State of New Jersey v. Thomas A. Cassidy
843 A.2d 1132 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence seized pursuant to a procedurally defective telephonic warrant, issued as part of a domestic violence temporary restraining order, is inadmissible in a subsequent criminal prosecution unless the search independently satisfies a recognized exception to the warrant requirement, such as exigent circumstances or the emergency-aid doctrine.
Facts:
- Thomas Cassidy and Natalie DeGennaro were involved in a volatile romantic relationship, during which Cassidy was verbally and physically abusive.
- On February 15, 1996, Cassidy went to DeGennaro's workplace, placed his hand over her mouth and nose, and shoved her against a wall.
- In the weeks following the assault, Cassidy repeatedly contacted DeGennaro, telling her that "if he can't have her, nobody's going to have her."
- On March 13, 1996, approximately one month after the assault, DeGennaro reported the incident to the police.
- DeGennaro informed Officer Neil Casey that Cassidy possessed several shotguns and pistols in his bedroom at his parents' home, where he resided.
Procedural Posture:
- Based on Natalie DeGennaro's complaint, a municipal court judge issued an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) over the phone, authorizing a search and seizure of Thomas Cassidy's weapons, without swearing in the witnesses or recording the call.
- Police executed the TRO and search, seizing numerous firearms, some of which were determined to be illegal assault weapons.
- The State indicted Cassidy on multiple counts of unlawful possession of an assault firearm and large-capacity magazines.
- In the trial court, Cassidy filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing the search was based on an invalid warrant.
- The trial court denied the motion, finding the search was justified by exigent circumstances, and a jury subsequently convicted Cassidy.
- Cassidy appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the conviction, holding the search was reasonable under the emergency-aid exception to the warrant requirement.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted Cassidy's petition for certification.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is evidence seized pursuant to a procedurally defective telephonic warrant, issued as part of a domestic violence temporary restraining order, admissible in a subsequent criminal prosecution?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice LaVecchia
No. The evidence is inadmissible. The failure to adhere to the procedural safeguards for issuing a telephonic warrant renders the warrant invalid, and evidence seized pursuant to it must be suppressed in a criminal prosecution unless an exception to the warrant requirement applies. The court reasoned that a search warrant issued under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act must still comply with constitutional standards to be used in a criminal case. Because the judge failed to place the applicant under oath or make a contemporaneous record, the telephonic warrant was procedurally defective and therefore invalid, making the search equivalent to a warrantless search. The court then found that neither the exigent circumstances nor the emergency-aid exceptions applied. There were no exigent circumstances because the assault occurred a month prior and there was no immediate threat that Cassidy would use the weapons or that they would be destroyed. The emergency-aid exception was inapplicable because there was no ongoing, active emergency at Cassidy's residence when police arrived; the violence was not occurring at that moment.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that the procedural safeguards for issuing warrants under the Fourth Amendment are not relaxed for searches conducted pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, especially when the resulting evidence is used in a criminal prosecution. The court strictly distinguished the civil, protective purpose of a TRO from the requirements for a criminal search, holding that the former cannot excuse constitutional deficiencies in the latter. This ruling clarifies that evidence obtained through a procedurally invalid TRO-based search is subject to the exclusionary rule, maintaining a high bar for warrantless searches of a home. It signals to lower courts and law enforcement that administrative convenience or the broad protective goals of a statute do not override fundamental constitutional protections against unreasonable searches.
Unlock the full brief for State of New Jersey v. Thomas A. Cassidy