State v. Braxton

Supreme Court of New Jersey

State v. Braxton

271 A.2d 713, 57 N.J. 286, 1970 N.J. LEXIS 212

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedDecember 21, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 271 A.2d 713 (State v. Braxton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Braxton, 271 A.2d 713, 57 N.J. 286, 1970 N.J. LEXIS 212 (N.J. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment of the Appellate Division is reversed and the trial court’s order denying the motion to suppress is affirmed for the reasons given in the dissenting opinion in the Appellate Division. 111 N. J. Super. 191, 201 (1970). We add that an inspection of the registration of an automobile includes a check of the serial number on the vehicle itself, here located on the doorpost, for it is a comparison of the number there found with the serial number on the registration certificate which reveals whether the car in hand is in fact the registered car and not another car of similar vintage. It was while thus checking the number on the doorpost that the officer, whose attention was apparently attracted by defendant’s shuffling of his feet, saw the protruding barrel of the sawed-off shotgun. We read the officer’s testimony to mean that when he saw the object he believed it was the barrel of a gun, and that his testimony on cross-examination meant only that he could not be absolutely sure without seeing the whole of the object. His belief reasonably warranted the examination of the whole object; it would serve no comprehensible end to say that an officer, so situated, must ignore what he saw or that he must seek a search warrant to find out what was on the other end of what appeared to be (and indeed was) the barrel of a sawed-off shotgun.

For reversal — Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Eranbis, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and Haneman — 6.

For affirmance — None.

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

Per Curiam.

The judgment of the Appellate Division is reversed and the trial court’s order denying the motion to suppress is affirmed for the reasons given in the dissenting opinion in the Appellate Division. 111 N. J. Super. 191, 201 (1970). We add that an inspection of the registration of an automobile includes a check of the serial number on the vehicle itself, here located on the doorpost, for it is a comparison of the number there found with the serial number on the registration certificate which reveals whether the car in hand is in fact the registered car and not another car of similar vintage. It was while thus checking the number on the doorpost that the officer, whose attention was apparently attracted by defendant’s shuffling of his feet, saw the protruding barrel of the sawed-off shotgun. We read the officer’s testimony to mean that when he saw the object he believed it was the barrel of a gun, and that his testimony on cross-examination meant only that he could not be absolutely sure without seeing the whole of the object. His belief reasonably warranted the examination of the whole object; it would serve no comprehensible end to say that an officer, so situated, must ignore what he saw or that he must seek a search warrant to find out what was on the other end of what appeared to be (and indeed was) the barrel of a sawed-off shotgun.

For reversal — Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Eranbis, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and Haneman — 6.

For affirmance — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.2d 713, 57 N.J. 286, 1970 N.J. LEXIS 212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-braxton-nj-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack