Oliver v. Baity

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• rejecting a broad reading of the tampering statute because it would absurdly require all illegal substances and weapons to be carried in plain view
• defendant did not commit an affirmative act of concealment; rather, drugs were discovered on the defendant's person during a police search
• defendant did not commit an affirmative act of concealment; rather, drugs were discovered on the defendant’s person during a police search
• to avoid impheating the prohibition against self-incrimination, the term “concealment” must be “construed to refer to evidence of a completed criminal act, not a current possessory crime”
• defendant did not commit an affirmative act of concealment; rather, drugs were discovered on the defendant’s person during a police search
• held the New Jersey hindering statute was “sensibly construed to refer to evidence of a completed criminal act, not a current possessory crime” and did not apply where defendant had cocaine concealed in his socks

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).