Title: State of New Jersey v. Calvin Lee

State: new-jersey

Issuer: New Jersey Supreme Court

Document:

This appeal concerns whether a defendant is entitled to discovery to support claims of racial profiling before a court considers the attenuation exception to the exclusionary rule. On May 22, 1995, State Trooper Steven Parisi noticed a pickup truck moving in and out of its traffic lane and traveling at 38 miles per hour in a 55 mile per hour zone. Parisi observed the passenger in the truck, later identified as defendant Calvin Lee, begin to move around. Parisi pulled the truck over. Both occupants in the truck were African-American males. Believing that the vehicle might be stolen, Parisi asked the driver, Ricky Lee, to remove the key and hand it to him. As the driver did so, Lee began to reach between the seats. Parisi immediately directed both men to place their hands on the dashboard. When Parisi radioed for backup, the two occupants attempted to flee the vehicle, but Parisi positioned himself in such a way to prevent the two men from escaping. The driver attempted to move the gear shift into drive, but was unable to do so because the key had been removed. Parisi then advised the occupants that they were under arrest. At that point, the driver opened his door and fled into the nearby woods. Lee also tried to flee after once again reaching for the area between the seats, but Parisi blocked him. Parisi, with his weapon drawn, reached into the truck and tried to grab Lee. A struggle ensued. Lee eventually broke free and ran off in the same direction as the driver. After Parisi pursued Lee for a short distance, he returned to the vehicle and searched it. Parisi found several bags of cocaine and marijuana in the area where Lee had been reaching. Lee and the driver were eventually apprehended. Lee and the driver, codefendant Ricky Lee, were charged with third-degree possession of cocaine, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10a(1); first-degree possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5a(1) and 2C:35-5b(1); fourth-degree possession of marijuana, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10a(3); and third-degree possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5a(1) and 2C:35-5b(11). Lee was also charged with fourth-degree aggravated assault on Parisi, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(5)(a); fourth-degree resisting arrest, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2a; and second-degree escape, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-5. Lee was tried and convicted of all charges. Lee filed an appeal, as did his codefendant. These appeals were consolidated and affirmed by the Appellate Division. This Court denied certification. Lee then filed a petition for post-conviction relief. He sought discovery to support his claim that the vehicle stop was the product of racial profiling. Lee filed a formal notice of motion for discovery with Judge Barisonek, who was designated to hear all motions for discovery relating to racial profiling by the New Jersey State Police. The State moved to dismiss Lee s discovery motion, as it did in several other unrelated, but similar cases. Following a consolidated hearing, Judge Barisonek granted the State s motion to dismiss Lee s request for discovery finding that the criminal conduct committed after the initial stop constituted a sufficient break in the chain of events that profiling discovery would not affect the outcome. After Lee s motion for leave to appeal was denied, a different judge denied his petition for post-conviction relief. Lee appealed. With one judge dissenting, the Appellate Division affirmed, largely on the basis of Judge Barisonek s opinion. Because of the dissent in the Appellate Division, the case came before the Court as an appeal as of right. HELD: A defendant is entitled to discovery to support racial profiling claims and the attenuation doctrine should be considered only after it is determined that a defendant is a victim of racial profiling. 1. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I of the New Jersey Constitution protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. Pursuant to the exclusionary rule, the State may not introduce evidence that is obtained from an unlawful search or seizure by the police. Not all evidence derived from an unlawful search is excluded from evidence if the connection between the lawless conduct of the police and the discovery of the challenged evidence has become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint. Lee argued that the attenuation doctrine should not be considered until after discovery on whether he was a victim of racial profiling. (pp. 10-11) 2. As a result of numerous cases challenging motor vehicle stops based on racial profiling, the Court entered an Administrative Determination and Order on January 31, 2000. The Order stayed all motions for discovery relating to racial profiling until the Appellate Division decided appeals in State v. Ballard, State v. Maiolino and State v. Dickerson. In deciding the three consolidated appeals, the Appellate Division held that defendants were entitled to discovery in order to pursue their claims of selective enforcement. (pp. 11-14) 3. Two subsequent Appellate Division decisions, State v. Ball, 381 N.J. Super. 545 (App. Div. 2005) and State v. Gonzalez, 382 N.J. Super. 27 (App. Div. 2005) are consistent with Ballard, but contrary to the majority of the Appellate Division panel in the present matter. In Ball and Gonzalez, the Appellate Division held that the attenuation issue should be considered only after it is determined that the defendants were victims of racial profiling. (pp. 14 - 16) 4. The Court concludes that Lee is entitled to discovery in an effort to support his racial profiling claim, and the rules authorize post-conviction discovery relevant to racial profiling. The key is that, pursuant to R. 3:13-3(c), the discovery must be relevant. (pp. 16-17) 5. The State s attenuation argument is not yet ripe. Unless Lee develops through discovery that the motor vehicle stop resulted from inappropriate conduct of the police, there will be no need to address the attenuation argument. If Lee is successful in proving that racial profiling was implicated, then the State may offer its attenuation argument. (pp. 17-18) The judgment of the Appellate Division is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. CHIEF JUSTICE ZAZZALI and JUSTICES LONG, LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, RIVERA-SOTO and HOENS join in JUSTICE WALLACE s opinion. SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY A- 34 September Term 2006 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CALVIN LEE, Defendant-Appellant. Argued January 17, 2007 Decided April 19, 2007 On appeal from the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 381 N.J. Super. 429 (2005). Susan Brody, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney). Paul H. Heinzel, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Stuart Rabner, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney). JUSTICE WALLACE, JR. delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case, defendant appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief and, specifically, from the denial of his motion for discovery to support his claim that his vehicle stop emanated from racial profiling. In denying that motion, the court found that even assuming defendant was correct in his claim, the drug evidence obtained after the stop would not be excluded because defendant s assault on the officer purged the taint of the initial stop. Following the denial of his petition, defendant appealed. With one judge dissenting, the Appellate Division affirmed. We now reverse and remand. We conclude that it was premature to decide the attenuation issue prior to discovery. In addition to that it is argued that because of the egregious conduct on the part of the State Police by engaging in acts of racial profiling, that even if there was a subsequent intervening act that occurred, that the constitutional infringements of the defendant s rights as a result of racial profiling is so egregious, the State should be barred from using that particular evidence. Also it should be barred because of the nexus between the stop, the police misconduct, the subsequent arrest and finding of the evidence that incriminates the defendants. Actually, it is an interesting issue, quite honestly, in terms of the credibility issue because it may have some relevancy to the fact finder s obligation. None of these issues had ever been addressed in any other decision, including all the cases I cited and discussed up until now. Although the court observed that the credibility issue was an interesting one because it may have some relevancy to the fact finder s obligation, the court agreed with the State s position that the criminal conduct committed after the initial stop constituted a sufficient break in the chain of events that profiling discovery would not affect the outcome. Consequently, the court granted the State s motion to dismiss the request for discovery. After defendant s motion for leave to appeal was denied, a different judge denied defendant s petition for post-conviction relief. Defendant appealed that denial. With one judge dissenting, the Appellate Division affirmed, largely on the basis of Judge Barisonek s opinion. State v. Lee, 381 N.J. Super. 429, 433-37 (App. Div. 2005). The dissenting judge contended that the attenuation doctrine analysis was not necessary because the underlying constitutional violation was so egregious. Id. at 448. Further, the dissent noted that the majority failed to appreciate that defendant s detention was complete before the occurrence of any intervening act, and that the physical confrontation occurred after the alleged unconstitutional arrest. Id. at 443-44. Therefore, because the drug evidence was irrevocably linked to the illegal stop[,] it would have been seized in any event. Id. at 444. Because of the dissent in the Appellate Division, this case is before us as of right. R. 2:2-1(a)(2). SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY NO. A-34 SEPTEMBER TERM 2006 ON APPEAL FROM Appellate Division, Superior Court STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CALVIN LEE, Defendant-Appellant. DECIDED April 19, 2007 Chief Justice Zazzali PRESIDING OPINION BY Justice Wallace, Jr. CONCURRING OPINION BY DISSENTING OPINION BY