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.
11 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2025 3 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. Johnsongreen2 sentences2024As the Court explained in Randolph, it is unnecessary to engage in a reasonable-expectation-of-privacy analysis in determining a defendant's standing where a defendant "has automatic standing to challenge a search," but the analysis is nonetheless necessary to determine if "a defendant has a protectable Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 7 right to privacy in a novel class of objects or category of places." 228 N.J. at 583-84 ; see State v. Johnson, 193 N.J. 528, 547 (2008) (explaining a reasonable-expectation-of- privacy analysis is not required to determine standing in criminal cases bu 2017We have “roundly rejected hinging a defendant’s right to challenge a search based on ‘a reasonable expectation of privacy' analysis.” Ibid. (citing Alston, supra, 88 N.J. at 226-27 , 440 A.2d 1311 ). | 4 | 7 |
State v. Amir Randolph(076506) (Hudson County and Statewide)green2 sentences2024As the Court explained in Randolph, it is unnecessary to engage in a reasonable-expectation-of-privacy analysis in determining a defendant's standing where a defendant "has automatic standing to challenge a search," but the analysis is nonetheless necessary to determine if "a defendant has a protectable Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 7 right to privacy in a novel class of objects or category of places." 228 N.J. at 583-84 ; see State v. Johnson, 193 N.J. 528, 547 (2008) (explaining a reasonable-expectation-of- privacy analysis is not required to determine standing in criminal cases bu 2022Courts "do not engage in a reasonable expectation of privacy analysis when a defendant has automatic standing to challenge a search," such an analysis is only applied "in determining whether a defendant has a protectible Fourth Amendment and Article I, Paragraph 7 right of privacy in a novel class of objects or category of places." Randolph, 228 N.J. at 583-84 . | 2 | 4 |
State v. McAllistergreen2 sentences2013As this Court has noted, “[although we do not use a reasonable expectation of privacy analysis for standing purposes in criminal cases, we do apply that analysis to determine whether a person has a substantive right of privacy in a place searched or an item seized.” State v. Johnson, 193 N.J. 528, 547 , 940 A.2d 1185 (2008) (citing State v. McAllister, 184 N.J. 17, 32-33, 36 , 875 A.2d 866 (2005); Hempele, supra, 120 N.J. at 198-200 , 576 A.2d 793 ). 2013As this Court has noted, “[although we do not use a reasonable expectation of privacy analysis for standing purposes in criminal cases, we do apply that analysis to determine whether a person has a substantive right of privacy in a place searched or an item seized.” State v. Johnson, 193 N.J. 528, 547 , 940 A.2d 1185 (2008) (citing State v. McAllister, 184 N.J. 17, 32-33, 36 , 875 A.2d 866 (2005); Hempele, supra, 120 N.J. at 198-200 , 576 A.2d 793 ). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Derrick Brown, Leroy Carstarphen, and Kareem Strong (070200)green2 sentences2015A defendant cannot successfully “challenge a search if an officer had an objectively reasonable basis to believe he was a trespasser.” Brown, supra, 216 N.J. at 535, 83 A.3d 45 . 2015A defendant cannot successfully “challenge a search if an officer had an objectively reasonable basis to believe he was a trespasser.” Brown, supra, 216 N.J. at 535, 83 A.3d 45 . | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2016Jones, supra, 565 U.S. at ___ , 132 S. Ct. at 963-64 , 181 L. 2016Jones, supra, 565 U.S. at ___ , 132 S. Ct. at 963-64 , 181 L. | 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. Gene Hinton (070386)
green
2 sentences2017Defendant's automatic standing to contest the constitutional validity of the seizure "does not equate to a finding that he . . . has a substantive right of privacy in the place searched that mandates the grant of that motion." Ibid. "[A]lthough we do not use a reasonable expectation of privacy analysis for standing purposes in criminal cases, we do apply that analysis to determine whether a person has a substantive right of privacy in a place searched or an item seized." [Id. at 234] (quoting [State v. Johnson, 193 N.J. 528, 547 (2008)]). "[T]he objective reasonableness of the defendant's expe 2015Defendant’s automatic standing to contest the constitutional validity of the seizure “does not equate to a finding that he ... has a substantive right of privacy in the place searched that mandates the grant of that motion.” Ibid. “ ‘[Although we do not use a reasonable expectation of privacy analysis for standing purposes in criminal cases, we do apply that analysis to determine whether a person has a substantive right of privacy in a place searched or an item seized.’ ” Ibid, (quoting State v. Johnson, 193 N.J. 528, 547 , 940 A.2d 1185 (2008)). “[T]he objective reasonableness of the defendan | 5 | 2015–2025 |
State v. Alston
green
2 sentences2017We have “roundly rejected hinging a defendant’s right to challenge a search based on ‘a reasonable expectation of privacy' analysis.” Ibid. (citing Alston, supra, 88 N.J. at 226-27 , 440 A.2d 1311 ). 2017We have “roundly rejected hinging a defendant’s right to challenge a search based on ‘a reasonable expectation of privacy' analysis.” Ibid. (citing Alston, supra, 88 N.J. at 226-27 , 440 A.2d 1311 ). | 2 | 2013–2017 |
State v. Hempele
green
2 sentences2013As this Court has noted, “[although we do not use a reasonable expectation of privacy analysis for standing purposes in criminal cases, we do apply that analysis to determine whether a person has a substantive right of privacy in a place searched or an item seized.” State v. Johnson, 193 N.J. 528, 547 , 940 A.2d 1185 (2008) (citing State v. McAllister, 184 N.J. 17, 32-33, 36 , 875 A.2d 866 (2005); Hempele, supra, 120 N.J. at 198-200 , 576 A.2d 793 ). 2013As this Court has noted, “[although we do not use a reasonable expectation of privacy analysis for standing purposes in criminal cases, we do apply that analysis to determine whether a person has a substantive right of privacy in a place searched or an item seized.” State v. Johnson, 193 N.J. 528, 547 , 940 A.2d 1185 (2008) (citing State v. McAllister, 184 N.J. 17, 32-33, 36 , 875 A.2d 866 (2005); Hempele, supra, 120 N.J. at 198-200 , 576 A.2d 793 ). | 2 | 2008–2013 |
State v. Randolph
green
1 sentence2017Defendant's automatic standing to contest the constitutional validity of the seizure "does not equate to a finding that he . . . has a substantive right of privacy in the place searched that mandates the grant of that motion." Ibid. "[A]lthough we do not use a reasonable expectation of privacy analysis for standing purposes in criminal cases, we do apply that analysis to determine whether a person has a substantive right of privacy in a place searched or an item seized." [Id. at 234] (quoting [State v. Johnson, 193 N.J. 528, 547 (2008)]). "[T]he objective reasonableness of the defendant's expe | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Earls
green
2 sentences2017For example, in State v. Earls, we determined for the first time that “individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the location of their cell phones under the State Constitution” and therefore the State must obtain a warrant to secure location information from a cell phone provider. 214 N.J. 564, 568-69 , 70 A.3d 630 (2013). 2017For example, in State v. Earls, we determined for the first time that “individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the location of their cell phones under the State Constitution” and therefore the State must obtain a warrant to secure location information from a cell phone provider. 214 N.J. 564, 568-69 , 70 A.3d 630 (2013). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.