warrant requirement in New Jersey

2026"A warrantless search is presumed invalid unless it falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement." Ibid. (quoting State v. Cooke, 163 N.J. 657, 664 (2000)).

2026A warrantless search is "presumed invalid unless it falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement." State v. Wilson, 178 N.J. 7, 12 (2003) (citing State v. Cooke, 163 N.J. 657, 664 (2000)).

2026I, ¶ 7. "[A] warrantless search is presumptively invalid" unless the State establishes the search falls into "one of the 'few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement.'" State v. Edmonds, 211 N.J. 117, 130 (2012) (quoting State v. Frankel, 179 N.J. 586, 598 (2004)).

2026"Warrantless searches are permissible only if 'justified by one of the "few established and well-delineated exceptions" to the warrant requirement.'" Ibid. (quoting State v. Frankel, 179 N.J. 586, 598 (2004) (quoting Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978))). "[T]he State bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that [the] warrantless search or seizure 'falls within [an] . . . exception . . . .'" Elders, 192 N.J. at 246 (quoting State v. Pineiro, 181 N.J. 13, 19-20 (2004)).

2024Both “protect citizens against unreasonable police searches and seizures by requiring warrants issued on probable cause ‘unless [the search] falls within one of the few well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement.’” State v. Dangerfield, 171 N.J. 446, 455 (2002) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Maryland, 167 N.J. 471, 482 (2001)).

2023“When no warrant is sought, the State has the burden to demonstrate that ‘[the search] falls within one of the few well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement.’” State v. Pineiro, 181 N.J. 13, 19-20 (2004) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Maryland, 167 N.J. 471, 482 (2001)).

2026Although warrantless searches or seizures are "presumptively invalid," State v. Pineiro, 181 N.J. 13, 19 (2004), "[n]ot all police-citizen encounters constitute searches or seizures for purposes of the warrant requirement," State v. Rosario, 229 N.J. 263, 271 (2017) (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (quoting State v. Rodriguez, 172 N.J. 117, 125 (2002)).

2026"Warrantless searches are permissible only if 'justified by one of the "few established and well-delineated exceptions" to the warrant requirement.'" Ibid. (quoting State v. Frankel, 179 N.J. 586, 598 (2004) (quoting Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978))). "[T]he State bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that [the] warrantless search or seizure 'falls within [an] . . . exception . . . .'" Elders, 192 N.J. at 246 (quoting State v. Pineiro, 181 N.J. 13, 19-20 (2004)).

2026Whittaker's testimony." After summarizing the applicable legal principles, the judge first found, although defendants did not expressly challenge the investigatory detention of the Ford, the detention nonetheless was "valid, A-0807-23 11 supported by the totality of the circumstances." The judge found "the sight of smoke and the scent of burnt marijuana, judged under the totality of the circumstances in this matter, gave the officers probable cause for the arrest of the defendants." [*] Citing our Supreme Court's decisions in State v. Witt, 223 N.J. 409 (2015), and State v. Alston, 88 N.J. 211

2026To conduct a search under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, the State must satisfy the test set forth in Witt, 223 N.J. at 446-48 , "pro[of] that probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband or other evidence of unlawful activity arose spontaneously and unforeseeably." State v. Courtney, 478 N.J.

2025Super. ___, ___ (App. Div. 2025) (slip op. at 12-13) (applying constitutional principles to determine admissibility of DNA evidence obtained in a buccal swab). "[I]n order for a search to be constitutional, police officers 'must obtain a warrant or show that a recognized exception to the warrant requirement applies.'" Miranda, 253 N.J. at 475 (quoting State v. Wright, 221 N.J. 456, 466 (2015)). "[O]ne of the specifically established exceptions to the requirements of . . . a warrant . . . is a search that is conducted pursuant to consent." Id. at 475-76 (alteration in original) (quoting Shneckl

2020Schneckloth v. A-1288-18T2 11 Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973); State v. Maryland, 167 N.J. 471, 482 (2001); see State v. Hill, 115 N.J. 169, 173-74 (1989) (listing the various exceptions to the warrant requirement).

2025Because a warrantless search is presumptively unreasonable, the State "bears the burden of proving the validity of a warrantless search," State v. Cushing, 226 N.J. 187, 199 (2016), and must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that it fell into "one of the 'few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement,'" State v. Gonzales, 227 N.J. 77, 90 (2016) (quoting State v. Frankel, 179 N.J. 586, 598 (2004)).

2025I, ¶ 7. "[A] warrantless search is presumptively invalid" unless the State establishes the search falls into "one of the 'few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement.'" State v. Gonzales, 227 N.J. 77, 90 (2016) (quoting State v. Edmonds, 211 N.J. 117, 130 (2012)).

2025"Generally, a warrantless search or seizure is invalid absent a showing that it 'falls within one of the few well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement.'" State v. Alessi, 240 N.J. 501 , 517 (2020) (quoting State v. Mann, 203 N.J. 328, 337-38 (2010)).

2024"Generally, a warrantless search or seizure is invalid absent a showing that it 'falls within one of the few well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement.'" State v. Alessi, 240 N.J. 501 , 517 (2020) (quoting State v. Mann, 203 N.J. 328, 337-38 (2010)).

2026A warrantless search is "presumed invalid unless it falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement." State v. Wilson, 178 N.J. 7, 12 (2003) (citing State v. Cooke, 163 N.J. 657, 664 (2000)).

2026Super. 536 , 549 (App. Div. 2019) (alterations in original) (quoting State v. Moore, 181 N.J. 40, 46 (2004)). "[A] warrantless search is presumed invalid unless it falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement." State v. Wilson, 178 N.J. 7, 12 (2003) (quoting State v. Cooke, 163 N.J. 657, 664 (2000)).

2026"Warrantless searches are permissible only if 'justified by one of the "few established and well-delineated exceptions" to the warrant requirement.'" Ibid. (quoting State v. Frankel, 179 N.J. 586, 598 (2004) (quoting Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978))). "[T]he State bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that [the] warrantless search or seizure 'falls within [an] . . . exception . . . .'" Elders, 192 N.J. at 246 (quoting State v. Pineiro, 181 N.J. 13, 19-20 (2004)).

2025I, ¶ 7; see also State v. Robinson, 228 N.J. 529 , 543- 44 (2017). "[S]earches and seizures conducted without warrants issued upon probable cause are presumptively unreasonable and therefore invalid." State v. Goldsmith, 251 N.J. 384 , 398 (2022) (quoting Elders, 192 N.J. at 246 ). "[T]he State bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence not only that the search or seizure was premised on probable cause, but also that it 'f[ell] within one of the few well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement.'" State v. Bryant, 227 N.J. 60, 69-70 (2016) (second alteration in orig

2026I, ¶ 7. "[A] warrantless search is presumptively invalid" unless the State establishes the search falls into "one of the 'few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement.'" State v. Edmonds, 211 N.J. 117, 130 (2012) (quoting State v. Frankel, 179 N.J. 586, 598 (2004)).

2026I, ¶ 7. "[A] warrantless search is presumptively invalid" unless the State establishes the search falls into "one of the 'few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement.'" State v. Edmonds, 211 N.J. 117, 130 (2012) (quoting State v. Frankel, 179 N.J. 586, 598 (2004)).

2026"The State bears the burden of demonstrating that a warrantless search is justified by 'one of the "few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions" to the warrant requirement.'" State v. Bogan, 200 N.J. 61, 73 (2009) (quoting State v. Frankel, 179 N.J. 586, 598 (2004) (quoting Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 390 (1978))).

2026"Warrantless searches are permissible only if 'justified by one of the "few established and well-delineated exceptions" to the warrant requirement.'" Ibid. (quoting State v. Frankel, 179 N.J. 586, 598 (2004) (quoting Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978))). "[T]he State bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that [the] warrantless search or seizure 'falls within [an] . . . exception . . . .'" Elders, 192 N.J. at 246 (quoting State v. Pineiro, 181 N.J. 13, 19-20 (2004)).

2025I, ¶ 7; see also State v. Robinson, 228 N.J. 529 , 543- 44 (2017). "[S]earches and seizures conducted without warrants issued upon probable cause are presumptively unreasonable and therefore invalid." State v. Goldsmith, 251 N.J. 384 , 398 (2022) (quoting Elders, 192 N.J. at 246 ). "[T]he State bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence not only that the search or seizure was premised on probable cause, but also that it 'f[ell] within one of the few well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement.'" State v. Bryant, 227 N.J. 60, 69-70 (2016) (second alteration in orig

2024To overcome the presumption that a warrantless search is unlawful, "the State bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence not only that the search or seizure was premised on probable cause, but also that it 'f[ell] within one of the few well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement.'" State v. Bryant, 227 N.J. 60, 69-70 (2016) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Johnson, 193 N.J. 528, 552 (2008)).

2026Although warrantless searches or seizures are "presumptively invalid," State v. Pineiro, 181 N.J. 13, 19 (2004), "[n]ot all police-citizen encounters constitute searches or seizures for purposes of the warrant requirement," State v. Rosario, 229 N.J. 263, 271 (2017) (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (quoting State v. Rodriguez, 172 N.J. 117, 125 (2002)).

2026However, "[n]ot all police-citizen encounters constitute searches or seizures for purposes of the warrant requirement." Rosario, 229 N.J. at 271 (quoting State v. Rodriguez, 172 N.J. 117, 125 (2002)).

2025The Terry exception to the warrant requirement permits an officer to detain an individual for a brief period and pat him or her down for the officer's safety, if that stop is "based on 'specific and articulable facts, which taken together with rational inferences from those facts,' give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity." Rodriguez, 172 N.J. at 126 (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 21 ).

2025As an exception to the warrant requirement, police officers may conduct a brief investigatory stop during which they "may lawfully detain someone for investigatory purposes." State v. Shaw, 237 N.J. 588, 612 (2019); see also Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 24 (1968).

2022The State has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence "that the search falls within one of the few well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement." Id. at 19 (citations omitted).

2021"The State [carries] the burden to demonstrate that '[the search] falls within one of the few well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement.'" Id. at 19 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Maryland, 167 N.J. 471, 482 (2001)).

2021"The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution require that police officers obtain a warrant 'before searching a person's property, unless the search "falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement."'" State v. Cassidy, 179 N.J. 150, 159-60 (2004) (quoting State v. DeLuca, 168 N.J. 626, 631 (2001)).

2020Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution, law enforcement officers must "obtain a warrant 'before searching a person's property, unless the search A-3703-17T4 19 falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement.'" State v. Cassidy, 179 N.J. 150, 159-602 (2004) (quoting State v. DeLuca, 168 N.J. 626, 631 (2001)); see also State v. Pena-Flores, 198 N.J. 6, 18 (2009).

2026Super. 214 , 230 (App. Div. 2023) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Chisum, 236 N.J. 530, 546 (2019)).

2020Because warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable, ibid. (quoting State v. Bryant, 227 N.J. 60, 69 (2016)), "the State bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a warrantless search or seizure falls within one of the few well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement," State v. Chisum, 236 N.J. 530, 545 (2019) (quoting State v. Mann, 203 N.J. 328, 337-38 (2010)).

2020Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution, law enforcement officers must "obtain a warrant 'before searching a person's property, unless the search A-3703-17T4 19 falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement.'" State v. Cassidy, 179 N.J. 150, 159-602 (2004) (quoting State v. DeLuca, 168 N.J. 626, 631 (2001)); see also State v. Pena-Flores, 198 N.J. 6, 18 (2009).

2020"Warrantless searches are 'prohibited unless they fall within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.'" State v. Adkins, 221 N.J. 300, 310 (2015) (quoting State v. Pena-Flores, 198 N.J. 6, 18 (2009)).

2024Therefore, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the warrantless search or seizure falls within one of the "'"well- delineated exceptions"' to the warrant requirement." State v. Shaw, 213 N.J. 398, 409 (2012) (quoting State v. Frankel, 179 N.J. 586, 598 (2004), overruled in part by State v. Edmonds, 211 N.J. 117 (2012)).

2024Consequently, "[a] warrantless search is presumed invalid unless it falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement." State v. Gamble, 218 N.J. 412, 425 (2014) (quoting State v. Cooke, 163 N.J. 657, 664 (2000)). "[T]he State bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that [the] warrantless search and seizure '[fell] within one of the . . . exceptions to the warrant requirement.'" Goldsmith, 251 N.J. at 399 (second and third alterations in original) (quoting State v. Shaw, 213 N.J. 398, 409-10 (2012)).

2026Whittaker's testimony." After summarizing the applicable legal principles, the judge first found, although defendants did not expressly challenge the investigatory detention of the Ford, the detention nonetheless was "valid, A-0807-23 11 supported by the totality of the circumstances." The judge found "the sight of smoke and the scent of burnt marijuana, judged under the totality of the circumstances in this matter, gave the officers probable cause for the arrest of the defendants." [*] Citing our Supreme Court's decisions in State v. Witt, 223 N.J. 409 (2015), and State v. Alston, 88 N.J. 211

2025Because that limitation is A-0738-23 11 Citing our Supreme Court's decisions in State v. Witt, 223 N.J. 409 (2015), and State v. Alston, 88 N.J. 211 (1981), the motion judge concluded the warrantless search was justified under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.

2025I, ¶ 7; see also State v. Robinson, 228 N.J. 529 , 543- 44 (2017). "[S]earches and seizures conducted without warrants issued upon probable cause are presumptively unreasonable and therefore invalid." State v. Goldsmith, 251 N.J. 384 , 398 (2022) (quoting Elders, 192 N.J. at 246 ). "[T]he State bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence not only that the search or seizure was premised on probable cause, but also that it 'f[ell] within one of the few well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement.'" State v. Bryant, 227 N.J. 60, 69-70 (2016) (second alteration in orig

2025"Therefore, when the police act without a warrant, the State bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence not only that the search or seizure was premised on probable cause, but also that it 'f[ell] within one of the few well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement.'" State v. Johnson, 193 N.J. 528, 552 (2008) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Pineiro, 181 N.J. 13, 19-20 (2004)).

2022See State v. Gonzales, 227 N.J. 77, 82 (2016) (eliminating the inadvertence requirement for the plain view exception to the warrant requirement based in part on the strong preference for objective standards of reasonableness, as inadvertence analysi s calls for a subjective inquiry into an officer's motivation); see also Bruzzese, 94 N.J. at 219 (noting that the Fourth Amendment proscribes unreasonable actions, not improper thoughts, and rejecting a "bad faith doctrine").

2021Article I, Paragraph 7, of the New Jersey Constitution is . . . was the [police] conduct objectively reasonable in light of 'the facts known to the law enforcement officer at the time of the search.'" State v. Handy, 206 N.J. 39, 46-47 (2011) (emphasis added) (quoting State v. Bruzzese, 94 N.J. 210, 221 (1983)). 36 A-0580-20 Under the facts of this case, where there is no justification for violating the warrant requirement mandating that the officers knock and announce their presence, we conclude the entry was objectively unreasonable, rendering the search and seizure constitutionally defectiv

2021"The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution require that police officers obtain a warrant 'before searching a person's property, unless the search "falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement."'" State v. Cassidy, 179 N.J. 150, 159-60 (2004) (quoting State v. DeLuca, 168 N.J. 626, 631 (2001)).

2021In that capacity, "police officers, who act in an objectively reasonable manner, may check on the welfare or safety of a citizen who appears in need of help on the roadway without securing a warrant or offending the Constitution." State v. Scriven, 226 N.J. 20, 38 (2016); see also State v. Diloreto, 180 N.J. 264, 275 (2004) ("The 'community caretaker doctrine' provides another basis on which to excuse the warrant requirement." (quoting State v. Cassidy, 179 N.J. 150 , 161 n.4 (2004))).

2026"A warrantless search is presumed invalid unless it falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement." Gamble, 218 N.J. at 425 (quoting State v. Cooke, 163 N.J. 657, 664 (2000)).

2025"A warrantless search is presumed invalid unless it falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement." State v. Gamble, 218 N.J. 412, 425 (2014) (quoting State v. Cooke, 163 N.J. 657, 664 (2000)). "[T]he State bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a warrantless search or seizure 'falls within one of the . . . exceptions . . . .'" State A-3048-22 18 v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224, 246 (2007) (quoting State v. Pineiro, 181 N.J. 13 , 19- 20 (2004)).

2020Schneckloth v. A-1288-18T2 11 Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973); State v. Maryland, 167 N.J. 471, 482 (2001); see State v. Hill, 115 N.J. 169, 173-74 (1989) (listing the various exceptions to the warrant requirement).

2020One exception to the warrant requirement permits police officers to “seize evidence found ‘in plain view’ despite the lack of a warrant.” State v. Perry, 124 N.J. 128, 148 (1991) (citing State v. Hill, 115 N.J. 169, 173 (1989)).

2024A-2649-21 14 When exigent circumstances are present, "[p]olice officers serving in a community-caretaking role are empowered to make a warrantless entry into a home under the emergency-aid exception to the warrant requirement." State v. Vargas, 213 N.J. 301, 323 (2013).

2023Instead, when exigent circumstances are present, "[p]olice officers serving in a community - caretaking role are empowered to make a warrantless entry into a home under the emergency-aid exception to the warrant requirement." Vargas, 213 N.J. at 323 .