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.
7 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2022 1 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. Hutchinsgreen2 sentences2022See State v. Hutchins, 116 N.J. 457, 468, 475-76 (1989) (collecting 24 cases and acknowledging “the potential for abuse inherent in the exigent- circumstance exception to the warrant requirement”). 2017Our Supreme Court has stated: We acknowledge . . . the potential for abuse inherent in the exigent-circumstance exception to the warrant requirement and . . . the concern that "the police not be placed in a situation where they can create the exception, because well-meaning police officers may exploit such opportunities without sufficient regard for the privacy interests of the individuals involved." [State v. Hutchins, 116 N.J. 457, 76 (1989) (quotation omitted).] Whether the exigent circumstance "arose 'as a result of reasonable police investigative conduct intended to generate evidence of c | 2 | 3 |
State v. Alvarezgreen1 sentence2017Super. 181, 196 (App. Div. 2001) (quoting State v. Alvarez, 238 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
State v. De La Pazgreen1 sentence2017Our Supreme Court has stated: We acknowledge . . . the potential for abuse inherent in the exigent-circumstance exception to the warrant requirement and . . . the concern that "the police not be placed in a situation where they can create the exception, because well-meaning police officers may exploit such opportunities without sufficient regard for the privacy interests of the individuals involved." [State v. Hutchins, 116 N.J. 457, 76 (1989) (quotation omitted).] Whether the exigent circumstance "arose 'as a result of reasonable police investigative conduct intended to generate evidence of c | 1 | 1 |
State v. Huntgreen1 sentence2015See State v. Hunt, 91 N.J. 338, 344 (1982) (noting the "Court has seen fit to hold that the search and seizure provisions in the federal and New Jersey Constitutions are not always coterminous, despite the congruity of the language") (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lewisgreen1 sentence2015The lead investigator testified that although the bags were of the same type, none of the witnesses was able to say the bag found in Brown's closet was the one carried by the robbers. 11 A-4796-12T3 Our view of this testimony is that it represents a profound misunderstanding of the "narrow scope of the exigent- circumstance exception" to the warrant requirement and establishes beyond any doubt that the detectives' entry into Brown's home violated her rights under Article I, paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution of 1947.4 See State v. Lewis, 116 N.J. 477, 484 (1989).5 4 Plaintiff's origina | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Romero-Garciagreen1 sentence1999Moreover, the pager revealed to Roseman that a call had been received. "[T]he focus of the exigent circumstance inquiry is upon the objective reasonableness of the officer's belief that immediate action was necessary...." U.S. v. Romero-Garcia, 991 F.Supp. 1223, 1225 (D.Or.1997). | 1 | 1 |
City of Seattle v. Altschulergreen2 sentences1989It seems that the phrase "hot pursuit" first appears in Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 n. 7 , 68 S.Ct. 367 n. 7 , 92 L.Ed. 436 n. 7 (1968), where the Court recognized that "some element of a chase will usually be involved in a 'hot pursuit.’ ” United States v. Santana, supra, 427 U.S. at 43 n. 3, 96 S.Ct. at 2410 n. 3, 49 L.Ed. at 305 n. 3. 6 See, e.g., Welsh v. Wisconsin, supra, 466 U.S. 740 , 104 S.Ct. 2091 , 80 L.Ed.2d 732 ; United States v. Aquino, 836 F.2d 1268 (10th Cir.1988) ("The only case in which the Supreme Court has held the exigent circumstance exception sufficient to justi 1989It seems that the phrase "hot pursuit" first appears in Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 n. 7 , 68 S.Ct. 367 n. 7 , 92 L.Ed. 436 n. 7 (1968), where the Court recognized that "some element of a chase will usually be involved in a 'hot pursuit.’ ” United States v. Santana, supra, 427 U.S. at 43 n. 3, 96 S.Ct. at 2410 n. 3, 49 L.Ed. at 305 n. 3. 6 See, e.g., Welsh v. Wisconsin, supra, 466 U.S. 740 , 104 S.Ct. 2091 , 80 L.Ed.2d 732 ; United States v. Aquino, 836 F.2d 1268 (10th Cir.1988) ("The only case in which the Supreme Court has held the exigent circumstance exception sufficient to justi | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1989It seems that the phrase "hot pursuit" first appears in Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 n. 7 , 68 S.Ct. 367 n. 7 , 92 L.Ed. 436 n. 7 (1968), where the Court recognized that "some element of a chase will usually be involved in a 'hot pursuit.’ ” United States v. Santana, supra, 427 U.S. at 43 n. 3, 96 S.Ct. at 2410 n. 3, 49 L.Ed. at 305 n. 3. 6 See, e.g., Welsh v. Wisconsin, supra, 466 U.S. 740 , 104 S.Ct. 2091 , 80 L.Ed.2d 732 ; United States v. Aquino, 836 F.2d 1268 (10th Cir.1988) ("The only case in which the Supreme Court has held the exigent circumstance exception sufficient to justi 1989It seems that the phrase "hot pursuit" first appears in Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 n. 7 , 68 S.Ct. 367 n. 7 , 92 L.Ed. 436 n. 7 (1968), where the Court recognized that "some element of a chase will usually be involved in a 'hot pursuit.’ ” United States v. Santana, supra, 427 U.S. at 43 n. 3, 96 S.Ct. at 2410 n. 3, 49 L.Ed. at 305 n. 3. 6 See, e.g., Welsh v. Wisconsin, supra, 466 U.S. 740 , 104 S.Ct. 2091 , 80 L.Ed.2d 732 ; United States v. Aquino, 836 F.2d 1268 (10th Cir.1988) ("The only case in which the Supreme Court has held the exigent circumstance exception sufficient to justi | 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Luis Raul Aquino
green
2 sentences1989We acknowledge, as *476 other courts have acknowledged, the potential for abuse inherent in the exigent-circumstance exception to the warrant requirement and share the concern that “the police not be placed in a situation where they can create the exception, because well-meaning police officers may exploit such opportunities without sufficient regard for the privacy interests of the individuals involved.” United States v. Aquino, supra, 836 F. 2d at 1272 . 1989It seems that the phrase "hot pursuit" first appears in Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 n. 7 , 68 S.Ct. 367 n. 7 , 92 L.Ed. 436 n. 7 (1968), where the Court recognized that "some element of a chase will usually be involved in a 'hot pursuit.’ ” United States v. Santana, supra, 427 U.S. at 43 n. 3, 96 S.Ct. at 2410 n. 3, 49 L.Ed. at 305 n. 3. 6 See, e.g., Welsh v. Wisconsin, supra, 466 U.S. 740 , 104 S.Ct. 2091 , 80 L.Ed.2d 732 ; United States v. Aquino, 836 F.2d 1268 (10th Cir.1988) ("The only case in which the Supreme Court has held the exigent circumstance exception sufficient to justi | 2 | 1989–1989 |
State v. Hutchins
green
1 sentence1989Rather, our disagreement is based on the Appellate Division’s assumption, without any fact-finding by the trial court focusing on the critical issues, that although the attempted drug purchase was a reasonable police-investigative effort, 226 N.J.Super. at 457 , the officers’ disclosure of their identity to defendant was unreasonable as a matter of law and may have been done deliberately to create the exigency on which the State relies. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Welsh v. Wisconsin
green
2 sentences1989It seems that the phrase "hot pursuit" first appears in Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 n. 7 , 68 S.Ct. 367 n. 7 , 92 L.Ed. 436 n. 7 (1968), where the Court recognized that "some element of a chase will usually be involved in a 'hot pursuit.’ ” United States v. Santana, supra, 427 U.S. at 43 n. 3, 96 S.Ct. at 2410 n. 3, 49 L.Ed. at 305 n. 3. 6 See, e.g., Welsh v. Wisconsin, supra, 466 U.S. 740 , 104 S.Ct. 2091 , 80 L.Ed.2d 732 ; United States v. Aquino, 836 F.2d 1268 (10th Cir.1988) ("The only case in which the Supreme Court has held the exigent circumstance exception sufficient to justi 1989It seems that the phrase "hot pursuit" first appears in Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 n. 7 , 68 S.Ct. 367 n. 7 , 92 L.Ed. 436 n. 7 (1968), where the Court recognized that "some element of a chase will usually be involved in a 'hot pursuit.’ ” United States v. Santana, supra, 427 U.S. at 43 n. 3, 96 S.Ct. at 2410 n. 3, 49 L.Ed. at 305 n. 3. 6 See, e.g., Welsh v. Wisconsin, supra, 466 U.S. 740 , 104 S.Ct. 2091 , 80 L.Ed.2d 732 ; United States v. Aquino, 836 F.2d 1268 (10th Cir.1988) ("The only case in which the Supreme Court has held the exigent circumstance exception sufficient to justi | 1 | 1989–1989 |
United States v. Santana
green
1 sentence1989It seems that the phrase "hot pursuit" first appears in Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 n. 7 , 68 S.Ct. 367 n. 7 , 92 L.Ed. 436 n. 7 (1968), where the Court recognized that "some element of a chase will usually be involved in a 'hot pursuit.’ ” United States v. Santana, supra, 427 U.S. at 43 n. 3, 96 S.Ct. at 2410 n. 3, 49 L.Ed. at 305 n. 3. 6 See, e.g., Welsh v. Wisconsin, supra, 466 U.S. 740 , 104 S.Ct. 2091 , 80 L.Ed.2d 732 ; United States v. Aquino, 836 F.2d 1268 (10th Cir.1988) ("The only case in which the Supreme Court has held the exigent circumstance exception sufficient to justi | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.