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.
This content has been archived.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
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]
