State v. Saez

Supreme Court of New Jersey

State v. Saez

653 A.2d 1130, 139 N.J. 279, 1995 N.J. LEXIS 16

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedFebruary 23, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 653 A.2d 1130 (State v. Saez) 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. Saez, 653 A.2d 1130, 139 N.J. 279, 1995 N.J. LEXIS 16 (N.J. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendants appeal as of right on the basis of the dissent in the Appellate Division. R. 2:2-l(a). We reverse the judgment of the *281 Appellate Division substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge D’Annunzio’s dissenting opinion. 268 N.J.Super. 250, 270-79, 633 A.2d 551 (1993). Although we do not imply that the third-party intervention exception applies only when the informant previously has reduced to possession the objects viewed by law-enforcement officials, we are generally in accord with the dissenting opinion’s analysis that described the extended and continuous police surveillance as a significant expansion of the informant’s prior observation of the activities conducted in the adjacent basement. Id. at 272-73, 633 A.2d 551.

Because the majority and the dissenting member of the Appellate Division panel agreed that defendants retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of their activities in the basement apartment, and that under the circumstances the extended surveillance of the activities conducted in the adjacent basement was not a reasonable search otherwise justified by the plain-view exception to the requirement for a search warrant, that issue is not before us and we do not address it.

Judgment reversed. The matter is remanded to the Law Division for retrial.

CHIEF JUSTICE WILENTZ and JUSTICES HANDLER, POLLOCK, O’HERN, GARIBALDI, STEIN, and COLEMAN join in this opinion.

For reversal and remandment — Chief Justice WILENTZ, and Justices HANDLER, POLLOCK, O’HERN, GARIBALDI, STEIN and COLEMAN — 7.

Opposed — None.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendants appeal as of right on the basis of the dissent in the Appellate Division. R. 2:2-l(a). We reverse the judgment of the *281 Appellate Division substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge D’Annunzio’s dissenting opinion. 268 N.J.Super. 250, 270-79, 633 A.2d 551 (1993). Although we do not imply that the third-party intervention exception applies only when the informant previously has reduced to possession the objects viewed by law-enforcement officials, we are generally in accord with the dissenting opinion’s analysis that described the extended and continuous police surveillance as a significant expansion of the informant’s prior observation of the activities conducted in the adjacent basement. Id. at 272-73, 633 A.2d 551.

Because the majority and the dissenting member of the Appellate Division panel agreed that defendants retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of their activities in the basement apartment, and that under the circumstances the extended surveillance of the activities conducted in the adjacent basement was not a reasonable search otherwise justified by the plain-view exception to the requirement for a search warrant, that issue is not before us and we do not address it.

Judgment reversed. The matter is remanded to the Law Division for retrial.

CHIEF JUSTICE WILENTZ and JUSTICES HANDLER, POLLOCK, O’HERN, GARIBALDI, STEIN, and COLEMAN join in this opinion.

For reversal and remandment — Chief Justice WILENTZ, and Justices HANDLER, POLLOCK, O’HERN, GARIBALDI, STEIN and COLEMAN — 7.

Opposed — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

653 A.2d 1130, 139 N.J. 279, 1995 N.J. LEXIS 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-saez-nj-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack