SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1410-18T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

TYQUAN GIBBS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________

Submitted March 18, 2020 – Decided April 6, 2020

Before Judges Fuentes, Haas and Enright.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Hudson County, Indictment No. 18-02-0090.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Laura B. Lasota, Assistant Deputy Public 

Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

Esther Suarez, Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney for 

respondent (Rookmin Cecilia Beepat, Assistant 

Prosecutor, on the brief).

Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief.

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
2

A-1410-18T4

After the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence in connection 

with Hudson County Indictment No. 18-02-00090, defendant Tyquan Gibbs pled 

guilty to second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-

5(b)(1). In accordance with the negotiated plea, the judge sentenced defendant 

to five years in prison, subject to a forty-two month period of parole ineligibility. 

We affirm.

Officer Sean Morelli of the Jersey City Police Department was the only 

witness to testify at the suppression hearing. On November 25, 2017, Officer 

Morelli and his partner, Officer Aguilar, were patrolling in a marked police car. 

At approximately 3:00 p.m., a staff sergeant radioed them to advise that a private 

citizen had reported seeing a black male with a red hat in possession of a firearm 

at a specific intersection. The officers asked that the sergeant call the citizen 

back for further information, but the sergeant responded that the citizen was 

unavailable. 

The officers drove to the intersection and saw a black male wearing a red 

hat standing near the corner. The officers immediately recognized the individual 

as defendant because defendant's mug shot was posted at the police station on a 

"Be On The Lookout" (BOLO) list that stated he was under investigation for 
3

A-1410-18T4

multiple shootings in Jersey City, and had been involved in past domestic 

violence incidents.

As the officers got out of their car to investigate, defendant immediately 

put his hands in his waistband and the officers could no longer see them. The 

officers both ordered defendant to take his hands out of his pants, but he refused 

to comply. Officer Morelli testified that when defendant reached for his 

waistband, he was concerned for his safety because from his training and 

experience, he "believed [defendant] had a firearm that he was adjusting in his 

waistband." The officers each grabbed one of defendant's arms. As they did so, 

Officer Aguilar saw a black and silver handgun sticking out of defendant's 

sweatshirt pocket.

The officers arrested defendant and seized the handgun. During a search 

incident to this arrest, the officers also found a packet of heroin in defendant's 

pocket.

The judge denied defendant's motion to suppress the handgun and heroin 

seized from him. The judge found that Officer Morelli's testimony was credible 

and, based on the citizen's report, defendant's action in placing his hands in his 

waistband, his refusal to show his hands, and the fact that defendant was on the 

BOLO list, the police had the reasonable suspicion necessary to conduct a lawful 
4

A-1410-18T4

investigatory stop. The judge further found that in the course of conducting that 

stop, Officer Aguilar observed the gun in plain view as it protruded from 

defendant's pocket, and that the police properly seized the heroin packet 

following a search incident to defendant's arrest. This appeal followed.

On appeal, defendant raises the following contention:

POINT I

THE INVESTIGATORY STOP OF DEFENDANT, 

BASED ON AN ANONYMOUS TIP THAT A BLACK 

MAN WEARING A RED HAT WAS IN POSSESSION 

OF A GUN AT MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. DRIVE 

AND GRANT AVENUE IN JERSEY CITY, WAS 

NOT SUPPORTED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION 

AND WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THUS, THE 

DISCOVERY OF THE HANDGUN AND DRUGS ON 

DEFENDANT'S PERSON INCIDENT TO THE 

ILLEGAL STOP MUST BE SUPPRESSED.

In addition, defendant raised the following arguments in his pro se supplemental 

brief:

POINT I

THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE INFORMATION 

POSSESSED BY THE SOUTH DISTRICT POLICE 

DEPARTMENT POLICE OFFICERS WAS 

INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A FORCIBLE 

TERRY[1] STOP, BECAUSE THE ARRESTING 

OFFICER DID NOT CONDUCT ANY 

CORROBORATIVE INVESTIGATION TO 

 

1

 Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
5

A-1410-18T4

BOLSTER THE TIP, THE KNOWLEDGE, 

ACQUIRED BY THE OFFICER AFTER STOPPING 

[DEFENDANT], THAT HE HAD A GUN SHOULD

HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED[.]

1. THE ANONYMOUS TIP LACKED ANY 

INDICIA OF RELIABILITY TO SUPPLY THE 

REQUISITE REASONABLE SUSPICION 

NECESSARY TO EFFECT A TERRY STOP[.]

2. THE ANONYMOUS TIP LACKED ANY 

PREDICTIVE INFORMATION THAT COULD 

HAVE BEEN CORROBORATED[.]

3. THE ANONYMOUS TIP PROVIDED NO 

INFORMATION FROM WHICH THE POLICE 

COULD JUDGE THE RELIABILITY OR 

VERACITY OF THE TIP[.]

4. THE OFFICERS LACKED ANY OTHER 

GROUNDS TO STOP [DEFENDANT.]

POINT II

WAS [DEFENDANT] SEIZED (THUS, SUBJECTED 

TO A SEIZURE BY THE POLICE OFFICERS) AND 

IF SO WAS THE SEIZURE REASONABLE WITHIN 

THE TRUE MEANING OF THE FOURTH 

AMENDMENT[?]

POINT III

ASSUMING [DEFENDANT] WAS SEIZED, WAS 

THE SEIZURE OF HIM REASONABLE[?]

1. The BOLO (BE ON THE LOOKOUT).

2. The Dispatch.

3. The Residential Area and The Time
6

A-1410-18T4

4. The Anonymous Telephonic Tip.

5. Summary.

[2]

We reject these contentions and affirm.

Our review of a trial judge's decision on a motion to suppress is limited. 

State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1, 15 (2009). In reviewing a motion to suppress 

evidence, we must uphold the judge's factual findings, "so long as those findings 

are supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record." State v. Rockford, 

213 N.J. 424, 440 (2013) (quoting Robinson, 200 N.J. at 15). Additionally, we 

defer to a trial judge's findings that are "substantially influenced by [the trial 

judge's] opportunity to hear and see the witnesses and to have the 'feel' of the 

case, which a reviewing court cannot enjoy." Ibid. (alteration in original) 

(quoting Robinson, 200 N.J. at 15). We do not, however, defer to a trial judge's 

legal conclusions, which we review de novo. Ibid.

The police may, without a warrant, temporarily detain a person if they 

have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person is engaged in 

unlawful activity and may be armed. Terry, 392 U.S. at 30-31; State v. Elders, 

 

2

 The arguments raised in defendant's supplemental brief largely parrot the 

contentions presented by his appellate counsel. We have considered defendant's 

pro se arguments, and conclude they are clearly without merit and do not warrant 

further discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
7

A-1410-18T4

192 N.J. 224, 247 (2007). "A suspicion of criminal activity will be found to be 

reasonable only if it is based on 'some objective manifestation that the person 

[detained] is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity.'" State v. Williams, 

410 N.J. Super. 549, 555 (App. Div. 2009) (alteration in original) (quoting State 

v. Pineiro, 181 N.J. 13, 22 (2004)). "In making this determination, a court must 

consider '[t]he totality of the circumstances.'" Ibid. (alteration in original) 

(quoting Pineiro, 181 N.J. at 22).

Applying these principles here, we discern no basis for disturbing the 

judge's determination that the police properly seized the handgun and heroin 

from defendant after conducting an investigatory stop of defendant. Our 

Supreme Court has noted that an ordinary citizen reporting a crime to the police 

is not viewed with suspicion, and courts assume that a further demonstration of 

reliability is not necessary to justify a stop of the person identified in the citizen's 

report. State v. Basil, 202 N.J. 570, 586 (2010) (citing State v. Amelio, 197 N.J. 

207, 212 (2008)). "Thus, an objectively reasonable police officer may assume 

that an ordinary citizen reporting a crime, which the citizen purports to have 

observed, is providing reliable information." Ibid. (citing State v. Stovall, 170 

N.J. 346, 362 (2002)). "There is an assumption grounded in common experience 
8

A-1410-18T4

that such a person is motivated by factors that are consistent with law 

enforcement goals." State v. Davis, 104 N.J. 490, 506 (1986).

Here, the police received a report from a citizen that a black man wearing 

a red hat and standing at a specific intersection was in possession of a gun. 

When the police arrived, defendant was the only person in the area and he 

matched the citizen's description. The officers recognized defendant because he 

was on the BOLO list. When defendant saw the police exit their patrol car, he 

immediately placed his hands in his waistband, which alarmed the officers based 

on their training and experience that movements of this nature often indicate that 

the suspect is attempting to conceal a weapon. When defendant refused to show 

his hands in response to the officers' reasonable requests, they grabbed his arms. 

As they did so, Officer Aguilar saw the handgun sticking out of defendant's 

pocket.

Under the totality of these circumstances, we are satisfied that the officers 

had the required reasonable and articulable suspicion that defendant was 

engaged in unlawful activity and was armed. Therefore, the investigatory stop 

that led to Officer Aguilar's plain view observation of the handgun in defendant's 

pocket was constitutionally permissible. Terry, 392 U.S. at 30-31. As our 

Supreme Court has stated, the plain view doctrine allows seizures without a 
9

A-1410-18T4

warrant so long as an officer is "lawfully . . . in the area where he observed and 

seized the incriminating item or contraband, and it [is] immediately apparent 

that the seized item is evidence of a crime." State v. Gonzales, 227 N.J. 77, 101 

(2016). Under these circumstances the seizure of defendant's handgun was 

unimpeachable. 

After defendant's arrest, the officers' search of defendant's person was 

authorized by the well-established Fourth Amendment exception permitting the 

warrantless search of persons incident to their lawful arrest. See Chimel v. 

California, 395 U.S. 752, 762-63 (1969); State v. Dangerfield, 171 N.J. 446, 461 

(2002). Therefore, the judge also correctly denied defendant's motion to 

suppress the packet of heroin seized following his arrest.

Affirmed.