SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0030-19T1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ISIAH C. COOPER, a/k/a

ISAIAH COOPER, and

ISAIH C. COOPER,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________

Submitted October 19, 2020 – Decided

Before Judges Hoffman and Suter.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Law Division, Atlantic County, Indictment No. 18-01-

0147.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Daniel V. Gautieri, Assistant Deputy Public 

Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

Damon G. Tyner, Atlantic County Prosecutor, attorney 

for respondent (Mario C. Formica, Deputy First 

Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

November 20, 2020
2

A-0030-19T1

PER CURIAM

Defendant Isiah Cooper appeals from the judgment of conviction entered 

by the Law Division on June 20, 2019. On appeal, he challenges the January 

30, 2019 trial court decision denying his motion to suppress evidence seized, 

pursuant to two search warrants, from a residence and a vehicle. We affirm.

I.

The following facts are set forth in two affidavits of Detective Chad 

Meyers of the Atlantic County Prosecutor's Office (ACPO). In early December 

2016, a confidential informant (the CI) provided Detective Meyers with 

information about an unidentified black male known as "Money," who was 

distributing heroin and cocaine in the South Chester Avenue area of 

Pleasantville. The CI had provided reliable information to law enforcement in 

the past, leading to arrests and convictions of individuals for controlled 

dangerous substance (CDS) and weapons-related offenses.

Detective Meyers shared this information with Officer VanSyckle of the 

Street Crimes Unit of Pleasantville Police Department (the PD). Based on this 

information and his personal knowledge of the Pleasantville CDS trade, Officer 

VanSyckle believed "Money" was Umar Salahuddin, who was known to 

distribute CDS from defendant's residence (the residence) in Pleasantville. 
3

A-0030-19T1

During the week of December 11, 2016, the ACPO, the FBI, and the PD 

launched a joint operation to purchase CDS from Salahuddin. Accordingly, the 

CI called Salahuddin to purchase heroin and crack cocaine around Franklin and 

West Jersey Avenues. 

Meanwhile, Officer VanSyckle, who was surveilling the residence, 

advised radio communication that Salahuddin and defendant had exited the 

residence, entered a 2003 Mercedes-Benz C-Class Wagon, and drove to the area 

of Franklin Avenue and West Jersey Avenues. Other officers then observed 

Salahuddin complete the transaction with the CI in the presence of defendant, 

who was in the front passenger seat of the Mercedes-Benz. 

During the weeks of January 15 and 22, 2017, law enforcement conducted 

two additional transactions. Both times, Salahuddin was observed exiting the 

residence, driving to a pre-determined location, and selling CDS to the CI; 

however, on these two occasions defendant was not present. 

During the week of February 5, 2017, law enforcement conducted a fourth 

transaction. The CI again called Salahuddin, who told the CI he was waiting for

a CDS delivery and would meet afterward. Shortly thereafter, Officer 

VanSyckle advised radio communication that a black Dodge truck had just

parked across the street from the residence. Officer VanSyckle observed 
4

A-0030-19T1

Salahuddin exit the residence, enter the front passenger side of the truck, exit 

the truck, and re-enter the residence; when Salahuddin exited the truck, his 

jacket pockets appeared "weighed down by some sort of object(s) not present 

prior to him entering" the truck. "Several moments later," Salahuddin told the 

CI that he received the CDS delivery but called off the transaction due to 

heightened police presence. 

On February 27, 2017, officers observed defendant driving the same 

Mercedes-Benz involved in the December 11, 2016 transaction to the residence. 

There, personnel observed defendant briefly enter and exit the residence. 

Galloway Township Detective Casey subsequently observed defendant drive to 

a nearby Dollar Tree parking lot, where he engaged in a hand-to-hand 

transaction with a driver of another car. Soon thereafter, Detective Casey 

stopped the other driver, identified as Sherri Healey, who admitted she bought 

heroin at the Dollar Tree parking lot. 

On March 10, 2017, Judge Donna Taylor issued a search warrant for the 

residence based on an affidavit submitted by Detective Meyer. Officers

executed the warrant on March 16, 2017, and recovered substantial quantities of 

CDS and multiple handguns from the residence. 
5

A-0030-19T1

During the search, police had observed a white 2006 Pontiac Grand Prix 

(the vehicle) outside the residence. During the investigation, police observed 

defendant

entering and exiting the vehicle . . . parked outside the 

residence. After entering the vehicle officers observed 

[defendant] exit the vehicle and move away from the 

car, on foot, to [the residence]. On these occasions, 

[defendant] remained in the vehicle for short periods of 

time only.

Following the search of the residence, Pleasantville K-9 Unit Patrolman 

Laielli used Chewbacca, his K-9 partner, to conduct a dog-sniff of the vehicle. 

Chewbacca gave positive indications for CDS in the front interior and trunk of 

the vehicle. Police then towed the vehicle to a secure location, where it remained 

locked. 

On March 23, 2017, Judge Michael Blee issued a search warrant for the 

vehicle based on a second affidavit submitted by Detective Meyer. In the search, 

police recovered substantial contraband, including handguns and ammunition

from the vehicle.

On January 25, 2018, an Atlantic County grand jury returned an 

indictment charging defendant with: first-degree gang criminality, N.J.S.A. 

2C:33-29 (count one); second-degree conspiracy to distribute heroin and/or 

cocaine while in possession of guns, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2, 35-5(b)(2) and/or 39-4.1 
6

A-0030-19T1

(count two); third-degree conspiracy to distribute heroin and/or cocaine, and/or 

financial facilitation of criminal activity, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2, 35-5(b)(2) and/or 21-

25 (count three); third-degree financial facilitation of criminal activity, N.J.S.A. 

2C:21-25 (count four); third-degree possession of crack cocaine, N.J.S.A. 

2C:35-10(a)(1) (counts five and sixty); third-degree possession of cocaine with 

the intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) (count six); third-degree 

distribution of cocaine, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) (count seven); third-degree 

possession of heroin, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10a(1) (counts fifty-five and fifty-eight); 

third-degree possession of heroin with the intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-

5(a)(1) and 35-5(b)(3) (count fifty-six and fifty-nine); third-degree distribution 

of heroin, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1); second-degree possession of cocaine with the 

intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(2) (count sixty-one); second-degree 

distribution of heroin, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(2) (count sixty-two); first-degree 

distribution of cocaine, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5b(1) (count sixty-three); first-degree 

maintaining or operating a drug-production facility, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-4 (count 

sixty-four); second-degree conspiracy to maintain or operate a drug-production 

facility, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 and 35-4 (count sixty-five); second-degree possession 

of a firearm while committing a drug crime, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4.1(a) (counts sixtysix, sixty-seven, seventy, and seventy-one); second-degree possession of a 
7

A-0030-19T1

firearm without a permit, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b) (count sixty-eight); seconddegree possession of an assault firearm, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(f) (count sixty-nine);

fourth-degree possession of a large-capacity magazine, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(j)

(counts seventy-two, seventy-three, seventy-four, and seventy-five); fourthdegree possession of hollow-point ammunition, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(f) (count 

seventy-six); fourth-degree possession of handgun ammunition without a 

firearms purchaser identification card or permit, N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3.3(b) (count 

seventy-seven); second-degree certain persons not to have a handgun, N.J.S.A. 

2C:39-7(b) (counts seventy-eight, seventy-nine, eighty, and eighty-one); and 

fourth-degree certain persons not to have a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(a) (counts 

eighty-two, eighty-three, eighty-four, and eighty-five). 

On January 30, 2019, defendant appeared before Judge Rodney 

Cunningham on a motion to suppress evidence seized from the residence and 

vehicle. After hearing argument, the judge denied the motion, finding law 

enforcement established probable cause for the issuance of the warrants and 

reasonably believed all the information in the affidavits was true.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, on June 19, 2019, Judge Cunningham

sentenced defendant to two concurrent terms: a five-year term on the conspiracy 

charge contained in count three and a ten-year term, with a five-year period of 
8

A-0030-19T1

parole ineligibility, on counts sixty-two (distribution of heroin) and an amended 

count seventy-one (possession of a community gun). 

Defendant then filed this appeal, presenting the following arguments:

POINT I

BECAUSE THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE 

SEARCH WARRANT WAS NOT BASED ON 

PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT 

CONTRABAND WOULD BE FOUND IN THE 

HOME THAT WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE 

WARRANT, THE SEARCH WAS 

UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND THE EVIDENCE 

SEIZED MUST BE SUPPRESSED. 

POINT II

BECAUSE THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE 

SEARCH WARRANT FAILED TO ESTABLISH 

THAT THE POLICE DOG AND HIS HANDLER HAD 

BEEN ADEQUATELY TRAINED IN DRUG 

DETECTION, IT FAILED TO ESTABLISH 

PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH COOPER'S 

VEHICLE. 

II.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, 

Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution similarly protect against 

unreasonable searches and seizures, and no warrant shall issue except upon 

probable cause. Unless a search falls within one of the recognized exceptions 

to the warrant requirement, the police must first obtain a warrant. State v. 
9

A-0030-19T1

Sullivan, 169 N.J. 204, 210 (2001) (citing State v. Cooke, 163 N.J. 657, 664 

(2000)). "Before issuing a warrant, the judge must be satisfied that there is 

probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, or is being 

committed, at a specific location or that evidence of a crime is at the place sought 

to be searched." Ibid. (citing State v. Laws, 50 N.J. 159, 173 (1967)).

Probable cause is "consistently characterized . . . as a common-sense, 

practical standard for determining the validity of a search warrant." State v. 

Novembrino, 105 N.J. 95, 120 (1987). Generally, courts accept probable cause 

to mean "less than legal evidence necessary to convict though more than mere 

naked suspicion." Sullivan, 169 N.J. at 210-11 (quoting State v. Mark, 46 N.J. 

262, 271 (1966)). It is met when police have "a 'well-grounded' suspicion that 

a crime has been or is being committed." Ibid. (quoting State v. Waltz, 61 N.J. 

83, 87 (1972)).

Courts must base a probable cause determination on the totality of the 

circumstances. State v. Jones, 179 N.J. 377, 389 (2004) (citing Schneider v. 

Simonini, 163 N.J. 336, 361 (2000)). Courts must also apply a qualitative

analysis to the unique facts and circumstances of any given case. State v. Keyes, 

184 N.J. 541, 556 (2005) (citing Jones, 179 N.J. at 390). "[W]hether or not 

probable cause exists 'involves no more than a value judgment upon a factual 
10 A-0030-19T1

complex rather than an evident application of a precise rule of law, and indeed 

a value judgment which inevitably reflects the seasoning and experience of the 

one who judges.'" Schneider, 163 N.J. at 362 (quoting State v. Funicello, 60 

N.J. 60, 72-73 (1972) (Weintraub, C.J., concurring)).

Therefore, we give "substantial deference" to the trial court's 

determination. State v. Kasabucki, 52 N.J. 110, 117 (1968). Our review of a 

warrant's adequacy "is guided by the flexible nature of probable cause and by 

the deference shown to issuing courts that apply that doctrine." Sullivan, 169 

N.J. at 217. "[W]hen the adequacy of the facts offered to show probable cause 

is challenged after a search made pursuant to a warrant, and their adequacy 

appears to be marginal, the doubt should ordinarily be resolved by sustaining 

the search." Jones, 179 N.J. at 388-89 (quoting Kasabucki, 52 N.J. at 116). 

Accordingly, a search executed pursuant to a warrant is presumed valid, and the 

defendant bears the burden of proving lack of probable cause in the warrant 

application. Sullivan, 169 N.J. at 211 (citing State v. Valencia, 93 N.J. 126, 133 

(1983)).

Applying these standards, we conclude Judge Cunningham did not abuse 

his discretion when he denied defendant's motion to suppress the evidence 

seized from the residence. On four separate occasions, law enforcement 
11 A-0030-19T1

observed defendant and/or Salahuddin leave the residence to sell CDS, without 

stopping at a third location in between. Furthermore, shortly after Salahuddin 

told the CI he was awaiting a CDS delivery, law enforcement observed 

Salahuddin bring what appeared to be heavy objects into the residence. 

Moments later, Salahuddin told the CI he received the CDS delivery. Based on 

the totality of the circumstances, law enforcement had probable cause to believe 

Salahuddin and defendant were storing contraband or other relevant evidence in 

the residence. 

Similarly, we conclude Judge Cunningham did not abuse his discretion in 

denying defendant's motion to suppress the evidence seized from the vehicle. 

Our analysis of probable cause arising from K-9 sniffs looks to "whether all the 

fact surrounding the dog's alert, viewed through the lens of common sense, 

would make a reasonably prudent person think that a search would reveal 

contraband or evidence of a crime." Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237, 248 (2013). 

Here, in addition to positive indications on the car from the dog sniff, law 

enforcement observed defendant on multiple occasions leave the residence, 

enter and exit the vehicle, and return to the residence; each time, he remained in 

the vehicle for only short periods of time. The vehicle was parked outside of 

the residence, where police already seized substantial quantities of CDS and 
12 A-0030-19T1

multiple handguns connected to defendant's apparent criminal activity. In 

addition, the record contains no evidence to suggest the dog was not trained or 

reliable. Based on the totality of the circumstances, law enforcement had 

probable cause to believe the vehicle contained contraband and evidence of 

criminal activity. 

Affirmed.