Search & Seizure Decision Reveals NJ High Court Split

In N.J., the automobile exception is no more. Police may not conduct warrantless searches of automobiles even after arrests of the occupants unless there is an exception -- usually exigency -- which prevents the obtaining of a warrant. In State v. Pena-Flores, the Court reaffirmed those principles in the context of opportunity to apply for a telephonic search warrant. Those warrants were held to the same requirements as non-telephonic warrants. Justice Long wrote for the Court majority.

In dissent, Justice Albin (joined by Chief Justice Rabner and Justice Rivera-Soto) opined that the Court had long departed from the correct path. The automobile exception, they wrote, is sound. Instead the Court has required law enforecment to meet an "amorphous" exigency requirement. The upshot, they contend, will be that officers will impound vehicles more regularly, so that they will not be second-guessed as to whether exigency requirements have been met. The result will be the delay of drivers in administrative limbo, under the guise of supposedly ensuring greater privacy rights.

This is a very interesting split. Perhaps it foreshadows a reversal, in the event the composition of the Court changes. Justice Albin writes that "Stare decisis is not a command to follow the mistakes of the past."