New Jersey Appellate Decision Highlights Suppression of Evidence and Knock-and-Announce Compliance

Recent Jersey Appellate Division Decision – Criminal Procedure

On January 3, 2025, the New Jersey Appellate Division issued a significant decision in State of New Jersey v. Yonathan Z. Seligman (Docket No. A-0496-23), ___ N.J. Super ___ (App. Div. 2025). This ruling examined law enforcement’s compliance with the knock-and-announce rule, body-worn camera protocols, and whether alleged violations triggered the exclusionary rule warranting the suppression of evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress evidence.

Facts and Procedural History of the Case

In February 2021, Customs and Border Protection intercepted packages containing MDMA (also known as Ecstasy) addressed to “Yoni Seligman” at an invalid address. Investigators determined that the intended recipient was the defendant Seligman at his actual Union City residence. After intercepting another package, law enforcement obtained a “knock-and-announce” search warrant.

During the February 19, 2021, execution of the warrant, officers seized MDMA, cocaine, LSD, ketamine, alprazolam, cash, and drug paraphernalia. However, none of the officers activated their body-worn cameras until after entering the residence. Seligman argued that failure to comply with the knock-and-announce rule and body-worn camera directives violated procedural and constitutional requirements, requiring the suppression of the evidence.

Knock-and-Announce Rule and Suppression of Evidence

The knock-and-announce rule requires law enforcement to announce their identity and purpose before entering a residence with a search warrant. The officers testified that they knocked and announced their presence, waited 20–25 seconds, and then forcibly entered. The trial court found this testimony credible and determined the officers complied with the warrant’s requirements.

On appeal, the Appellate Division upheld the trial court’s findings. The court emphasized that suppression of evidence is appropriate only when constitutional rights are violated, not merely procedural rules found in administrative directives.

Body-Worn Camera Compliance and Suppression of Evidence

Seligman argued that suppression of evidence was warranted because officers violated the Attorney General’s Body-Worn Camera (BWC) Directive. Off. of the Att’y Gen., Law Enf’t Directive No. 2015-1, Law Enforcement Directive Regarding Police Body Worn Camera (BWCs) and Stored BWC Recordings (Jul. 28, 2015). The BWC directive requires activation of BWCs when the officer is conducting any kind of search. Attorney General Directive 2021-12, the Directive Regulating “No-Knock” Warrants, cross-references the BWC Directive, The Appellate Division agreed with the trial court that the failure to activate BWCs did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. The appellate court also found that the No Knock Directive explicitly provides that its provisions do not create any substantive right that may be enforced by any third parties.

Rebuttable Presumption of Exculpatory Evidence

Seligman also sought application of the rebuttable presumption established by N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118.5(q), which presumes evidence not captured by BWCs to be exculpatory. The Appellate Division rejected this argument, finding that the rebuttable presumption established in N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118.5(q) did not apply in this case because the statute did not take effect until after the search warrant was executed on February 19, 2021. The Appellate Division agreed with the trial court that the statute was not intended to have retroactive effect.

Key Takeaways on Suppression of Evidence

The Appellate Division reaffirmed several principles regarding suppression of evidence:

  • Violations of an Attorney General directive, like the BWC Directive, do not trigger the exclusionary rule when no constitutional rights are implicated.
  • Courts defer to trial court findings on credibility unless clearly mistaken.
  • Without a clear expression of contrary intent, a statute that relates to substantive rights and changes settled law will be applied prospectively.

Conclusion: What This Decision Means for Suppression of Evidence in New Jersey

The Seligman decision reinforces the high standard required for suppression of evidence in New Jersey. The Appellate Division declined to create a new rule of law whereby evidence is suppressed when an officer violates the BWC Directive while executing a knock-and-announce search warrant. The ruling underscores the importance of credible testimony in knock-and-announce cases and clarifies that body-worn camera compliance alone is insufficient to trigger the exclusionary rule. This case highlights the evolving nature of criminal procedure and its implications for law enforcement and defense attorneys.

Criminal law is complicated and constantly changing. If you are facing criminal charges, you should immediately contact our team of experienced former prosecutors to schedule a free case review with one of our expert criminal defense attorneys. A complete understanding of criminal law by your attorney is crucial to your defense. Your rights and freedoms are in jeopardy, and you owe it to yourself to act. We are available to provide immediate assistance and further counsel on your case at 862-315-7929.

No aspect of this attorney advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.