Case Name: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. GREGORY FARINICH, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF, v. JAMES VOREL, DEFENDANT
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1982-05-27
Citations: 89 N.J. 378
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. GREGORY FARINICH, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF, v. JAMES VOREL, DEFENDANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Reports
Volume: 89
Pages: 378–379

Head Matter:
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. GREGORY FARINICH, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF, v. JAMES VOREL, DEFENDANT.
Argued May 4, 1982
—Decided May 27, 1982.
Gerald P. Boswell, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Stanley C. Van Ness, Public Defender, attorney).
Leslie Stolbof Sinemus, Assistant Essex County Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Irwin I. Kimmelman, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; George L. Schneider, Essex County Prosecutor, of counsel).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Defendant Gregory Farinich and a co-defendant pleaded guilty to charges of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. The trial court denied their motion to suppress the evidence against them. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the convictions and held the evidence admissible. Judge Antell dissented on the grounds that search was unconstitutional. State v. Farinich, 179 N.J.Super. 1 (1981).
Defendant Farinich appealed to this Court as of right on the issue that provoked the dissent. B. 2:2-l(a)(2). In addition, he sought certification on the issues not covered by the dissent. Gilborges v. Wallace, 78 N.J. 342, 349 (1978). The petition for certification was denied. 88 N.J. 497 (1981).
The questions remaining before the Court are whether defendant voluntarily abandoned the property searched by the police and whether such abandonment permitted the police to search the property without a warrant. On those issues, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons expressed in the majority opinion below.