BY MICHAEL HAYNE

NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM

COMMENTARY

Since our personal freedoms are forever under assault and the invasions of our privacy seems to be the only issue that Congress is bi-partisan on, we can't help but celebrate when otherwise common inborn rights are upheld.

For example, NJ's state Supreme Court ruled today that police officers in New Jersey cannot enter a home to check on the well-being of a resident unless they have a warrant, consent from the homeowner or a reason to believe there is an emergency and someone is at risk. Again, celebrating this would be like celebrating someone protesting in open space, but we've become such a police state that any victory, however painfully obvious, is good. In a 6-1 decision, the court found that police violated a Vineland man's fourth amendment rights after officers entered his apartment at the behest of a landlord seeking rent from a tenant he had not seen in several weeks.

The officers were probably not expecting to find jars of marijuana and unlawful possession of firearms, and much to dismay of the tenant as well.

But it seems the court rejected the Attorney General's office in their claims that the officers were allowed to enter Cesar Vargas's apartment without a warrant as supposed "community caretakers."

"Based on the findings of the trial court, the police did not have an objectively reasonable basis to believe that an emergency threatening life or limb justified the warrantless entry into Vargas’ apartment," Justice Barry Albin wrote for the majority. (NJ.com)

One of the dissenting justices, Justice Anne Patterson, believes that the officers' intent was genuine concern.

"When a law enforcement officer is asked to check on the welfare of someone who is reported missing, as was the officer summoned by the landlord here, it may be impossible to determine whether the resident is in danger without entering his or her home," Patterson wrote.

But court documents indicate that Varga's landlord did not try calling Vargas’ emergency contact number or employer before calling 911, nor did he know the details of his "comings and goings," such as if he took vacations or often traveled out of town. Hence, Justice Albin seemed to feel that the situation was unlike a family member calling police about a relative, or someone calling police about a diabetic or sick neighbor that had not been seen in a while. After all, his landlord and the officers had little to no basis to assume Vargas’ absence was unusual.

"We need not describe the myriad circumstances that might give rise to an objectively reasonable basis to believe that an emergency requires immediate action for the safety or welfare of another," wrote Justice Albin. "Suffice it to say, those objectively reasonable circumstances were not found to be present here." (NJ.com)