was not required to apply a ‘rebuttable presumption’ or draw a ‘negative inference’ against the State. Even so, the trial court did consider the ‘failure to record the audio demonstrating that officers knocked and announced.’ As we have noted, [Officer] Pichardo acknowledged that he should have activated his BWC earlier. The record shows, moreover, Pichardo was subjected to skillful cross-examination, after which the trial court found he was credible.” State v. Seligman, 2025 N.J. Super. LEXIS 2 (Jan. 3, 2025).

2254 petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim barred by Stone. 1996’s AEDPA didn’t expand a right to habeas. Rodriguez v. AG of N.M., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 490 (D.N.M. Jan. 2, 2025).*

Nexus to defendant’s fraud scheme was shown to likely be at his house because of the officer’s experience shown in the affidavit that records of a fraud are often kept at home and the fact the home address was listed as a business address, too. United States v. Bock, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 492 (D. Minn. Jan. 2, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Body cameras, Issue preclusion, Knock and announce, Nexus, Warrant execution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.