The New Jersey Police Chief Magazine | April 2024
Continued from previous page
10 . Delayed warrantless searches of a person permitted where assault suspect removing substance from fingers State v . Torres The Court endorses and applies the two-factor test of State v . Lentz , 463 N . J . Super . 54 , 70 ( App . Div . 2020 ), authorizing delayed warrantless searches of a person incident to that person ’ s arrest so long as both ( 1 ) the delay itself and ( 2 ) the scope of the search were objectively reasonable . The totality of circumstances here establishes such reasonableness , particularly given the officers ’ observation and video footage showing that defendant appeared to be removing some substance from his fingers and rubbing his clothing while he was being interviewed , as well as the risk that biological evidence would dissipate during the delay while the warrant application was processed . A-15-22 Decided 2023
11 . Police dog sniff rejected here State v . Smart 253 N . J . 156 ( 2023 ) The circumstances giving rise to probable cause in this case were not “ unforeseeable and spontaneous .” Those circumstances included investigating previous information from the CI and concerned citizen about defendant , the vehicle , and narcotics trafficking in the area ; lengthy surveillance of defendant and the vehicle ; reasonable and articulable suspicion that defendant had engaged in a drug deal ; and a positive canine sniff of the vehicle . The Court therefore affirms the order suppressing the physical evidence seized from the vehicle .
12 . Detention of driver after initial stop on MDT unconstitutionally prolonged State v Williams 254 N . J . 8 ( 2023 ) An MDT query revealing that a vehicle ’ s owner has a suspended New Jersey driver ’ s license provides constitutionally valid reasonable suspicion authorizing the officer to stop the vehicle -- unless the officer pursuing the vehicle has a sufficient objective basis to believe that the driver does not resemble the owner . If , upon stopping the vehicle , it becomes reasonably apparent to the officer that the driver does not look like the owner whose license is suspended , the officer must cease the vehicle ’ s detention and communicate that the motorist is free to drive away without further delay .
Based on the specific facts presented here , the initial stop of the vehicle was valid because it was based on reasonable suspicion . However , the detention of defendants and the borrowed car was unconstitutionally prolonged after the officer recognized the driver was not the car ’ s owner . The officer ’ s admittedly uncertain ability to tell if he smelled marijuana was inadequate evidence of “ plain smell ” to justify a continuation of the stop and a search of the vehicle .
13 . Police properly administered Miranda warning State v . Erazo Defendant voluntarily went to the police station to give a witness statement . At the police station , defendant was interviewed twice . During his first interview , defendant was not in custody and thus not yet owed Miranda warnings . The factors set forth in O ’ Neill therefore do not need to be considered to assess the admissibility of the second interview . And before police interviewed defendant the second time , they properly administered Miranda warnings . With his rights in mind , defendant executed a knowing , intelligent , and voluntary waiver . During his second interview , defendant confessed . Neither the Fifth Amendment nor state common law calls for suppression of defendant ’ s statements . A-16-22
14 . Engine compartment of car could not be searched without warrant State v Cohen __ NJ __( 2024 ) Expanding the search to the engine compartment and trunk went beyond the scope of the automobile exception . Although the trooper smelled marijuana in the passenger compartment of the car , his initial search yielded no results and provided no justification “ to extend the zone of the . . . search further than the persons of the occupants or the interior of the car .” State v . Patino , 83 N . J . 1 , 14-15 ( 1980 ). As a result , the seized evidence should be suppressed . A-50-21
15 Court should hold evidentiary hearing on Sup mt where bodycam deleted State v Jones 475 N . J . Super . 520 ( App . Div . 2023 ) The court granted defendant Shahaad I . Jones leave to appeal from an order denying his motion to suppress evidence — a handgun and large capacity magazine — seized without a warrant from his person . The court finds the motion court erred by deciding the suppression motion without an evidentiary hearing because defendant ' s brief submitted in accordance with Rule 3:5-7 ( b ) raised fact issues as to whether the warrantless search of defendant was justified under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement .
The court also determined the motion court erred by concluding the statutory rebuttable presumption under N . J . S . A . 40A : 14- 118.5 ( q ) — that , where law enforcement either fails to adhere to the statutory retention requirements found in N . J . S . A . 40A : 14-118.3 to -118.5 for body worn camera ( BWC ) recordings , or intentionally interferes with a BWC ' s ability to accurately capture audio and video recordings , the law presumes exculpatory evidence was destroyed or not captured — applies only at trials and not at suppression hearings . The court finds the plain language of N . J . S . A . 40A : 14-118 does not support the motion court ' s determination and holds that because the statute expressly states the presumption is applicable in " criminal prosecutions ," the rebuttable presumption applies in suppression hearings .
The court reverses the motion court ' s order denying defendant ' s suppression motion and remands for further proceedings , including for a determination of whether defendant demonstrates an entitlement to the rebuttable presumption under N . J . S . A . 40A : 14-118.5 ( q ), and , if so , whether the State rebuts the presumption .
21
Continued on next page