The New Jersey Appellate Division issued a rare analysis of what has become known as “crimmigration”. The opinion is a worthwhile read for criminal and immigration attorneys. In this case, the Court issued another Sixth Amendment opinion, this time deciding whether law enforcement officers must advise undocumented noncitizen suspects of the potential immigration consequences of giving a statement relating to possible criminal charges that have not been filed. Here, the defendant claimed that the interrogating detective gave him wrong legal advice regarding concerns about his immigration status by informing him that the homicide investigation would have no bearing on that status. The Appellate Division held that law enforcement officers cannot and should not be expected to accurately predict the immigration impact of a suspect’s statement on potential charges that have not yet been filed. If an interrogee asks about the immigration impact of their statement, the officer can merely state that they cannot give any legal advice and reiterate that the interrogee has the right to consult with an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning. Here, notwithstanding any inaccurate legal advice, the Court held that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to remain silent. And there was no basis for suppressing the statement.
