Hudson County Criminal Lawyer Blog
The New Jersey Supreme Court’s December 4, 2025 decision in State v. Caneiro is a big reminder that “exigent circumstances” is not a slogan courts apply in hindsight, but an objective, fact-sensitive test grounded in what officers reasonably knew in the moment. Here, the Court focused on whether the exigent-circumstances exception applied during an active house fire, where officers believed that getting a warrant was impracticable and immediate action was needed to prevent the destruction of evidence located in an attached garage.
The case arises from a 5:02 a.m. house fire at Paul Caneiro’s home in November 2018. While firefighters were still battling an active blaze in the main structure, police entered the attached garage and seized a security system DVR without a warrant, about forty minutes after first arrival and roughly thirty minutes after the small garage fire had been extinguished. The State alleges the DVR captured Caneiro disconnecting the security cameras before starting the fire. Later, the defendant gave valid consent to search the DVR’s contents. The trial court suppressed the DVR, stressing that the garage fire had been out for nearly thirty minutes and characterizing the officers’ retrieval as calm and deliberate. The Appellate Division affirmed.
The Supreme Court unanimously reversed, holding that under the totality of circumstances, the warrantless seizure was objectively reasonable because time was of the essence and securing a warrant was impracticable while the fire remained active and suppression efforts threatened the integrity of sensitive digital evidence. The Court looked at the whole scene, not just the garage in isolation, and rejected the idea that officers’ calm demeanor meant there was no real emergency. The question, it emphasized, is not how things look in a quiet courtroom years later, but what a reasonable officer on that chaotic scene could conclude at the time.
In State v. Juan C. Hernandez-Peralta (decided July 22, 2025), the New Jersey Supreme Court answered a practical question that comes up all the time in criminal practice: how far does a defense lawyer have to go to investigate a client’s immigration status? The Court held that, on the facts of this case, sentencing counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for asking, “Are you a U.S. citizen?”, getting a clear “yes”, and relying on that answer, even though the client later turned out to be a noncitizen who faced deportation.
The New Jersey Supreme Court has continued to reinforce the strength of our State Constitution’s warrant protections in its recent decision, State v. Fenimore. The Court unanimously held that the automobile exception does not permit police to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle once law enforcement has full control over the car, its occupants, and the surrounding environment. In Fenimore, the defendant had been arrested for DWI inside a State Police barracks, the passenger had been removed, officers had possession of the keys, and the vehicle was required to be held for a mandatory twelve-hour impound period under John’s Law. Despite these circumstances, where mobility, safety concerns, and the risk of evidence destruction were completely neutralized, the State Police searched the car in the station parking lot without obtaining a warrant.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey’s decision in State v. Isaiah J. Knight offers a nuanced examination of the limits of reciprocal discovery in criminal cases, particularly focusing on the circumstances surrounding an affidavit recanting a witness’s previous identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of a crime. The facts of this case play a crucial role in understanding the Court’s rationale and its implications for criminal defense.
In a landmark decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court provided critical insights into the state’s witness tampering statute through the case of State v. William Hill. This case scrutinized the boundaries of lawful communication and witness intimidation, posing significant implications for criminal defense strategies.
Attorney Stephen Natoli successfully argued before a three-judge panel that his client’s rights had been violated during a 2019 trial handled by prior counsel. Following the trial, Defendant was sentenced to twenty-three (23) years in prison. He had been serving his prison sentence when he retained Mr. Natoli for his appeal.
Under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the laws of New Jersey, suspects are entitled to have an attorney present while they are held in custody for questioning.
The United States Supreme Court determined in Maryland v. Buie that a protective sweep made during an in-home arrest is only justified when (1) officers can, as a precaution, search areas immediately adjoining the area of arrest if they are areas from which an attack can be immediately launched, and (2) officers can look beyond those adjoining spaces if that search is based on articulable facts that would make reasonably prudent officer believe there is a threat.