SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2024-15T1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ELTEREKE DANIELS, a/k/a ELTEREKE

TYRELL DANIELS, ELTEREKE DANILES 

and DANIELS T. ELETEREKE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________

Submitted March 27, 2017 – Decided

Before Judges Haas and Currier.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New 

Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment 

No. 15-02-0409.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney 

for appellant (Brian P. Keenan, Assistant 

Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the 

brief).

Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, 

attorney for respondent (Ian C. Kennedy, 

Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the 

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

June 7, 2017
2 A-2024-15T1

Defendant Eltereke Daniels pleaded guilty to second-degree 

unlawful possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b), fourthdegree possession of a defaced firearm, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(d), and 

fourth-degree possession of hollow-nose bullets, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-

3(f). He appeals from the denial of his motion to suppress 

evidence resulting from a warrantless search, arguing that the 

motion judge's credibility determinations were "fundamentally 

illogical" and "fatally flawed." Because there is sufficient 

evidence in the record to support the judge's ruling, we affirm.

We glean the following facts from the record developed at the 

suppression hearing. Officer David Cohen of the Essex County 

Sheriff's Office testified that on November 16, 2014, at 3:30 

a.m., he and his partner conducted a motor vehicle stop of 

defendant's car after erratic movements of the car caused the 

officers to suspect that the driver was driving under the influence 

of alcohol. The officers asked defendant to step out of the 

vehicle to perform standard field sobriety tests. A woman and a 

child remained in the car. 

To administer the test, Cohen stood between the rear of 

defendant's vehicle and the front of his patrol car while defendant 

walked towards him, followed by the other officer. Cohen testified 

that he scanned defendant's torso with a flashlight as he walked

into position for the test. Based on his experience and training, 
3 A-2024-15T1

he observed the butt of a handgun protruding from defendant's 

waistband and a bulge just below, which he recognized as the 

remaining portion of the weapon. Because the officer did not want 

to alert defendant and risk creating a dangerous situation, Cohen 

allowed defendant to walk towards him, placed defendant into 

position for the sobriety test, and then quickly removed the weapon 

from defendant's waistband. Defendant was subsequently arrested. 

A search revealed two loaded magazines in defendant's pants pocket.

Defendant also testified at the hearing, wearing the clothes 

he had worn at the time of the traffic stop. He stated that after 

one sobriety test was completed, the officer swung at the left 

side of defendant's jacket with his hand and asked if he had 

anything on him. Defendant responded no, but the officer searched 

him anyway and found the gun on the right side of defendant's hip. 

Defendant testified that the gun was completely hidden under his 

untucked shirt and unzipped jacket. 

In an oral decision rendered on November 6, 2015, Judge Martin 

G. Cronin noted that although defendant's testimony was fairly 

consistent with Cohen's, the testimony diverged significantly as 

to the physical location of the gun. In finding Cohen to be the 

more credible witness, the judge noted that defendant had lied to 

the officer when asked if he had anything on him. Judge Cronin 

found defendant's untruthfulness to Cohen to be a critical 
4 A-2024-15T1

determinant in his consideration of the witnesses' credibility. 

He stated: "the fact that as to the location of the gun or the 

existence of the gun, [defendant] previously lied [to Cohen], I 

view that as critical in making a determination that he lied [in 

court] as to the exact location of the gun on his body."

The judge concluded that the State had satisfied all of the 

requirements of the plain view exception and denied defendant's 

motion to suppress the weapon. 

On appeal, defendant argues that Cohen's testimony was not

credible because he omitted the fact that he had asked defendant 

whether he had anything on him. Defendant contends that if the 

officer had to ask this question, then he must not have seen the 

gun. Therefore, the plain view exception to a warrantless search 

was not satisfied.1 We disagree.

 

1 For the plain view exception to apply, the State must prove 

that

(1) the officer was "lawfully in the viewing 

area," (2) the officer discovered the evidence 

"'inadvertently,' meaning that he did not know 

in advance where the evidence was located nor 

intend beforehand to seize it," and (3) it was 

"immediately apparent" that the items "were 

evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise 

subject to seizure."

[State v. Earls, 214 N.J. 564, 592 (2013)

(quoting State v. Mann, 203 N.J. 328, 341 

(2010.)]
5 A-2024-15T1

In reviewing a motion to suppress, we defer to the findings 

of fact and credibility determinations of the trial judge, 

recognizing that he or she has had an opportunity to "hear and see 

the witnesses and to have the 'feel' of the case, which a reviewing 

court cannot enjoy." State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224, 244 (2007)

(citing State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 161 (1964)). We will uphold

the decision below so long as it is "supported by sufficient 

credible evidence" and not "so clearly mistaken 'that the interests 

of justice demand intervention and correction.'" State v. Scriven, 

226 N.J. 20, 32-33 (2016) (citing Elders, supra, at 243-44). 

"Our constitutional jurisprudence expresses a decided 

preference that government officials first secure a warrant before 

conducting a search of a home or a person." State v. Watts, 223 

N.J. 503, 513 (2015) (citing State v. Edmonds, 211 N.J. 117, 129 

(2012)). A warrantless search or seizure is presumptively invalid 

unless it falls within one of the well-delineated exceptions to 

the warrant requirement. State v. Bryant, 227 N.J. 60, 69-70 

(2016) (citing Johnson, supra, 193 N.J. at 552). The State bears 

 

In State v. Gonzales, 227 N.J. 77 (2016) the Supreme Court 

held prospectively "that an inadvertent discovery of contraband 

or evidence of a crime is no longer a predicate for a plain view 

seizure." Id. at 82. This suppression motion pre-dated Gonzales

and therefore the element must be satisfied in this case.
6 A-2024-15T1

the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a 

warrantless search or seizure is justified. State v. Cope, 224 

N.J. 530, 546 (2016) (citing Edmonds, supra, 211 N.J. at 128.).

Contrary to defendant's argument, there is no evidence that 

Cohen omitted anything in his testimony. He was not asked by 

either counsel whether he had asked defendant if he had anything 

on him. Judge Cronin found Cohen's testimony more credible than 

defendant's version of events because of his admission that he had 

lied to the officer about carrying a weapon. The judge deemed 

defendant's dishonesty critical in his credibility determinations, 

and concluded that Cohen's testimony that the gun was located 

towards the "right front" of defendant's body such that "he could 

see the handle" was more believable. The judge stated: 

it was immediately apparent to [Officer Cohen] 

as a trained law enforcement officer that it 

was a gun. It was inadvertent within the 

meaning of a plain view exception because the 

initial . . . stop . . . [was] a D.W.I. stop

. . . . All the requirements have been 

satisfied as to the plain view exception.

"[T]he appellate court must defer to the credibility 

determinations of the trial court between competing factual 

testimony." State v. Jefferson, 413 N.J. Super. 344, 349 (App. 

Div. 2010) (citing State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 474 (1999)). 

We are satisfied that the judge's denial of defendant's motion to 
7 A-2024-15T1

suppress is supported by sufficient credible evidence in the 

record.

Affirmed.