Law requiring convicted criminals to provide DNA sample constitutional. State v. John O’Hagen (A-70-05)

State v. John O’Hagen (A-70-05) 1-24-07

The New Jersey DNA Database and Databank Act of N.J.S.A. 53:1-
20.17-20.28, as amended, does not violate the rights guaranteed
by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution and Article I, Paragraphs 1 and 7 of the New Jersey
Constitution. Law requiring convicted criminals to provide DNA sample constitutional.

1-24-07 A.A., by his parent and guardian B.A., v. Attorney
General of the State of New Jersey et als.(A-105-05)

DNA test results lawfully obtained pursuant to the New Jersey
DNA Database and Databank Act of 1994, N.J.S.A. 53:1-20.17-
20.28, as amended, may be used to solve crimes committed prior
to the taking of the DNA test.


1-18-07 State v. Vincent Dispoto (A-103-05)

Because there was insufficient evidence to support the issuance
of the underlying domestic violence search warrant, the criminal
search warrant was invalid as fruit of the poisonous tree.
While this holding renders moot the Appellate Division’s finding
that failure to re-administer Miranda warnings at the time of
arrest required suppression of Dispoto’s post-arrest
incriminating statements, the Court adds in respect of the issue
of the Miranda warnings only that no bright line or per se rule
governs whether re-administratiocustodial Miranda warning.

internet subscriber has an expectation of privacy

State of New Jersey v. Shirley Reid 01-22-07
A-3424-05T5

The Appellate Division held that an internet subscriber has an expectation of
privacy in information on file with the internet provider
identifying her as the user associated with an anonymous "screen
name." Since the police obtained that identifying information
by means of an invalid subpoena, issued by a municipal court
administrator and returnable on the date of issuance, the order
suppressing the evidence obtained from the internet provider was
affirmed.

No warrantless search of auto after occupants are out.

State v. Eckel 185 NJ 523 (2006).

A warrantless search of an automobile based not on probable cause but solely on the arrest of a person unable to endanger police or destroy evidence cannot be justified under any exception to the warrant requirement and is unreasonable. Once the occupant of a vehicle has been arrested, removed and secured elsewhere, the considerations informing the search incident to arrest exception are absent and the exception in inapplicable. If the occupant has been arrested but not removed and secured, the court will have to determine on a case-by-case basis whether the suspect was in a position to compromise police safety or evidence to justify resort to the search incident to arrest exception.
KENNETH VERCAMMEN & ASSOCIATES, PC
ATTORNEY AT LAW
2053 Woodbridge Ave.
Edison, NJ 08817
(Phone) 732-572-0500
(Fax) 732-572-0030
website: www.njlaws.com