New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection v. Huber
213 N.J. 338
| N.J. | 2013Background
- FWPA enacted in 1987 to protect and regulate freshwater wetlands; DEP granted authority to regulate more wetlands than the federal program and to regulate wetlands and transition areas; FWPA permits required for regulated activities and penalties for violations; property at issue (Hubers’ 11 Cider Mill Road) subject to a FWPA permit and a recorded conservation easement; DEP conducted inspections, issued a Notice of Violation, and pursued restoration and civil penalties against the Hubers
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FWPA permits and entry provisions authorize warrantless inspections of residential property | Hubers: entry without a warrant violates Fourth Amendment | DEP: FWPA permits/entry scheme authorize nonconsensual entry to ensure compliance | No general warrantless-entry authorization for residential property under FWPA; entry must follow statutory process and may require judicial access when consent is denied |
| Whether Nystrom’s July 3, 2002 entry was valid given consent disputes | Hubers: no consent; entry invalidates evidence | DEP: statutory authority to enter; consent not required under FWPA scheme | Evidence sustaining violations valid; entry supported by regulatory framework and authority to obtain court-ordered access if needed |
| Whether the recorded conservation easement supports DEP entry and enforcement | Hubers: DEP had no reliance on easement; informal entry insufficient | Conservation easement contributes to DEP’s enforcement authority | DEP's authority to enforce FWPA and access to ensure compliance may rely on recorded easement where applicable |
| Whether there was sufficient credible evidence to sustain FWPA violations excluding contested testimony | Hubers: excluding Nystrom’s testimony leaves insufficient proof | Record and other evidence (photos, admissions, records) suffice | Credible record evidence, excluding contested testimony, supports violations and restoration remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- Barlow’s, Inc. v. Marshall, 436 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1978) (administrative inspections require warrant absent proper scheme; consent framework available)
- Burger v. N.Y. State Dept. of Health, 482 U.S. 691 (U.S. 1987) (closely regulated industry exception to warrantless inspections with three-factor test)
- Camara v. Municipal Court of San Francisco, 387 U.S. 523 (U.S. 1967) (warrantless administrative inspections generally unreasonable in private homes; exception framework)
- Colonnade Catering Corp. v. United States, 397 U.S. 72 (U.S. 1970) (approval of alternate enforcement paths when consent denied; no forcible entry without warrant)
- See v. City of Seattle, 387 U.S. 541 (U.S. 1967) (administrative searches and public program considerations under Fourth Amendment)
- State v. Turcotte, 239 N.J. Super. 285 (App.Div. 1990) (Navied Burger framework adoption for FWPA regulatory inspections (App.Div. interpretation))