The dictum, of Appellate Division Judges Fisher and Accurso, in the Oct. 17, 2014, per curiam opinion State v. Bacome, is more significant than the actual decision.
In Bacome, the court remanded a denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress narcotic evidence, seized as the result of a warrantless motor vehicle search which required an occupant, other than the driver, to exit the vehicle. However, the more interesting issue, which could not be decided by the Appellate Division, because not decided below, was whether a defendant’s constitutional right provided by the Confrontation Clause is violated by the admission of hearsay evidence at a motion to suppress.
