Case Title: State v. Raul Rodriguez

Citation: 

Docket Number: a-19-01

State: new-jersey

Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Date: 2002-05-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
On July 14, 1998, New Jersey Transit Police Officers Eugene Oberfrank and Kevin Amberg were patrolling the bus terminal in Atlantic City. Oberfrank received an anonymous telephone call informing him that two men would be traveling through Atlantic City via bus following a trip to Philadelphia to purchase narcotics. The informant described the physical appearance of the two men and their clothes. The informant did not indicate which bus nor what time they would be arriving, only that the two men had left Ocean City at a specified time and that they would be returning that same day. At about 4:45 p.m., the officers spotted two men fitting the informant s description. Other than matching the description, the officers observed nothing unusual about them. Oberfrank and Amberg, dressed in full uniform, with weapons, handcuffs, mace and radios, asked the two men if they would agree to speak with them and go with them to the patrol office. The men consented. The officers asked no questions until they had the two men in the office, which had self-locking doors, in separate rooms. The two men were asked if they had anything on them that they shouldn t have and they replied no. Subsequently, Amberg asked the two men if they would consent to a search of their person and, after summarizing the contents of a consent-to-search form, he had them sign the forms. Defendant signed form at 4:55 p.m. The officers proceeded to search the men and a blue bag defendant was carrying. The officers found that defendant was carrying packets of heroin on himself and in the blue bag, a hypodermic syringe, and $630 in cash. Defendant was arrested at approximately 5:10 p.m. and advised of his Miranda rights. The two men were indicted for possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, and possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute within a thousand feet of a school. At trial, defendant moved to suppress the evidence. The trial court denied that motion. Defendant pled guilty to possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute within a thousand feet of a school. He was sentenced to an extended term of six years with three years of parole ineligibility. In a reported decision, the Appellate Division affirmed, finding that the officers had engaged in a field inquiry requiring no suspicion of criminal activity. The court also held, alternatively, that even if the inquiry had escalated to an investigative stop, the officers had sufficient information to justify it, and that defendant had voluntarily waived his right to withhold consent. HELD: Defendant was the subject of an investigative detention and the totality of the circumstances did not justify it. 1. Not all police-citizen encounters constitute searches and seizures for purposes of the warrant requirement. A field inquiry is a limited form of police inquiry and is not considered a seizure unless a reasonably objective person feels that his or her right to move has been restricted. (Pp. 8-9) 2. An investigative stop is more intrusive than a field inquiry and is justified when there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, based on specific and articulable facts. An anonymous tip, standing alone, is rarely sufficient to establish a reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Police must verify that an anonymous tip is reliable by some independent corroborative effort. The analysis in any given case turns ultimately on the totality of the circumstances. (Pp. 9-11) 3. Defendant was questioned in a manner that presupposed criminal activity, as evidenced by his being isolated from his traveling partner and questioned in a closed-door, police-dominated atmosphere. Moreover, there was no justification for moving the defendant from the street to the patrol office. Under the totality of the circumstances, defendant could not have believed that he was free to leave; the police encounter had escalated and moved beyond a field inquiry. (Pp. 12-14) 4 The only information provided by the informant and corroborated by the officers was the description of defendant and his companion and their location at the bus terminal. Without more, corroboration of these benign elements is not sufficient to justify the detention under Terry and our analogous case law. (Pp. 14-18) 5. In view of our conclusion that the officers lacked a sufficient basis to detain defendant, we need not evaluate whether his consent to the search was voluntary. The illegal detention voids the consent. As a result, the fruits of the warrantless search must be suppressed. (Pp. 18-19) The judgment of the Appellate Division is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED to the Law Division for further proceedings consistent with this opinion . CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES STEIN, COLEMAN, LONG, LaVECCHIA, and ZAZZALI, join in JUSTICE VERNIERO s opinion. Plaintiff-Respondent, v. RAUL RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant. Argued February 26, 2002 Decided May 15, 2002 On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 336 N.J. Super. 550 (2001). Mary Virginia Barta, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Peter A. Garcia, Acting Public Defender, attorney). Jack R. Martin, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Jeffrey S. Blitz, Atlantic County Prosecutor, attorney). Michael J. Williams, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae, Attorney General of New Jersey (Peter C. Harvey, Acting Attorney General, attorney). The opinion of the Court was delivered by VERNIERO, J. This case implicates defendant s right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and under the analogous provision of our State Constitution. We must determine whether the police subjected defendant to an investigative detention prior to their search of his person and, if so, whether they had a sufficient basis to justify that conduct. The lower courts found no constitutional violation. We hold that defendant was the subject of an investigative detention and, further, that the totality of circumstances did not justify it. An anonymous tip, standing alone, is rarely sufficient to establish a reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 329, 110 S. Ct. 2412, 2415, 110 L. Ed. 2d 301, 308 (1990). The United States Supreme Court has warned that the veracity of persons supplying anonymous tips is by hypothesis largely unknown, and unknowable. Ibid. (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 237, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2332, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527, 548 (1983)). That Court also has instructed that an informant s veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge are relevant in determining the value of his report. Id. at 328, 110 S. Ct. at 2415, 110 L. Ed. 2d at 308 (citation and quotation marks omitted). To justify action based on an anonymous tip, the police in the typical case must verify that the tip is reliable by some independent corroborative effort. Id. at 329-30, 110 S. Ct. at 2415-16, 110 L. Ed. 2d at 309. Generally, if a tip has a relatively low degree of reliability, more information will be required to establish the requisite quantum of suspicion than would be required if the tip were more reliable. Id. at 330, 110 S. Ct. at 2416, 110 L. Ed. 2d at 309. Stated differently, courts have found no constitutional violation when there has been independent corroboration by the police of significant aspects of the informer s predictions[.] Id. at 332, 110 S. Ct. at 2417, 110 L. Ed. 2d at 310. The analysis in any given case turns ultimately on the totality of the circumstances. Id. at 330, 110 S. Ct. at 2416, 110 L. Ed. 2d at 309. [Id. at 271, 120 S. Ct. at 1379, 146 L. Ed 2d at 260-61.] In addressing the government s contention that the tip was reliable because it accurately described the defendant s physical attributes, Justice Ginsburg stated: An accurate description of a subject s readily observable location and appearance is of course reliable in this limited sense: It will help the police correctly identify the person whom the tipster means to accuse. Such a tip, however, does not show that the tipster has knowledge of concealed criminal activity. The reasonable suspicion here at issue requires that a tip be reliable in its assertion of illegality, not just in its tendency to identify a determinate person. [Id. at 272, 120 S. Ct. at 1379, 146 L. Ed 2d at 261.] We conclude similarly in this case. The informant accurately described the appearance of defendant and Forte, and correctly predicted their location at the bus terminal. We cannot reasonably conclude, based on those benign elements of the informant s tip, that the tip itself was reliable in its assertion of illegality[.] Ibid. In respect of that aspect of the tip most critical to the analysis, namely, that defendant would be engaged in drug trafficking, the informant provided no explanation of how or why he arrived at that conclusion. In fact, the only portion of the tip corroborated by the officers pertained to the innocent details of defendant s appearance at the bus terminal. Without more, the tip is insufficient to justify the detention under Terry and our analogous case law. In arguing for a contrary disposition, the Attorney General, as amicus, cites this Court s recent decision in Stovall, supra, 170 N.J. 346. In Stovall, a detective in New Jersey received a tip from a fellow law enforcement officer in California based on information that the fellow officer had obtained from an airline employee at Los Angeles International Airport. Id. at 351-52. The employee believed that two women had checked into the airport using questionable identification. Id. at 352. The travelers also had purchased bulk tickets from a travel agency that purportedly had sold tickets to other drug traffickers. Id. at 352-53. Based on that information, the California officer suspected that the two individuals were engaged in drug trafficking, and he relayed that belief, in addition to the relevant flight information, to his fellow officer in New Jersey. Id. at 352. The tip contained a detailed description of the two women and their luggage. Ibid. In Newark, the detective and his partner who had received the tip noticed the two women as they arrived from the identified flight. Ibid. One of the officers believed that the defendant s identification was questionable because it consisted of an expired card listing an address on Main Street in Los Angeles. Id. at 353. Defendant also appeared visibly nervous as she spoke to the officers prior to their search of her luggage. Id. at 354. Emphasizing those facts, in addition to the extensive experience and expertise of the officers, the Court sustained the detention of the defendant under the Terry standard. Id. at 370-71. In contrast, the officers in this case testified that defendant did not exhibit any unusual demeanor. Another difference is that the officers involved in Stovall had extensive experience in drug enforcement, whereas Officer Oberfrank testified that this was the first time that he had experienced a situation involving a consent to search. Most importantly, the officer in Stovall asked questions of the suspect to corroborate some of the information provided in the tip, and the tip itself was not anonymous. In this case, the informant never revealed his identity or the basis of his knowledge, and the officers did not corroborate the information other than to observe defendant s appearance at the bus terminal. Stovall clearly is inapposite. C. In view of our conclusion that the officers lacked a sufficient basis to detain defendant, we need not evaluate whether his consent to the search was voluntary. The illegal detention voids the consent. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 485, 83 S. Ct. 407, 416, 9 L. Ed. 2d 441, 453-54 (1963); State v. Costa, 327 N.J. Super. 22, 32 (App. Div. 1999). Accordingly, no further analysis is required. NO. A-19 SEPTEMBER TERM 2001 ON CERTIFICATION TO Appellate Division, Superior Court STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. RAUL RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant. DECIDED May 15, 2002 Chief Justice Poritz PRESIDING OPINION BY Justice Verniero CONCURRING OPINION BY DISSENTING OPINION BY