Court Opinion

ID: 9764147
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:12:22.653274+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:54.157016
License: Public Domain

O’HERN, Justice,
dissenting.
In the majority’s view, the problem with this case is that it does not fit exactly into the exception to the warrant requirements asserted by the State. Law no less than life does not fit exactly into categories.
*179We have stated that “[i]n analyzing the validity of warrant-less searches, the strands of constitutional exceptions to the Fourth Amendment must be kept untangled.” State v. Welsh, 84 N.J. 346, 354 (1980). Although this is a sound principle, it is sometimes difficult during the rapidly unfolding events of a suspected crime for the officer on patrol to recognize instantly the strands of a legal theory. Unfortunately, “this branch of the law is something less than a seamless web.” Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 440, 93 S.Ct. 2523, 37 L.Ed.2d 706, 714 (1973). Justice White has reminded us that there is no “litmus-paper test * * * for determining when a seizure exceeds the bounds of an investigative stop,” and that “it is unlikely that the courts can reduce to a sentence or a paragraph a rule that will provide unarguable answers to the question whether there has been an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Nevertheless, we must render judgment.” Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 506-07, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 1329, 75 L.Ed.2d 229, 242 (1983).
Although there is no unarguable answer here, I think that the Constitution does not command a police officer to await a computerized rundown of the situation before taking the most routine of housekeeping steps in law enforcement.
Would the result be different here if the computer had been down? Would the police officer then have been justified to pursue his concerns about foul play? If not, how would the officer obtain a warrant? Would the officer have to contact the prosecutor to obtain approval to obtain a warrant? See “Policy Statement of the Attorney General of New Jersey and the County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey Regarding Prosecutorial Review of Search Warrant Applications,” New Jersey Prosecutors Manual, at 46-1 to 46-4 (1985) (“All applications for search warrants shall be reviewed by the Attorney General or his designees, or the appropriate County Prosecutor, or his designees, prior to their submission to the Courts for authorization.”). I should hope not.
*180Rather, as the majority intimates, ante at 178, the import of its opinion is limited to the circumstances of this case, which do not justify, in the majority’s view, any caretaker function. I think that function was warranted here. “[Rjoutine police procedures not designed as pretexts to discover evidence * * * but to accomplish a legitimate purpose,” are reasonable exceptions to the warrant requirement. State v. Esteves, 93 N.J. 498, 506 (1983) (citing Cady v. Dombrowski, supra, 413 U.S. at 447-48, 93 S.Ct. at 2531, 37 L.Ed.2d at 718).
Justice GARIBALDI joins in this opinion.
For reversal and remandment — Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, and STEIN — 5.
For affirmance — Justices O’HERN and GARIBALDI — 2.