Case Title: State v. Derek Roach

Citation: 

Docket Number: a-8-01

State: new-jersey

Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Date: 2002-04-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
Officer Fisher followed the car when it left the gas station and then attempted to stop it by activating his lights. In spite of his signals to stop, the car traveled approximately one-quarter of a mile before coming to rest in the parking lot of a residential apartment complex. As soon as the vehicle came to a stop, the driver immediately exited and began to walk away. The officer exited his vehicle quickly and ordered the driver back into the car. The driver complied. Once the driver was back in the car, Officer Fisher approached and requested his driver s license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance. The driver produced a registration and proof of insurance, but said he did not have his license with him. The officer noticed something in the wallet that looked like a license, and asked to see it. The document was a boat operator s license identifying the driver as Derek Roach. The registration, however, indicated that the car belonged to a woman with another last name, who Roach claimed was his mother. While the officer was examining the credentials, Roach was extremely nervous and fidgety. The officer also detected a strong odor of alcohol on Roach s breath. Officer Fisher asked Roach to recite the alphabet, which he failed to do on three separate occasions. Additionally, the officer testified that, while he was speaking to Roach, the vehicle rolled backwards on two occasions because Roach failed to put the emergency brake on. Officer Fisher returned to his patrol car to check the driver s license and registration and to radio Officer Gonzalez, the DWI enforcement officer on duty. While Fisher was in the patrol car, Roach attempted a second time to get out of the vehicle. Officer Fisher ordered him back inside, and Roach complied. Upon the arrival of Officer Gonzalez, Officer Fisher learned that Roach s driver s license was suspended. After Officer Fisher conveyed everything he knew to Officer Gonzalez, Officer Gonzalez approached the driver s side of the vehicle and began to speak to Roach. Officer Gonzalez smelled alcohol, and asked Roach if he had been drinking. Roach replied that he had had a couple of beers. Officer Gonzalez then noticed what appeared to be a fresh bloodstain on Roach s shirt that apparently resulted from a nosebleed. Officer Gonzalez asked Roach if he needed medical assistance, which Roach declined. When Roach lifted his right arm to look at the bloodstain, Officer Gonzalez noticed a bulge in the groin area of his pants. Officer Gonzalez described the bulge as being about the size of a baseball and stated that he could see part of a plastic bag protruding from Roach s pants. When Officer Gonzalez asked Roach what the bulge was, Roach immediately reached for it with his right arm. Officer Gonzalez grabbed Roach s hand and yelled at him to lift his hands into the air. Roach instead reached for the bulge with his other hand. Officer Gonzalez grabbed Roach s other hand and, while holding both of Roach s hands with his own hands, he called for Officer Fisher. Officer Gonzalez testified that he was concerned that the bulge was a gun, because Roach was adamant about reaching for it. Gonzalez explained that that was why he was reaching inside the car, something he would not normally do. On cross-examination, Officer Gonzalez acknowledged that in his five years on the force, he had never found somebody to be carrying a gun in a plastic bag. He also acknowledged that he had made no mention in his report of the fact that he might have been concerned that Roach was carrying a gun or other weapon. Officer Fisher, who had been standing on the passenger side of the car, looked over when he heard Officer Gonzalez yelling and observed Roach attempting to reach down towards his groin area. Officer Fisher also saw Gonzalez grab Roach s hands to prevent him from reaching his waist. Officer Fisher ran to the driver s side, and saw both the bulge and the piece of plastic sticking out of Roach s waist area. Officer Fisher testified that he patted Roach s waistband with his palm, and felt a bulge. He then proceeded to pull the piece of plastic out. It turned out to be a plastic bag containing glassine vials of what later proved to be cocaine. The plastic bag also contained folds of heroin and a bag of cocaine. The officers opened the car door, ordered Roach out of the car, handcuffed and searched him and placed him in the rear of the patrol car. The officers searched the car and found a brown paper bag under the front seat containing approximately 150 empty glassine vials and a bag of multi-colored rubber bands. Roach was taken to the Somerset County Jail where a corrections officer searched him and found a glassine vial in his shirt pocket containing what later proved to be cocaine. On those facts, the trial court denied Roach s motion to suppress. The court held that the frisk was lawful because an objective belief existed that Roach could be armed and dangerous based on his conduct: Police are not required to stand there at the side of the car like a couple of mannequins waiting for this guy to pull out whatever it is that is in his pants . . . . That would be dangerous. The Appellate Division, denominating the case as an extremely close call, reversed on the ground that the State failed to sustain its burden of showing that the warrantless search fit within an exception to the warrant requirement. Although agreeing that the stop and pat-down were legitimate, the court went on to hold that Officer Fisher exceed permissible bounds when he pulled out the plastic bag because the pat-down did not indicate the presence of a weapon. The Supreme Court granted the State s petition for certification. HELD: The totality of the circumstances created an objectively reasonable concern for the officers safety that justified their seizure of the contents of the bulge from Roach s person. 1. The protective search exception to the warrant requirement was created to protect an officer s safety where there is a reason to believe that a suspect is armed and dangerous. The officer must have a specific and particularized basis for an objectively reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous. The existence of reasonable suspicion is based on the totality of the circumstances. Courts have upheld seizures of unidentifiable objects on a suspect s person where a lawful pat-down is either inconclusive or impossible. Here, the relevant circumstances include the late hour, Roach s nervousness and the bloodstain on his shirt, his impairment by alcohol, his attempts to leave the scene, his sudden and repeated attempts to reach for a bulge in his pants, his refusal to obey the officer s directives, and the fact that he had to be physically restrained. The Court is satisfied that those frenetic circumstances together rendered reasonable the officers belief that further action was required to ensure their safety. (Pp. 8-12) 2. It is true that Officer Fisher did not identify the bulge as a weapon when he fleetingly palmed it during the moments surrounding the seizure. But that does not end the inquiry. The officers were faced with a nervous and intoxicated person who refused to obey their lawful orders and continued to move his hands toward the unidentified bulge. That erratic behavior justified the officers further action to neutralize any potential threat. (Pp. 8-13) Judgment of the Appellate Division is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED to the Law Division for trial. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES STEIN, COLEMAN, VERNIERO, LaVECCHIA, and ZAZZALI join in JUSTICE LONG s opinion. SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY A- 8 September Term 2001 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEREK ROACH, a/k/a DALE ROACH and ZEEK ROACH, Defendant-Respondent. Argued January 29, 2002 Decided April 24, 2002 On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division. James L. McConnell, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant (Wayne J. Forrest, Somerset County Prosecutor, attorney, Joanne R. Gavan, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief). Ruth Bove Carlucci, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for respondent (Peter A. Garcia, Acting Public Defender, attorney). Christine A. Hoffman, 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 LONG, J. Defendant, Derek Roach, entered a plea of guilty to the third-degree offenses of possession of cocaine (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5) and possession of cocaine and heroin within a school zone (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7; N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1)). He was sentenced as a repeat offender to concurrent seven-year terms, each with a three-year period of parole ineligibility. He appealed, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress and the denial of his motion for admittance to a drug rehabilitation program. The Appellate Division reversed the denial of Roach s motion to suppress, thus rendering the drug rehabilitation program issue moot. We granted certification, State v. Roach, 169 N.J. 609 (2001), and allowed the Attorney General to appear as amicus curiae. [Davis, supra, 104 N.J. at 545 (quoting United States v. Riggs, 474 F.2d 699, 705 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 820, 94 S. Ct. 115, 38 L. Ed. 2d 53 (1973)).] [State v. Ransom, 169 N.J. Super. 511, 521-22 (App. Div. 1979)(quoting Terry, supra, 392 U.S. at 24, 88 S.Ct. at 1881)(alteration in original).] Here, the relevant circumstances include the late hour, the bloodstain on defendant s shirt, his nervousness, his failure to pull over immediately, his impairment by alcohol, his failure to produce a valid driver s license or evidence of his ownership of the car, his attempts to leave the scene, his sudden and repeated attempts to reach for a bulge in his pants, his refusal to obey the officer s directive to lift his hands in the air, and the fact that he had to be physically restrained. Like the trial court, we are satisfied that those frenetic circumstances together rendered reasonable the officers belief that further action was required to ensure their safety. That belief is underscored by Officer Gonzalez s testimony that he was concerned about a gun and Officer Fisher s action of running to assist Gonzalez. To be sure, Officer Fisher did not identify the bulge as a weapon when he fleetingly palmed it during the moments surrounding the seizure. That is what distinguishes this case from cases like U.S. v. Hassan El, 5 F.3d 726, 731 (1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1006, 114 S. Ct. 1374 (1994), where the officer felt a handgun during a protective pat-down. In such circumstances, what is felt justifies the seizure. Here, the officer s feel of the bulge did not reveal what it was. But that was not the end of the inquiry. The officers were faced with a nervous and intoxicated defendant who refused to obey their lawful orders and continued to move his hands toward the unidentified bulge. That erratic behavior justified the officers further action to neutralize any potential threat. The judgment of the Appellate Division is reversed. The matter is remanded for trial. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES STEIN, COLEMAN, VERNIERO, LaVECCHIA, and ZAZZALI join in JUSTICE LONG s opinion. SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY NO. A-8 SEPTEMBER TERM 2001 ON CERTIFICATION TO Appellate Division, Superior Court STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEREK ROACH, a/k/a DALE ROACH and ZEEK ROACH, Defendant-Respondent. DECIDED April 24, 2002 Chief Justice Poritz PRESIDING OPINION BY Justice Long CONCURRING OPINION BY DISSENTING OPINION BY Converted by Andrew Scriven