A Superior Court judge has just ruled that Jackson Township police officers violated a local woman’s constitutional rights when they unlawfully obtained her consent to search her iPhone while she was hospitalized following a fatal car crash on May 30, 2024 that left two people dead, FAA News has learned.
Ocean County Superior Court Judge Kimarei Rahill granted portions of the woman’s motion to suppress the phone evidence, finding that the consent was invalid and obtained under coercive conditions, and that even after cops obtained a search warrant, they reviewed information on the phone not covered by the warrant. The woman is represented by attorney Lee Vartan.
“The defendant sustained significant injuries, including a fractured ankle,” Judge Rahill wrote in her opinion. “While hospitalized, officers from the Jackson Township Police Department visited the defendant. During this encounter, officers presented the defendant with a consent form to authorize the search of her cell phone. After the defendant signed the consent form, officers informed her of the right to refuse consent. The defendant withdrew her consent to the search after being informed of this right. Despite this revocation, officers seized the defendant’s cell phone.”
The court emphasized that police failed to provide the woman with critical information before requesting consent. “Here, the defendant lacked the knowledge necessary to provide valid consent,” Judge Rahill wrote. “Valid consent requires that an individual is informed of the right to refuse consent. ‘Specifically, the consenting individual must have been aware of her right to refuse before giving consent.’” (State v. Hagans, 233 N.J. 30, 39 (2018)).
Judge Rahill concluded that “the defendant’s signature on the Consent to Search Form is deemed invalid,” citing the long-standing legal principle that “one cannot be held to have waived a right if he was unaware of its existence” (State v. Johnson, 68 N.J. at 354).
Importantly, the State did not contest any of the defendant’s claims regarding the lack of valid consent.
Although the charges against the woman remain pending - because police eventually obtained a search warrant for the phone - Judge Rahill also sharply limited what investigators can review from the seized device.
The court ruled that while the search warrant was facially valid, the actual evidence reviewed by law enforcement extended far beyond what the warrant permitted. Officers looked through large swaths of the woman’s phone data, including her entire internet browsing history and numerous photos, despite the warrant only authorizing them to search for evidence directly related to the crash and any potential alcohol or drug use.
“The review of information not covered by the warrant exceeded the scope of the search and must be suppressed,” Rahill held, allowing only limited evidence obtained in compliance with the warrant to be used going forward.
The ruling delivers a strong rebuke to the Jackson Township Police Department’s conduct, and reaffirms the constitutional limits on law enforcement - even in high-stakes cases.
Local critics welcomed the decision, stating, “The officers violated her rights, plain and simple. The court did its job by making sure that conduct doesn't go unchecked.”
“This ruling is a clear message: police don’t get to trample rights just because someone is vulnerable,” said another observer. “And when they do, our court system is there to clean up the mess.”
The case continues - but without the use of the unlawfully obtained phone evidence, thanks to the court’s intervention.
The ruling is a stark reminder to law enforcement: the Constitution doesn’t take a back seat—no matter the circumstances.
To join the FAA News WhatsApp Status, click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment