State v. Calcagno

295 A.2d 366, 120 N.J. Super. 536
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
DecidedOctober 4, 1972
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 295 A.2d 366 (State v. Calcagno) 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
State v. Calcagno, 295 A.2d 366, 120 N.J. Super. 536 (N.J. Ct. App. 1972).

Opinion

120 N.J. Super. 536 (1972)
295 A.2d 366

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
ORLANDO CALCAGNO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Submitted September 25, 1972.
Decided October 4, 1972.

*537 Before Judges COLLESTER, LEONARD and HALPERN.

Mr. John P. Russell, attorney for appellant.

Mr. Geoffrey Gaulkin, Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Mr. John J. Hughes, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).

PER CURIAM.

After a jury trial defendant was convicted of the unlawful possession of lottery paraphernalia (N.J.S.A. 2A:121-3(b)). He seeks a reversal of his conviction upon the grounds that (a) "Miranda warnings should have been given to [him] prior to interrogation," and (b) "The evidence seized were the fruits of an illegal search and therefore inadmissable." These contentions lack merit.

Defendant was working at the plant of his employer, Western Electric Company, when he was questioned and searched by two special investigators who were also employed by Western Electric. At their request he voluntarily opened his workbench drawer where lottery paraphernalia was found. In addition, he gave them other gambling paraphernalia which he had on his person.

The interrogation by the investigators was not "custodial interrogation" by police or government agents which is proscribed by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), unless appropriate warnings are first given. State v. Kelly, 61 N.J. 283 (1972); see generally, Annotation, "Custodial Interrogation-Miranda Rule," 31 A.L.R. 3d 565 (1970).

So, too, the search by the investigators was not proscribed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961). The cloak of protection furnished by the Fourth Amendment is directed against official arrogance and insolence in office by public agents. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, *538 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); State v. Kelly, supra; State v. De Simone, 60 N.J. 319 (1972); Annotation, "Private Search-Evidence," 36 A.L.R.3d 553 (1971).

Affirmed.

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

Related

State of New Jersey v. Kason D. Hockett
129 A.3d 1116 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2016)
State v. Lashley
803 A.2d 139 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2002)
Tartaglia v. Paine Webber, Inc.
794 A.2d 816 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2002)
Metigoruk v. Municipality of Anchorage
655 P.2d 1317 (Court of Appeals of Alaska, 1982)
In Re Deborah C.
635 P.2d 446 (California Supreme Court, 1981)
People v. Deborah C.
635 P.2d 446 (California Supreme Court, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
295 A.2d 366, 120 N.J. Super. 536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-calcagno-njsuperctappdiv-1972.