Kingsley v. Giangrande

New Jersey Superior Court App Division

Kingsley v. Giangrande

231 A.2d 228, 95 N.J. Super. 336, 1967 N.J. Super. LEXIS 555

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

DecidedJune 9, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 231 A.2d 228 (Kingsley v. Giangrande) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kingsley v. Giangrande, 231 A.2d 228, 95 N.J. Super. 336, 1967 N.J. Super. LEXIS 555 (N.J. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We regard this case as controlled by the recent decision of the Lnited States Supreme Court in Cooper v. State of California, 386 U. S. 58, 87 S. Ct. 788, 17 L. Ed. 2d 730 (February 20, 1967). Here, as there, a state statute expressly gave the law enforcement authorities the power to take possession of a vehicle and its contents transported therein in violation of state law. The fact that Cooper involved narcotics, and this case untaxed cigarettes, is not the basis for a distinction.

As soon as defendants admitted to the state trooper that they had untaxed cigarettes in the truck, the provisions of N. J. S. A. 54 :40A-32, rendering the cigarettes and the transporting vehicle contraband and subject to seizure by state agents, became operative. The consequent taking of possession thereof and the incidental search of the vehicle, although without a warrant, were free from objection as unreasonable within the Fourth Amendment, as expressly determined in comparable circumstances in Cooper, supra.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

We regard this case as controlled by the recent decision of the Lnited States Supreme Court in Cooper v. State of California, 386 U. S. 58, 87 S. Ct. 788, 17 L. Ed. 2d 730 (February 20, 1967). Here, as there, a state statute expressly gave the law enforcement authorities the power to take possession of a vehicle and its contents transported therein in violation of state law. The fact that Cooper involved narcotics, and this case untaxed cigarettes, is not the basis for a distinction.

As soon as defendants admitted to the state trooper that they had untaxed cigarettes in the truck, the provisions of N. J. S. A. 54 :40A-32, rendering the cigarettes and the transporting vehicle contraband and subject to seizure by state agents, became operative. The consequent taking of possession thereof and the incidental search of the vehicle, although without a warrant, were free from objection as unreasonable within the Fourth Amendment, as expressly determined in comparable circumstances in Cooper, supra.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.2d 228, 95 N.J. Super. 336, 1967 N.J. Super. LEXIS 555, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kingsley-v-giangrande-njsuperctappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack