04-14-08 A-6018-05T4
Defendant, a federal inmate at the Fort Dix Correctional Facility in Wrightstown, was produced for pre-trial appearances and for trial in the Law Division by way of the judge's "order to produce." We concluded that defendant's pre-trial motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to the "anti-shuttling" provision of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD), N.J.S.A. 2A:159A-4, was properly denied. Because a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum is not a detainer for IAD purposes, the statute was not triggered and the motion was properly denied.
Monday, June 30, 2008
State of New Jersey v. Brenda Hoffman
03-31-08 State of New Jersey v. Brenda Hoffman
A-6473-06T4
In this appeal, we reverse an order admitting defendant into a Pretrial Intervention program over the prosecutor's objection. We conclude the victims' status as police officers does not eviscerate N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(e)(4), which requires prosecutors to consider "[t]he desire of the complainant or victim to forego prosecution."
A-6473-06T4
In this appeal, we reverse an order admitting defendant into a Pretrial Intervention program over the prosecutor's objection. We conclude the victims' status as police officers does not eviscerate N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(e)(4), which requires prosecutors to consider "[t]he desire of the complainant or victim to forego prosecution."
State of New Jersey v. Hiram Rodriguez
03-28-08 A-4614-05T4
In this appeal, the court determined that the police
complied with the "reasonable wait time" standard and therefore
did not violate the "knock and announce" rule, which is
incorporated in the Fourth Amendment and Article I, paragraph 7
of the state constitution, when they waited fifteen to twenty
seconds after announcing their presence before entering the
premises.
The State also argued in this appeal that Hudson v.
Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 126 S. Ct. 2159, 165 L. Ed. 2d 56
(2006), which holds that the Fourth Amendment does not require
application of the exclusionary rule upon a knock and announce
violation, should be followed in determining the appropriate
remedy for a similar violation of our state constitution. Since
the court found no violation, it recognized that it was not
necessary to decide this issue but expressed in dictum its doubt
that Hudson would be followed in determining the remedy
available upon a breach of the state constitutional knock and
announce rule.
Judge Stern filed a concurring opinion.
In this appeal, the court determined that the police
complied with the "reasonable wait time" standard and therefore
did not violate the "knock and announce" rule, which is
incorporated in the Fourth Amendment and Article I, paragraph 7
of the state constitution, when they waited fifteen to twenty
seconds after announcing their presence before entering the
premises.
The State also argued in this appeal that Hudson v.
Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 126 S. Ct. 2159, 165 L. Ed. 2d 56
(2006), which holds that the Fourth Amendment does not require
application of the exclusionary rule upon a knock and announce
violation, should be followed in determining the appropriate
remedy for a similar violation of our state constitution. Since
the court found no violation, it recognized that it was not
necessary to decide this issue but expressed in dictum its doubt
that Hudson would be followed in determining the remedy
available upon a breach of the state constitutional knock and
announce rule.
Judge Stern filed a concurring opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)