Criminal Law - Warrantless Arrests - Minor Offenses are Insufficient to Establish Exigent Circumstances Justifying a Warrantless Home Entry
![handle is hein.journals/rutlj22 and id is 301 raw text is: CRIMINAL LAW - WARRANTLESS ARRESTS - MINOR OFFENSES ARE
INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING A
WARRANTLESS HOME ENTRY. State v. Bolte, 115 N.J. 579, 560 A.2d
644, cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 330 (1989).
I. INTRODUCTION
In State v. Bolte,' the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the
defendant's fourth amendment' rights were violated when a police officer
made a warrantless entry into his home to arrest him for motor vehicle and
disorderly persons offenses.- The Bolte court found that such minor
offenses were insufficient to establish exigent circumstances justifying the
warrantless entry. Consistent with the view that the privacy of a person's
home is one of this country's most cherished rights, the court concluded
that warrantless arrests in the home must be subject to particularly careful
scrutiny. The Bolte court concluded that the validity of warrantless
arrests in the home should be weighed against the urgency of the
circumstances. By considering the nature of the underlying offense, a
1. 115 N.J. 579, 560 A.2d 644, cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 330 (1989).
2. U.S. CONST. amend. IV states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants
shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be
seized.
3. Bolte, 115 N.J. at 582,560 A.2d at 646. Bolte was charged under N.J. STAT. ANN. §
39:4-96 (West 1987) (reckless driving); N.J. STAT. ANN. § 39:4-50 (West 1987) (driving
while intoxicated); N.J. STAT. ANN. § 39:4-50.2 (West 1987) (refusal to submit to a
breathalyzer test); N.J. STAT. ANN. § 39:4-99 (West 1987) (speeding); N.J. STAT. ANN. §
39:3-10 (driving on and expired license); N.J. STAT. ANN. § 39:4-88b (West 1987) (failure
to maintain a single lane); N.J. STAT. ANN. § 2C:33-2a (West 1987) (disorderly conduct);
N.J. STAT. ANN. § 2C:29-2b (West 1987) (eluding); and N.J. STAT. ANN. § 2C:29-2a
(West 1987) (resisting arrest).
4. Bolte, 115 N.J. at 597, 560 A.2d at 654.
5. See State v. Bruzzese, 94 N.J. 210, 217, 463 A.2d 320,324 (1983); Payton v. New
York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980); Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (1981); Chimel v.
California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969). See generally N. LASSON, THE HISTORY AND DEVELOP-
MENT OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS (1937).
6. 115 N.J. at 583, 560 A.2d at 646.
7. Id. at 583-84, 560 A.2d at 646-47. Stating that, [a]bsent some grave emergency,
the Fourth Amendment has interposed a magistrate between the citizen and the po-
lice. . . .It was done so that an objective mind might weigh the need to invade that privacy
in order to enforce the law. Id. at 584, 560 A.2d at 647. (quoting Chimel v. California, 395
U.S. 752, 761 (1969)).](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/rutlj22&div=16&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most