Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Domicz

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided September 20, 2006Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Justice WALLACE, JR.,

concurring and dissenting.

In my view, the Court is not required to address the difficult issue of whether the reasonable and articulable suspicion standard is a prerequisite to a consent search of a home. Defendant did not raise that issue at his suppression hearing or before the Appellate Division. We have frequently “expressed our reluctance to decide issues that were not addressed in the trial court or the Appellate Division.” Gac v. Gac, 186 N.J. 535, 547, 897 A.2d 1018 (2006). Moreover, “[w]e have applied that principle even when a constitutional issue is presented.”…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Schneckloth v. BustamonteSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. State v. NovembrinoSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1987
  3. State v. HuntSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1982
  4. State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1975
  5. State v. YoungWashington Supreme Court · 1994

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API