public safety exception in New Jersey

2025"The public safety exception to the requirement of giving a Miranda warning prior to interrogation was first recognized by the United States Supreme Court in New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984)." State v. Melendez, 423 N.J.

2025The New Jersey Supreme Court adopted the public safety exception in State v. O'Neal, 190 NJ. 601, 624 (2007) holding that the questioning of a suspect prior to the administration of Miranda warnings was acceptable when the situation presented an "objectively reasonable need to protect the police or the public from any immediate danger associated" with a weapon. 190 N.J. at 618 (quoting Quarles, 467 U.S. at 659 n.8).

2025"Application of the public safety exception generally requires a concern for the protection of the public at large, or an extended group of individuals, such as children." Ibid.

2021It is the overall circumstances, not merely the location, therefore, that controls. [Id. at 527-28.] Applying those principles, the Stephenson court rejected the State's reliance on the public safety exception where police responded to a call from a woman claiming that her son had an argument on the telephone with someone who threatened to shoot him. 350 N.J.

2025"The public safety exception to the requirement of giving a Miranda warning prior to interrogation was first recognized by the United States Supreme Court in New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984)." State v. Melendez, 423 N.J.

2025As noted, the public safety exception allows officers to, in limited circumstances, forego providing a defendant Miranda warnings when there is an A-1206-24 17 "objectively reasonable need to protect the police or the public from any immediate danger." Melendez, 423 N.J.

2025Our Supreme Court adopted the public safety exception in State v. O'Neal, holding that the questioning of a suspect prior to the administration of Miranda warnings was acceptable when the situation presented an A-1624-22 59 "objectively reasonable need to protect the police or the public from any immediate danger associated" with a weapon. 190 N.J. 601, 618 (2007) (quoting Quarles, 467 U.S. at 659 n.8).

2024The public safety exception applies in "limited circumstances" and allows law enforcement personnel not to give warnings when there is an "objectively reasonable need to protect the police or the public from any immediate danger associated with [a] weapon." O'Neal, 190 N.J. at 618 (quoting Quarles, 467 U.S. at 659 n.8).

2024Super. 1, 24 (App Div. 2011) (citing United States v. Lawrence, 952 F.2d 1034, 1036 (8th Cir. 1992)).

2011See United States v. Lawrence, 952 F. 2d 1034, 1036 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 1011 , 112 S.Ct. 1777 , 118 L.Ed. 2d 434 (1992) (holding that public safety exception applied when officer had a reasonable concern that a gun that was tossed away in a mall parking lot could be found by a child).

2021See also State in Interest of A.S., 227 N.J.

2003Public-safety exception in Miranda, is stated in New York v. Quarles at 467 U.S., 649 , [ 104 S.Ct. 2626 , 81 L.Ed.2d 550 ] 1984 decision as well as adopted by State In The Interest of A.S., 227 New Jersey Super., 541, [ 548 A.2d 202 ,] Appellate Division 1988 decision in New Jersey.

2021We therefore hold that under these circumstances the public safety exception does not apply. [Id. at 530.] If Miranda warnings are required, "under New Jersey law [a suspect's] 'request, "however ambiguous," to terminate questioning' would have been sufficient to trigger his right to remain silent." P.Z., 152 N.J. at 105 (quoting State v. Hartley, 103 N.J. 252, 263 (1986)).

2021"Likewise, [a suspect's] invocation of the right to counsel 'need not [have been] articulate, clear, or explicit . . . ; any indication of a desire for counsel, however ambiguous, will trigger entitlement to counsel.'" Ibid. (second and third alteration in original) (quoting State v. Reed, 133 N.J. 237, 253 (1993)).

2021"Likewise, [a suspect's] invocation of the right to counsel 'need not [have been] articulate, clear, or explicit . . . ; any indication of a desire for counsel, however ambiguous, will trigger entitlement to counsel.'" Ibid. (second and third alteration in original) (quoting State v. Reed, 133 N.J. 237, 253 (1993)).

2021Likewise, the physical evidence seized from defendant's vehicle due to defendant's incriminating statements which were incorporated into the search warrant affidavit must be suppressed as the "fruit of the poisonous tree." Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488 (1963); see State v. Parisi, 181 N.J.

2021As we stated in State v. Elkwisni, 384 N.J.

2021Likewise, the physical evidence seized from defendant's vehicle due to defendant's incriminating statements which were incorporated into the search warrant affidavit must be suppressed as the "fruit of the poisonous tree." Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488 (1963); see State v. Parisi, 181 N.J.

2020See id. at 525 (explaining that the "unwarned questioning about the presence or whereabouts of a gun" permitted under the public safety exception A-0847-18T1 7 to the Miranda rule is authorized when the State "demonstrate[s] '(1) there was an objectively reasonable need to protect the police or the public; (2) from an immediate danger; (3) associated with a weapon; and that (4) the questions asked were related to that danger and reasonably necessary to secure public safety.'" (quoting State v. Prim, 730 N.E.2d 455, 463 (1999))).

2020See id. at 525 (explaining that the "unwarned questioning about the presence or whereabouts of a gun" permitted under the public safety exception A-0847-18T1 7 to the Miranda rule is authorized when the State "demonstrate[s] '(1) there was an objectively reasonable need to protect the police or the public; (2) from an immediate danger; (3) associated with a weapon; and that (4) the questions asked were related to that danger and reasonably necessary to secure public safety.'" (quoting State v. Prim, 730 N.E.2d 455, 463 (1999))).

2011Although this issue was noted in State v. Pante, 325 N.J.Super. 336, 346 , 739 A. 2d 433 (App.Div.1999), certif. denied, 163 N.J. 76 , 747 A. 2d 285 (2000), it has not been definitively addressed in a published opinion by any court in this State. *334 In United States v. DeSantis, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that "[t]he same considerations that allow the police to dispense with providing Miranda warning in a public safety situation also would permit them to dispense with the prophylactic safeguard that forbids initiating further questioning of an accused who requests counsel." 870

2011App.1999), review denied, 751 So. 2d 1250 (Fla.2000) (rejecting defendant's argument that the public safety exception only applies pre- Miranda ); Trice v. United States, 662 A. 2d 891, 895 (D.C.1995) (finding that "when a police officer asks a question after a suspect has asserted the right to counsel, the suspect's response will be admissible in evidence if" the officer's questions and the situation meets the Quarles standard); State v. Kunkel, 137 Wis. 2d 172, 186-90 , 404 N.W. 2d 69, 75-77 (Wis.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 929 , 108 S.Ct. 297 , 98 L.Ed. 2d 256 (1987) (employing the cos

2011App.1999), review denied, 751 So. 2d 1250 (Fla.2000) (rejecting defendant's argument that the public safety exception only applies pre- Miranda ); Trice v. United States, 662 A. 2d 891, 895 (D.C.1995) (finding that "when a police officer asks a question after a suspect has asserted the right to counsel, the suspect's response will be admissible in evidence if" the officer's questions and the situation meets the Quarles standard); State v. Kunkel, 137 Wis. 2d 172, 186-90 , 404 N.W. 2d 69, 75-77 (Wis.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 929 , 108 S.Ct. 297 , 98 L.Ed. 2d 256 (1987) (employing the cos

2011App.1999), review denied, 751 So. 2d 1250 (Fla.2000) (rejecting defendant's argument that the public safety exception only applies pre- Miranda ); Trice v. United States, 662 A. 2d 891, 895 (D.C.1995) (finding that "when a police officer asks a question after a suspect has asserted the right to counsel, the suspect's response will be admissible in evidence if" the officer's questions and the situation meets the Quarles standard); State v. Kunkel, 137 Wis. 2d 172, 186-90 , 404 N.W. 2d 69, 75-77 (Wis.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 929 , 108 S.Ct. 297 , 98 L.Ed. 2d 256 (1987) (employing the cos

2011See United States v. Lawrence, 952 F. 2d 1034, 1036 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 1011 , 112 S.Ct. 1777 , 118 L.Ed. 2d 434 (1992) (holding that public safety exception applied when officer had a reasonable concern that a gun that was tossed away in a mall parking lot could be found by a child).

2011See United States v. Lawrence, 952 F. 2d 1034, 1036 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 1011 , 112 S.Ct. 1777 , 118 L.Ed. 2d 434 (1992) (holding that public safety exception applied when officer had a reasonable concern that a gun that was tossed away in a mall parking lot could be found by a child).

2011See United States v. Lawrence, 952 F. 2d 1034, 1036 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 1011 , 112 S.Ct. 1777 , 118 L.Ed. 2d 434 (1992) (holding that public safety exception applied when officer had a reasonable concern that a gun that was tossed away in a mall parking lot could be found by a child).