STATE v. PENA-FLORES

A-129 September Term 20.

965 A.2d 114 (2009)

198 N.J. 6

STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Juan PENA-FLORES, a/k/a Juan C. PenaFlores, a/k/a Juan C. Flores, a/k/a Juan C. Pena and Fausto Parades, a/k/a Fausto Paredes, Defendants-Respondents. State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles Fuller, Defendant-Respondent.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Re-argued September 22, 2008.

Decided February 25, 2009.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Ronald Susswein, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant in State v. Pena-Flores (Anne Milgram, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Mr. Susswein and Maura K. Tully, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the briefs).

Mary E. McAnally, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant in State v. Fuller (Anne Milgram, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney).

Antonio R. Espinosa argued the cause for respondent Juan Pena-Flores (Andril & Espinosa, attorneys; Mr. Espinosa and William G. Sanchez, on the briefs).

Thomas J. Butler, Jr., argued the cause for respondent Fausto Parades (Butler & Conti, attorneys).

Michael W. Kahn, Cherry Hill, argued the cause for respondent Charles Fuller (Mr. Kahn, attorney; Mr. Kahn and Scott A. Sheldon, on the briefs).

Joseph P. Connor, Jr., Deputy First Assistant Morris County Prosecutor, argued the cause for amicus curiae County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey (Ronald J. Casella, President, County Prosecutor's Association, attorney).

Stephen W. Kirsch, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for amicus curiae Office of the Public Defender (Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney).

John J. Farmer, Jr., argued the cause for amicus curiae Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey (Arseneault, Whipple, Farmer, Fassett & Azzarello, attorneys; Mr. Farmer and Joshua C. Gillette, Chatham, of counsel and on the briefs).


Justice LONG delivered the opinion of the Court.

At issue in these appeals, which we have consolidated for the purpose of this opinion, is the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. Today, we reaffirm our longstanding precedent that permits an automobile search without a warrant only in cases in which the police have both probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains evidence and exigent circumstances that would justify dispensing with the warrant...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

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.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases