Since defendant acquiesced in the court's ruling, his claims that he was entitled to a Mapp hearing on the issue of whether State action was involved in his seizure by a private security guard and that the court's summary denial of such a hearing violated the law of the case doctrine in that a hearing had been granted by a prior Justice, are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that exceptional...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.