White Collar Criminal and Regulatory Lawyer Blog

In a landmark decision, the United States Supreme Court in Kentuckly v, King, Docket No.09-1272, held that warrantless searches are valid so long as a police officer knocks loudly, announces themselves and hears evidence being destroyed.

The facts at issue in this case are straightforward: Police officers were attempting to track down a suspected drug dealer when they smelled marijuana coming from behind an apartment door. The officers knocked loudly on the door, announced their presence and then proceeded to kick the door in after they heard sounds consistent with the destruction of evidence. Upon their entry, they noticed drugs in plain view. The defendants in this case moved to suppress the evidence on the basis that the warrantless search was invalid. Although the search was originally deemed valid, the Supreme Court of Kentucky determined that the search was improper.

In its ruling yesterday, the United States Supreme Court reversed the prior decision of the Supreme Court of Kentucky. In doing so however, the Court made a point to state that entry without a warrant to prevent the destruction of evidence is only reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when the officer "did not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment." See majority opinion at p. 8.

Justice Ginsburg, the lone dissenting Justice, felt that the Court's decision severly impaired the protections afforded by our Constitution. In particular, Justice Ginsburg rhetorically asked, "[h]ow 'secure' do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and, on hearing sounds indicative of things moving, forcibly enter and search for evidence of unlawful activity?" See dissenting opinion at p. 3.

Ambrosio & Tomczak handles a wide array of criminal defense matters.

On May 9, 2011, Governor Chris Christie signed a bill repealing New Jersey's statutory early release parole program. This bill comes months after two inmates were charged with murder following their release from prison under the mandatory early release law. The new bill prevented the release of 18 inmates who were scheduled to be released momentarily under the former law.

In a press release offered by the Office of the Governor, Chris Christie said, "I'm relieved and grateful that the legislature finally acted to repeal this failed law. Our communities and the safety of our citizens must get first consideration, and repeal of this law accomplishes that."

Despite contentious debates between Gov. Chris Christie and the New Jersey Assembly, the vote on the most recent amended bill passed 72-3-1in the Assembly, two weeks after the Senate voted 34-1 in its favor. The bill's lone holdout, Bonnie Watson Coleman, a Democrat from Mercer County who sponsored the original bill, is quoted in the Asbury Park Press: "While I accept this (result), I am very concerned that we've taken a step backward in our tents to combat recidivism and its terrible cost to lives and to the taxpayers. The early release program was a way to provide supervision to inmates who otherwise would have freely walked out of prison without the help needed to live a life free of crime."

Ambrosio and Tomczak is a full-service law firm practicing in a variety of fields including criminal defense.

In a decision of great import to public employees across the state, the New Jersey Appellate Division has recently held that a public employee who is convicted of tampering with evidence or blocking a criminal investigation or proceeding is required to forfeit their public office or employment.

In State v.Kennedy, A-5677-09, the issue before the court was whether Defendant Jerome Kennedy, a Morristown Department of Public Works employee who pled guilty to one charge of physical evidence tampering, had to forfeit his public employment. Although the prosecution and the defense agreed that the Defendant's original offense was not related to his employment, the prosecution argued that forfeiture was warranted under N.J.S.A. 2C:51-2(a) because the Defendant engaged in "and offense involving dishonesty."

Continue reading "Public Employees Must Forfeit Employment if Engaged in Evidence Tampering " »