{"id":6623,"date":"2012-04-05T09:40:46","date_gmt":"2012-02-03T07:36:17","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2012-02-03T07:36:17","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6623","title":{"rendered":"NJ: City ordinance criminalizing refusal to consent to residential code search violates Fourth Amendment"},"content":{"rendered":"

Refusing a city inspection by insisting on one\u2019s Fourth Amendment rights cannot itself be an offense. State v. Heine<\/a>, 424 N.J. Super. 48, 35 A.3d 691 (2012):<\/p>\n

By exercising her constitutional right to refuse to participate in an unwarranted inspection, Heine could not be deemed to have created the circumstances that would criminalize her conduct and cause the forfeiture of the very rights she sought to exercise. See State v. Berlow<\/a>, 284 N.J. Super. 356, 358, 362-64, 665 A.2d 404 (Law Div. 1995) (refusing to find a defendant guilty of obstructing the administration of law, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a), for closing and locking the door to his room in a boarding house when police, wanting \u201cto see if there was a woman shot and bleeding and injured,\u201d requested entry without a warrant). We adhere to the sentiments that an individual \u201cis not required to surrender [her] Fourth Amendment protection on the say so of the [inspector]. The Amendment gives [her] a constitutional right to refuse to consent. … [Her] asserting it cannot be a crime.\u201d United States v. Prescott<\/a>, 581 F. 2d 1343, 1350 (9th Cir. 1978).<\/p>\n

We conclude that Garfield\u2019s criminalization of Heine\u2019s refusal to allow the inspections is not in accordance with long-established law. Since the seminal cases of Camara<\/a> and See<\/a>, our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has \u2014 with the exceptions noted above \u2014 required search warrants to conduct unconsented-to inspections. Given the relaxed standards for obtaining such a search warrant, Camara<\/a>, supra, 387 U.S. at 534-40, 87 S. Ct. at 1733-39, 18 L. Ed. 2d at 938-44, we are confident that the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Garfield will not be jeopardized. Accordingly, we find \u00a7 181-3 unconstitutional as applied. We reverse and vacate the convictions and sanctions for its violation in both appeals<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6623","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6623","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6623"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6623\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6623"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6623"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6623"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}