NJ: Disputes in the facts on appeal show trial court should have held a hearing

“[W]e are persuaded the conflicting statements of fact presented by the State and defendant establish disputes of material fact warranting a testimonial hearing. The State claimed the search was justified under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. Thus, the court correctly found defendant’s motion turned on whether Officer Russell actually observed the handle of the handgun in defendant’s pocket in plain view from his vantage point in the front of the vehicle.” This was all subject to de novo review. State v. Jones, 2023 N.J. Super. LEXIS 57 (May 26, 2023).*

The fact an officer could arrest someone is different than the question of whether the officer did. Here, there was no arrest and no reasonable suspicion for a patdown. United States v. Parker, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91766 (N.D. Iowa May 4, 2023).*

The officer sought and obtained consent during a valid traffic stop. The consent was voluntary. United States v. Watts, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92017 (E.D. Ark. May 25, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Suppression hearings. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.