Jersey Shore Criminal Defense New Jersey Criminal Defense Lawyer Nace Naumoski

NJ Supremes Require Order and Uniformity in Cross-Designation Procedures

In State v.  Broom-Smith, the New Jersey Supreme Court approved the issuance of a search warrant out of the Berkeley Township Municipal Court for a home to be searched in Dover Township; however, the Supreme Court did state that, going forward, some changes have to be made to the cross-assignment procedure in order to ensure order and uniformity and to avoid judge shopping.  Anyone charged with a crime in Ocean County or throughout the State of New Jersey should contact a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer for representation.

In the present case, the defendant was the target of two "controlled buys" of narcotics by police officers.  After the two "controlled buys" an investigator with the Ocean County Prosecutor's office sought a search warrant for the defendant's home, which was located in Dover Township.  At the time the investigator sought the warrant, the Dover Township Municipal Court was not in session.  Therefore, the investigator presented the warrant application to a municipal court judge in Berkeley Township.   After the warrant was issued out of Berkeley Township, the investigators found drugs in defendant's home and charged him by indictment with a series of drug offenses.

Defendant moved to suppress the evidence found at the home as the fruit of an illegal search.  Essentially, defendant argued that the search was illegal because the magistrate the Berkeley Township municipal judge issued a warrant that was outside of his territorial jurisdiction.  The State argued that the Berkeley Township municipal judge was permitted to issue a search warrant for a home in Dover Township under a cross-assignment order issued by the Assignment Judge of Ocean County designating every municipal judge as an acting judge for every municipality in the county.  Since both Berkeley Township and Dover Township are located in Ocean County, the State argued that it was perfectly acceptable for a Berkeley Township municipal judge to issue a search warrant for the search of a home located in Dover Township.

In the present case, the investigator sought a warrant from the municipal judge in Berkeley Township rather than Dover Township because the Dover Township municipal court was not in session.  Under the relevant statute and court rule, an acting judge can sit by designation in a municipal court if the judge of that court is unable to hold court.  The Supreme Court held that under the circumstances of this case, that standard was satisfied. 

However, the Supreme Court also held that, going forward, some rules should be observed by investigators seeking warrants in order to prevent abuse of the system by investigators judge shopping and presenting warrant applications to judges that are more likely to grant them.  First, the officers must at least attempt to contact the municipal court judge from the jurisdiction where the property to be searched is located.  If that judge is disqualified or otherwise unable to hear the request, that will trigger the cross-assignment order.  Second, just because a municipal court is not in session does not necessarily mean that the municipal court judge is "unable" to hear a warrant application.  Finally, the cross-assignment order designating acting judges should contain some kind of sequence in which judges should be contacted by officers seeking a warrant.

This case illustrates that there are often issues in criminal cases that are easy to miss at first glance.  Although the defendant in this case ultimately did not succeed in suppressing the evidence against him, valid arguments were raised that have no resulted in procedures fairer procedures for obtaining warrants that will better protect the constitutional rights of citizens.  In order to make sure that no stone goes unturned in a criminal case, anyone charged with a crime in New Jersey should contact a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer for assistance and representation.