From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Scott

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Apr 9, 1990
118 N.J. 406 (N.J. 1990)

Opinion

Argued January 30, 1990 —

Decided April 9, 1990.

Appeal from the Superior Court, Appellate Division.

Steven J. Kaflowitz, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant ( John H. Stamler, Union County Prosecutor, attorney).

William J. McCarthy argued the cause for respondent.

Jessica S. Oppenheim, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae Attorney General of New Jersey ( Robert J. Del Tufo, Attorney General, attorney).


The judgment of the Appellate Division is reversed substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Ashbey's concurring and dissenting opinion, reported at 231 N.J. Super. at 269, 555 A.2d 667 (1989).


I would affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Brody's opinion, reported at 231 N.J. Super. 258, 555 A.2d 667 (1989).

For reversal — Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices HANDLER, POLLOCK, O'HERN, GARIBALDI and STEIN — 6.

For affirmance — Justice CLIFFORD — 1.


Summaries of

State v. Scott

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Apr 9, 1990
118 N.J. 406 (N.J. 1990)
Case details for

State v. Scott

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. RORY SCOTT…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: Apr 9, 1990

Citations

118 N.J. 406 (N.J. 1990)
571 A.2d 1304

Citing Cases

State v. Frankel

We have adopted a three-prong test to determine whether a warrantless search by a public safety official is…

State v. Frankel

On appeal the State does not argue the exigent circumstances exception for a warrantless search but rather…