The Chief Justice is correct in suggesting that municipal courts “keep rights in mind” when dispensing justice. I would go further and suggest that while the majority of municipal court judges do keep in mind individual rights of our citizenry when dispensing justice, our Supreme Court does not.

I am dismayed at the lack of respect for individual rights in the dispensing of justice displayed in the recent decision of State v. Zalcberg, decided on March 27, in which the Chief Justice—joined with other members of our high court—decided to dispense with the warrant requirement for the taking of blood because of the “exigencies of the case” and the high stakes of the facts surrounding the matter, despite the lower court's finding that no such factual exigency existed.

In its own decision, even the Supremes recognized that:

In reviewing the decision of a trial judge to grant or deny a motion to suppress, an appellate court must give deference  “to the factual findings of the trial court so long as those findings are supported by sufficient evidence in the record.” State v. Hubbard, 222 N.J. 249, 262, 118 A.3d 314 (2015). Findings of the trial court should be set aside “only when [the] court's findings of fact are clearly mistaken ․ [and] the interests of justice require the reviewing court to examine the record, make findings of fact, and apply the governing law.” Id. at 262–63, 118 A.3d 314. However, “[w]e owe no deference to a trial or appellate court's interpretation of the law, and therefore our review of legal matters is de novo.” State v. Hathaway, 222 N.J. 453, 467, 120 A.3d 155 (2015). Ibid, III.A.

One might reasonably infer that such judicial “deference” would also apply to decisions of our Supreme Court but apparently not in this case. A basic constitutional right/liberty has now been infringed by virtue of our highest state court's decision. In today's day and age, this is scary wrong, a clear infringement on individual rights, and another example of our Justices not “keeping rights in mind.” As a result, New Jersey law now is more restrictive than the federal law—a first in my lifetime and probably a federal constitutional violation.

This latest decision fits in with a larger pattern of recent decisions in which the N.J. Supreme Court has denigrated the individual and individual rights and liberties. See Justice Lavecchia's written decision in Stelluti v. Casapenn Enterprises, 203 N.J. 286 (2010), in which she made “contracts of adhesion” standard fare. Prior to Stelluti, contracts of adhesion had been presumed unfair and it had been the burden of defendant to show the validity/fairness of a contract of adhesion because “the process of entering into a contract of adhesion … is not one of haggle or cooperative process but rather of a fly and flypaper.” Contracts by Calamari & Perillo, p. 6. A contract of adhesion was considered suspect until Stelluti because of the relative bargaining positions of the parties involved, that is, in a contract of adhesion, there was no bargaining.

Our state's highest court has become unresponsive to the citizens of our great state and now caters to corporate and insurance interests, etc. See Sanders v. Langemeier, 199 N.J. 366 (2009); Fernandez v. Nationwide Mutual & Proformance, 199 N.J. 591 (2009); Stelluti v. Casapenn Enterprises, 203 N.J. 286 (2010).

I am greatly saddened by the sharp turn away from basic civil liberties that our Supreme Court has taken over the past decade in these difficult times—in this case in contravention of well-established U.S. Constitutional law as embodied in case decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Our N.J. Supreme Court may indeed be overturned if this decision goes up, because under federal law there is a warrant requirement to draw blood.

I understand that the world is harsh but the justice system has always provided a safe haven of reasonableness and common sense to protect us from some of the harshness of the world. The Supreme Court seems to “talk the talk” about protecting our rights but it does not “walk the walk” to protect our rights. Like so many other institutions, our highest state court has become politicized and is no longer the guardian of last resort of citizens' rights.

Edward S. Kahn is an attorney in Lawrenceville (www.attorneyedwardskahn), focusing his practice on personal injury and criminal law.