Under the totality of the circumstances reviewed here, the State Police detectives who entered the neighboring residence without a warrant did not have grounds to invoke the hot pursuit doctrine. The warrantless entry violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution. Although the Court is disturbed by the manner of execution of this warrant, it declines to adopt a rigid, one-size-fits-all approach to the execution of all ATS arrest warrants. A-32-21 3. Police not required to advise to consult immigration counsel as part of Miranda State v Francisco As part of a homicide investigation, defendant gave a statement to a detective following the administration and waiver of Miranda1 rights before the filing of a complaint-warrant or the issuance of an arrest warrant. Shortly after the statement began, defendant asked whether it would cause problems with his record because he was an undocumented noncitizen. The detective responded, "No. No," and told defendant his "status has nothing to do with this. I am not going to ask you any questions on your status, or how you got here to this country. Absolutely nothing." Defendant did not invoke any of his Miranda rights during the statement, initially denied involvement, asserted an alibi, and later in the statement made incriminating admissions. Defendant opposed the State's motion to admit the statement, arguing he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his Miranda rights because the detective falsely responded to his immigration status concerns. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the motion. The trial court also granted the State's motion to admit evidence of defendant's impecuniosity and prior thefts of personal property from the homicide victim's family, finding the four-part Cofield test was satisfied. Defendant was convicted by a jury of murder, related weapons offenses, and tampering with evidence but acquitted of robbery and theft. He was sentenced to a fifty-year term for the murder, subject to a forty-two and one-half-year period of parole ineligibility under the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A.2C:43-7.2, and concurrent terms on the other offenses. Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence. In State v. Sims, the Court determined that "officers need not speculate about additional charges that may later be brought" and declined to adopt a bright-line rule that requires police officers to inform a suspect, "based on information learned to date in a developing investigation, of what charges may be filed" against him in the future. Applied here, the clear import of Sims is that police officers need not speculate about or disclose possible immigration consequences of charges that may be brought in the future. Requiring police officers to do so is unwarranted, impractical, and contrary to the holding in Sims. The court declined to adopt: (1) a bright-line rule requiring officers to engage in such speculation and to inform an interrogee that their statements could result in deportation or other immigration consequences; or (2) a brightline rule requiring suppression of a statement following inaccurate advice regarding its potential immigration consequences, even where the officer knowingly provides affirmative misadvice (e.g., making false assurances to a suspect that that they will not be deported even if they admit to committing the offense). Instead, as was done in this case, the trial court should consider any bad-faith conduct as part of the totality-of-the-circumstances test when determining whether defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights. The court affirmed the admission of defendant's statement. The court also declined to expand Miranda warnings to include advising interrogees of the right to consult with an immigration attorney about the impact of the statement on their immigration status. Due to the complexity of federal immigration law, the court recommended that law enforcement officers not engage in speculation and risk misadvising an interrogee. If an interrogee asks about the immigration impact of giving a statement, the officer can merely state that they cannot give any legal advice, and reiterate that the interrogee has the right to consult with an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning. (A-3840-18)
| 
