- posted: Mar. 25, 2026
Criminal prosecutions can turn on whether a particular item or statement can be admitted as evidence. The Constitutions of both the United States and New Jersey provide strong protection against warrantless searches and seizures. Over time however, certain exceptions to the warrant requirement have been recognized. One of these relates to exigent circumstances. This refers to situations where police are engaged in an urgent investigation and see evidence that might be destroyed if not collected at that time.
Questions related to exigent circumstances can be highly contentious. A criminal defense attorney might challenge whether the evidence was actually collected during a hot pursuit or whether law enforcement actually had a reasonable opportunity to obtain a warrant from a judge. To assess whether officers acted reasonably to meet an exigency, courts consider factors such as:
Nature and seriousness of the crime being investigated
Urgency of the circumstances
Time required to obtain a warrant
Threat of evidence loss or destruction
Potential danger posed by the suspect
Whether probable cause existed that would justify a search
In State v. Caneiro, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled on a case where police had reported to a fire at the defendant’s home. Both the defendant and police were in the garage, which was attached to the house but not burning. Without a warrant, an officer took possession of a DVR in the garage and then asked the defendant if they could watch the surveillance video that was stored within the machine. He agreed, but then later challenged the officer’s seizure of the DVR, claiming that exigent circumstances did not exist because the garage itself was not on fire.
At trial, the judge agreed with Caneiro and suppressed the DVR evidence, which showed defendant dismantling the security camera at his home before setting it on fire. He apparently did this to hide the fact that he committed a crime at his brother’s home. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that the seizure was proper based on the totality of the circumstances.
One factor cited the by the justices to support their decision was the possibility that the blaze would spread to the garage and destroy the DVR. Alternatively, the machine might have been damaged by a collapse of the main house or water used to put the fire out. Given the unpredictability of the situation, the Court ruled that taking the time to obtain a warrant might have threatened the officers’ ability to collect the evidence.
There is no bright-line test for exigent circumstances cases such as State v. Caneiro. That is why it is critical to retain an attorney who understands the applicable factors and will fight to have improperly seized evidence excluded. The Law Offices of Eric B. Morrell in New Brunswick fights for clients New Jersey in all types of criminal defense matters. To discuss your legal options, please call 908-768-3837 or contact me online for a free consultation.
- posted: Mar. 25, 2026
Criminal prosecutions can turn on whether a particular item or statement can be admitted as evidence. The Constitutions of both the United States and New Jersey provide strong protection against warrantless searches and seizures. Over time however, certain exceptions to the warrant requirement have been recognized. One of these relates to exigent circumstances. This refers to situations where police are engaged in an urgent investigation and see evidence that might be destroyed if not collected at that time.
Questions related to exigent circumstances can be highly contentious. A criminal defense attorney might challenge whether the evidence was actually collected during a hot pursuit or whether law enforcement actually had a reasonable opportunity to obtain a warrant from a judge. To assess whether officers acted reasonably to meet an exigency, courts consider factors such as:
Nature and seriousness of the crime being investigated
Urgency of the circumstances
Time required to obtain a warrant
Threat of evidence loss or destruction
Potential danger posed by the suspect
Whether probable cause existed that would justify a search
In State v. Caneiro, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled on a case where police had reported to a fire at the defendant’s home. Both the defendant and police were in the garage, which was attached to the house but not burning. Without a warrant, an officer took possession of a DVR in the garage and then asked the defendant if they could watch the surveillance video that was stored within the machine. He agreed, but then later challenged the officer’s seizure of the DVR, claiming that exigent circumstances did not exist because the garage itself was not on fire.
At trial, the judge agreed with Caneiro and suppressed the DVR evidence, which showed defendant dismantling the security camera at his home before setting it on fire. He apparently did this to hide the fact that he committed a crime at his brother’s home. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that the seizure was proper based on the totality of the circumstances.
One factor cited the by the justices to support their decision was the possibility that the blaze would spread to the garage and destroy the DVR. Alternatively, the machine might have been damaged by a collapse of the main house or water used to put the fire out. Given the unpredictability of the situation, the Court ruled that taking the time to obtain a warrant might have threatened the officers’ ability to collect the evidence.
There is no bright-line test for exigent circumstances cases such as State v. Caneiro. That is why it is critical to retain an attorney who understands the applicable factors and will fight to have improperly seized evidence excluded. The Law Offices of Eric B. Morrell in New Brunswick fights for clients New Jersey in all types of criminal defense matters. To discuss your legal options, please call 908-768-3837 or contact me online for a free consultation.
