# Opposition Brief — New Jersey v. Matthews (No. 08-473)

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386020_0747%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Opposition Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 2009

## Text

IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Petitioner,

v
Ve

CADREE B. MATTHEWS,

Responcent.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
to the Superior Court of New Jersey,

Appellate Division

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

PcP rer
ecemcCer —

YVONNE SMITH SEGARS
Public Defender

AMIRA RAHMAN SCURATO
Assistant Deputy Public Defencer
Counsel of Record

31 Clinton Street, 9 Floor
P.O. Box 460035
Newark, NJ C710]

173-877-120

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

Whether this Court has jurisdiction to review a State Appellate
Division opinion that was plainly decided on adequate and

independent state grounds?
Whether a: anonymous tip, standing alone, 1s insufficient to justify a
Terrv v. Ohio, 393 U.S. 1 (1968), stop and frisk, as well as the resultant

search of a motor vehicle?

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW. .......:sccsssssssesesesssssesecssmnnnnsneeesesneasseed
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..u.cscssssssssssssessssssssssssssssssvsssssvevssessssesscecceseesesssscesssnsasennssseel
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. .....ssssssssssssscessssscsssssesssseeeesescessereereseserensessanssensssesenee Md

RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION...........00-4

OPINIONS BELOW .............0c..ceccssesvee ili decane
IE TLIIN ovcesscovesersscovssessossonsesnienenevesioprssneseess iammiinicnennamaa
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION INVOLVED . saslatesanigatiens wee
COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE CASE... ai ecseeieneis einem
REASONS FOR DENYING THE WRIT .........:cscsscscssesessecsessssseessessenesssencesesssesnenee O

CONCLUSION 14

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES CITED: PAGE

tin

Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990) ......csccsssssssseccsseecssuseessnesssensssnerssneersnetion 10

Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995)... essecseeseseeneeesenensereessseneneesnsenensensenenensensres 2
Florida v. JL. 329 U.S. 266 (2000) ...cccescsseseeseeseeseenseeesereseenenesserensncenene passim

Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983)......-sssssssssssssssssssessseseeeeesresssssnsssnsnaneenssnee 2
State v. Alston, 88 N.J. 211, 440 A.2d 1311 CR soe oi ciiekevencnduscrtccuiabbaess neserunsians fs)
State v. Goree, 327 N.J. Super. 227, 742 A.2d 1039 (App. Div. 2000)............. 2, 12
State v. Matthews, 196 N.J. 344, 953 A.2d 763 (2008) .........seessesssseeessserseeeneeeens 1

State v. Matthews, 398 N.J. Super. 551, 942 A.2d 797 (App. Div. 2008)... l

State v. Richards, 351 N.J. Super. 289, 798 A. 2d 136 (App. Div. 2002)... 2, 10, 12
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 |, Sa EA Cer ae oe Pe Aveeno Peon? i, 11,138
United States v. Aguilera, 287 F. Supp. 2d 1204 (E.D. Cal. 201 | | SIT Rees 7

United States v. Anderson, 339 F.3d 720 (8th Cir.),
cert, denied, 157 L. Ed. 2d 762 (2008) ........ssscsssseseeesserenseeesneseerereseetsees Deere ;

United States v. Arjona-Martinez, 66 Fed. Appx. 526 (Sth Cir. I pinctscecrvonace
United States v. Blackshaw, 367 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (N.D. Ohio 2009) .........-. 9
United States v. Colon, 250 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2001). cece ieee? 8

Unite d States \ v. . Copening, 506 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 2007) cert. denied, 2008
U.S. LEXIS 4986 (2008) .......c.csccccscesssssssssssessreseeserensssseecsssesenseserenesennsnerereatorsesereee 9

United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 101 I IS CI OF vienecseeease The Appellate Division states tie vehicle was parxed “on The Te adway" but the trial testimony :rdicates that the

vehicle was already parsed in a parking spet when the police came up behind it

the same court found that the resultant Terry pat-down searches and the search of
the vehicle exceeded any community caretaking justification.

Finally, Petitioner bases a large portion of his argument on the tinted
windows that were present on the Durango. Nothing in the record indicated that
they were other than factory-issue. As such, they are legal in New Jersey. No
testimony was given that additional, “after-factory” tinted material was added
which may have violated N.J. Stat. Ann. §39:3-74 (prohibiting windows which fail to
meet the standard in N.J.A.C §13:20-33.7). Petitioner's footnote 2 on page 15 1s
without basis in the record.

The rule of law remains that an anonymous tip, standing alone, cannot
justify a stop and frisk. The unanimous opinion of this Court in JL. provides clear
direction for courts to follow and apply to each case’s factual underpinnings and the
circuits have done so without difficulty. As there is nothing unique about the
instant matter and no substantial question is raised, the petition for writ of

certiorari should be denied.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing arguments, Respondent respectfully urges that the

petition for a writ of certiorari be denied.

Respecttully submitted,

YVONNE SMITH SEGARS
Public Defender of the
State of New Jersey
For the Respondent

kj v4
BY: /P—_ 9
AMIRA RAHMAN SCURATO
Assistant Deputy Public Defender

Counsel of Record

Dated: December 23, 2008

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386020_0747%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.