2053 Woodbridge Avenue - Edison, NJ 08817

Saturday, January 27, 2007

Law requiring convicted criminals to provide DNA sample constitutional. State v. John O’Hagen (A-70-05)

State v. John O’Hagen (A-70-05) 1-24-07

The New Jersey DNA Database and Databank Act of N.J.S.A. 53:1-
20.17-20.28, as amended, does not violate the rights guaranteed
by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution and Article I, Paragraphs 1 and 7 of the New Jersey
Constitution. Law requiring convicted criminals to provide DNA sample constitutional.

1-24-07 A.A., by his parent and guardian B.A., v. Attorney
General of the State of New Jersey et als.(A-105-05)

DNA test results lawfully obtained pursuant to the New Jersey
DNA Database and Databank Act of 1994, N.J.S.A. 53:1-20.17-
20.28, as amended, may be used to solve crimes committed prior
to the taking of the DNA test.

1-18-07 State v. Vincent Dispoto (A-103-05)

Because there was insufficient evidence to support the issuance
of the underlying domestic violence search warrant, the criminal
search warrant was invalid as fruit of the poisonous tree.
While this holding renders moot the Appellate Division’s finding
that failure to re-administer Miranda warnings at the time of
arrest required suppression of Dispoto’s post-arrest
incriminating statements, the Court adds in respect of the issue
of the Miranda warnings only that no bright line or per se rule
governs whether re-administratiocustodial Miranda warning.

1 comment:

Greg said...

I am deeply disapointed in the Courts decision concerning Miranda. From all the research that i have been doing, i have found that Miranda is only for the purpose of custodial interrogation or while in custody, IMO, the state have given the police a security blanket of protection that allows them to do and say what they want and leaves the invidiual in question defenseless against police abuses. How can the state supreme court disregard what Arizona v Miranda and Dickerson v USA where both say no miranda until in custody or in a custodial situation. In my opinion, if the person is not in custody and given his or her miranda rights, and then a laywer is asked for, what is there not to say that the police will then take the position that the person was not in cusotdy and then not entitled to a laywer? I think the high courts opinion has trampled on the Decsions of the United States Supreme Court's rulings on Miranda. But i would also assume all is not lost, because they said that it must be left for fact base determinations. I myself is in a Miranda Headache, and i feel they have trampled over hte rights of every NJ citizen and eventually the country. What do you think?