State of New Jersey v. Calvin Presley, 436 N.J. Super. 440

Background

A Superior Court judge who previously served as an assistant prosecutor had, years earlier, personally prosecuted defendant Shilyre Collins in four matters; no prior prosecution relationship existed between the judge and the other defendants.
In March–April 2012 the judge (unaware of the earlier prosecutions) issued warrants authorizing wire/interception orders, tracking devices, searches, and arrests related to an investigation that included Collins and others.
Collins and Presley had pending indictments before the same judge during 2011–2012; Collins knew of the prior prosecutions but did not disclose them while litigating matters before the judge for strategic reasons.
In October 2012 the prosecutor disclosed the judge’s earlier prosecutions of Collins; the judge promptly recused and the cases were reassigned.
Presley moved to invalidate the warrants, suppress evidence, and dismiss indictments under this court’s McCann “bright-line” rule; Collins joined.
The motion judge denied relief; on appeal the Appellate Division affirmed, holding McCann distinguishable and declining to apply automatic nullification/suppression to defendants who had no disqualifying relationship with the issuing judge.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether McCann bright-line rule requires invalidation of warrants and suppression of all evidence as to all defendants because the issuing judge had prosecuted one defendant	State: judge’s recusal remedied the conflict; McCann does not mandate broad suppression where only one defendant created a disqualifying conflict	Presley/Collins: McCann’s bright-line rule mandates that any judicial acts by a disqualified judge are a nullity; warrants and evidence must be invalidated for all defendants	Held: McCann is distinguishable; automatic nullification/suppression as to uninvolved co-defendants is improper; relief depends on totality of circumstances rather than a blanket rule
Whether the proper analysis is an objective bright-line rule (McCann) or a fact-specific remedy balancing test	State: apply fact-specific analysis focusing on restoring public confidence and on whether exclusionary rule objectives are served	Defendants: apply McCann’s objective bright-line rule regardless of other facts or prejudice; hindsight disclosure suffices	Held: Court rejects bright-line application here; uses multi-factor balancing (including judge’s knowledge at the time, delay in disclosure, probable cause, prejudice, and evidence of actual partiality)
Whether suppression is required absent evidence of judge’s actual bias or lack of probable cause	State: suppression is an extraordinary remedy tied to Fourth Amendment defects, police misconduct, or lack of probable cause; none exists here	Defendants: appearance of partiality that required recusal suffices to trigger exclusion	Held: suppression unwarranted—no police misconduct, no allegation the judge knew of conflict when issuing warrants, and warrants supported by probable cause; exclusionary rule’s remedial goals would not be served
Whether defendant Collins’s strategic nondisclosure affects remedy	State: Collins’s concealment of the prior prosecutions for over a year while litigating before the judge weighs against nullification and suppression	Collins: she had no obligation to disclose and could strategically time recusal motions	Held: Collins had an obligation to disclose; her delay and strategic silence weigh against broad remedies that would prejudice the State and uninvolved defendants

Key Cases Cited

State v. McCann, 391 N.J. Super. 542 (App. Div. 2007) (announcing prospective bright-line rule invalidating warrants issued by a judge with a disqualifying prior relationship to the defendant)
United States v. Heffington, 952 F.2d 275 (9th Cir. 1991) (appearance of partiality insufficient to render a warrant constitutionally defective where probable cause exists)
Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (1948) (warrants must be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate)
Rivers v. Cox-Rivers, 346 N.J. Super. 418 (App. Div. 2001) (bright-line rule limited to circumstances where disqualification was required; prior representation mandates nullification in those cases)
DeNike v. Cupo, 196 N.J. 502 (2008) (standard: would a reasonable, fully informed person doubt the judge's impartiality)
State v. Evers, 175 N.J. 355 (2003) (exclusionary rule should be applied only where its deterrent and integrity goals are served)