Partner Eric R. Breslin, in Newark, discusses the uptick in the Fourth Amendment search and seizure and ancillary privacy litigation in the last few years in the New Jersey courts. In just April and May 2015, the state Supreme Court issued two significant opinions that would impact both the Fourth Amendment and proper admission into evidence of monitored telephone calls from State of New Jersey v. Ricky Wright and State of New Jersey v. Kingkamau Nantambu. Even through a quick look at the court’s docket for the upcoming term has shown even more decisions coming.
To read the full text of the article, please visit the Duane Morris website.
The Fourth Amendment sets forth every citizen’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The two active verbs in the Amendment (i.e. search and seize) are often lumped together, as if part of an indivisible act or one legal concept.
But they are not. In any one case, a search and/or a seizure can occur singly or in combination and can differ in timing, order and consequence. While there is some surface logic to the assumption that a valid search will inevitably beget a valid seizure, this is just not the law.
Continue reading Under the Fourth Amendment, Can a Particular “Search” be Lawful, But an Accompanying Seizure Be Unlawful? The Supreme Court Says “Yes” and Explains How in Bailey v. United States of America
The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from conducting searches of “persons, houses, papers and effects” absent the imprimatur of a warrant from a judge. Does this protection extend to the veins in your arms and the blood within?
One would hope so. It is hard to imagine many acts more intrusive and intimate than the drawing of blood. It is bad enough when done by your own doctor or a nurse, but should the state be able to do it without advance judicial permission?
Continue reading High Tech Squares Off with the Fourth Amendment, Round Five: Can the Government Suck Your Blood Without Asking? (Any more than usual, that is)