SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSE Y 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

- 014 7. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant ( Daniel V. Gautieri, A ssistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief). Damon G. Tyner, Atlantic County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Mario C. Formica, Deputy First Assista nt 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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 , 20202 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 den ying his motion t o 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 blac k male known as "Money," who was distributing heroin and cocaine in the South Chester Avenue area of Pleasantville. T he CI had provided reliable information to law enforcement in the past , leading to arrests and convictions of individuals for controlled d angerous 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 Pleas antville 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 th at 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 Avenue s. Other officers then observed Salahuddin complete the transaction with the C I 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 d efendant 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 wa iting for a CDS delivery and w ould meet afterward. Shortly there after, Officer VanSyckle advised radio communication that a black Dodge truck had just parked across the street from the residence. Officer VanSyckle observed4 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, 201 7, 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 observe d 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 t he 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 wa r rant 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 w hite 2006 Pontiac Grand Prix (the vehicle) outside the residence. D uring 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. Followin g 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 t he 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 her oin and/or cocaine while in possession of guns, N.J.S.A. 2C:5

- 2, 35

- 5 ( b ) (2) and/or 39

- 4
. 16 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 distr ibute, 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 sixty

six , sixty

- seven , seventy, and seventy
- one ); second

- degree possession of a7 A

- 0030

- 19T1

firearm without a permit, N.J.S.A. 2C:39

- 5 ( b ) (count sixty

- eight ); second

degree possession of an assault firearm, N.J.S.A. 2C:39

- 5 ( f ) (count sixty

- nine ); fourth

- degree possession o f a large

- capacity magazine, N.J.S.A. 2C:39

- 3 ( j ) (counts seventy
- two , seventy
- three , seventy
- four, and seventy
- five ); fourth

degree possession of hollow

- point ammunition, N.J.S.A. 2C:39

- 3 ( f ) (count seventy
- six ); fourth

- degree possession of handgun ammuniti on 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 th e residence and vehicle. After hearing argument, t he judge denied the motion, finding law enforcement established probable cause for the issuance of the warrants and reasonably believe d all the information in the affidavits was true. Pursuant to a plea ag reement, o n 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 of8 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 , present ing 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 A mendment 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 t he 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 t o 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 factual10 A

- 0030

- 19T1

complex rather tha n 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 r eview 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 whe n he den ied defendant's motion to suppress the evidence seized from the residence. On four separate occasions, l aw enforcement11 A

- 0030

- 19T1

observed defendant and/or Salahuddin leave the residence to sell CDS, without stop p ing at a third location in between. Furthermore, shortl y after Salahuddin told the CI he was a waiting a CDS delivery, law enforcement observed Salahuddin bring what appeared to be heavy objects into the residence. M oments later, Salahuddin told the CI he received the CDS delivery . Based on the totality of th e 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 com mon 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, i n addition to positive indications on the car from the dog sniff , law enforcement o bserved defendant on multiple occasion s leave the residence, enter and exit the vehicle, and return to the residence ; each time, he remain ed in the vehicle for only short periods of time. The vehicle was parked outside of the residence, where police alrea dy seized substantial quantities of CDS and12 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, la w enforcement had probable cause to believe the vehicle contained contraband and evidence of criminal activity
. Affirmed.