Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 2014–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. James Legette076124)green2 sentences2021State v. Legette, 227 N.J. 460, 472 (2017). 2020State v. Legette, 227 N.J. 460, 472 (2017). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Michael Lamb (071262)green2 sentences2020State v. Lamb , 218 N.J. 300, 315 (2014) (making clear that both A-4795-17T3 16 "[f]ederal and New Jersey courts recognize the consent to search exception to the warrant requirement") (citations omitted). 2017"Federal and New Jersey courts recognize the consent to search exception to the warrant requirement." State v. Lamb, 218 N.J. 300, 315 (2014). | 3 | 3 |
United States v. Albert John Thame, Jr.green2 sentences2019Id. at 131-32 (noting that "exercising a constitutional right is not admissible as evidence of guilt"); see also Thame , 846 F.2d at 206-07 (finding "little, if any, valid distinction between the privilege against self-incrimination and the privilege against unreasonable searches and seizures which is relevant to the propriety of the prosecutor's argument" that defendant's refusal to consent to a full search was evidence of guilt). 2019Id. at 131-32 (noting that "exercising a constitutional right is not admissible as evidence of guilt"); see also Thame, 846 F.2d at 206-07 (finding "little, if any, valid distinction between the privilege against self- incrimination and the privilege against unreasonable searches and seizures which is relevant to the propriety of the prosecutor's argument" that defendant's refusal to consent to a full search was evidence of guilt). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Gauthiergreen2 sentences2019Id. at 131 . *97 The Gauthier court also rejected the argument, advanced by the State here, that "the Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights function differently," so the concerns in cases regarding the right to silence are inapplicable to a consent to search analysis. 2019Id. at 131-32 (noting that "exercising a constitutional right is not admissible as evidence of guilt"); see also Thame , 846 F.2d at 206-07 (finding "little, if any, valid distinction between the privilege against self-incrimination and the privilege against unreasonable searches and seizures which is relevant to the propriety of the prosecutor's argument" that defendant's refusal to consent to a full search was evidence of guilt). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Kinggreen2 sentences2025See State v. King, 44 N.J. 346, 352 (1965) (enumerating various consent factors). 2024"The burden of proof is on the State to establish by clear and positive testimony that the consent was so given." State v. Shaw, 237 N.J. 588, 618-19 (2019) (quoting State v. King, 44 N.J. 346, 352 (1965)). | 2 | 2 |
Schneckloth v. Bustamontegreen2 sentences2017"New Jersey courts recognize the consent to search exception to the warrant requirement." State v. Lamb, 218 N.J. 300, 315 (2014) (citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 , 93 S. Ct. 2041, 2043-44 , 36 L. 2017"New Jersey courts recognize the consent to search exception to the warrant requirement." State v. Lamb, 218 N.J. 300, 315 (2014) (citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 , 93 S. Ct. 2041, 2043-44 , 36 L. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Domiczgreen2 sentences2017Ed. 2d 854, 858 (1973); State v. Domicz, 188 N.J. 285, 305 (2006)). 2014Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 , 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2043-44 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854, 858 (1973); State v. Domicz, 188 N.J. 285, 305 , 907 A.2d 395 (2006). | 1 | 2 |
Illinois v. Gatesgreen1 sentence2024A-2980-21 12 [State v. Zutic, 155 N.J. 103, 110-11 (1998) (citations omitted) (first quoting State v. Smith, 155 N.J. 83, 93 (1998); then quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 233 (1983); then citing State v. Novembrino, 105 N.J. 95, 123 (1987); and then citing Smith, 155 N.J. at 95 ).] Turning to the consent to search exception, "[w]hen a prosecutor seeks to rely upon consent to justify the lawfulness of a search, he has the burden of proving that the consent was, in fact, freely and voluntarily given." Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 548 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Novembrinogreen1 sentence2024A-2980-21 12 [State v. Zutic, 155 N.J. 103, 110-11 (1998) (citations omitted) (first quoting State v. Smith, 155 N.J. 83, 93 (1998); then quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 233 (1983); then citing State v. Novembrino, 105 N.J. 95, 123 (1987); and then citing Smith, 155 N.J. at 95 ).] Turning to the consent to search exception, "[w]hen a prosecutor seeks to rely upon consent to justify the lawfulness of a search, he has the burden of proving that the consent was, in fact, freely and voluntarily given." Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 548 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hagansgreen1 sentence2024State v. Hagans, 233 N.J. 30, 39 (2018). | 1 | 1 |
Bumper v. North Carolinagreen1 sentence2024A-2980-21 12 [State v. Zutic, 155 N.J. 103, 110-11 (1998) (citations omitted) (first quoting State v. Smith, 155 N.J. 83, 93 (1998); then quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 233 (1983); then citing State v. Novembrino, 105 N.J. 95, 123 (1987); and then citing Smith, 155 N.J. at 95 ).] Turning to the consent to search exception, "[w]hen a prosecutor seeks to rely upon consent to justify the lawfulness of a search, he has the burden of proving that the consent was, in fact, freely and voluntarily given." Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 548 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Zuticgreen1 sentence2024A-2980-21 12 [State v. Zutic, 155 N.J. 103, 110-11 (1998) (citations omitted) (first quoting State v. Smith, 155 N.J. 83, 93 (1998); then quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 233 (1983); then citing State v. Novembrino, 105 N.J. 95, 123 (1987); and then citing Smith, 155 N.J. at 95 ).] Turning to the consent to search exception, "[w]hen a prosecutor seeks to rely upon consent to justify the lawfulness of a search, he has the burden of proving that the consent was, in fact, freely and voluntarily given." Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 548 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2024A-2980-21 12 [State v. Zutic, 155 N.J. 103, 110-11 (1998) (citations omitted) (first quoting State v. Smith, 155 N.J. 83, 93 (1998); then quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 233 (1983); then citing State v. Novembrino, 105 N.J. 95, 123 (1987); and then citing Smith, 155 N.J. at 95 ).] Turning to the consent to search exception, "[w]hen a prosecutor seeks to rely upon consent to justify the lawfulness of a search, he has the burden of proving that the consent was, in fact, freely and voluntarily given." Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 548 (1968). 2024A-2980-21 12 [State v. Zutic, 155 N.J. 103, 110-11 (1998) (citations omitted) (first quoting State v. Smith, 155 N.J. 83, 93 (1998); then quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 233 (1983); then citing State v. Novembrino, 105 N.J. 95, 123 (1987); and then citing Smith, 155 N.J. at 95 ).] Turning to the consent to search exception, "[w]hen a prosecutor seeks to rely upon consent to justify the lawfulness of a search, he has the burden of proving that the consent was, in fact, freely and voluntarily given." Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 548 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nathan Shaw State v. Keon L. Bolden (078247) (Monmouth County and Statewide)green1 sentence2024"The burden of proof is on the State to establish by clear and positive testimony that the consent was so given." State v. Shaw, 237 N.J. 588, 618-19 (2019) (quoting State v. King, 44 N.J. 346, 352 (1965)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. William L. Witt(074468)green1 sentence2018In particular, the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, see State v. Witt, 223 N.J. 409, 450 (2015), and the consent to search exception, see State v. Carty, 170 N.J. 632, 635 , modified, 174 N.J. 351 (2002), formed two independent bases to A-0394-17T1 7 search defendant's jacket. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Chapmangreen1 sentence2017"It is, of course, fundamental that consent to search must be voluntary." State v. Chapman, 332 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Carty
green
1 sentence2018In particular, the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, see State v. Witt, 223 N.J. 409, 450 (2015), and the consent to search exception, see State v. Carty, 170 N.J. 632, 635 , modified, 174 N.J. 351 (2002), formed two independent bases to A-0394-17T1 7 search defendant's jacket. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Carty
green
1 sentence2018In particular, the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, see State v. Witt, 223 N.J. 409, 450 (2015), and the consent to search exception, see State v. Carty, 170 N.J. 632, 635 , modified, 174 N.J. 351 (2002), formed two independent bases to A-0394-17T1 7 search defendant's jacket. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.