In Hunt, supra, and Right to Choose v. Byrne, 91 N.J.
287 (1982), the Supreme Court of New Jersey attempted
for the first time to develop a comprehensive framework
of New Jersey constitutional interpretation. At least
three guidelines emerge from the various opinions in the
two cases. The court identified uniformity of state and
federal law as the overriding element to be considered
before it relied on the state constitution to avoid more
restrictive federal decisions on individual rights.
Particularly in criminal procedure, Hunt stated that
while notions of federalism may seen to justify
differences, enforcement of criminal laws in federal and
state courts, sometimes involving the identical episodes,
encouraged applying uniform search and seizure rules.
A second guiding principle dealt with the
appropriate weight to be accorded United States
Supreme Court decisions. The two majority opinions
suggest that federal Supreme Court precedents must be
given considerable weight, so that the state Supreme
Court must proceed cautiously before providing extra
protection under nearly identical provisions of the state
constitution.
Finally, to offset the first two criteria, the court
implicitly required some objectively verifiable difference
between the state and federal constitutional provisions to
warrant an interpretational divergence. Right to Choose
seemed to establish a bright line test for divergence, based
on a showing of either of two conditions: “[w]here
provisions of the federal and state constitutions differ..
.or where a previously established body of state law leads
to a different result, then we must determine whether a
more expansive grant or right is mandated by the state
constitution.”
In State v. Johnson, 68 N.J. 349 (1975), the Court
held on state constitutional grounds that the validity of
a consent to search depends on the knowledge of the right
to refuse consent.
In State v. Novembrino, 105 N.J. 95 (1987), the
Court relied upon the state constitution to reject the
good faith exception to the federal exclusionary rule. See
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405
(1984).
In State v. Mollica, 114 N.J. 329 (1989), the Court
used the state constitution to hold that the defendant had
a sufficient participatory interest in the gambling
activities in question to give him standing to challenge
the police seizure of toll records of his codefendant’s
telephone calls made from a different room of the hotel.
In State v. Hempele, 120 N.J. 182 (1990), the Court
continued to apply the greater protection of the state
constitution to hold that the police must “secure a
warrant based on probable cause for garbage searches
conducted in criminal investigations.” Id. at 221.
Contra, California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 108 S.Ct.
1625 (1988) (Fourth Amendment does not prohibit
warrantless search of garbage bag left at curb).In State v. Tucker, 136 N.J. 158 (1994), the court
ruled that under the state constitution, a seizure occurs
when a reasonable person would not feel free to leave.
Contra, California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 111 S.Ct.
1547 (1991) (To constitute seizure, must be actual
physical restraint).However, in State v. Jones, 143 N.J. 4 (1998), the
court, relying upon both the Fourth Amendment and the
state constitution, held that police officers acting
pursuant to a valid arrest warrant have the right to follow
a fleeing suspect into a private residence, regardless of
whether they know the underlying offense for which the
warrant was issued, and regardless of whether the
underlying offense is a major or minor one.In State v. Pierce, 136 N.J. 184 (1994), the court,
once again relying upon the state constitution, declined
to apply the rule set forth in New York v. Belton, 453 U.S.
454, 101 S.Ct. 2860 (1981), which permits a policeman
who has lawfully arrested the occupant of an automobile
to search the passenger compartment of that automobile
at the time of the arrest, holding that such a search based
solely on an arrest for a motor vehicle offense was
impermissible. Thus the court suppressed the evidence
of cocaine found in the jacket of one of the vehicles
occupants.More recently, in State v. Alfred Cooke, 163 N.J. 657
(2000), the court relied upon the state constitution to
hold that the automobile exception to the requirement of
a search warrant must be supported both by probable
cause and exigent circumstances, rejecting the ruling of
the United States Supreme Court that probable cause is
in itself sufficient to justify a search of the automobile. See
Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938, 116 S.Ct. 2485
(1996).The Appellate Division also has been active in the
search and seizure area. It ruled that arbitrary, random
investigatory stops of motor vehicles were unconstitu-
tional under the state constitution. State v. Kirk, 202 N.J.
Super. 28 (App. Div. 1985). To justify the use of a
roadblock, the State must show that it was reasonable and