New Jersey’s courts have seen an uptick in Fourth Amendment search and seizure and ancillary privacy litigation over the last few years. In April and May of 2015 alone, the state Supreme Court issued two significant opinions that implicate both the Fourth Amendment and the proper admission into evidence of monitored telephone calls: State of New Jersey v. Ricky Wright and State of New Jersey v. Kingkamau Nantambu. A quick look at the court’s docket for next term shows that more decisions are coming.
The Private Search Doctrine
The “private search doctrine” occupies a semi-obscure corner of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. At its base, the doctrine addresses instances in which a private actor (i.e., not a law enforcement officer) conducts a “search” and discovers some species of contraband or proof of illegal conduct. That person must then proceed to notify law enforcement personnel or present them with the item in question. Law enforcement must then proceed to duplicate the private search without first obtaining a judicial warrant.
This content has been archived.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]
