Court Opinion

ID: 9736966
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:11:11.035429+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:55.745255
License: Public Domain

CLIFFORD, J.,
dissenting.
This case strikes me as not much more than a challenge to our ingenuity in teasing out of this slim record a range of nuances of conduct and speech that lead to a result favoring either admissibility or suppression. Had the issue come to us on a petition for certification rather than as an appeal as of right under Rule 2:2-1(a), I very much doubt that we would have taken the case. The controlling principles of law are firmly established; the problem arises with their application in an acutely fact-sensitive area. Because I think the majority in the court below has the better of the argument on that score, I would affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in its opinion.
For reversal and reinstatement — Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices HANDLER, POLLOCK, O’HERN, GARIBALDI and STEIN — 6.
For affirmance — Justice CLIFFORD — 1.