6 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2015 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Herring v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2015In Herring, supra, the Supreme Court answered the “unresolved” question in Evans : “whether the evidence should be suppressed if police personnel [rather than judicial clerks] were responsible for the error.” 555 U.S. at 142-43 , 129 S.Ct. at 701 , 172 L.Ed.2d at 505-06 (internal quotation marks omitted). 2015In Herring, supra, the Supreme Court answered the “unresolved” question in Evans : “whether the evidence should be suppressed if police personnel [rather than judicial clerks] were responsible for the error.” 555 U.S. at 142-43 , 129 S.Ct. at 701 , 172 L.Ed.2d at 505-06 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Novembrinogreen2 sentences1987Id. at 245-46. 1987Id. at 245-46. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Huntgreen1 sentence1985Although our state constitution has on occasion been relied upon to reach conclusions contrary to the United States Supreme Court on congruent issues, Justice Schreiber noted in State v. Hunt, 91 N.J. 338, 344-345 (1982): Though notions of federalism may seem to justify this difference [as to whether toll billing records are entitled to Fourth Amendment protection], enforcement of criminal laws in federal and state courts, sometimes involving the identical episodes, encourages application of uniform rules governing search and seizure. *247 Divergent interpretations are unsatisfactory from the | 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. Novembrino
green
2 sentences2015Our view that the good-faith exception will ultimately reduce respect for and compliance with the probable-cause standard that we have steadfastly enforced persuades us that there is a strong state interest that would be disserved by adopting the Leon rule. [7d at 152-54, 519 A.2d 820 .] The majority agreed with the dissenting Justice’s observation “that the public will view the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule as a sensible accommodation between protecting an individual’s constitutional rights and punishing the guilty.” Id. at 156 , 519 A.2d 820 . 2015Our view that the good-faith exception will ultimately reduce respect for and compliance with the probable-cause standard that we have steadfastly enforced persuades us that there is a strong state interest that would be disserved by adopting the Leon rule. [7d at 152-54, 519 A.2d 820 .] The majority agreed with the dissenting Justice’s observation “that the public will view the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule as a sensible accommodation between protecting an individual’s constitutional rights and punishing the guilty.” Id. at 156 , 519 A.2d 820 . | 3 | 2013–2015 |
United States v. Leon
green
2 sentences1987Since the deterrent function of the rule is furthered if it alters either “the behavior of individual law enforcement officers or the policies of their departments,” it seems likely that it was the rule’s deterrent effect that led to the programs to which the Court now points for its assertion that the rule would have no deterrent effect. [Id. at 1055, 104 S.Ct. at 3492-93, 82 L.Ed.2d at 796 (quoting Leon, supra, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 ).] 37 Our view that the good-faith exception will ultimately reduce respect for and compliance with the probable-cause standard that we 1987Since the deterrent function of the rule is furthered if it alters either “the behavior of individual law enforcement officers or the policies of their departments,” it seems likely that it was the rule’s deterrent effect that led to the programs to which the Court now points for its assertion that the rule would have no deterrent effect. [Id. at 1055, 104 S.Ct. at 3492-93, 82 L.Ed.2d at 796 (quoting Leon, supra, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 ).] 37 Our view that the good-faith exception will ultimately reduce respect for and compliance with the probable-cause standard that we | 2 | 1985–1987 |
Arizona v. Evans
green
2 sentences2015Despite that constitutional violation, the Court found that the “[ajpplication of the Leon framework supported] a categorical exception to the exclusionary rule for clerical errors of court employees.” Id. at 16, 115 S.Ct. at 1194 , 131 L.Ed.2d at 47 . 2015Despite that constitutional violation, the Court found that the “[ajpplication of the Leon framework supported] a categorical exception to the exclusionary rule for clerical errors of court employees.” Id. at 16, 115 S.Ct. at 1194 , 131 L.Ed.2d at 47 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.