State v. Cuellar

1 Citing case

  1. State v. Graham

    No. A-0674-19 (App. Div. Mar. 15, 2022)

    Defendant, in his pro se supplemental brief, contends for the first time before us that the evidence seized from his Mercedes should have been suppressed as the search exceeded the permissible scope authorized by both the search warrant and relevant case law and was therefore unreasonable. He relies specifically on State v. Cuellar, 211 N.J.Super. 299 (Law Div. 1986), aff'd o.b., 216 N.J.Super. 249 (App. Div. 1986), and argues the search of his Mercedes "interfere[d] with the structural integrity" of his car. He also contends the affidavit did not contain sufficient probable cause to issue a warrant authorizing the search.