Car Search Permitted So Long As Exigent Circumstances Exist

The NJ Supreme Court decided the case of State v. Fuller last week.  The case further clarified the law concerning warrantless searches of motor vehicles.

Mr. Fuller was stopped for a valid motor vehicle violation.  There was conflicting documentation concerning the ownership of the car and the driver's information.  The question was whether this conflict provided probable cause for the arresting officer to search the compartment of the vehicle for additional information.  The officer went ahead with a search and discovered a gun and xanax pills in the console, and a additional drugs elsewhere in the car.  The Supreme Court concluded that the search of the console was warranted based on the inconsistencies with the credentials but that any additional search was invalid as Mr. Fuller was already under arrest by virtue of the items in the console and there was therefore no reason that the police could not obtain a warrant to further search the vehicle.  Once the exigency to search has been eliminated (e.g. Fuller placed under arrest), so too does the basis for a warrantless search of the car.

In my judgment the decision does little to establish anything new under the law other than to reiterate that this determination is very fact sensitive.  Every case like Fuller comes down to just how far the arresting officer(s) have gone to establish probable cause or basis for believing that the car contains contraband.  Not surprising, invalidating car searches boils down to officers either making mistakes in their reports or good cross-examination. 

Social Hosts Not Responsible for Self-Serving Drunk Drivers

New Jersey's Supreme Court recently refused in Mazzacano v. Happy Hour Social and Athletic Club of Maple Shade, to impose a duty on social hosts to monitor potential intoxicated drivers who serve themselves alcohol at a gathering. The decision creates a boundary line in the liability exposure for those who organize social events where alcohol is supplied for consumption of event goers.

There have been a variety of commentators on the decision.  Plaintiff lawyers claim that the decision shall encourage DWI.  On the other hand, defense attorneys are taking the position that the ruling is nothing more than reinforcement of what they already believed the law to be.  In either respect, the law is now clear that there exists no duty to monitor the alcohol intake of guests who serve themselves such as, in this case, where patrons utilize self-serve taps on a beer truck.

As an individual who has been embroiled in these types of issues for almost two decades, I find it hard to believe that the ruling will have any real effect on the incidents of DWI in NJ.  In fact, if someone is already to the point that they are visibly intoxication (e.g. supposed trigger point for withholding additional alcohol), it is probably too late to accomplish much in terms of preventing these awful outcomes.