Title: State v. Alfred Cooke

State: new-jersey

Issuer: New Jersey Supreme Court

Document:

(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized). VERNIERO, J., writing for a unanimous Court. This appeal involves the question whether the New Jersey Constitution requires a finding of exigent circumstances to justify the search of an automobile without a warrant. In April 1997, the Jersey City Police Department received information from a reliable, confidential informant that defendant, Alfred Cooke, was selling drugs in the area of a housing complex on Duncan Avenue, in an area known for drug-trafficking, and that Cooke was storing the drugs in a gray Ford Escort. Two weeks later, Jersey City Police Officer Timothy Harmon conducted a surveillance of the specific location; perimeter teams of other officers were in the area for assistance if necessary. Officer Harmon saw Cooke in a parking lot working on a gray Ford Escort. Officer Harmon saw a person approach Cooke and give him money, after which Cooke walked to a nearby white Hyundai, removed a plastic bag from the car, and gave the bag to the person. Officer Harmon concluded on the basis of his observations, experience with narcotics arrests in the area, and the informant's tip, that Cooke was engaged in a drug transaction. Later, Officer Harmon saw Cooke hand a white object from the Hyundai to another man who had approached him at the Escort and remained for about an hour. Cooke then removed another plastic bag from the Hyundai, put it under the passenger seat of the Escort, and drove away in the Hyundai with a man named Bryan Miles, known to the police from previous arrests. Miles had arrived while the other man was there and was present when Cooke gave that man the white object. Officer Harmon notified the perimeter officers, who followed and then pulled over the Hyundai. They told Cooke there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest and questioned him about his knowledge of the gray Escort. He denied any knowledge of the car. The police arrested Cooke, searched him, and discovered the keys to the Escort. Still he denied knowledge of the Escort. Officer Harmon had remained at the surveillance scene to watch the Escort. When the other officers returned to the scene with the Escort keys obtained from Cooke, they searched the car and recovered illegal drugs. Cooke was indicted for possession of cocaine and heroin; possession of cocaine, heroin and marijuana with intent to distribute; and possession of cocaine, heroin and marijuana with intent to distribute within one thousand feet of school property. Cooke filed a motion to suppress all evidence seized from the search of the Escort, which the trial court granted. The court concluded that the automobile exception did not apply in this case because the police had no exigent circumstances justifying a search without a warrant. The court believed the car was not readily mobile because Cooke had been arrested and was in custody, the police had his keys to the Escort, and the car was under police surveillance until the time of the search. The State filed a motion for leave to appeal the suppression order to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division granted the motion for leave to appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial court substantially for the reasons expressed by that court. The Appellate Division also found an absence of exigent circumstances, commenting that the police had received no specific information that any other person might attempt to take the Escort or anything in it. HELD: Under New Jersey law, there must be both probable cause and exigent circumstances to sustain a warrantless search of a motor vehicle. Those requirements were met in this case, where the the observations of the police confirmed the informant's tip and the vehicle was readily mobile and accessible to third persons, who could have moved the car or removed or destroyed its contents. 1. The United States Supreme Court has held that under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution a warrantless search of a motor vehicle generally is valid if the vehicle is readily mobile and there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband. A finding of exigent circumstances is not required. (pp. 6-10) 2. The Court declines to depart from its long-held standards under the New Jersey Constitution requiring exigent circumstances as well as probable cause to sustain a warrantless search of a vehicle. Important rights are at stake and these standards have balanced constitutional guarantees against the need for effective law enforcement. (pp.10-15) 2. Although there is a lesser expectation of privacy in an automobile, that expectation is not diminished to the point that it provides the sole basis for a warrantless search; it is a factor to consider along with exigency and probable cause. (pp. 16-17) 4. The record clearly supports a finding of probable cause to search the Escort: information from a reliable informant confirmed by the police officer's first-hand observations of an exchange of money for what the officer believed to be narcotics. No further hearing on probable cause is required. (pp. 17-18) 5. Exigency in the constitutional context exists when the police have probable cause to search a car and circumstances make it impracticable to obtain a warrant. Here, those circumstances include the impracticability of requiring Officer Harmon to leave his surveillance post to guard the car; the knowledge of Bryan Miles and others that drugs were in the Escort or the Hyundai; the accessibility of the drugs to others; and the possibility that another set of keys to the Escort existed, making the car mobile. None of these factors alone provides a basis for finding exigency, but together they satisfy the standard. (pp. 18-25) The judgment of the Appellate Division is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED for trial. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and ASSOCIATE JUSTICES O'HERN, STEIN, COLEMAN, LONG and LaVECCHIA join in JUSTICE VERNIERO's opinion. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALFRED COOKE, Defendant-Respondent. Argued February 14, 2000 -- Decided May 17, 2000 On appeal from the Superior Court, Appellate Division. Philip C. Chronakis, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant (Fred J. Theemling, Jr., Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney). Susan Brody, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for respondent (Ivelisse Torres, Public Defender, attorney). Lisa Sarnoff Gochman, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae, Attorney General of New Jersey (John J. Farmer, Jr., Attorney General, attorney). The opinion of the Court was delivered by VERNIERO, J. This appeal involves the question whether the automobile exception to the warrant requirement of the New Jersey Constitution requires a finding of exigent circumstances. That question has become significant because the United States Supreme Court has held that exigent circumstances are not required under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, concluding that probable cause that a vehicle contains contraband is itself sufficient justification to conduct the search without a warrant. Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938, 116 S. Ct. 2485, 135 L. Ed. 2d 1031 (1996). We decline to reach a similar conclusion under the New Jersey Constitution. Instead, we conclude that the automobile exception under New Jersey law requires both probable cause and a finding of exigent circumstances to sustain a warrantless search of a vehicle. Based on that conclusion and the facts of the present case, we hold that the search of the automobile was valid because both probable cause and exigent circumstances existed. Although the police officers searched the vehicle after they had already taken defendant into custody, the vehicle was still readily mobile and third persons could have removed it from the area under surveillance or removed or destroyed its contents. Accordingly, we reverse the grant of defendant's motion to suppress and remand for trial. NO. A-115 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALFRED COOKE, Defendant-Respondent. DECIDED May 17, 2000 Chief Justice Poritz