In its July 5 decision in State v. Goldsmith, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that evidence of guns and drugs should have been suppressed because the police officers lacked a sufficient basis to detain the defendant. A key issue was whether the officers were “blocking [defendant’s] way” and the only testimony at the suppression hearing came from one of the officers, who testified that they approached the defendant as he was walking out of an “alleyway” or “walkway” adjacent to a vacant house.

A photograph of the house and walkway went into evidence, and the testifying officer marked the officers’ “exact location” on the photograph. According to the dissent, the photograph was “critical” but, “for reasons unknown,” it was “missing from the record on appeal.”

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]