Case Title: State of New Jersey v. Larry D. Wilson

Citation: 

Docket Number: a-49-02

State: new-jersey

Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Date: 2003-11-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
On February 30, 1999, at approximately 12:26 a.m., two officers in a marked police vehicle were patrolling the area of Union Avenue and Jasper Street in the City of Paterson. One of the officers observed a vehicle with a passenger suspected of having outstanding arrest warrants. The driver parked the vehicle on Jasper Street and the officers observed the defendant exit the vehicle. There was no indication that either of the occupants was aware of the marked police vehicle. Upon observing defendant and confirming the officer s belief that he was the person for whom the warrants had issued, the officer called to defendant. Defendant walked towards the patrol vehicle and the officers arrested him based on the arrest warrants. Defendant had his hands inside his jacket sleeves and, in order to handcuff him, the officers asked that he remove them. Upon removing his hands out of the sleeves, one at a time, the officers observed packets suspected of containing controlled dangerous substances drop to the ground. The packets were later determined to contain marijuana and cocaine. After arresting defendant, placing him in the patrol vehicle, and retrieving the suspected drugs from the ground, the officers approached the driver. The driver produced valid driving credentials. While one of the officers questioned the driver, the other officer continued searching the grounds for any other drugs and also opened the unlocked passenger door of the vehicle. Inside, the officer found other narcotics, determined to be fifty bags of crack cocaine. The officer later acknowledged that the drugs in the vehicle were not in plain view. The driver was also arrested. Defendant was charged with third-degree possession of cocaine, third-degree possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, and third-degree possession of cocaine with intent to distribute within 1000 feet of school property. At a subsequent suppression hearing, the trial court found that probable cause and exigent circumstances had existed to justify the warrantless search of the automobile. Defendant pled guilty to all charges, subject to his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion. The trial court sentenced defendant to an extended term of six years imprisonment, with a three-year period of parole ineligibility, and assessed the usual fines and penalties. In a reported decision, the Appellate Division reversed the trial court, concluding that the officers lacked probable cause to conduct the warrantless search of the vehicle. The Supreme Court granted the State s petition for certification. HELD: The State has not overcome the presumption that its warrantless search of the automobile was invalid under the federal and State constitutions. The Appellate Division properly suppressed the fruits of the search. 1. Consistent with the State and federal constitutions, a warrantless search is presumed invalid unless it falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement, and the State bears the burden of demonstrating that the search falls within one of those exceptions. The automobile exception to the warrant requirement requires that the State demonstrate both probable cause and exigent circumstances. Probable cause requires, in turn, that the police action emanate from a well-grounded suspicion that a crime has been or is being committed. The definition of probable cause used to evaluate a warrantless search is the same as for a search warrant. The four corners concept applied to search warrants is applicable in the case of a warrantless search in that the trial court must decide whether the State has justified its warrantless conduct based on the four corners of the evidence presented at the suppression hearing. (Pp. 5-8) 2. The State s reliance on State v. Nishina, 175 N.J 502 (2003), is misplaced. Unlike in Nishina, the officers in this case did not observe anything of an incriminating nature in plain view within the vehicle. In addition, there were other factors in Nishina not present here that buttressed the conclusion that the officers acted reasonably and with probable cause in that case. The Appellate Division properly noted a number of factors in this case that militated against a finding of probable cause, including: there was nothing suspicious about the vehicle itself or about the way the driver operated the vehicle; the vehicle was not stopped by the officers and the occupants exited on their own volition; and, there were no furtive movements of any kind. In addition, there was no indication that the outstanding arrest warrants were drug related; no testimony that the neighborhood was an area of high drug activity; and insufficient evidence to suggest that the quantity of drugs found outside the vehicle caused a suspicion that additional drugs might be found inside the vehicle. The State in this case failed to create the evidentiary record necessary to uphold its conduct. Moreover, we decline to rule on the State s alternate contention, raised during oral argument, that the drugs found in the automobile were fruits of a lawful search incident to defendant s arrest. We confine our review solely to the question presented in the petition. (Pp. 8-14) The judgment of the Appellate Division is AFFIRMED. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES LONG, LAVECCHIA, ZAZZALI, ALBIN and WALLACE join in Justice VERNIERO s opinion. Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LARRY D. WILSON, a/k/a ROBERT SMITH, IWA, Defendant-Respondent. Argued October 8, 2003 Decided November 3, 2003 On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 354 N.J. Super. 548 (2002). Jafer Aftab, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant (Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Bennett A. Barlyn, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief). Mark H. Friedman, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for respondent (Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney). Justice VERNIERO delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a search-and-seizure case. We granted certification to determine whether the State has satisfied its burden of demonstrating the validity of a warrantless automobile search. The State advances some legitimate arguments to justify its conduct. However, our review of the trial court s suppression hearing leads us to conclude that the State submitted insufficient factual proofs at that hearing to support its current position. Under those circumstances, we hold that the Appellate Division properly suppressed the fruits of the search. [State v. Cooke, 163 N.J. 657, 664 (2000) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).] In satisfying that burden, the State must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that there was no constitutional violation. State v. Whittington, 142 N.J. Super. 45, 51-52 (App. Div. 1976). In certain areas of our search-and-seizure jurisprudence not applicable here, our case law imposes an elevated burden on the State. See, e.g., State v. Holland, 176 N.J. 344, 360-61 (2003) (requiring clear-and-convincing proof to satisfy second and third prongs of three-prong test for admitting fruits of search under independent-source rule). One exception to the warrant requirement is the automobile exception. Cooke, supra, 163 N.J. at 664. Under our State s constitution, that exception applies only in cases in which probable cause and exigent circumstances are evident, making it impracticable for the police to obtain a warrant. Id. at 671. Because we agree with the Appellate Division that the State did not adequately demonstrate probable cause, we will not discuss exigency other than to confirm that, although not required under the Fourth Amendment, it is a necessary element of the automobile exception under Article I, paragraph 7. Id. at 666, 671. Familiar in concept, probable cause eludes precise definition[.] State v. Sullivan, 169 N.J. 204, 210 (2001) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In general terms, it means less than legal evidence necessary to convict though more than mere naked suspicion. Probable cause exists if at the time of the police action there is a well grounded suspicion that a crime has been or is being committed. Id. at 210-11 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). It reflects a determination that, in view of all the circumstances, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. State v. Demeter, 124 N.J. 374, 380-81 (1991) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The definition of probable cause used to evaluate a warrantless search is the same as for a search warrant. Whiteley v. Warden, Wyo. State Penitentiary, 401 U.S. 560, 566, 93 S. Ct. 1031, 1035-36, 28 L. Ed. 2d 306, 312 (1971). In the case of a warrant, the probable cause determination must be made based on the information contained within the four corners of the supporting affidavit, as supplemented by sworn testimony before the issuing judge that is recorded contemporaneously. Schneider v. Simonini, 163 N.J. 336, 363 (2000). One commentator has explained that [l]imiting consideration to the four corners of the evidence before the issuing magistrate assures that the magistrate was in a position to adequately perform the constitutional function of providing independent judicial review prior to executive intrusions on individual privacy. Kevin G. Byrnes, New Jersey Arrest, Search and Seizure, 5:2-5, at 74 (2003). Warrantless searches, of course, are not supported by an affidavit in advance of the search but rather are evaluated based on testimony and other evidence presented to the trial court (either a municipal or Law Division judge) at a subsequent suppression hearing. Nonetheless, the four-corners concept is reflected in such cases in that the suppression motion is heard and decided by the court on the basis of everything each side has to offer, including testimony if material facts are disputed. State v. Gaudiosi, 97 N.J. Super. 565, 568 (App. Div. 1967). In other words, the trial court decides whether the State has justified its warrantless conduct based on the four corners of the evidence presented at the suppression hearing. Hence, as a general rule, the State on appeal cannot rely on factual testimony or other proof that was not submitted as part of the lower court s record. See generally 82 New Jersey Practice, Criminal Practice and Procedure 16.18, at 12-13 (Leonard N. Arnold) (2002) (outlining procedures governing suppression motions). The State argues forcefully that the quantity of marijuana and cocaine found on defendant s person alone provided sufficient probable cause to believe that the automobile contained additional drugs. Although that argument has some appeal to us in concept, the State submitted insufficient evidence to support it at the suppression hearing. As noted, one officer indicated that he had opened the passenger door to see if there [were] any other drugs or [drug] paraphernalia in [defendant s] immediate area there. Aside from that bare statement, the government did not proffer testimony explaining with any degree of specificity why it suspected that such items would be found in the car. For instance, there was no testimony that the drugs found on defendant were possessed or packaged in a fashion that furnished the officers with a well-grounded suspicion that defendant was about to engage in illegal distribution, using the car to conceal or transport additional contraband. It was not enough to describe the quantity of drugs, their location on defendant s person, and defendant s proximity to the car. The officers needed to articulate more fully why those facts provided the threshold level of suspicion required to justify their search of the car itself. In the same vein, there was no specific testimony that, if possessed solely for personal consumption, the drugs discovered on defendant s person raised a fair probability that drug paraphernalia would be contained in the vehicle. We reiterate that the warrantless search in this case is presumed invalid and that the government bore the burden of creating an evidentiary record necessary to uphold its conduct. In such a setting we decline to infer proofs that were not presented expressly before the trial court. Although we can infer or take judicial notice of certain facts in appropriate circumstances, see, e.g., Nishina, supra, 175 N.J. at 507 (taking notice of fact that school identified at suppression hearing served students through fourth grade), we cannot fill in gaps in the record to supply the requisite proofs required of the State under constitutional standards. Our analysis is intended to serve not as criticism of the State s handling of the suppression motion, but merely as guidance to trial courts in future cases. Similarly, we decline to rule on the State s alternate contention raised during oral argument that the drugs found in the automobile are fruits of a lawful search incident to defendant s arrest. In its petition for certification the State asked only that we consider whether the discovery of drugs on defendant s person provided sufficient probable cause to search the car. After we granted that petition the State informed us that it did not intend to file a supplemental brief but would instead rely exclusively on its petition. Under those circumstances, we confine our review solely to the question presented in the petition. See Hirsch v. State Bd. of Med. Exam rs, 128 N.J. 160, 161 (1992) (declining to rule on certain arguments of appellant in part because they first were raised after petition for certification had been granted). Lastly, the Appellate Division opinion posits a hypothetical scenario in which a person leaves a house or store and is then immediately seen selling drugs. The Appellate Division suggests that, as a matter of law, those facts would not provide probable cause to search either place. Wilson, supra, 354 N.J. Super. at 556. Our disposition is not to be construed as approving that hypothetical statement. In avoiding bright-line pronouncements in this area of law, we continue to believe that courts must consider the totality of the circumstances, without focusing exclusively on any one factor, in considering whether probable cause has been established. Sullivan, supra, 169 N.J. at 216; see also Holland, supra, 176 N.J. at 362 (observing that [o]ur case law generally has eschewed per se rules in search-and-seizure context). STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LARRY D. WILSON, a/k/a ROBERT SMITH, IWA, Defendant-Respondent. DECIDED November 3, 2003 Chief Justice Poritz PRESIDING OPINION BY Justice Verniero CONCURRING OPINION BY DISSENTING OPINION BY