Title: State of New Jersey v. Bruce Birkenmeier

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). In April 2002, a confidential informant who had previously provided information that led to two major drug and weapons seizures and two arrests, gave Detective Gary Friedhoff information about defendant Bruce Birkenmeier. The informant identified Birkenmeier by name, address, physical description, and the make, model and license number of his car. He said that Birkenmeier would be leaving his home at 4:30 p.m. with marijuana in a laundry tote bag to make a drug delivery. The police placed Birkenmeier s home under surveillance. They observed Birkenmeier leaving his home at 4:30 p.m., carrying a laundry tote bag, and driving away in a car matching the informant s description. The police stopped Birkenmeier s car in Long Branch. Detective Friedhoff observed a laundry tote bag on the front passenger s seat of the car and smelled a very strong odor of marijuana. A search of Birkenmeier s car uncovered what appeared to be, and later was confirmed as, about thirty-five pounds of marijuana. Birkenmeier also orally consented to a search of his home where Birkenmeier turned over an additional twenty pounds of marijuana to the police. Birkenmeier was indicted on various drug charges. Birkenmeier moved to suppress the evidence but did not contest the validity of the initial stop of his car. He claimed that the warrantless search was unconstitutional because the police had sufficient time to obtain a warrant between the one and one-half hours that the informant relayed his tip to Friedhoff and the time he was stopped. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the informant s tip was not sufficiently corroborated until Birkenmeier drove away and, hence, there was no basis on which to seek a warrant. Birkenmeier pleaded guilty to second degree possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, preserving the denial of his motion to suppress for appellate review. The Appellate Division reversed the denial of the motion to suppress, holding that there having been no legitimate basis for the stop, the evidence seized as a result of the stop should have been suppressed. This Court granted the State s petition for certification. HELD: Under the circumstances presented, the confidential informant s information, once corroborated by the observations of the police, provided the reasonable and articulable suspicion required for an investigatory stop of Birkenmeier s car; once the car was stopped lawfully and the odor of marijuana detected by the police, probable cause and exigent circumstances existed so as to trigger the automobile exception to the warrant requirement and permit the lawful search of the passenger compartment; once the police lawfully discovered the marijuana in the passenger compartment, there was a sufficient basis to support the request for Birkenmeier s consent to a search of his home, which consent, by Birkenmeier s own admission, was freely and voluntarily given. The confidential informant s tip, once corroborated by the observations made by the police, provided sufficient reasonable suspicion to detain and conduct an investigatory stop and, therefore, the initial stop of Birkenmeier s car was proper. (p. 13) 2. There is no doubt that Friedhoff s observation of the laundry tote bag on the front passenger s seat of Birkenmeier s car and the detection of a very strong odor of marijuana sufficed to provide the probable cause and exigent circumstances needed for the invocation of the automobile exception and the ensuing search of the passenger compartment of Birkenmeier s car. (p. 14) 3. The premise of Birkenmeier s last objection: that the search of his home was unlawful because the request for consent to search was not preceded by probable cause is incorrect. The existence of probable cause is not a condition precedent to a consent search. In State v. Carty, we held that in respect of non-custodial motor vehicle searches, consent searches following a lawful stop of a motor vehicle should not be deemed valid unless there is a reasonable and articulable suspicion to believe that the defendant has engaged in or is about to engage in criminal activity. For purposes of this analysis, we assume, without explicitly deciding, that the requirements of State v. Carty apply to a request to a party in custody for consent to search something other than a motor vehicle. By the time the police asked Birkenmeier for his consent to search, the police not only had a reasonable and articulable suspicion of wrongdoing, but that suspicion had blossomed into probable cause. (pp. 15-16) 4. Under the circumstances presented, the confidential informant s information, once corroborated by the observations of the police, provided the reasonable and articulable suspicion required for an investigatory stop of Birkenmeier s car. Once the car was stopped lawfully and the odor of marijuana detected by the police, probable cause and exigent circumstances existed so as to trigger the automobile exception to the warrant requirement and permit the lawful search of the passenger compartment. Once the police lawfully discovered the marijuana in the passenger compartment, there was a sufficient basis to support the request for Birkenmeier s consent to a search of his home, which consent, by Birkenmeier s own admission, was freely and voluntarily given. (p. 21) The judgment of the Appellate Division is REVERSED and the case REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and J USTICES LONG, LaVECCHIA, ZAZZALI, ALBIN, and WALLACE join in JUSTICE RIVERA-S OTO s opinion SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY A- 85 September Term 2004 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BRUCE BIRKENMEIER, Defendant-Respondent. Argued October 11, 2005 Decided January 19, 2006 On appeal from the Superior Court, Appellate Division. Christopher A. Alliegro, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant (Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney). Mark F. Casazza argued the cause for respondent (Rudnick, Addonizio & Pappa, attorneys). JUSTICE RIVERA-SOTO delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal requires that we determine, under the circumstances presented, the propriety of a vehicle stop and the searches that followed. Defendant Bruce Birkenmeier asserts that, given the quantum of information possessed by the police at the time, the police were required to obtain a search warrant before stopping and searching his car and thereafter securing consent to search his house. The State argues that there was no requirement that the police secure a prophylactic search warrant, that the police had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant s car and, once stopped, that there was probable cause to authorize the search of the car s contents and to justify the consent search of the defendant s home. Based exclusively on a stipulated record consisting of the police reports and the direct and cross-examination of the supervising investigating officer, the trial court denied defendant s motion to suppress because the corroborated information from a reliable confidential informant provided reasonable suspicion to stop defendant s car, and, once stopped, the odor of marijuana in the car provided both probable cause to search the passenger compartment of the car and proper justification for the consent search of defendant s home. The Appellate Division, however, reversed and remanded, holding that the confidential informant information was neither verified nor reliable and, hence, could not sustain the stop and subsequent search. We hold that, under the circumstances presented, the information presented by the confidential informant, once corroborated by the observations of the police, provided reasonable suspicion to stop defendant s car. We also hold that, once the car was stopped lawfully and the odor of marijuana detected by the police, there was probable cause and exigent circumstances to search the passenger compartment of defendant s car. Finally, we hold that, once the police lawfully discovered the marijuana in the passenger compartment, there was reasonable suspicion to support the request for defendant s consent to search his home, a consent that was freely and voluntarily given. We, therefore, reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division. A. Yes. Q. That he had proved reliable in the past? A. That s correct. Q. That not only had he given you information but you actually were able to follow up on that information and make two arrests. Correct? A. That s correct. Q. One of Cocaine and weapons? A. That s correct. Q. Which would have been considered a major arrest. Correct? A. That is correct. Q. And then another case involving Marijuana. Was that a large amount of Marijuana? A. Yes, it was. Q. And was the information that the informant gave you in those cases right on the money with respect to what you later developed? A. Yes. Later returning to the issue of the confidential informant s reliability, Friedhoff testified on cross-examination as follows: Q. Okay. So, let s go back then. Did you feel that the informant himself was reliable? A. Absolutely. Q. And that informant had given you reliable information in the past that you had used to make arrests. Correct? A. Absolutely. Q. And as you had said before, it had always been right on the money? A. Absolutely. Q. And in this situation the informant told you that [defendant] was going to be leaving his residence in Long Branch at about four thirty and at that time he was going to have approximately 35 pounds of Marijuana to be delivered to some location in Long Branch? A. That s correct. Q. And you felt that based upon how successful this informant had been with you in the past, that you needed to act on that? A. Well, there was - - Q. That you intended to act on that? A. I was - - Q. Right? A. - - intending to act on surveillance which is part of the operation. Addressing directly whether the information he received from the confidential informant, standing alone, was sufficient to support the probable cause needed to sustain a search warrant, Friedhoff was clear: Q. Now, you would agree would you not, that the information that the informant had given you would have been sufficient probable cause in order to apply for a search warrant? A. Absolutely not. Q. No question about that? A. Absolutely not. . . . . Q. . . . . I think you did testify though that you felt based upon the information that you had that that was sufficient probable cause in order to get a warrant in this case. THE COURT: He said no. A. I said not. I said absolutely not. Q. Oh, you mean from the information that you got - - A. Just from the information that I got from a confidential informant? Absolutely not. I wouldn t apply for a search warrant for that information, absolutely. At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied defendant s motion to suppress. As noted by the trial court, defendant did not contest the validity of the initial stop of his car. Instead, focusing solely on the quantum of information provided by the confidential informant and the expiration of one and one-half hours from the time the informant relayed his tip to Friedhoff and the time defendant was stopped, [d]efendant claim[ed] that the warrantless search of defendant s vehicle and home is unconstitutional because the police had sufficient time to obtain a valid search warrant. The trial court rejected that argument, holding that the informant s tip was not sufficiently corroborated until the defendant walked out of his house with a laundry tote, got in his car and drove away and, hence, there was no basis on which to seek, much less procure, a search warrant. Three days later, on April 7, 2003, defendant entered a retraxit plea pursuant to R. 3:9-3(f) to the negotiated charge of second degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance (marijuana) with intent to distribute, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5b(10)(b), preserving the denial of his motion to suppress for appellate review. On June 20, 2003, the trial court sentenced defendant to a seven-year term of imprisonment, a six-month driver s license suspension, and imposed all of the mandatory monetary penalties. The trial court, however, stayed the execution of the sentence and allowed defendant to remain free on bail pending the prosecution of his appeal. We granted the State s petition for certification, 182 N.J. 430 (2005), and, because the Appellate Division incorrectly fused the requirements for an investigatory stop based on reasonable suspicion with the probable cause required for a search, we now reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division. [State v. Nishina, 175 N.J. 502, 511 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted).] Gauging its rightful place in the continuum of detentions subject to constitutional scrutiny, we have held that [r]easonable suspicion necessary to justify an investigatory stop is a lower standard than the probable cause necessary to sustain an arrest. State v. Stovall, 170 N.J. 346, 356 (2002). Applying Nishina s collective circumstances test here, the confidential informant s tip, once corroborated by the observations made by the police, provided sufficient reasonable suspicion to detain and conduct an investigatory stop of defendant and, therefore, the initial stop of defendant s car was proper. We now turn to the consequences of that stop. SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY NO. A-85 SEPTEMBER TERM 2004 ON REMAND FROM Appellate Division, Superior Court STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BRUCE BIRKENMEIER, Defendant-Respondent. DECIDED January 19, 2006 Chief Justice Poritz PRESIDING OPINION BY Justice Rivera-Soto CONCURRING OPINION BY DISSENTING OPINION BY