Justia New Jersey Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The issue this case presented for the New Jersey Supreme Court's review centered on whether Facebook could be compelled to provide the contents of two users’ accounts every 15 minutes for 30 days into the future based only on probable cause, the ordinary standard for a search warrant, or whether the State must instead satisfy certain requirements and apply for a wiretap order, which required an enhanced showing -- one beyond probable cause -- because gaining access to private communications in real time is considerably more intrusive than a typical search. In the two matters under review, trial courts quashed the State’s request for prospective information based on a Communications Data Warrant (CDW), which was the equivalent of a search warrant and can be issued on a showing of probable cause. The Appellate Division consolidated the cases and held that the State could obtain prospective electronic communications with a CDW, reasoning that the wiretap statute applied to the contemporaneous interception of electronic communications, not efforts to access communications in storage. The Supreme Court concluded that based on the language and structure of the relevant statutes, the State’s request for information from users’ accounts invokes heightened privacy protections. "The nearly contemporaneous acquisition of electronic communications here is the functional equivalent of wiretap surveillance and is therefore entitled to greater constitutional protection. New Jersey’s wiretap act applies in this case to safeguard individual privacy rights under the relevant statutes and the State Constitution." View "Facebook, Inc. v. State of New Jersey" on Justia Law

After receiving a “be on the lookout” (BOLO) email based on a tip from a confidential informant (CI) that defendant Cornelius Cohen would be traveling to the Carolinas to pick up firearms and bring them back to New Jersey to sell, State Trooper Charles Travis noticed one of the cars described in the BOLO email traveling on the New Jersey Turnpike, and pulled the vehicle over for traffic violations. When Travis approached the vehicle, he noticed multiple air fresheners hanging from the rearview mirror. Travis testified that he smelled “a strong odor of raw marijuana” in the vehicle during the stop and observed “greenish-brown vegetation” on the driver’s beard and shirt, which the trooper identified as marijuana. With defendant and his passenger handcuffed and in separate patrol cars, Travis started searching the passenger compartment, where he recovered from the glove compartment a 9mm spent shell casing. The search of the passenger compartment did not reveal any marijuana. Travis did not apply for a search warrant based on the information supplied by the CI, but instead proceeded to the front of the vehicle where he opened the vehicle’s hood and searched the engine compartment. There he found a rifle and a revolver. Travis then searched the trunk, where he found a duffle bag containing hollow point bullets. No marijuana was recovered from the car, defendant, or the passenger. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence seized during the car search. The trial court held that “[t]he odor of raw marijuana emanating from a vehicle without a detectible pinpoint establishes probable cause to search the entire vehicle.” Defendant subsequently entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of unlawful possession of a weapon, and appealed his eventual conviction. The New Jersey Supreme Court concluded that expanding the search to the engine compartment and trunk went beyond the scope of the automobile exception. As a result, the seized evidence should be suppressed. View "New Jersey v. Cohen" on Justia Law

Defendant Andreas Erazo was convicted for the 2017 rape and murder of eleven-year-old A.S. The Appellate Division found that defendant’s confession, obtained during a second interview, five hours after his initial 90-minute interview, was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and should have been suppressed. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, finding defendant was not in custody at the time of the pre-confession interview, thus Miranda was not implicated. The Supreme Court also found that the detectives’ tactics during the Mirandized interrogation were not coercive, did not minimize the Miranda warnings, and were consistent with New Jersey v. Sims, 250 N.J. 189 (2022). Thus, under the totality of the circumstances, defendant’s Miranda waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and the trial court properly denied his motion to suppress. View "New Jersey v. Erazo" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Gannett Satellite Information Network, LLC (Gannett) sought an award of attorneys’ fees from its common law right of access claim to Internal Affiars (IA) files pertaining to a former Neptune Township, New Jersey police officer. In 2015, the former officer, Philip Seidel, killed his former wife. After a local prosecutor’s office issued a report on the Seidel case that was based in part on Seidle’s IA files, Gannett submitted an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request and one under the common law, seeking copies of those files. The Township denied the request. A trial court ultimately dismissed Gannett’s OPRA claim but ordered the release of the contested records, redacted in accordance with guidelines prescribed in the court’s opinion, on the sole basis of the common law right of access. The trial court granted a partial fee award. The Appellate Division affirmed in part and reversed in part: (1) it affirmed the trial court’s determination that Gannett had no claim under OPRA but was entitled to a redacted version of Seidle’s IA files pursuant to the common law; and (2) it held that the New Jersey Supreme Court recognized a right to counsel fees in common law right of access cases under certain circumstances in Mason v. City of Hoboken, 196 N.J. 51, 57 (2008). On the facts presented, however, the Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s partial award of counsel fees. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, the Appellate Division’s judgment. “Imposing fee-shifting in this category of cases would venture far beyond the narrow exceptions to the American Rule that New Jersey courts have adopted to date. Accordingly, Gannett is not entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees in this appeal.” View "Gannett Satellite Information Network, LLC v. Township of Neptune" on Justia Law

In three personal injury actions, the defendants required the plaintiffs to submit to a defense medical examination (DME). Plaintiffs, who had alleged cognitive limitations, psychological impairments, or language barriers, sought to record the examinations or to be accompanied by a third-party observer (TPO) at the examination. After various trial court rulings, the Appellate Division consolidated the cases for purposes of its opinion, and remanded all three for reconsideration in light of its six-part holding. The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s core holding that trial courts determine on a case-by-case basis what conditions, if any, to place on a DME -- including who may attend and whether it may be recorded -- with no absolute prohibitions or entitlements. The Court further affirmed that video recording, in addition to audio recording, should be included in the range of options; that the parties shall enter into a protective order when a defense expert is concerned about the disclosure of proprietary information; that when third-party observation is permitted, the trial court shall impose reasonable conditions to prevent any disruption of or interference with the exam; and that, if a foreign or sign language interpreter is needed, a neutral interpreter shall be selected by the parties or, failing agreement, by the court. The Court departed from the Appellate Division only in declining to place the burden on the plaintiff to show special reasons why third-party observation or recording should be permitted in each case. Instead, once the defendant issues notice to the plaintiff of a Rule 4:19 exam, the plaintiff should inform the defendant if they seek to bring a neutral observer or unobtrusively record the examination. If the defendant objects, the two sides should meet and confer to attempt to reach agreement. If agreement is impossible, the defendant may move for a protective order under Rule 4:10-3 seeking to prevent the exam from being recorded, or to prevent a neutral third-party observer from attending. View "DiFiore v. Pezic; Deleon v. The Achilles Foot & Ankle Group; Remache-Robalino v. Boulos" on Justia Law

The Board of Education of the Borough of Somerville challenged the award of relief to former teacher Catherine Parsells in a tenure dispute. The Board employed Parsells as a full-time preschool teacher from September 2010 to June 2016. Parsells earned tenure in 2013. In May 2016, she wrote to the superintendent, expressing an interest in a temporary part-time preschool teaching position that included health benefits “for as long as [such a position] is available, or until my family decides that full-time work would be in our best interests again,” so that she could “pursu[e] [her] career goals while also being able to spend time with [her] son during his precious first few years.” Even though Parsells never formally applied for a part-time teaching job, and without addressing her assertion that she understood that her switch would be temporary, the superintendent notified Parsells that the Board approved her transfer from the full-time preschool teacher to the part-time position. Parsells began the 2016-17 school year as a part-time tenured teacher with health benefits. After requesting and receiving approval for maternity leave followed by a childcare leave of absence from February through June 2017, Parsells re-expressed interest in remaining a temporary part-time teacher for the 2017-18 school year. In an email to the school’s principal, the new superintendent noted that Parsells “was under the impression that she had the option of coming back full-time if she wanted to” and had “stated that if she had known all of this before changing to part-time, she would not have made the change.” Parsells returned to her part-time tenured teaching job in September 2018, but without health benefits. Parsells then applied for a full-time teaching position, and the Board rejected her applications, hiring non-tenured teachers from outside the district for some of those positions. Parsells filed a petition against the Board alleging it violated her tenure rights by hiring non-tenured teachers for the full-time positions to which she applied and that she had not voluntarily relinquished her tenure rights by moving temporarily to a part-time position. The New Jersey Supreme Court determined Parsells did not knowingly waive her tenured right to a full-time teaching position, and affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision upholding the Commissioner’s award of “full back pay, benefits, and emoluments, less mitigation.” View "Parsells v. Borough of Somerville Board of Education" on Justia Law

In November 2013, plaintiff Philip Pantano, a mechanic employed by Container Services of New Jersey (CSNJ), was injured at work while attempting to move a heavy piece of industrial equipment. Lawrence Giamella, who was also working on the site that day, tried to help plaintiff move the equipment with a forklift; plaintiff’s foot was crushed in the process. Plaintiff collected workers’ compensation benefits from his employer, CSNJ. He and his wife also brought a personal injury action against numerous defendants, including Marine Transport, Inc. (MT). MT and CSNJ were related companies owned by the same person. The core of the parties’ dispute concerned which entity or entities employed Giamella at the time of the accident: MT, CSNJ, or both. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of CSNJ because of the statutory bar established by N.J.S.A. 34:15-8. MT also moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was not Giamella’s employer and was therefore not vicariously liable for his negligence. Although Giamella was on MT’s payroll, MT raised the affirmative defense that he was a “borrowed servant” or “special employee” working for CSNJ at the time of the accident, applying the multi-factor test set forth in Galvao v. G.R. Robert Construction Co., 179 N.J. 462 (2004). The pretrial judge denied MT’s motion. At the close of plaintiff’s case, MT moved for judgment pursuant to Rule 4:40-1, founded on the same borrowed-employee theory it had raised earlier in its summary judgment motion. The trial judge did not rule on the motion, reserving judgment for after the jury verdict. The jury awarded plaintiff damages for pain and suffering, lost wages, and loss of consortium. Pursuant to an agreement reached by counsel, the jury was asked to presume that MT was vicariously liable and was not asked to resolve the borrowed-employee question. Instead, counsel assented to have the court resolve the borrowed-employee argument through the mechanism of MT’s yet-to-be-decided Rule 4:40-1 motion. The trial judge vacated the verdict and awarded judgment to MT, concluding that Giamella was a borrowed employee working for CSNJ when the accident occurred. The Appellate Division reversed, vacated the directed verdict, and reinstated the jury verdict in plaintiff’s favor. Finding no reversible error in the appellate court's judgment, the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed. View "Pantano v. New York Shipping Association" on Justia Law

A jury found defendants Kenneth Daniels, Levell Burnett, and Barry Berry guilty of being leaders of a drug trafficking network, known in New Jersey as the “kingpin” offense. As to the four material elements of the kingpin offense, the jury asked whether it was “possible” to be a supervisor (the third element), but not to occupy a high-level position (the fourth element). The New Jersey Supreme Court considered whether the judge’s response to that question was error capable of producing an unjust result. The Court also considered the Appellate Division’s determinations that the trial judge should have modified element four of the model kingpin charge by adding language from New Jersey v. Alexander, 136 N.J. 563 (1994), to further explain what constituted a “high-level” member of a conspiracy and that the judge needed to tailor the kingpin charge to the evidential proofs admitted against each defendant, as well as its determination that Berry’s motion for a judgment of acquittal should have been granted. The Supreme Court held that judges are encouraged, when practical, to respond “yes” or “no” to unambiguous and specific questions posed by juries during deliberations. Without concluding he should have answered “yes,” the Appellate Division determined that the trial judge failed to adequately address the “fundamental import of the jury’s question.” It found that the trial judge should have modified element four of the model kingpin charge by adding language from Alexander, and it determined that the judge needed to tailor the kingpin charge to the evidential proofs admitted against each defendant. The Appellate Division therefore reversed the kingpin convictions as to defendants Kenneth Daniels and Levell Burnett. As to defendant Barry Berry, however, the appellate court reversed an order denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal and vacated his conviction. The Supreme Court held the trial court was under no obligation either to mold the charge sua sponte by factually addressing the varying levels of authority that each defendant played in the conspiracy or to modify the model charge by adding further definitional language from Alexander. And the Court concluded the trial judge properly denied Berry’s motion for a judgment of acquittal. The Court therefore affirmed as modified the Appellate Division’s judgment to vacate the kingpin convictions as to Daniels and Burnett; and it reversed the appellate court’s reversal of the trial judge’s denial of Berry’s motion for a judgment of acquittal. The case was remanded for a new trial against all defendants on the State’s kingpin charge. View "New Jersey v. Berry; Daniels; Burnett" on Justia Law

Defendants Jamire Williams and Tyshon Kelly, two males, had borrowed the car from its female owner. When they passed Police Officer Jeffrey Kless, who had been parked on the side of the road, Kless ran an mobile data terminal (MDT) query on the car. The results revealed a photo of and standard identifying information about the car’s registered owner, and that the registered owner had a suspended license. Kless pulled the car pulled over without incident. It was not until he arrived at the passenger-side window that Kless concluded the driver was not the owner. Believing that he might have smelled marijuana while standing there, despite a stuffy nose, Kless arranged with a backup officer, who had not smelled anything except air fresheners, to have a canine sniff the car. Prior to the sniff, Kless asked defendants to exit the vehicle. Williams stated that the officers would need consent from the vehicle’s owner to perform the sniff, but an officer on the scene responded, “We don’t need consent.” The dog uncovered the presence of marijuana. An on-the-spot search thereafter revealed a gun under the driver’s seat. Kless patted down defendants and placed them under arrest. Throughout the car search and pat down, Williams repeatedly protested to the officers about the search, including their lack of consent from the car owner. Defendants moved to suppress the evidence found in the car. The trial court denied the motions. The New Jersey Supreme Court concluded an MDT query revealing that a vehicle’s owner has a suspended New Jersey driver’s license provides constitutionally valid reasonable suspicion authorizing the officer to stop the vehicle -- unless the officer pursuing the vehicle has a sufficient objective basis to believe that the driver does not resemble the owner. Based on the specific facts presented here, the initial stop of the vehicle was valid because it was based on reasonable suspicion. However, the Court found the detention of defendants and the borrowed car was unconstitutionally prolonged after the officer recognized the driver was not the car’s owner. The officer’s admittedly uncertain ability to tell if he smelled marijuana was inadequate evidence of “plain smell” to justify a continuation of the stop and a search of the vehicle. Judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "New Jersey v. Williams" on Justia Law

In October 2018, Rutgers University Police were dispatched to a campus residence hall to investigate reports that a student, defendant Izaia Bullock, had threatened to harm his girlfriend’s parents. When Officer Peter Archibald arrived to speak to another student, he encountered defendant in the hallway of a campus residence hall. After a brief discussion, Officer Archibald escorted defendant out of the building into the adjacent courtyard where they were met by two additional uniformed, armed Rutgers Police officers. Before advising defendant of his Miranda rights, Officer Archibald asked defendant why the officers were there, and defendant stated that he made a statement about wanting to hurt someone, specifically “[m]y girlfriend and her family.” After defendant made that admission, Officer Archibald advised defendant that he was “not in trouble” and then recited a cursory version of the Miranda warnings to defendant. After being transported to police headquarters, detectives administered Miranda warnings and defendant signed a waiver form. Two Rutgers Police detectives subsequently conducted a video-taped interrogation. Prior to the interrogation, one of the detectives stated that she was aware defendant already spoke to the officers and stated, “[b]ut we just have to do it again.” Defendant made additional incriminating statements, including details of his plan to kill his girlfriend’s parents. Prior to trial, the trial court suppressed all of defendant’s statements, finding that he was in custody in the courtyard and should have been properly advised of his rights, which did not occur. The trial court also suppressed the statements defendant made at the police station because of improper administration and waiver of Miranda rights. The Appellate Division affirmed, agreeing with the trial court that defendant’s statements in the courtyard must be suppressed. The New Jersey Supreme Court concurred with the Appellate Division and affirmed suppression of defendant's statements. View "New Jersey v. Bullock" on Justia Law