OF COUNSEL. (APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL ENTERED.) CHIEF
JUSTICE RABNER: GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL AND WELCOME. MR. COME
PLEASE GO AHEAD. VALERIA DOMINGUEZ: THANK YOU. MAY I RESERVE
FIVE MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: WE'LL HAVE YOU
BACK PERHAPS FOR A LITTLE LESS. VALERIA DOMINGUEZ: MAY IT
PLEASE THE COURT THIS COURT HAS ALREADY RECOGNIZED THAT A TENANT DOES NOT
HAVE A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY. THE APPELLATE DIVISION'S RULING IN THIS CASE
ERRONEOUSLY KAFSHGS OUT AN EXCEPTION FOR TENANTS OF BOARDING AND ROOMING
HOUSES. IN FINDING A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN THE COMMON AREAS OF
AN UNLOCKED MULTI UNIT BOARDING HOUSE, EVEN IF THE TENANTS APGS ROOMS WE
EQUIPPED WITH PAD LOCKERS, THE APPELLATE DIVISION GAVE TENANTS OF BOARDING AND ROOMING
HOUSES GREATER PRIVACY RIGHTS THAN THOSE AFFORDED TO RESIDENTS OF OTHER MULTI
UNIT DWELLINGS. IN ASSESSING WHETHER THERE IS A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY
IN THE COMMON AREAS OF THE MULTI UNIT BUILDING, THERE IS NO MEANINGFUL
DISTINCTION BETWEEN BOARDING HOUSES AND ROOMING HOUSES AND OTHER TYPES OF MULTI
UNIT DWELLINGS. BECAUSE RESIDENTS OF BOARDING HOUSES LIKE RESIDENTS OF OTHER
MULTI UNIT DWELLINGS HAVE NO CONTROL OR COME MINYON OVER COMMON AREAS THERE IS
NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN SUCH AREAS. THE OPINION
ALSO ESTABLISHES AN UNWORKABLE RULE AS IT WOULD BLOCK POLICE FROM ENTERING THE COMMON
AREAS OF BBLGS. THIS IS EXEMPLIFIED HERE WHERE POLICE WERE INVESTIGATING
A SHOOTING IN REAL TIME. THE POLICE RESPONDED TO 86 SPRING STREET UPON LEARNING
THE SUSPECT EITHER RAN TO OR RESIDED AT THAT LOCATION. FROM THE OUTSIDE
OF 86 SPRING STREET APPEARED TO BE AN ATTACHED ROW HOUSE BUT WHEN THE OFFICER KNOCKED
ON THE DOOR WHICH WAS UNLOCKED AND UNSECURED, THE DOOR OPENED REVEALING
A HALLWAY LINED WITH INTERIOR DOORS EQUIPPED WITH PADLOCKS. TO THE OFFICER BASED
ON HIS EXPERIENCE WORKING IN TRENTON, THIS APPEARED TO BE A MULTI UNIT BOARDING
HOUSE. THE OFFICERS HAD A RIGHT TO ENTER THE COMMON HALLWAY AS ANY OTHER VISITOR
WOULD HAVE HAD TO IN ORDER TO SPEAK WITH THE INDIVIDUAL TENANTS TO INVESTIGATE
THE REPORT THAT THE SHOOTING SUSPECT RESIDED AT 86 SPRIRNG. BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT
DOES NOT HAVE A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN THE COMMON AREAS OF
A MULTIUNIT RESIDENCE AND THERE'S NO MEANINGFUL DISTINCTION BETWEEN BOARDING
HOUSES AND OTHER TIMES OF DWELLINGS WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THIS COURT TO REVERSE
THE JUDGMENT OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION. WE ALSO ASK THIS COURT TO DENY DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO EXPAND THE RECORD BECAUSE OF PHOTOGRAPHS OBTAINED FROM GOOGLE MAPS
WERE NOT A PART OF THE TRIAL OATH IN THE TRIAL COURT OR THE APPELLATE DIVISION,
THEY HAVE NOT BEEN AUTHENTICATED AND THE OUTSIDE APPEARANCE OF 86 SPRING STREET
IS IRRELEVANT TO WHETHER THE TENANTS HAVE A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY TO
THE COMMON AREAS OF THE BOARDING HOUSE. THANK YOU. CHIEF JUSTICE
RABNER: TAKE A SITUATION WHERE PEOPLE LIVE IN A COME USE NATURAL DWELLING WITH
LOCKS ON THEIR ROOMS AND THEY SHARE A COMMON HALLWAY, KITCHEN AND BATHROOM,
ISN'T IT MORE SIMILAR TO A SINGLE DWELLING HOME WITH MULTIPLE HOUSEMATES THAN IT IS
TO A BUILDING, AN APARTMENT BUILDING WILFULLY SUSTAINED SEPARATE UNITS?
VALERIA DOMINGUEZ: TWO RESPONSES, YOUR HONOR. THE FIRST IS
WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT A PRIVATE RESIDENCE, THAT AREA IS ALREADY PROTECTED.
IT'S PROTECTED UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AS OPPOSED IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT
COMMON AREAS OF MULTI UNIT DWELLINGS WHERE THERE IS A RECOGNITION GENERALLY THAT THERE'S
NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION THERE. THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PRIVATE
RESIDENCE WHERE THE INDIVIDUALS WHO LIVE THERE ARE FUNCTIONING AS A FAMILY WHETHER
THEY'RE BLOOD RELATED OR NOT OR AS ROOMMATES. WHERE THERE IS SOME
CONTROL OVER THE COMMON AREAS THERE IS A LAW THAT COULD BE HUH REGARDING THE IN THE
HOUSE AS OPPOSED TO A SITUATION WHERE THE RESIDENTS ARE RENTING A PARTICULAR
SPACE, WHETHER IT BE A ROOM IN A BOARDING HOUSE, AN APARTMENT OR EVEN THE SECOND
FLOOR OF A TWO FAMILY HOUSE. THAT'S DIFFERENT BECAUSE THEY DON'T
HAVE CONTROL OVER THE COMMON AREAS. THEY CAN'T PREVENT ACCESS TO THE OTHER
TENANTS. THEY CAN'T PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE OTHER TENANTS VISITORS. THEY DON'T
HAVE CONTROL IT'S ACCESSIBLE TO OTHER PEOPLE PARTICULARLY WHEN WE'RE LOOKING
AT THE HALLWAY WHICH IS CERTAINLY ACCESSIBLE TO ANY OTHER OCCUPANT, ANY OTHER VISITOR
TO ACCESS IN ORDER TO GET TO THE DIFFERENT ROOMS. CHIEF JUSTICE
RABNER: SO THE EXAMPLE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOES A PERSON HAVE A REASONABLE
EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY AS THEY WALK FROM THEIR SMALL BEDROOM UNIT, EIGHT BY EIGHT,
THROUGH A HALLWAY TO THE BATHROOM. VALERIA DOMINGUEZ: THEY
DO NOT. BECAUSE THAT HALLWAY IS ACCESSIBLE TO OTHER OCCUPANTS, TO THEIR
VISITORS, MAINTENANCE WORKERS, LANDLORD, ANYTHING THAT THEY DO THERE, ANY ACTION,
ANYTHING THAT THEY LEAVE IN THE COMMON AREAS IS VISIBLE TO OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE
ACCESS TO THEIR ROOMS. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: AND I TAKE IT
THAT THE FACT THAT BUILDING ITSELF, THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING IS CLOSED
TO THE PUBLIC, THERE'S A DOOR THAT IS NOT OPENED. WHETHER IT'S LOCKED OR UNLOCKED
DOESN'T AFFECT YOUR ANALYSIS OF WHETHER A PERSON HAS A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF
PRIVACY SIMPLY WALKING TO THE BATHROOM. VALERIA DOMINGUEZ:
NO, YOUR HONOR. AND THAT'S, AGAIN BECAUSE THIS IS AN AREA THAT IS ACCESSIBLE
TO OTHER PEOPLE. SO -- ANYTHING YOU DO THERE YOU CAN'T EXPECT THAT NOBODY ELSE
WILL SEE THAT. WE DON'T KNOW WHO ELSE IS WALKING IN THE -- IN A BOARDING HOUSE
AT ANY PARTICULAR TIME. WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER VISITORS, WHAT OTHER VISITORS ARE
THERE AND THEY CAN SURELY SEE ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS IN THE COMMON AREAS
VERSUS YOUR PARTICULAR ROOM IN THE CASE OF A BOARDING HOUSE WHERE YOU ABSOLUTELY
HAVE CONTROL OVER WHO HAS ACCESS TO YOUR ROOM, WHO HAS VISIBILITY TO THE --
JUSTICE ALBIN: COUNSEL? VALERIA DOMINGUEZ:
YES. JUSTICE ALBIN: YOU SAID THERE'S NO MEANINGFUL DISTINCTION
BETWEEN AN APARTMENT HOUSE AND A ROOMING HOUSE, A BOARDING HOUSE. BUT THE LEGISLATURE
HAS MADE CRITICAL DISTINCTIONS HAVE THEY NOT? ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE
ROOMMATE AND BOARDING HOUSE ACT OF 1979? VALERIA DOMINGUEZ:
YES, YOUR HONOR. JUSTICE ALBIN: ARE YOU AWARE OF THE BILL OF
RIGHTS THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO RESIDENTS OF ROOMING HOUSES AND BOARDING HOUSES?
VALERIA DOMINGUEZ: YES, YOUR HONOR. JUSTICE ALBIN:
I TAKE IT YOU'RE ALSO AWARE OF REGULATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PASSED?
VALERIA DOMINGUEZ: YES. JUSTICE ALBIN: SO, REGARDING THE
REGULATIONS AND THIS WOULD SEEM TO INDICATE AT LEAST AT THE LEGISLATURE EXPECTED
THAT RESIDENTS OF ROOMING HOUSES WOULD BE PROTECTED FROM PEOPLE ON THE OUTSIDE.
A C-5:27-6.1 REQUIRES THAT THE OUTSIDE DOOR, A HEAVY-DUTY DEADLOCK, CORRECT?
VALERIA DOMINGUEZ: YES. JUSTICE ALBIN: IT REQUIRES
ALSO THAT THERE BE EXTERIOR DOORBELLS AUDIBLE THROUGHOUT THE BUILDING WHEN
IN USE, CORRECT? VALERIA DOMINGUEZ: YES. JUSTICE
ALBIN: THE BILL OF RIGHTS SAYS THAT THE RESIDENTS WILL HAVE ALL THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROTECTIONS OF EVERYONE ELSE. YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THIS LEGISLATURE
ENACTMENT THAT APPLIES TO BOARDING HOUSES AND ROOMING HOUSES, NOT APARTMENT HOUSES.
DOESN'T THIS LEGISLATIVE SCHEME INDICATE THAT THE RESIDENTS OF BOARDING
HOUSES AND ROOMING HOUSES IN THE MIND OF THE LEGISLATURE HAVE A REASONABLE EXPECTATION
OF PRIVACY FROM PEOPLE JUST WANDERING IN FROM THE OUTSIDE INTO THE COMMON AREAS
OF A ROOMING HOUSE OR A BOARDING HOUSE. VALERIA DOMINGUEZ:
A FEW RESPONSES, YOUR HONOR. I WOULD NOTE INITIALLY THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF THE
LOCK ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE DOOR AND THE DOORBELL, THAT'S UNDER SPECIFICALLY
THE SUBCHAPTER ENTITLED SECURITY. SO THE PURPOSE OF A LOCK IS TO SECURE THE
RESIDENCE. IT'S NOT A WAY TO CREATE A PRIVACY EXPECTATION. I WOULD
ALSO NOTE THAT -- JUSTICE ALBIN: WELL, WHEN YOU LOCK THE DOOR
TO YOUR HOUSE, WHETHER IT'S A ROOM -- WHETHER IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE OR A
ROOMING HOUSE, IS THAT NOT AN EXPECTATION THAT SOMEONE CANNOT JUST WALK THROUGH
THE DOOR, WHETHER IT'S A POLICE OFFICER O ANYONE WALKING DOWN THE STREET?
VALERIA DOMINGUEZ: RESPECTFULLY YOUR HONOR, IT NAY BE AN
INDICATOR FOR OF PRIVACY OF YOUR EXPECTATIONS BUT IT'S NOT DISPOSITIVE OF THE
ISSUE JUST AS A PRIVATE RESIDENT'S DOOR IS LEFT ROUTINELY UNLOCKED AND THAT
DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT THAT IS STILL PROTECTED PROPERTY.
JUSTICE ALBIN: OF COURSE I AGREE WITH YOU. IF YOU LEFT YOUR DOOR UNLOCKED, YOUR
HOME YOU WOULDN'T EXPECT THAT PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO OPEN IT AND ENTER, DO YOU?
VALERIA DOMINGUEZ: RIGHT, ABSOLUTELY. JUSTICE
ALBIN: NOT EVEN A POLICE OFFICER, CORRECT. VALERIA DOMINGUEZ:
RIGHT, ABSOLUTELY. BUT THE PRESENCE OF A LOCK DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU HAVE AN
EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN AN AREA WHEN THERE'S OTHER OCCUPANTS ASKING THAT SAME
AREA, OTHER VISITORS, THE LANDLORD MAINTENANCE WORKER, POLICE, A NUMBER OF
PEOPLE WHO CAN ASKS THE HALLWAYS. JUSTICE ALBIN: THE PEOPLE
WHO LIVE THERE BUT NOT THE OUTSIDE. IF THERE'S SIX PEOPLE LIVING IN A ROOMING
HOUSE IT DOESN'T MEAN THE WORLD HAS A RIGHT OF ENTRY. VALERIA
DOMINGUEZ: {RULE CITED} DEALS WITH ACCESS TO AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES AND THE IT
SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT LICENSE SEES SHALL NOT IN ANY MEMBER OBSTRUCT AND
SHALL AFFIRMATIVELY PRIVATE SOCIAL SERVICES AND HEALTH AGENCIES TO VISIT ANY
RESIDENCE OR TO HAVE ANY CONTACT WITH ANY RESIDENCE GENERALLY. SO
IN ADDITION TO THE LOCK WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY A REGULATION OF THE EXTERIOR DOOR
THE ON TENANTS OF THE BOERSDZ HAVE THE ABILITY TO ALLOW VISITORS IN. THERE
IS A REASONABLE ACCESS TO THE TENANTS. JUSTICE PATTERSON:
WHEN YOU LOOK AT APARTMENT BUILDINGS MANY OF THEM HAVE LOCKS THAT ALL THE
TENANTS HAVE A KEY OR A CARD THAT CAN ACCESS SO WHEN YOU'RE -- YOUR POINT IS THAT
THERE ARE NOTE THAT MANY DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN APARTMENT BUILDINGS AND THE
ROOMING HOUSES AND ONE OF THOSE SIMILARITIES IN MANY CASES IS THERE'S AN OUTSIDE
LOCK AND YET OUR LAW WOULD SUGGEST THAT AN OUTSIDE LOCK DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE
IS A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY TO THE FRONT -- THE COMMON AREAS AFTER
YOU GET THROUGH THAT LOCK, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT. VALERIA
DOMINGUEZ: YES, ABSOLUTELY, YOUR HONOR. THAT'S EXACTLY OUR POSITION. AND I'D
ALSO NOTE HERE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SHOOTING, A SHOOTING INVESTIGATION
THAT UNFOLDED IN REAL TIME. SO THE OFFICERS WERE INVESTIGATING A REPORT OF THAT
THE SUSPECT EITHER RESIDED OR RAN TO 86 SPRING STREET. OF COURSE THEY HAVE
AN OBLIGATION TO INVESTIGATE. JUSTICE ALBIN: YOU HAVEN'T ARGUED EXIGENT
CIRCUMSTANCES. YOU PRESENTED THIS IS TO US ON ONE ISSUE AND TELL ME IT
I'M MISTAKEN ABOUT THIS. WHETHER OR NOT THE RESIDENTS OF A BOARDING HOUSE, A ROOMING
HOUSE HAVE A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY AND YOU HAVE PURPOSELY DECIDED
NOT TO PRESENT TO US WHETHER OR NOT THE OFFICERS HAD EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES TO ENTER.
AM I NOT CORRECT? VALERIA DOMINGUEZ: YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY
CORRECT, YOUR HONOR. I'M NOT BRINGING UP THE FACT THAT THIS IS A SHOOTING INVESTIGATION
IN ANY WAY TO RELY ON THE EXIGENCY EXCEPTION, WE HAVE NOT.
JUSTICE ALBIN: YOU'RE NOT ARGUING THAT THESE OFFICERS DIDN'T HAVE SUFFICIENT TIME
TO GET A WARRANT, YOU'RE NOT ARGUING THAT, YOU'VE NEVER PRESENTED THAT ARGUMENT?
VALERIA DOMINGUEZ: RIGHT. BUT I'M JUST NOTING THAT IN ATTEMPTING
TO CORROBORATE THIS REPORT THE SUSPECT LIVED AT 86 SPRING STREET. THE MOST
EFFICIENT WAY TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT REPORT WOULD BE TO KNOCK ON THE FRONT DOOR AND
AT THAT POINT ONCE THE DOOR, BECAUSE IT'S UNSECURED AND UNLOCKED, OPENED
REVEALING A HALLWAY OF LINED ROOM WITH PADLOCKS, THE OFFICER BASED ON HIS EXPERIENCE
KNEW THAT THIS WAS A BOARDING HOUSE AND CLEARLY ORDERED TO SPEAK WITH THE
INDIVIDUAL TENANTS HE WOULD HAVE ACCESS LIKE ANYONE ELSE WOULD HAVE THE HALLWAYS
IN ORDER TO KNOCK ON THE DOORS. JUSTICE LA VECCHIA: HAVEN'T
WE ALREADY SEEN SOME CASES WHERE PEOPLE ARE LIVING WITH FAMILY MEMBERS AND
THEY PADLOCK THEIR PARTICULAR BEDROOM DOOR AND YET WE'VE NEVER SAID THAT POLICE OFFICERS
CAN SIMPLY WALK INTO THOSE INDIVIDUAL UNITS BECAUSE MULTIPLE PEOPLE ARE
LIVING IN THAT SPACE AND THERE IS SHARED SPACE AND THERE'S SEPARATED SECURE MORE
PRIVATE SPACE, CORRECT? VALERIA DOMINGUEZ: YES, YOUR HONOR.
AND WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A PRIVATE RESIDENCE CERTAINLY AN OFFICER
COULDN'T ENTER INTO THE COMMON AREAS. BUT WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS PARTICULAR
OFFICER WITH OVER TEN YEARS EXPERIENCE WORKING IN TRENTON HAVING BEEN INSIDE
DIFFER BOARDING HOUSES IN TRENTON, BEING FAMILIAR WITH WHAT THE EXTERIOR BOARDING
HOUSE IN TRENTON LOOKS LIKE AND THE INTERIOR WHEN HE KNOCKED ON THE FRONT
DOOR IT WAS APPARENT TO HIM THAT THIS WAS A BOESHD A MULTI UNIT DWELLING WHICH
IS NOT -- JUSTICE LA VECCHIA: BUT YOU'RE EQUIPMENTING YOU CAN
TELL FROM THE QUESTIONING, YOU'RE EQUATING ALL OF THESE MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS
AS IF THEY ARE THE SAME AND YET THERE ARE MANY SIMILARITIES TO THE SITUATION
PRESENTED BY THE FACTS OF THIS PREMISES TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING FROM THE OUTSIDE
AN OFFICER COULD HAVE PERCEIVED THAT TO BE NOTHING MORE THAN A SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE AND IF THE DOOR THEY KNOCKED ON THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND THE DOOR
HAPPENED TO OPEN, THE OFFICER WOULD NEVER THINK THAT THEY COULD SIMPLY JUST
WALK IN, CORRECT? SO SOMEHOW BECAUSE PEOPLE OF LESSER MEANS ARE SHARING THE
RESIDENCE WITH PARTIALLY MORE SECURED PLACES AND SOME MORE SHARED SPACES, SOMEHOW
THEIR RIGHTS TO PRIVACY ARE DIFFERENT AND LESS? THAT'S ESSENTIALLY THE POSITION
THAT THE STATE IS TAKING IS IT NOT? VALERIA DOMINGUEZ: NO, YOUR
HONOR. WE'RE NOT ASKING THIS COURT TO TREAT TENANTS OF BOARDING HOUSES
DIFFERENTLY THAN TENANTS OF ANY OTHER MULTI UNIT DWELLINGS. WE'RE JUST SIMPLY SAYING
THAT THERE'S A DISTINCTION BETWEEN BOARDING HOUSES AND OTHER TIMES OF
MULTI UNIT DWELLINGS AND PRIVATE RESIDENCES. WHEN AN OFFICER KNOCKS ON A PRIVATE
RESIDENCE DOOR EVEN IF IT'S UNLOCKED IT REVEALS A LIVING SPACE. IN THIS CASE WE
HAD THE OFFICER LOOKING FROM THE EXTERIOR THINKING THIS IS A TWO STORY ATTACHED
ROW HOUSE, THIS COULD BE A BOARDING HOUSE. HE KNOCKS ON THE DOOR, IT'S PAD
LOCKED. BECAUSE HE'S WORKED IN TRENTON FOR IDENTIFIER TEN YEARS HE'S BEEN IN
OTHER BOARDING HOUSES, THIS IS A BOARDING HOUSE. JUSTICE ALBIN:
HE COULD HAVE JUST AS EASILY HAVE BEEN WALKING INTO THEIR KITCHEN OR THEIR
LIVING ROOM. THESE BOARDING HOUSES ARE BMG SINGLE FAMILY HOW'S THAT HAVE BEEN CONVERTED.
ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THAT THOSE INDIVIDUAL ROOMS, EIGHT BY EIGHT,
THEY'RE JUST BEDROOMS. THEY'RE COMMON SHARING, THE LIVING ROOM, THE KITCHEN AND
OTHER COMMON AREAS. SO WHEN THEY COME IN, THERE COULD BE PEOPLE IN THEIR NIGHT
CLOTHES OR WHATEVER. AM I NOT MISTAKEN? AS THEY'RE ENTERING AS THOUGH THEY HAVE
THE RULE OF THE ROOST. VALERIA DOMINGUEZ: IN THE ONCOMING
HALLWAYS IN PARTICULAR YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE OTHER OCCUPANTS ACCESSING THOSE
HALLWAYS, VISITORS, OTHER PEOPLE. SO YOU MIGHT EXPECT PRIVACY BUT IT'S NOT
REASONABLE TO EXPECT THAT WHEN YOU KNOW THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE THAT HAVE ACCESS
TO THAT AREA AND YOU CAN'T LOCK ACCESS TO THOSE HALLWAYS YOU'RE NOT IN POSSESSION.
JUSTICE LA VECCHIA: THE SAME COULD BE TRUE OF ANY EXTERIOR
APARTMENT SPACE SHARED BY MULTIPLE PEOPLE AND THE OFFICERS CAN'T JUST WALK INTO
THE APARTMENT BECAUSE MORE THAN ONE PERSON UNRELATED BY BLOOD HAPPEN TO
LIVE THERE. NOW, OF COURSE IF ONE CONSENTS TO ENTRY YOU HAVE ENTRY BY CONSENT,
YOU WON'T HAVE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES BUT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN WHETHER OR
NOT THE LAW PERMITS THE OFFICER TO SIMPLY WALK THROUGH THE DOOR BECAUSE THE DOOR
OPENS WHEN KNOCKED ON. VALERIA DOMINGUEZ: CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR,
THE OFFICER CAN WALK INTO THE APARTMENT AND WE'VE NEVER SUGGESTED THAT AN
OFFICER CAN WALK INTO THE ROOMS INCH IT'S JUST THAT OUR POSITION THAT THEY CAN
ABSOLUTELY ACCESS JUST LIKE ANY OTHER VISITOR COULD THE HALLWAYS, THE MONS.
JUSTICE PIERRE-LOUIS: IT'S REALLY NOT ANY OTHER VISITOR.
I THINK JUSTICE ALBIN ALSO MENTIONED THIS IS NOT OPENED TO THE WORLD. THERE ARE
A CERTAIN NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE. CERTAINLY THEY MIGHT HAVE
VISITORS THAT COME BUT IT'S NOT THE CASE THAT THIS IS A PUBLIC BUILDING THAT THEY'RE
GOING TO BE TONS OF PEOPLE WALKING AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT. I DON'T THINK, YOU
KNOW, SOMEBODY LIVING IN ONE OF THESE ROOMING HOUSES EXPECT THAT WHEN THEY LEAVE
TO GO TAKE A SHOWER AND ACCESS THIS HALLWAY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE MET WITH
PEOPLE FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC JUST WALKING AROUND THE SPACE. I JUST THINK
THERE'S CERTAINLY A DISTINCTION THE FACT THAT THESE ROOMS WERE NOT JUST ROOMS,
THEY'RE NOT APARTMENTS WHERE THERE IS A CONTAINED UNIT THAT HAVE A KITCHEN
AND A BATHROOM. THESE PEOPLE HAVE TO LEAVE THEIR SMALL ROOM IN ORDER TO ACCESS
SPACES THAT THEY NEED IN ORDER TO FUNCTION AND LIVE IN THIS PLACE. SO I
MEAN THE IDEA THAT ANYONE COULD BE IN THE HALLWAY AT ANY TIME I'M NOT SURE WHERE
THAT ARGUMENT GOES BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A PLACE THAT'S OPEN TO JUST ANY AND
EVERYONE FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC. THERE'S A DOOR. THERE'S AN OUTSIDE DOOR WHETHER
IT'S LOCKED OR UNLOCKED THERE'S A DOOR. TLILSZ NOT A PLACE THAT IS ACCESSIBLE
TO EVERYONE. WOULDN'T UNAGREE. VALERIA DOMINGUEZ: YES. IT
MIGHT NOT BE FREE FLOWING TRAFFIC BUT THERE'S ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY THAT
OTHER PEOPLE THAT YOU DON'T KNOW, MAYBE THAT YOU DON'T EVEN WANT MIGHT STILL BE
IN THE HALLWAYS BECAUSE YOU'RE RENTING THE ROOM AND BOARDING HOUSE YOU'RE RENTING
A ROOM IN THE APARTMENT BUILDING. YOU CAN'T CONTROL WHO ACCESSES THE HALLWAY.
YOU COULDN'T CONTROL IT ANOTHER TENANT HAD ALLOWED HER, HEARD THE OFFICERS KNOCK
AND ALLOWED THE OFFICER TO COME IN. YOU MIGHT NOT BE EXCESSIVE TRAFFIC
BUT CERTAINLY THERE MIGHT BE SOME THAT CAN'T BE WHEN YOU'RE RENTING A ROOM
OR AN APARTMENT OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF IF YOU'RE LIVING IN A MULTI UNIT DWELLINGS
IT'S CERTAINLY NOT UNSUSPECTED THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE OTHER PEOPLE ACCESSING.
CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM THE CONSENT THAT
A ROOM MIGHT OFFER IN A POLICE OFFICER KNOCKS. THE LOGICAL EXTENSION OF YOUR
ARGUMENT IF I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY IF YOU HAVE NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF
PRIVACY AN OFFICER CAN SIMPLY COME UP, OPEN THE DOOR AND WALK IN AT ANY TIME?
VALERIA DOMINGUEZ: YES, YOUR HONOR. IN THIS CASE WE HAVE THE
UNSECURED FRONT DOOR WHERE WE HAVE THE INTERIOR DOORS THAT WERE LOCKED AND THE
OFFICER -- TO HIM BASED ON HIS EXPERIENCE AGAIN THIS WAS A BOARDING HOUSE
AND IN ORDER -- JUSTICE SOLOMON: DO WE KNOW WHETHER THAT
FRONT DOOR WAS ALWAYS KEPT OPENED? DO WE KNOW, AND DOES THAT MATTER, THAT'S MY
FIRST QUESTION. VALERIA DOMINGUEZ: IT'S OUR POSITION THAT IT
DOESN'T MATTER THAT EVEN IF THIS DOOR WAS ALWAYS LOCKED, IF THIS IS A BOARDING HOUSE
IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A MULTI UNIT DWELLINGS, THERE'S NO EXPECTATION OF
PRIVACY, REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN THOSE COMMON AREAS. IN REGARDING
TO WHAT THE RECORD, WHAT WE KNOW IN THE RECORD WE DON'T KNOW. WE KNOW THAT ON THE
TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS THAT THE OFFICER ENTERED THIS PARTICULAR BOARDING HOUSE
THE DOOR WASN'T LOCKED AND IT WAS UNSECURED IN ANY WAY. BUT WE DON'T KNOW IF
IT WAS ROUTINELY KEPT UNLOCKED OR LOCKED. JUSTICE ALBIN: SO,
COUNSEL, I HAD REFERRED TO THE REGULATIONS. I'M JUST GOING TO READ IT TO
YOU. IN TERMS OF WHAT THE LEGISLATURE HAD IN MIND IN TERMS OF THE REASONABLE
EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY OF THE RESIDENTS OF A ROOMING HOUSE AND IT'S THE MAIN ENTRANCE
DOOR SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH AN EXTERIOR DOORBELL AUDIBLE THROUGHOUT THE
BUILDING WHEN IN USE. LIKE, WHAT IS THE COMMON PURPOSE OF A
DOORBELL? I MEAN THE DOORBELL IS A SIGNAL TO PEOPLE TO COME TO THE FRONT DOOR AND
DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO PERMIT ENTRY AND THIS IS THROUGHOUT THE BUILDING TO
ANYONE. AND THERE'S A REQUIREMENT THAT THERE BE A LOCKED AND THAT THE DOOR BE CLOSED.
ALL THE REGULATIONS IN THE STATUTE SUGGEST THAT THE LEGISLATURE WHAT'S CONCERNED
ABOUT THE PRIVACY. THEY ACTUALLY SAY THAT IN THE STATUTE, PRIVACY AND YOU'RE NOT
HAVING ANY LESSER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THAN ANYONE ELSE. DOESN'T THAT
SUGGEST THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY. FORGET ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL TO PROTECT THE PRIVACY
INTERESTS OF THE RESIDENTS OF A ROOMING HOUSE. VALERIA
DOMINGUEZ: WE'VE NEVER SUGGESTED THAT THEY DON'T HAVE AN REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF
PRIVACY TO THEIR ROOMS, BUT JUST THAT THEY DON'T HAVE IT IN THE COMMON HALLWAYS
AND EVEN THOUGH THERE MIGHT BE A DOORBELL TO ALERT, YOU KNOW, THE TENANTS OF ANY
PRESENCE OUTSIDE, IT DOESN'T TAKE AWAY FROM THE FACT THAT WE'RE STILL TALKING
ABOUT COMMON AREAS THAT ARE ACCESSIBLE AND VISIBLE TO OTHER PEOPLE AND THAT OTHER
PEOPLE ONCE THEY -- YES, YOUR HONOR. JUSTICE PIERRE-LOUIS:
SO ISN'T THAT AS JUSTICE LAVECCHIA MENTIONED TREATING PEOPLE WITH LESSER
MEANS DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO CAN ONLY AFFORD TO LIVE IN A PLACE
WHERE THEY CAN'T AFFORD AN APARTMENT WHERE THEY WOULD HAVE A SELF CONTAINED UNIT
THAT HAS THEIR OWN BATHROOM AND KITCHEN AND LIVING AREA. THEY'RE LIVING IN
A PLACE WHERE THEY CAN ONLY AFFORD A SMALL ROOM WHERE THEY HAVE TO SHARE A BATHROOM
AND SHARE A KITCHEN AND LIVING AREAS WITH OTHER INDIVIDUALS. THAT'S DIFFERENT
FROM AN APARTMENT BUILDING, YOU AGREE THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM AN APARTMENT
BUILDING. VALERIA DOMINGUEZ: YES, YOUR HONOR. JUSTICE
PIERRE-LOUIS: SO ISN'T THAT TREATING THESE PEOPLE WITH LESSER MEANS DIFFERENTLY.
IN ORDER FOR SOMEBODY TO BE IN A ROOMING HOUSE TO USE A BATHROOM THEY'RE
POTENTIALLY EXPOSING THEMSELVES TO OFFICERS WALKING AROUND AND PEEKING INTO
THEIR ROOMS BECAUSE BASED ON YOUR ARRANGEMENT AN OFFICER CAN WALK IN AND
OUT OF A ROOMING HOUSE AS THEY PLEASE AT ANY GIVEN TIME. VALERIA
DOMINGUEZ: A FEW RESPONSES, YOUR HONOR. WE'RE NOT ASKING THIS COURT TO TREAT TENANTS
AGAIN OF BOARDING HOUSES DIFFERENTLY THAN ANY OTHER RESIDENT OF ANY OTHER
MULTI UNIT DWELLINGS AND ALSO NOTE THAT IN THIS CASE WE HAVE THE OFFICERS MERELY
ACCESSING THE HALLWAY TO KNOCK ON THE INDIVIDUAL DOORS. THEY'RE NOT PEEKING
INTO ROOMS, THE TWO -- THE TWO FEMALE TENANTS THE DIRECTIONS WERE LIMITED TO TWO
QUESTIONS. DO YOU LIVE WITH AMEN AND HAVE YOU HEARD ANYTHING AND THERE'S
NO OBLIGATION FOR THEM TO NLS A THE DOOR, OF COURSE, SO THEY WEREN'T PEEKING IN
AND WEREN'T ENGAGING IN ANY DETAILED SEARCH OF ANY TYPE. THEY WERE SIMPLY
ACCESSING THE HALLWAYS TO KNOCK ON THE DOORS TO ALERT THE TENANTS TO THEIR -- TO.
JUSTICE ALBIN: THEY COULD HAVE RANG THE DOORBELL. AND TO FOLLOW
UP ON JUSTICE PIERRE-LOUIS'S QUESTION, THE STATUTES THAT I HAVE REFERRED TO HAVE
BEEN SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE POOR, THE ELDERLY
AND DISABLED BECAUSE THAT'S THE COMMUNITY THAT TYPICALLY BENEFIT FROM ROOMING IN
BOARDING HOUSES AND THE LEGISLATURE WANT TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT THAT CONES
IS IT CHEW END SEE OF PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO WIND UP IN THESE HOUSES WERE GOING
TO HAVE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL AND PRIVACY RIGHTS PROTECTED. AM I NOT MISTAKEN?
VALERIA DOMINGUEZ: YES. BUT GIVEN THE POPULATION OF BOARDING
HOUSES THEY WOULD ALSO WANT THE POLICE TO HAVE ACCESS TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER OR NOT
A TENANT MAY BE ARMED, MAY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN A SHOOTING. SURELY THEY
WOULD WANT TO ALLOW. JUSTICE ALBIN: THEY CAN CALL THEM WHEN YOU
HAVE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES YOU CAN ENTER BUT YOU'VE LAID YOUR ARGUMENT OUT ON
WHETHER OR NOT A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY AT THE FRONT DOOR, THAT'S.
VALERIA DOMINGUEZ: YES, YOUR HONOR. AS TO THE DOORBELL THERE'S
NOTHING IN THIS RECORD SUGGESTING THAT THERE WAS A DOORBELL. I UNDERSTAND
THAT IT'S REQUIRED IN THE REGULATIONS BUT THE OFFICER KNOCKED ON THE DOORS TO INDICATE
THAT -- IT SEEMS THERE WASN'T A DOORBELL. HAD THERE BEEN ONE SURELY HE
WOULD HAVE RUNG IT. HE DID KNOCK ON THE DOOR AND AT THAT POINT IT WAS APPARENTLY
TO HIM IT WAS A BOARDING HOUSE AND IN ORDER TO ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO PEAK WITH
THE TENANTS KNOCKING ON THE FRONT DOOR IS NOT GOING TO ALERT ANYONE OF THEIR PRESENCE.
CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: AREN'T WE SPECULATING AS YOU MAKE THAT
ARGUMENT? WE DON'T HAVE A RECORD ON THAT POINT. VALERIA
DOMINGUEZ: RIGHT, RIGHT, YES, YOUR HONOR. WE DON'T HAVE A RECORD REGARDING THE
DOORBELL. JUSTICE ALBIN: IF ANYTHING WE SHOULD PRESUME THAT
THERE IS ONE SINCE THE LAW REQUIRES ONE. VALERIA DOMINGUEZ: YES,
RIGHT THERE'S NOTHING IN THE RECORD REGARDING THAT. CHIEF
JUSTICE RABNER: TO BE CLEAR THERE'S NOT AN ALLEGATION THAT THE POLICE ACTED IN BAD FAITH
IN THIS CASE, AM I CORRECT? VALERIA DOMINGUEZ: YES, YOUR HONOR.
CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: IT'S JUST A STRAIGHTFORWARD LEGAL QUESTION
AS TO WHAT PROTECTIONS APPLY TO THIS DWELLING? VALERIA
DOMINGUEZ: YES. AND THEN IT'S OUR POSITION THAT THERE'S NO SIGNIFICANT
DISTINCTION BETWEEN BOARDING HOUSES AND ANY OTHER TYPE OF MULTI UNIT DWELLINGS
AND THE COURTS HAVE ALREADY RECOGNIZED THAT THERE IS A DIMINISHED EXPECTATION OF
PRIVACY OR NONE AT ALL IN COMMON HALLWAYS OF OTHER MULTI UNIT DWELLINGS.
SO WE WOULD ASK THIS COURT THAT THERE'S NO REASON TO DISTINGUISH COMMON HALLWAYS.
BOARDING HOUSES FROM ANY OTHER TYPE OF MULTI UNIT DWELLINGS.
CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: THANK YOU, MS. DOMINGUEZ. MABLG NO DISTINCTION
BETWEEN AN IN AND ERS STATE IN A EF FLUNLTS ESTATES ARN A RANG EL IN AN I AM POF
RISHD SITS I THE OCCUPANTS OF BOTH STRUCTURES ARE CLOAKED WITH THE SAME
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. YET HERE, THE STATE PETITIONER SEEKS TO
STRIP A GROUN OF CITIZENS OF THE VERY SAME CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS
THAT THE COURT SPOKE OF IN BROWN, SPECIFICALLY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND ARTICLE
1 PARAGRAPH 7 MERELY BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT THEY LIVE IN BOARDING
AND ROOMING HOUSES. THE APPELLATE DIVISION ALREADY CORRECTLY RULED IN THIS CASE
THAT WHEN AN OFFICER CONDUCTION A WARRANTLESS IN DISTRIBUTION THROUGH
THE FRONT DOOR OF A BOARDING OR ROOMING HOUSE, THOSE CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVACY PROTECTIONS
APPLY WITH EQUAL FORCE. THAT IS, THOSE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WINT HOME
DON'T SOMEHOW DISAPPEAR BY VIRTUE OF ONE'S STATUS AS A RESIDENCE IN A BOARDING
OR ROOLING HOUSE. THIS COURT SHOULD AFFIRM THE APPELLATE DIVISIONS COGENT AND
WELL REEND DECISION FOR FOUR FUNDAMENTAL REASONS. FIRST, THE SHARED
LIVING SPACES WITHIN A BOARDING AND ROOMING HOUSE ARE PART OF THE HOME ITSELF
AND THEREFORE ARE SUBJECT TO OUR SACROCRANK CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVACY
PROTECTIONS AND HAVE ALWAYS APPLIED TO THE HOME. SECOND, AND INTERRELATEDLY,
BECAUSE A BOESHDING OR ROOMING HOUSE IS NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, TENANTS OF
THESE TYPES OF HOMES ENJOY A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY WITHIN THEIR
HOMES. THIRD, THE MERE FABLTHS THAT HERE THE FRONT DOORS
LOCK WAS EITHER UNLOKTD OR MALFUNCTIONING ON THE PARTICULAR DALT IN QUESTION
IS NOT DISPOSITIVE AND DOES NOT SERVE TO VITIATE THE TENANTS' CONSTITUTIONAL
PROOIFS SEE RIGHTS. AND FOURTH, THIS COURT SHOULD AFFIRM THE APPELLATE DIVISION
S DECISION BECAUSE A RULING TO THE CONTRARY WOULD DIFFICULTIES PRO
POSHGS NATLY IMPACT OUR MOST EM POF RISHD ELDERLY AND DANLD CITIZENS. FOR EACH
OF THESE REASONS THIS COURT SHOULD AFRNL THE APPELLATE DIVISIONS DECISION. THAT
CONCLUDES MY OWNING REMARKS NOW TURNING TO MY FIRST POINT
JUSTICE PATTERSON: A QUESTION FOR YOU MISS FREED MAN GIVE
US A PRINCIPAL DIFFICULT STINGS IF YOU WOULD BETWEEN APARTMENTS AS TO WHICH THIS
COURT HAS ALREADY RULED THAT THE COMMON AREAS THERE IS NO REASONABLE
EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY ON THE PART OF THE RESIDENTS, AND THE BOARDING HOUSES SO
IF YOU WERE SKTD TO DIFFERENTIATE THOSE TWO AND WHATEVER YOUR VIEWS MAYBE
ABOUT APARTMENTS WE ASSUME THAT'S THE LAW IN NEW JERSEY. MICHELE E.
FRIEDMAN: OKAY. SO APARTMENT BUILDINGS CONTAIN MULTIPLE SELF CONTAINED HOMES
IN THAT EACH APARTMENT IS ITS OWN SELF CONTAINED HOME. AN APARTMENT ITSELF
CONTAINS A BATHROOM WITH ITS OWN RUNG WATER, THERE IS A SHOWER WITHIN AN APARTMENT,
THERE IS A STOVE RGS AN OFF EVEN USUALLY A KITCHEN WITHIN ITSELF YOU KNOW
WITHIN ITS OWN RIGHT. THERE IS A BEDROOM. SO AN INDIVIDUAL IN THEIR OWN APARTMENT
DOESN'T NEED TO LEAVE THE APARTMENT ITSELF IN ORDER TO ACCESS THE BASIC LIVING
FUNCTIONS. JUSTICE PATTERSON: MANY APPEARANCES HAVE COMMON
LAUNDRY AREAS OBVIOUSLY THAT'S A FUNCTION THAT PEOPLE HAVE TO HAVE. MANY APARTMENTS
IT IS NOT IN AN INDIVIDUAL UNIT. YOU GO TO THAT COMMON AREA DOWNSTAIRS AND
THAT'S WHERE WE TALK ABOUT A PRINCIPAL DISTINCTION WHY ISN'T THE LAUNDRY AREA
PUT THE APARTMENT IN THE SAME CATEGORY AS THE ROOMING AS THE ROOMING OR BOARDING
HOUSE WHICH I AGREE WITH YOU HAVE MANY MORE COMMON FUNCTIONS THAN THE
APARTMENT. MICHELE E. FRIEDMAN: SO I THINK THAT THE
LAUNDRY ROOM IS AN EXCELLENT POINT. I THINK THAT THE LAUNDRY ROOM IN AN APARTMENT
BUILDING IS A LITTLE PIT OF A GRAY AREA AND I THINK THAT SOME APARTMENT
BUILDINGS DON'T NECESSARILY FIT INTO A BLACK OR WHITE CATEGORY. I THINK THAT WE
DO HAVE SOME GRAY AREAS WHICH I THINK IS WHY SOME OF OUR APARTMENT AND MULTI
BUILDING CASES I THINK THAT THE LAW IS A LITTLE BIT UNCLEAR. I DON'T THINK IT'S
AS I THINK THAT THE BLACK LETTER LAW ABOUT MULTI UNIT DWELLINGS ISN'T AS CLEAR
AS WE MIGHT THINK ON ITS FACE WHICH IS WHY MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE A TOTALITY
OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES TEST FOR SOME APARTMENT BUILDINGS LIKE ONES THAT HAVE
LAUNDRY ROOMS. JUSTICE PATTERSON: YOU ARE MAKING THAT
ARGUMENT FOR POTENTIALLY ANOTHER CASE BUT. MICHELE E. FRIEDMAN: YES.
JUSTICE PATTERSON: YOU ARE ESSENTIALLY GREEG THAT THERE ARE
AREAS THERE ARE STRONG AREAS OF SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE TYPE OF HOMES THAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT TODAY AND APARTMENTS. MICHELE E. FRIEDMAN:
NO, YOUR HONOR. I AM MERELY SUGGESTING THAT THERE COULD BE A CASE FOR ANOTHER
DAY THAT MAYBE IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE NOT PRESENTED HERE THAT SOME APARTMENT
BUILDINGS ON FACTS THAT ARE NOT PRESENTED MIGHT SHARE SIMILARITIES TO OTHER
-- TO OTHER HOMES. NOT PRESENTED HERE. AND I ONLY SAY THAT TO -- I ONLY SAY
THAT TO SUGGEST THAT NOT ALL APARTMENT BUILDINGS FIT IN A SIMPLE BOX. THERE
ARE LARGE APARTMENT BUILDINGS, YOU KNOW THERE'S SO MANY DIFFERENT TYPES AND I THINK
THAT THE CASE LAW ISN'T AS CLEAR AS ONE MIGHT THINK ON ITS FACE BECAUSE EVEN
JEFFERSON AND SANITY YOEN STANDS FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT INDIVIDUALS WHO LIVE
IN AN APARTMENT BUILDINGS DO IN FACT HAVE A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY WITHIN
MULTI UNIT AND APARTMENT BUILDINGS IN COMMON AREAS. SO WHILE I DO
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT OUR CASE LAW GENERALLY SUPPORTS THE PROPOSITION THAT INDIVIDUALS
IN APARTMENT BUILDINGS DO NOT HAVE A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY,
IN APARTMENT BUILDINGS IN THEIR COMMON AREAS, I DO THINK THAT OUR CASE LAW IS NOT
AS CLEAR AS IT COULD BE AND THAT THIS COURT HAS NOT SQUARELY ADDRESSED THE
ISSUE. JUSTICE SOLOMON: CAN THE SAME BE SAID OF ROOMING AND
BEARDING HOMES? YOU MENTIONED THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES TEST. DOES IT
WOULDN'T IT MATTER IF IN A PARTICULAR CASE BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT'S CONSTRUCTED,
LAID OUT OR USED, THAT A ROOMING HOUSE OR BOARDING HOUSE MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENT
CONFIGURATION AND/OR EXPECTATION THAN ANOTHER ONE? FOR EXAMPLE, IF IN FACT
THERE WERE FACILITIES THAT WERE -- LET US JUST SAY I ASKED THE QUESTION BEFORE.
YOU TALKED ABOUT THE FRONT DOOR WHETHER IT'S LOCK UNLOCKED DOORBELL NO
DOORBELL WAS IT COMMON FOR DELIVERYMEN AND OTHERS TO SGLIEMENT COMMONLY ENTER WITHOUT
KNOCKING OR RIDGEING THE BELL TO DELIVER, TO REMOVE, TO VISIT, TO MAYBE EVEN
OBSERVE, LOOK AT A ROOM WITH THE IDEA OF POSSIBLY RENTING IT. AND WHAT I'M TRYING
TO FLESH OUT IS JUST AS YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT IN THE CASE OF AN APARTMENT
COMPLEXS A LOT OF THEM ARE DIFFERENT AND THEY MAY HAVE DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS.
CAN THE SAME BE SAID OF BOREING HOUSES AND ROOMING HOUSES AND SHOULD THERE BE
A TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES TEST REQUIRING INDIVIDUALIZED ASSESSMENT
OF THE FACILITY, OF THE LOCATION OF THE HOME? MICHELE E.
FRIEDMAN: I DON'T THINK SO, YOUR HONOR. AND HERE'S WHY. I THINK THAT AT THE
END OF THE DAY A BOARDING HOUSE BOARDING HOUSES AND ROOMING HOUSES ARE REALLY
SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND FRM I KNOW THAT THE STATUTES ARE KIND OF CONVOLUTED BUT AT
THE END OF THE DAY WHAT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT IS A SELF -- FOR A
BOARDING HOUSE IS A SELF CONTAINED HOME WHERE EACH INDIVIDUAL IS ASSIGNED TO SLEEP
IN A SEPARATE BEDROOM BUT THEY ARE SHARING THE REMAINING ROOMS IN THE HOUSE
WITH EACH OTHER. FOR A BOARDING HOUSE THEY ALSO ARE ENTITLE TO PERSONAL OR FINANCIAL
GOES SERVICES. JUSTICE SOLOMON: THIS WAS RAISED IN SOME OF
THE BRIEFS TOO. MICHELE E. FRIEDMAN: YES. JUSTICE
SOLOMON: AND THERE MAYBE SOME CASE LAW ON IT AS WELL THAT FOR EXAMPLE IN A FRATERNITY
OR A SOR ROR TEE WHERE YOU FIRST I DON'T KNOW IF YOU EVER LIVED IN ONE I
AM NOT SUGGESTING I MAY HAVE IN THE PAST, YOU ENTER A FRATERNITY OR SOR ROR TEE
AND THE OPEN AREA AT THE ENTRANCE WAY WHICH IS ALWAYS OPEN SO THAT PROVES
ORS COME IN AND OUT STUDENTS COME IN AND OUT DELIVERY PEOPLE COME IN AND OUT THERE
IS A LIVING ROOM AND A KITCHEN AND A DINING AREA AND THEN YOU GO UP TO THE
HALLWAY PAT FAT SPROFRS ORS WERE COMING FLAN OUT OF YOUR FRATERNITY HOUSE JUST
SOLOMON. JUSTICE SOLOMON: I DIDN'T SUGGEST THAT THIS PERTAINS
IN ANY WAY TO ME OR MY PERSONAL HISTORY I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT. I AM JUST SUGGESTING
THAT THAT COULD BE A STRUCTURE. WOULD THAT HAVE THE SAME PROTECTION OR
LACK OF PROTECTION AS THE ROOMING HOUSE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE THEY ARE
ESSENTIALLY CONSTRUCTED IN THE SAME FASHION. MICHELE E.
FRIEDMAN: WELL, THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY NEXT POINT. BUT I AM NOT GOING TO.
JUSTICE SOLOMON: OKAY. MICHELE E. FRIEDMAN: SAY THAT.
JUSTICE SOLOMON: I REETD YOUR MIND. MICHELE E.
FRIEDMAN: I AM NOT GOING TO SAY THAT FROFRS ORS SHUB KONL NANL OUT. WHAT I AM
TRYING TO SAY IS THAT THIS IS NOT A NEW PAR DIME THAT EVEN THOUGH SOME OF
US ON THIS VIRTUAL CALL MAY NOT HAVE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH BOARDING AND ROOM
ING HOUSES, THAT REALLY THIS IS THE SAME OLD PAR DIME THAT THIS IS THE SAME
TYPE OF SITUATION AS FRIENDS WHO MIGHT BE RENTING OUT A HOUSE, OFTEN TIMES WE SEE
THIS WITH MA LIEN YALS IN LIKE THE HOBOKEN JERSEY CITY AREA, YOU KNOW THEY'RE
SLEEPING IN SEPARATE BRMS BUT THEY ARE OTHERWISE SLARG THE KIFRM EARN THE DINING
ROOM THE BATHROOM THIS IS THE SAME PAR DIME AS FRIENDS WHO MIGHT BE RENTING
A BEEFRP HOME OR A LAKE HOUSE, THERE'S SGLIEFRNLTS THEY'RE SLEEPING IN SEPARATE
BRNLS BUT THEY ARE OTHERWISE SHARING THE COMMON AREAS. JUSTICE
SOLOMON: HOW FW A FRATERNITY OR SOR TEE. MICHELE E. FRIEDMAN:
I WOULD SAY IT IS THE SAME ALS A FRATERNITY OR A SOR ROR TEE HOUSE AS
WELL BECAUSE THEY ARE SLEENG IN SPRAT WRNLS BUT THEY ARE OTHERWISE SHARING THE SHARED
LIVING SPACES. AND SO THIS THERE'S NOTHING NEW OR UNIQUE ABOUT THIS. AND SO
CONTRARY TO THE STATE'S ASSERTION, THE MERE FACT THAT INDIVIDUALS ARE SHARING
SOME OF THE ROOMS IN THE HOUSE DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MAKE AN INDIVIDUAL FOREFIGHT
THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVACY RIGHTS BECAUSE IT IS NOT ABOUT THE SHARING
OF THE ROOMS BUT RATHER IT IS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPERTY IS OPEN TO THE
PUBLIC. NOW, YOUR EXAMPLE ABOUT THE PROVES ORS COMING IN AND OUT, THAT
SOUNDS IN OTHER ABOUT WHETHER IT HINGES ON WHETHER IT WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC WHICH
SOUNDS LIKE A SPRAT ISSUE. AND I THINK THAT BRINGS PLEA TO MY SEK POINT
INL KNOW THE SURE IF I AND IT ISED YOUR HONOR'S QUESTION FULLY.
JUSTICE SOLOMON: IT IS A CASE BY CASE ANALYSIS DOES IT DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE
PROPERTY THE PROPERTY IS IN FACT OWN TO THE PUBLIC BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE
SAME AS A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. IS THAT HOW WE SHOULD ANALYZE THIS AND LOOK
AT THIS? MICHELE E. FRIEDMAN: I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT
SHUB CASE BY CASE ANALYSIS BECAUSE THE STATE IS ARGUEING FOR A CAT GOR CALIFORNIA
RULE THAT ALL BOARDING AND ROOMING HOUSES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED OPEN TO THE
PUBLIC BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT THEY ARE FWOERING AND ROOMING HOUSZ EAST.
JUSTICE SOLOMON: LETSD' ASSUME TLER WRONG FOR A MINUTE SHOULDN'T IT BE
A CASE BY CASE ANALYSIS I AM NOT TAKING ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER I AM JUDGE US
SAYING YOUR ARGUMENT SHOULD IT NOT BE A CASE BY CASE ANALYSIS SO THAT YOU CAN CONSIDER
WHAT IN FACT IS THE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN THIS PLACE THAT IS NOT THE SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING IT IS CLEARLY NOT SOMEBODY'S HOME IN FACT THE LANDLORD CLEARLY
MAY NOT EVEN LIVE THERE AND THE LETHD YOU ARE HAD TO PASS LAWS TO TELL LLDZ
OF THESE PLACES TO PROVIDE SOME MODICUM OF SECURITY FOR THEIR RESIDENTS. SO WHAT
SHOULD BE THE STANDARD ARN HOW SHOULD BE APPLY IT? MICHELE E.
FRIEDMAN: SO I THINK THAT THE STANDARD SHOULD BE THAT BOARDING AND ROOMING HOUSES
ARE NOT EP ONTO THE PUBLIC. I GUESS IN SOME -- THERE CAN BE SOME EXCEPTIONS
TO THAT IN REALLY REALLY OUTRAGEOUS OUT LAND I SHALL CASES. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IN
CITY OF EVERY AND SON V. HOB KINS THIS WAS IN ILLINOIS CASE FROM 1947, THERE
WAS A HOME THAT WAS -- IT TLANL TURNED OUT TO BE A ROCK BUT TLE WERE CALLING IT
THEY WERE HOERLDING IT OUT TO BE A ROOMING HOUSE AND THERE WAS A SIEJ OUTSIDE
THE DOOR THAT SAID PUBLIC TELEPHONE. AND IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES YOU KNOW, WAY
BEFORE CELL PHONES IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE COURT SAID OKAY, YOU CAN'T
JUST CALL SOMETHING A ROOMING HOUSE AND HAVE A SIGN OUTSIDE THAT SAYS PUBLIC TELEPHONE,
UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IT'S OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING
YOU CAN'T JUST SAY OH SOME THINGS ARE A ROOMING HOUSE THEREFORE IT IS OWN TO THE
PUBL THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME SORT OF SIGN OR INVITATION TO THE PUBLIC. YOU
KNOW WE ARE NOT -- BOARDING AND ROOMING HOUSES THEY'RE PEOPLE LIVE HERE THEY SIGNED
LISTING GREEJTS THERE IS AN SCLANG OF MONEY THEY HAVE REASONABLE
EXPECTATIONS OF PRIVACY ESPECIALLY BECAUSE AS JUSTICEAL BIN WAS INDICATING, THERE ARE
THERE IS A BOREING AND ROOMING HOUSE ANG OF 1979, THERE IS ALL OF THESE
DIFFERENT STATUTORY EXPLANATIONS FOR WHY INDIVIDUALS DO HAVE THESE PRIVACY RIGHTS
AND WE'VE TRIED TO KOD FILE THESE STATUTORY RIGHTS SO THAT WE DON'T CAR
OF VERY OUTS. JUSTICE ALBIN: MISS FREED MAFRN? THE POLICE
ALSO NEED DIRECTION IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY NEED TO DO AND SO THE MORE A MROR FUSS
AND FUZZY THE LINE THE MORE DIFFICULT IT WILL BE FOR THEM TO DECIDE WHETHER OR
NOT TO GET A WARRANT OR NOT GET A WARRANT AND THE BENEFIT OF HAVING CLEAR LINES
OF DISTINCTION IS THAT THERE WILL BE FEWER MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS WHICH WILL BENEFIT
LAW ENFORCEMENT. SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS DEFINED ROOMING AND
BOARDING HOUSES AND AS YOU ARE SKTHING TS GENERAL RULE SHOULD PERHAPS WE THAT
YOU GET A WARRANT IF THERE IS NOT AN EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT UNLESS
IN AN INDIVIDUAL CASE THE DOORS' ALWAYS OPEN, EVERYONE IN THE TOWN IS GOING TO
THE BOARDING HOUSE, THAT MIGHT BE A DIFFERENT STORY. WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT
THAT. MICHELE E. FRIEDMAN: YES, YOUR HONOR. PAT FAT I AM SORRY
PLEASE CONTINUE. JUSTICE ALBIN: GO HEAD. MICHELE
E. FRIEDMAN: OUR CONSTITUTIONAL MAN DALT IS FOR OFFICERS TO GET A WARRANT. THAT'S
WHAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES AND IT CAN'T JUST BE BARJING INTO PEOPLES'
HOMES BECAUSE THIS IS A BORE GOES HOUSE. THEY MS COULDN'T INVESTIGATED THIS OUTSIDE
OF THE HOME THEY COULD HAVE WAITED RIGHT OUTSIDE THE DOOR AND WAITED FOR
INDIVIDUALS WHO LIVED THERE TO ENTER AND EXIT AND SAY HIGH HAVE YOU HEARD ANY SHOTS
DO YOU KNOW ANYONE WHO LIVES IN THE AREA WHO HAS THE NAME LOU IS. THEY
COULD HAVE WAITED FOR SOMEONE TO ENTER OR EXIT AND SAY HIGH, WILL YOU GIVE ME CONSENT
TO SEARCH? THEY COULD HAVE GIVEN THE CONSENT TO SEARCH FORM. SO THERE ARE
OTHER WAYS TO GET INTO A HOME WITHOUT JUST ASSERTING THE HOME HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL
PROTECTION. JUSTICE PATTERSON: CAN THE RESIDENT CAN ONE
REGS TENANT DENTS OF AN I BOREING LOUS IN WHICH THERE ARE 25 RESIDENTS CONSENT TO
THE SEARCH OF COMMON AREAS ON BEHALF OF ALL THOSE RESIDENTS?
MICHELE E. FRIEDMAN: I BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD WOULD WORK THE SAME WAY AS ANY OTHER
THIRD PARTY CONSENT IN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME CASE PATS PAT DOES THAT MEAN
YES. MICHELE E. FRIEDMAN: YES YES. AS YOUR HONOR KNOWS THIRD
PARTY CONSENT IS A VERY COMPLICATED DOCTRINE BUT I BELIEVE YES.
JUSTICE PATTERSON: BUT YOU'RE ARGUEING -- HERE'S AND I'M SORRY I INTERRUPTED
YOU BEFORE. YOU'RE ARGUEING FOR A CASE BY CASE ANALYSIS TO TOTALITY
CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN IT COMES TO CERTAIN TYPES OF APARTMENTS AND YET YOU'RE ARGUE
ING FOR A BRIGHT LINE RULE AND I UNDERSTAND THE STATE'S ARGUEING FOR A BRIGHT LINE
RULE BUT THAT DOESN'T LIMIT THE OUTCOME HERE. YOU'RE ARGUEING FOR A BRIGHT LINE
RULE THAT ROOMING AND BOARDING HOUSES ALL OF THEM I GUESS IF THEY QUALIFY UNDER
THE STATUTE ARE OFF LIMITS AND YET FOR TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR APARTMENTS
THAT ARE ALSO COVERED BY MANY STACHS AND MANY REGULATIONS, SO WHY THE
DISTINCTION? MICHELE E. FRIEDMAN: THIS IS WHY, YOUR HONOR.
I WOULD LOVE TO SITS UP HERE I WOULD LIKE TO SAY STAND BUT COVER I HAD I WOULD
LOVE TO SIT HERE TODAY AND ARGUE THAT ALL INDIVIDUALS SHOULD HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL
PRIVACY PROTECTIONS IN ALL OF THEIR HOEJS BUT I HAVE TO AS AN ADVOCATE ACKNOWLEDGE
THE CASE LAW THAT EXISTS. AND I KNOW THAT A ME CHEE READS SOME OF THE CASE
LAW DIFFERENTLY THAN I DO AND REASONABLE MINDS MIGHT DIFFERENT. BUT THE WAY THAT
I READ THE CASE LAW IS THAT SOME OF THE CASE LAW IN NEW JERSEY CURRENTLY
STANDS FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT INDIVIDUALS DO NOT HAVE A REEB EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY
IN THE COMMON AREAS OF APARTMENT BUILDINGS AND SOME DO. SO AT LEAST IN
MY ESTIMATION TILL THIS COURT ^ REMEMBERING ^ WRECK SIELS THAT, IT EITHER NEEDS TO
BE THAT CASE LAW EITHER NOO EDZ TO BE OVERTURNED OR THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME SORT
OF OF TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES TEST. IMENT NOT REALLY SURE. SO AT
A MINIMUM EITHER THE APARTMENT BUILDINGS ARE DISTINGUISHABLE OR APARTMENT BUILDINGS
AT A MINIMUM NEED TO BE CONSIDERED ON A TOE TALTD OF THE BASIS TEST BECAUSE
I AT LEAST I FEEL THAT I NOO ED TO AT LEAST ACKNOWLEDGE THAT CASE LAW FOR YOUR
HONORS. I FEEL LIKE I WOULDN'T BE DOING MY SOMETHING IF I DIDN'T.
CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: WHAT ABOUT THE STANDARD THAT THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT SET
FORTH IN TIGHT US THAT PROFESSOR LA FAF SAYS IS THE BETTER COURSE IT IS
A ROOMING HOUSE GET A WARRANT UNLESS IT IS OBVIOUSLY OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
MICHELE E. FRIEDMAN: I THINK THAT THAT'S THE BEST STANDARD THE STANDARD THAT
THE APPELLATE DIVISION PROMULGATED HERE AND I THINK THAT IT MAKES THE MOST
SENSE. AS FAR AS BOREING ARN ROOMING HOUSES, IF IT IS A BOARDING OR ROOMING HOUSE
YOU GET A WARRANT BECAUSE AGAIN BOARDING AND ROOMING HOUSES ARE NOT OPEN TO
THE PUBLIC. TO JUST TAKE A STEP BACK FOR A SECOND, I KNOW WE DISCUSSED THIS A
LITTLE BIT, BUT NEW JERSEY LAW REQUIRES THAT ALL BOARDING AND ROOMING HOUSES MUST
BE LOCKABLE AND THAT EVERY ENTRANCE DOOR TO LEADING TO THE LIVING AIR AREAS
MUST BE KEPT LOCKED AT AUMG TIMES EXCEPT WHEN IN ACTUAL USE SO THAT YOU KNOW SUPPORTS
OUSH POSITION THAT BOARDING AND ROOM CAN HOUSES ARE NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
AND IF AN OUTSIDER WERE TO ACTUALLY WANDER INTO A BOARDING OR ROOMING HOUSE, YOU
KNOW LET'S SAY THAT THEY WERE TO WANDER THROUGH THE FRONT DOOR AND SIT ON
THE COUCH AND TURN ON THE TV, THAT OUTSIDER WOULD ALMOST CERTAINLY BE CHARGED
WITH TRESPASS SO AGAIN THESE ARE NOT THESE ARE NOT HOMES THAT ARE OPEN TO
THE PUBLIC. THESE ARE PRIVATE HOMES. THIS IS NOT TARGET, THIS IS NOT 711, THESE
ARE PRIVATE HOMES WHERE PEOPLE LIVE. AND THE IDEA THAT YOU KNOW, THE HOME
IS CONFINED TO THE BRNL IS SIMPLY MISPLACED. WHAT ENDS UP HAPPENING IS THAT BECAUSE
THESE BRNLS ARE SO SMALL AT SGLIET TLAT APPELLATE DIVISION DESCRIBED THIS
PARTICULAR BEDROOM IN THIS CASE WAS A SPARTAN LIKE BEDROOM. PEOPLE END UP PUTTING
THE REMAINDER OF THEIR BELONGINGS THROUGHOUT THE HOME. SO I MIGHT PUT MY
PLATES IN THE KITCHEN I MIGHT PUT MY DEE VE DEES IN THE FAMILY ROOM. SO THIS IDEA
THAT YOU DON'T HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER ANYTHING THROUGHOUT THE REMAINDER OF THE
HOME IS IT'S INCORRECT PAT FAT ONE MORE QUESTION ABOUT THE RELIANCE ON THE
STATUTE. AS YOU WERE SPEAKING I WAS TRYING TO THINK OF ANOTHER EXAMPLE. YOU KNOW
OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF STATUTES AND REGULATIONS IN NEW JERSEY
ABOUT ALL KINDS OF RESIDENCES AND IN PARTICULAR RESIDENCES THAT ARE OWNED BY LLDZ
AND RENTED OUT TO RESIDENTS WHO MAY NOT GET THE PROTECTION THEY NEED FROM
IN TERMS OF SECURITY AND OTHERWISE. BUT THE FACT THAT A STATUTE SAYS WHAT THE
STANDARD SHOULD BE, LANDLORD YOU MUST NOESHD TO OPERATE THIS RESIDENCE YOU
MUST MEET THE STANDARD, THE FACT THAT THE STATUTE SETS THAT BAR, WHY SHOULD THAT
BE THE CORRESPONDENCE TROELG THE CONTROLLING CONSIDERATION AS OPPOSED TO WHAT
IS TLANL HAPPENING? DO YOU SEE WHAT I AM SAYING? I JUST FIND IT ODD TO
SAY A FOURTH AMENDMENT STANDARD SHOULD BE BASED UPON A REGULATORY OR LEGAL STANDARD
THAT LLDZ ARE SUPPOSED TO MEET BUT IT IS NOT A PERFECT WORLD AND PRESUMABLY
MANY MANY LLDZ ARE THUMBING THEIR NO, SIRS TO THOSE ^ REMEMBERING ^ WRECK YOU ALSO
S AND STATUTES SO WHY SHOULD WE LOOK AT THE REALITY OF WHAT IS HAPPENING
IN THE INDIVIDUAL RESIDENCE RATHER THAN A VERY LAUD IBL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE COMPLIED WITH? KWOU SEE WHAT
I AM SAYING? MICHELE E. FRIEDMAN: I CERTAINLY SEE WHAT YOU
ARE SAYING, YOUR HONOR. I THINK THAT IT'S AN INFERENCE TO BE DRAWN. I THINK THAT
IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ROOMING AND BOARDING HOUSE ACT OF 1979 WHICH
PERHAPS IS MUCH MORE IMPORTANT, THAT CODIFIES THE TENANTS' RIGHTS TO PRIVACY AND
RIGHT TO NOT BE DEPRIVED OF ANY CIVIL, CONSTITUTIONAL OR LEGAL RIGHT SOLELY BY
REASON OF RESIDENCE IN A BOARDING OR ROOMING IF A FILTS. SO PERHAPS THAT
IS THE MORE IMPORTANT STATUTE PAT THE. JUSTICE PATTERSON:
I AGREE WITH YOU AS TO THAT AGS PEK BUT THERE ARE WE ALL KNOW THAT A STATUTE
SAYING THAT THERE NEWS BE A LOCK OJ A DOOR DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THERE IS A LOCK
ON THE DOOR THAT'S ALL. AS TO THE PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS, I DON'T SEE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IMPORT OF THOSE UNLESS
THEY ARE BEING COMPLIED WITH, IN WHICH CASE THEY MAYBE VERY SIGNIFICANT.
DO YOU SEE WHAT I AM SAYING? MICHELE E. FRIEDMAN: PAT PATS USUAL
TURN THAT ARTHD ON ITS LED IN MANY MANY RNLS SAYING THERE IS NO RIERJ
THEREFORE IF QUERY LYING ON STATUTES AND REGULATIONS IN A FOUSHT MEMENT CONTEXT
THERE SEEMS TO BE SOMETHING AND LIT CLI A BIT OFF TO ME. MICHELE E.
FRIEDMAN: I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, YOUR HONOR. IF WE LOOKED AT
OUT-OF-STATE CASE LAW, WE CAN LOOK AT PEOPLE V. DOUGLAS AND THAT COURT THAT WAS
A CALIFORNIA CASE, THAT COURT EXPLAINED THAT EVEN IF INDIVIDUALS CAN REASONABLY
EXPECT THAT THEIR ROOMMATES MIGHT IN FRANK UPON THEIR PROIFR SEE RIGHTS
THAT THAT DOESN'T OR EVEN THEIR GUESTS THAT THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT
OUTSIDERS OR THE POLICE CAN BECAUSE BOREING AND ROOMING HOUSES ARE NOT
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. SO THAT CASE BY WAY OF ANALOGY I KNOW IT IS NOT A PERFECT FIT
AND OBVIOUSLY IT IS NOT STATUTORY, BUT BY WAY OF ANALOGY I THINK THAT THAT
CASE WOULD BE HELPFUL AND IT IS SOMEWHAT ANALOGOUS TO SOME OF OUR CASE LAW
BECAUSE OUR CASE LAW IN NEW JERSEY HAS ALWAYS RECOGNIZED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
SOMEONE SOMEWHAT INFRINGING UPON RIGHTS AND JUST A CART BLAN MUCH INFRINGEMENT
SO FOR EXAMPLE IN STATE VERSUS HAM WELL THIS COURT RECOGNIZED THAT WHEN I PUT MY
GAR BARJ OUT ON THE STREET, I MIGHT REASONABLY EXPECT THAT UNFORTUNATELY
SOMEONE MIGHT BE PICKING MY TRASH BUT IT DOZEN FLOO EVEN THAT THE POLICE CAN GO
THROUGH IT. SO I KNOW IT IS NOT A PERFECT SET MAYBE INL KNOW THE ANSWERING
YOUR YOUR HONOR'S QUESTION FRLYAL ALT COUNSEL I TAKE IT THAT YOU'VE PRESENTED THE
1979 ROOMING AND BOARDING HOUSE ACT. JUSTICE ALBIN: NOT TO
SAY IT IS BEING ALL AND END ALL FOR OUR DETERMINATION WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS
A REEB EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION OR THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION, BUT IT IS EVIDENCE THAT THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED TO CONFER OR EXPECT
A REASONABLE SPEB TAGS OF PRIVACY ON THE RESIDENTS OF BOARDING AND ROOM
ING HOUSES. AM I CORRECT ABOUT THAT. MICHELE E. FRIEDMAN: YES YES, YOUR
HONOR EXACTLY. THAT WE CAN'T KNOW FOR SURE WHAT PEOPLE ARE DOING AND WE
CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT PEOPLE WILL BE PERFECT IN EXECUTING THE LAWS PERFECTLY BUT
WE CAN SURELY GLEAN FROM THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT WHAT THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED
FOR. AND SO HERE FROM THE ROOMING AND BOREING HOUSE ACT OF 1979, WE SURELY CAN
GLEAN FROM IT THAT THE LEGISLATURE DID NOT WANT ANYONE'S CONSTITUTIONAL
OR CIVIL OR LEGAL RIGHTS TO BE INFRINGEED UPON NEARLY BY VIRTUE OF LIVING IN A
BOARDING OR ROOMING HOUSE. AND SO HERE WE KNOW THAT ARTICLE 1 PARAGRAPH
7 SHOULDN'T BE INFRINGEED UPON SOLELY BY VIRTUE OF LIVING IN A BOARDING OR ROOM
ING HOUSE. AND IF THIS CASE WERE TO BE OVERTURNED, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT
WOULD OCCUR. AND SO IT REALLY WOULD BE THE OPPOSITE FESHG OF THE INTENT OF THE
ROOMING AND BOARDING HOUSE ACT. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: MISS
FREED MAN WE'RE COMING UP ON THE HALF HOUR. IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WOULD
LIKE TO STRESS BEFORE YOU CONCLUDE YOUR ARGUMENT? MICHELE E. FRIEDMAN:
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ALSO INDICATE THAT THE FACT THAT THE FRONT DOOR LOCK WAS
EITHER UNLOCK OR NOT FUJTSING ON THE DATE IN QUESTION IS NOT DISPOSITIVE. I THINK
THAT ASZ CITIZENS AND AS MEMBERS OF THE XHUNTS WE KNOW ON AN INTUITIVE LEVEL
THAT WHAT WE DO WITH OUR FRONT DOORGS AND WHAT WE DO WITH OUR LOCKS CANNOT BE DI
SPOSITIVE OF WHETHER OR NOT WE FORFEIT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVACY RIGHTS.
BECAUSE THAT'S NOT AN OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE RUBRIC FOR FORFEITURE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVACY RIGHTS. AND IN FACT OUR CASE LAW SUPPORTS THIS PROPOSITION.
IN PUNATIVE DAMAGE EL BAR THE COURT HELD THAT EVEN WHEN A DOOR IS WIDE
OPEN, THAT THAT'S NOT E NUFZ TO FORFEIT KWONS' COPS STOOGAL PRIVACY RIGHTS THAT
WE STILL THE POLICE STILL NEED EITHER A WARRANT OR AN EXCEPTION TO THE
WARRANTS' REQUIREMENTS AND THEN AGAIN KOEL INNER THE APPELLATE DIVISION HELD AND
IN COURT AFFIRMED THAT EVEN THROWING AN OPEN HOUSE PARTY IS NOT ENOUGH TO
FORFEIT KWONS' OBJECTIVELY REEB EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY. IN THE HOME. AND SO BY
WAY OF ANALOGY, THE SAME IS TRUE ABOUT HAVING ONE'S DOOR UNLOCK, SOMEONE CAN HAVE
THEIR DOOR UNLOSHG FOR A MYRIAD EVER REASONS WHETHER IT IS DUE TO JUST NAD
VOIT ENLS SEE, DUE TO THE DOOR MALFUNCTIONS AND THEY DON'T KNOW, WHETHER THE
DOOR IS MOTION IN LIMINE FAUNGSING AND THEY CALL THE LOSHG SUBMIT AND THE
LOCKSMITH IS COMING AS SOON AS THEY CAN, WHETHER THEY ARE UNLOADING THEIR GROCERIES
AND THEY ARE RETURNING BACK AND FORTH AND SO IT IS SIMPLY NOT ENOUGH JUST
TO HAVE ONE'S DOOR UNLOCKED. AND SO FOR EACH OF THESE REASONS AS WELL AS THE SOESH
OWE COMPLIK AND EQUAL PROTECTION CONCERNS INVOLVED, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK URNS
TO AFFIRM THE APPELLATE DIVISIONS DECISION. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER:
THANK YOU COUNSEL. MR. SHA LONL CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER:
MR. SHALOM. ALEXANDER SHALOM: GOOD MORNING, THE COURT
HAVING DUG INTO THE APPLICATION, I'M GOING TO TRY AND ZOOM OUT AND TALK MORE BROADLY
ABOUT THE RULE THAT THE COURT SHOULD IMPOSE AND FIRST LET ME START BY SAYING,
CHIEF, THAT I DO BELIEVE THAT THE FLORIDA RULE WOULD BE SUFFICIENT IN THIS CASE
BUT I DON'T THINK IT DOES ENOUGH REGARDING INSTRUCTION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT.
AS I ZOOM OUT WHEN WE THINK ABOUT WHY WE HAVE RULES AND WHAT SORTS OF RULES
WE WANT UNDER ARTICLE I, PARAGRAPH SEVEN, WE'RE REAL GENERALLY TRYING TO DO
TWO THINGS SIMULTANEOUSLY. FIRST WE'RE TRYING TO PROTECT THE PRIVACY RIGHTS OF
NEW JERSEY. BUT WE ALSO WANT IT PROVIDE CLEAR INSTRUCTION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT SO
THEY CAN DO THEIR JOBS RIGHT UP TO THE LIMIT OF THAT PRIVACY RIGHT. WE
DON'T WANT TO UNNECESSARILY BURDEN THEM. WE WANT TO BE CLEAR. AND
SO LIKE MY COLLEAGUE WHO JUST SPOKE I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO TALK ABOUT STATE V. BROWN
BUT I DON'T WANT TO RELY ON JUSTICE ALBIN'S PROPOSE AND THE MATH OPINIONS
I WANT TO RELY ON THE CONCERNS THAT ANIMATED THE DISSENT. SO JUSTICE PATTERSON
AND CHIEF YOU BOTH WERE REALLY CONCERNED THAT THAT RULE WHICH OF COURSE
DEALT WITH NOT WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE, BUT WHAT WAS GOING TO REQUIRE POLICE
OFFICERS TO DO LOTS OF RESEARCH, FIGURE OUT FROM UTILITY BILLS AND DEEDS AND
PUBLIC RECORD SEARCHES WHAT THE EXACT NATURE OF A PARTICULAR PROPERTY WAS.
AND I THINK WE WANT TO AVOID THAT HERE AND THERE'S A SIMPLE WAY TO DO IT AND THAT IS
THE MAILBOX TEST WHICH IS TO SAY WE KNOW GENERALLY SPEAKING THE RULE IS
IF YOU WANT TO ENTER A HOME YOU NEED A WARRANT OR AN EXCEPTION WHICH, OF COURSE,
THE STATE HAS FOR SWORN IN THIS CASE. BUT LET'S JUST SAY A WARRANT OR AN
EXCEPTION. THEY SAY WELL BUT THERE'S THIS RULE WE CAN GO INTO
COMMON HALLWAYS OF MULTI-UNIT DWELLINGS. I THINK THAT THEY OVERSTATE WHAT THAT
RULE IS. AND I THINK THE EASIEST WAY TO DO IT IS YOU COULD DO ALL SORTS
OF TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES BUT THE QUICK THING FOR A POLICE OFFICER IS CAN
THE LETTER CARRIER GO THERE. SO IMAGINE AN APARTMENT BUILDING THAT HAS A FRONT
DOOR AND THEN INSIDE THAT FRONT DOOR THERE IS A SET OF MAILBOXES. THE LETTER CARRIER
CAN ENTER THAT FRONT DOOR AND DOES ON A REGULAR BASIS. WE COULD FWR THAT
INFER AND SO CAN THE PIZZA DELIVERY PERSON AND ALL SORTS OF OTHER PEOPLE BECAUSE
PEOPLE GET BUZZED INTO THOSE BUILDINGS. BUT THEN IMAGINE A TWO FAMILY HOUSE OR
A THREE FAMILY HOUSE THAT HAS THREE MAILBOXES ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE DOOR, ONE DOOR
AND THEN YOU ENTER AND THERE'S SOME STAIRS THAT LEAD TO OTHER LOCKED DOORS. THAT
EXTERIOR VESTIBULE AND STAIRWELL IS NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. IT'S NOT OPEN TO THE
LETTER CARRIER AND IT'S NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC SO POLICE OFFICERS WITHOUT
KNOWING WHETHER INSIDE THAT FRONT THRESHOLD IS A ROOMING HOW LONG, A BOARDING HOUSE
OR A TWO FAMILY HOUSE SHOULD KNOW THAT THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT PREVENTS THEM
FROM GOING IN ABSENT A WARRANT OR AN EXCEPTION. THAT'S AN EASILY APPLIED RULE
THAT DOES THE WORK WE NEED AND I THINK THE STATE SAYS LOOK WE DON'T WANT A
DIFFERENT RULE FROM OTHER MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS THAN WE DO FOR ROOMING AND BOARDING
HOUSE AND THAT'S TRUE BECAUSE THEY WANT NO PRIVACY PROTECTIONS IN EITHER. THAT
READS TOOFRP INTO OUR LAW. BECAUSE BY THE STATE'S LOGIC ANY TIME AN AREA IS
ACCESSIBLE TO ANY OTHER PEOPLE IT IS DEVOID OF AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY. BUTT
THAT'S NOT WHAT OUR CASE LAW HAS HELD. IT DIDN'T HOLD BACK IN COLES, JUSTICE
LAVECCHIA YOU REFERENCED OTHER INSTANCES WHERE PEOPLE HAVE LOCKED SINGLE ROOMS.
AND SO COLE ALSO LANDLORD WAS HIS AUNT. IT SHOULDN'T CHANGE THE EXPECTATION
OF PRIVACY. IT'S ALSO CHANGE IN STOTT. THE STATE SAYS STOTT IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE
THAT WAS A ROOM BUT THAT WAS A ROOM WHERE HE HAD A ROOMMATE AND THE COURT
SAID NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT HE HAD A ROOMMATE HE DIDN'T EXPECT AND THAT
THE HOSPITAL STAFF TO COME INTO THE ROOM HE DIDN'T EXPECT THE POLICE TO. SO
THE STATE'S RULE THAT WHENEVER YOU EXPOSE IT TO SOME YOU'RE EXPOSEING IT TO SOME
TO JUSTICE PIERRE-LOUIS'S POINT IS SIMPLY RELIED BY A ROBUST OF OUR
JURISPRUDENCE, HOW WE WANT IT INFORM THEIR WORK. SO WHILE WE THINK IT'S
EASY TO SAY YES OF COURSE WE SHOULD HAVE A RULE THAT BARRING SOME SIGN ON THE
DOOR THAT SAYS OPEN TO ALL OR OTHER INDICIA THAT THE AREA IS OPEN TO PUBLIC, ROOMING
AND BOARDING HOUSES SHOULD MAINTAIN AN EXPECTATION OF PRIEFLS. BUT BEYOND
THAT SINCE WE DON'T WANT POLICE OFFICERS TO HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER IT'S A ROOMING
AND BOARDING HOUSE OR A MULTI-UNIT DWELLINGS OR A FRATERNITY HOUSE OR A DORM
ROOM, THE RULE MAKES VERY CLEAR TO LAW ENFORCEMENT IS DON'T GO INTO A HOME
UNLESS YOU HAVE A WARRANT OR AN EXCEPTION BUT IF THERE'S -- IF THE MAILBOXES ARE
IN THE INTERIOR YOU CAN PROBABLY GO INTO THAT AREA. I THINK THAT IS A VERY
CLEAR AND AN ADMISSIBLE ONE CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: MR. SHALOM I'M
A LITTLE CONCERNED BECAUSE THIS PUTS A LOT OF STOCK IN HOW THE BUILDING
ITSELF IS CONSTRUCTED. THERE ARE MULTI-UNIT DWELLINGS WHERE THERE'S A KIOSK IN
THE FRONT FOR MAIL SLOTS EVEN THOUGH DELIVERY PEOPLE CAN WALK INTO THE
COMMON AREA, SHOULD WE REALLY PUT ALL OF OUR STOCK IN WHERE THE MAILBOX IS LOCATED?
ALEXANDER SHALOM: SO I THINK YOU CAN DO A TOTALITY OF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES TEST WHERE THE OFFICER SAYS I JUST WATCHED FIVE DELIVERY PEOPLE GO
UPSTAIRS WITH PIZZAS IN HAND SO I ASSUMED I COULD DO THE SAME. THAT'S FINE.
IF WE WANT TO GIVE A SHORTHAND TO POLICE OFFICERS WHERE YOU HAVE TO ESSENTIALLY
THERE'S A BURDEN AND IF YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN WHY YOU THOUGHT YOU HAD
ACCESS, WHY THE TENANT DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY, THE ONUS
IS ON YOU UNLESS YOU CAN SAY WELL I JUST LOOKED AT THE MAILBOX AND IT WAS EASY.
I KNEW THAT THE LETTER CARRIER WENT IN SO, SO, TOO, COULD I, SIR.
JUSTICE ALBIN: MR. SHALOM, IN THIS CASE THE POLICE OFFICER KNEW IT WAS A ROOMING
HOUSE. THERE MAY BE MANY OTHER INDICIA OTHER THAN A MAILBOX, SO PLANTING
EVERYTHING ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A MAILBOX AS OPPOSED A SLOT SEEMS TO BE TOO
FAST SOOIL A RULE. ALEXANDER SHALOM: THE BENEFIT OF THAT
RULE IS THAT IT APPLIES TO ALL SORTS OF MULTI-UNIT DWELLINGS BECAUSE THE
STATE'S POSITION IS BECAUSE IF YOU'RE IN A MULTI-UNIT DWELLINGS THAT IS NOT A ROOMING
AND BOARDING HOUSE YOU ALSO HAVE NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY.
JUSTICE ALBIN: SO HERE'S ANOTHER THING. WE HAVE ONE ISSUE BEFORE US. WHETHER OR NOT
THERE'S A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY FOR A ROOMING HOUSE OR A
BOARDING HOUSE. WE DON'T HAVE APARTMENT HOUSE COMPLEX BEFORE US. AND I DON'T SEE
ANY REASON WHY WE SHOULD BE TAKING ON AN ISSUE THAT IS NOT SQUARELY BEFORE
US AND HASN'T BEEN APPROPRIATELY ARGUED ON THAT BASIS. ALEXANDER
SHALOM: THAT IS AN ABSOLUTELY FAIR POINT AND SOMETHING VERY REASONABLE FOR THE COURT
TO DO, TO TAKE THAT KIND OF POSITION OF JUDICIAL RESTRAINT AND ONLY ANSWER
THE QUESTION DIRECTLY BEFORE IT. HOWEVER, IN SO DOING I CAUTION
THE COURT TO NOT OVERSTATE THE CLAIM, WHICH IS TO SAY NOT CONTRAST BOARDING
AND ROOMING HOUSES AGAINST OTHER MULTI-UNIT DWELLINGS BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THE STATE'S
ARGUMENT RELYING ON, YOU KNOW, A CASE FROM 1952 THAT SAYS, BY THE WAY, YOU
HAVE NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY HERE IS SUFFICIENT TO DO IT. SO AGREE, YOU CAN
JUST SQUARELY ANSWER THE QUESTION BEFORE IT. JUSTICE SOLOMON:
ONE THING I JUST WANTED TO SAY. WHEN YOU USE THAT MAILBOX RULE YOU'RE USING IT
AS THERE MAY BE INDICIA, THERE MAY BE TIMES WHEN A A ROOMING HOUSE OR A
BOARDING HOUSE IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND ONE OF THE INDICIA WHICH DOESN'T EXIST
HERE IS THE MAILBOX INSIDE THE DOOR. ALEXANDER SHALOM: I THINK
THAT OVERSTATES WHAT I'M SAYING, JUSTICE SOLOMON AND I THINK I'M SAYING THAT
IN SOME APARTMENT BUILDINGS THE MAILBOX MAY INDICATE GOING TO A FIRST THRESHOLD.
BECAUSE THE MAILBOX IS FROM YOU HAVE NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY, FOR EXAMPLE.
JUSTICE SOLOMON: I'M SAYING THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE INDICATORS.
AND THERE MAY BE OTHERS. I THOUGHT THAT'S ALL YOU WERE SAYING THAT WOULD BE SOME
INDICIA. JUST TO CLARIFY. JUSTICE LA VECCHIA: I WAS INTERPRETING
YOUR POSITION ALMOST AS A THRESHOLD, WHAT IS THE THRESHOLD? BECAUSE A LOT
HAS BEEN MADE OF ANALYZING ROOMING AND BOARDING HOUSE TO MULTI-DWELLING APARTMENT
TYPE STRUCTURES BUT I WAS COMING AT THIS MORE AT LEAST INITIALLY ANALYZING
IT TO THE THRESHOLD OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. IF THIS IS ALL SHARED PREMISES BUT
NEVERTHELESS ALL PART OF THE HOME OF THE INDIVIDUAL, EVEN THOUGH PARTS ARE
CLEARLY PADLOCKED AND OTHERS ARE NOT, THEN IT'S THE THRESHOLD THAT CAN'T BE CROSSED
BY POLICE, WHETHER THE FRONT DOOR IS LOCKED OR NOT. JUST LIKE YOU WOULDN'T
FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. AND YOUR MAILBOX RULE HARKENED ME BACK TO A SIMILAR
CONSIDERATION FOR APARTMENT BUILDINGS. WHAT'S THE THRESHOLD OF THE APARTMENT
BUILDING? I DON'T WANT TO TRY TO THINK THAT WE IN THIS CASE NEED TO ANSWER EVERY
APARTMENT BUILDING QUESTION THAT COULD COME UP, BUT THE HYPOTHETICALS THAT
YOU'RE GIVING US SUGGEST THAT THERE MIGHT BE DIFFERENT THRESHOLDS FOR AN INTERIOR
LOCKED DOOR BEYOND THE MAILBOXES IN SOME UPPER CLASS WEALTHY APARTMENT
BUILDINGS THERE'S A DOORMAN WHO DOESN'T ALLOW INDIVIDUALS IN, IT'S NOT MAILBOXES
IT'S SOMEBODY WHO ACTUALLY STANDS GUARD AND ASKS WHO ARE YOU THERE TO SEE AND
PULLS UP TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT ADMITTANCE IS PERMISSIBLE. SO
I'M NOT SURE HOW FAR TO GO WITH YOUR SUGGESTION THAT TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES
THE HELPS POLICE HERE. I AM WONDERING IF WE SHOULD BACK TO A DISCUSSION
OF WHETHER OR NOT A RULE CAN BE FASHIONED THAT INCLUDES ALL ROOMING AND BOARDING HOUSES
AT THE FRONT DOOR, PERIOD. ALEXANDER SHALOM: JUSTICE LAVECCHIA
AS I SAID I'M TOTALLY COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. I WANT TO BE CLEAR I AGREE WITH
YOUR ANALYSIS THAT WHEN THE OFFICER POUNDED ON THE DOOR AND OPENED IT AND THEN
SAW IT INSIDE SOME OTHER ROOMS THAT WERE LOCKED, I LIVE IN A SINGLE FAMILY
HOME AND IF THE HOVER POUNDED ON MY DOOR AND OPENED IT AND INSIDE YOU SAW A SAFE,
HE COULDN'T SAY, OH, WELL, HE'S GOT THAT SAFE WHICH INDICATES A PRIVACY
RIGHT WITHIN IT AND, THEREFORE, I CAN COME AND LOOK AT ANYTHING THAT'S SURROUNDING
THE SAFE. YOU CAN HAVE MULTIPLE LAYERS OF PRIVACY AND THAT THRESHOLD IS THAT
WHICH YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE CROSSED IN THIS CASE AND I THINK IF THE COURT EXHIBIT
WANTS TO CONFINE ITS OPINION TO THE QUESTION OF CAN THEY CROSS THE THRESHOLD
IN A ROOMING AND BOARDING HOUSE BECAUSE AS JUSTICE ALBIN SAYS HERE THE RECORD
IS CLEAR THE OFFICER KNEW IT WAS A ROOMING HOUSE AND BOARDING HOUSE. WHAT I FEAR
WE'RE GOING TO SEE GOING FORWARD IF THE REDUCE YOU WOULD IS LIMITED TO THAT
IS A LOT OF OFFICERS WHO SAID I THOUGHT IT WAS A MULTI-UNIT DWELLINGS I HFRN ARISED
IT WAS A ROOMING AND BOARDING HOUSE UNDER THE STATUTE AND, THEREFORE, I
-- I THINK THERE'S SOME CLARITY IS THE PRESUMPTION YOU DON'T GO INTO HOMES ABSENT
A WARRANT OR -- AGAIN, WE'RE AT FIRST PRINCIPLES OF THE PARAGRAPH.
JUSTICE LA VECCHIA: I THINK WE SHOULD EQUATE AS IMPORTANCE NOT ONLY
THE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY FOR THE INDIVIDUALS BUT THE NEED FOR CLARITY
FOR THE POLICE SO THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY NEED TO DO AND WHAT THEY CAN DO AS R
AS YOU EARLIER UP TO THE EXACT LINE BEYOND WHICH THEY CAN GO NO FURTHER WITHOUT
A WARRANT. ALEXANDER SHALOM: UNLESS THE COURT HAS ANY
QUESTIONS I ASK IT TO BE. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: THANK YOU MR.
SHALOM. MR. HARBIST. NICHOLAS C. HARBIST: I WILL
START WITH THE CORE JUDICIAL PRINCIPLE IN FLORIDA. THERE THE SUPREME COURT
PRONOUNCED THAT WHEN IT COMES TO THE FOURTH AMENDMENT THE HOME IS THE FIRST AMONG
EQUALS. IN THAT CASE THE SUPREME COURT STATED THAT THERE WAS A RIGHT OF A
MAN TO RETREAT INTO HIS OWN HOME. THAT RIGHT TO PRIVACY YOUR HONORS WAS ECHOED
BY THIS COURT IN STATE VS. RICE WHERE THE COURT NOTED THAT ONE OF OUR MOST
PROTECTED RIGHTS HAVE BEEN THE SANCTITY AND PRIVACY OF A PERSON'S HOME.
MR. WILLIAMS WAS NOT AFFORDED THAT RIGHT WHY, THE STATE SAYS BECAUSE THE
FRONT DOOR OF THE BOARDING HOUSE YES HAD LIVED WAS UNLOCKED AND COULD BE PUSHED
OPEN BUT I SUBMIT TO THE COURT THAT THERE'S NO OPEN DOOR EXCEPTION TO THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT. THAT ISSUE HAS BEEN COVERED AND I WON'T GO INTO THE RATIONALE
FOR THAT. JUSTICE ALBIN POINTED OUT THE BOARDING HOUSE REGULATIONS REQUIRE THAT
THE DOORS BE LOCKED TO THE LIVING AREA HERE. THE DOOR WAS EQUIPPED WITH
A LOCK AS WELL AS A CLOSED STORM DOOR. THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT THAT INDIVIDUALS
TAKE ALL POSSIBLE PRECAUTIONS TO PREVENT UNWANTED ENTRY. HERE,
WE SUBMIT THERE WAS AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN THE COMMON AREAS AS JUSTICE ALBIN
NOTED THAT HAS BEEN LEGISLATION -- WE SUBMIT THERE IS A SUBJECT OF
EXPECTATION OF A PRIVACY IN ROOMING OR BOARDING HOUSES TO THE COMMON AREAS. THEY ARE
NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. ON THIS RECORD THE HOUSE WAS NOT AN
APARTMENT BUILDING, A MULTI P UNIT STRUCTURE. HERE THE RECORD IS CLEAR THAT THE
DETECTIVE DESCRIBED AND I'LL POINT TO THE COURT'S OPINION BELOW, THE DWELLING AS
AN ATTACHED ROW HOME THAT COULD BE A NORMAL SINGLE FAMILY HOME OR A
MULTI-FAMILY HOME. SO IT APPEARED TO BE A HOME WHEN THE
DETECTIVES APPROACHED. WHEN HE ENTERED THE PROPERTY THROUGH THE FRONT DOOR IT
CAUSED HIM TO BELIEVE THAT THE PROPERTY WAS A BOARDING HOUSE AND THAT IS WHAT THE
RECORD STATES. HERE, AN INDIVIDUAL SHOULD BE ABLE TO RETREAT
INTO THE SANCTITY OF HIS PRIVATE END CLAV. THE AMICUS HERE IS ADVOCATING A
STRAIGHTFORWARD RULE. BEFORE THE POLICE ENTERED WHAT LOOKS LIKE TO BE A HOME
THEY NEED A WARRANT. HERE THE TESTIMONY WAS THAT THE BUILDING LOOKED LIKE A HOME.
THEREFORE, THE OFFICERS SHOULD HAVE OBTAINED A WARRANT PERHAPS THEY COULD HAVE
KNOCKED ON THE DOOR, RANG THE BELL TO CONTINUE THEIR INVESTIGATION. BUT
IF THEY WANTED TO ENTER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES THAT THEY NEEDED A
WARRANT. INDEED, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THEY ENTERED TWICE IN THIS
CASE, EVEN AFTER CONCLUDING ON THEIR FIRST ENTRY THAT IT WAS A BOARDING HOUSE.
WE SUBMIT THAT THE COURT SHOULD FIND THAT THE POLICE IN THIS CASE SHOULD
HAVE ADHERED TO THE TIME HONORED CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE. JUST
TO ADDRESS JUSTICE PATTERSON'S QUESTION OF WHETHER THERE IS A PRINCIPLE DISTINCTION
BETWEEN A MULTI-UNIT DWELLING AND A BOARDING HOUSE AND SHE BROUGHT UP THE
EXAMPLE OF A LAUNDRY ROOM THAT IS ON MANY OCCASIONS IN A MULTI-UNIT DWELLING, THERE ARE
BASIC FUNCTIONS THAT WE ALL HAVE, THE RIGHT TO SLEEP IN A BED, THE RIGHT TO
PREPARE OUR MEALS IN A KITCHEN, TO USE A BATHROOM. PERHAPS A LAUNDRY ROOM IS THE
A DISTINCTION, THAT THAT IS A BASIC FUNCTION. SOME OF US ARE WEALTHY
ENOUGH TO TAKE OUR LAUNDRY TO A CLEANERS. SOME OF US HAVE TO DO THEM IN THE BATHTUB.
BUT WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING A TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES APPROACH IN THIS
CASE. THE APPROACH SHOULD BE THAT IF A HOME LOOKS LIKE A HOME, IT LOOKS LIKE A
DUCK AND TALKS LIKE A DUCK IT IS A DUCK. AND THAT SHOULD BE THE PRESUMPTION
THAT THE POLICE FUNCTION UNDER TO PRESERVE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.
CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: ANY QUESTIONS, ANYONE? MR. HARBIST, ANYTHING ELSE?
NICHOLAS C. HARBIST: NO, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU. CHIEF
JUSTICE RABNER: THANK YOU. A. CLARITY TO LAW ENFORCEMENT WHEN THEY ARE
CONDUCTING THEIR INVESTIGATIONS AND WE'RE NOT ASKING OF COURSE THIS COURT TO FIND
THAT THERE IS NO SGRIERLTS PRIVACY EXPECTATIONS IN THE INTERIOR OF BOARDSING
HOUSES OR ANY OTHER MULTD I UNITS TWELGS JUST THAT IT DOESN'T EXTEND BEYOND THE
INDIVIDUAL ROOMS OF THE TENANTS IN THE BOARDING HOUSES I WOULD ALSO JUST
SFWREEFRLY NOTE THAT KOELTS ON VE AND STOTS TALKED ABOUT INVOLVED THE OFFICERS ENTERING
INTO THE INDIVIDUAL ROOMS THE INDIVIDUAL HOSPITAL ROOM INDIVIDUAL FRATERNITY
ROOM. HERE, THE OFFICER DID NOT ENTER THE ROOM FLL HE HAD OBTAINED A SEARCH WARRANT.
HE MERELY ACCESS DZ THE COMMON AREAS. AFTER DETERMINEING THAT THIS IS A
BOARDING HOUSE THIS WAS A MULTI UNIT DWELLING, I WOULD ALSO JUST NOTES FOR THE
RECORD THAT THERE IS NO INDICATION IN THE RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE OFFICERS
WERE BARNING INTO OR POUNDSING ON THE DOOR. ALL WE KNOW IS THAT THE
OFFICERS KNOCKED ON THE FRONT DOOR AND BECAUSE IT WAS UNSECURED ANN UNLOCKED IT
OPENED. THERE I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT THE PUBLIC DEFENDER HAS MENTIONED A NUMBER
OF OUT-OF-STATE CASES. WHICH HAVE SOME HAVE FOUND THAT THERE IS A SFEGS
TAFR PRIVACY IN COMMON AREAS BUT I WOULD ALSO NOTE THIS IS REALLY A SPLIT QUESTION
WHEN KWEE LOOK AT OUT-OF-STATE CASES AND THE STATE HAS CITED A NUMENT OF
CASES THAT HAVE HELD OTHERWISE I HAVE FOUND THAT THERE IS NO REEB EXPECTATION OF
PRIVACY IN THE COMMON AREAS OF A BOARDSING HOUSE FOR THE SAME REASONS THAT
THERE AREN'T IN OTHER MULTS I UNIT DWELLINGS. UNLESS THE COURT HAS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
WE WOULD ASK THAT THIS COURT REVERSE THE JUDGMENT OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION.
CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: THANK YOU MISS DOME. THANK YOU TO ALL
COUNSEL FOR THE HEFRL ARGUMENTS WE WILL TAKE THE MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT.