E335 May 12, 2010 Recent cases: 1. No specific words required for Miranda warnings Florida v. Powell 175 L.Ed 1009 __ S. Ct. ___ (Dec. 7, 2009) In a state prosecution for possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, a reversal of defendant's conviction on Miranda grounds is reversed where the police satisfied Miranda's requirements by informing defendant that he had "the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of their questions," and that he had "the right to use any of his rights at any time he wanted during the interview. Advice that a suspect has “the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of [the law enforcement officers’] questions,” and that he can invoke this right “at any time . . . during the interview,” satisfies Miranda. 2 OPRA limits copy fees to actual costs Smith v. Hudson County __ NJ Super __ (A176208T2 App. Div. February 10, 2010) Judge Sabatino wrote: “We must bear in mind the public policies underlying the OPRA statute as a whole. The purpose of OPRA is "'to maximize public knowledge about public affairs in order to ensure an informed citizenry and to minimize the evils inherent in a secluded process.'" Mason v. City of Hoboken, 196 N.J. 51, 64 (2008) (quoting Asbury Park Press v. Ocean County Prosecutor's Office, 374 N.J Super. 312, 329 (Law Div. 2004)). Toward that end, the Legislature declared in OPRA, as "the public policy of this State," that "government records shall be readily accessible for inspection, copying, or examination by the citizens of this State, with certain exceptions, for the protection of the public interest . . . [.]" N.J.S.A. 47:1A1 (emphasis added). "[Any limitations on the right of access accorded by [the former RKL][,] as amended and supplemented, shall be
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.