State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-Respondent v. Reinaldo Maristany, Defendant-Respondent and…

Summary

The Court held that the State Trooper's reliance on the driver’s consent to search the vehicle and its luggage was objectively reasonable, rendering the search valid, but reversed the Appellate Division’s admission of the driver’s out‑of‑court statement as inadmissible hearsay. The decision affirms the search finding while remanding for a new trial without the prohibited testimony. Justice Pollock, in a partial concurrence and dissent, argued that the majority’s rule encourages police to remain ignorant of ownership and should be limited.