Case Name: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. DANIEL MORDENTE, A/K/A KEIS EVAN HAMWAY, DANIEL MORDENT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 2016-03-02
Citations: 444 N.J. Super. 393
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. DANIEL MORDENTE, A/K/A KEIS EVAN HAMWAY, DANIEL MORDENT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Judges: Before Judges FUENTES, KOBLITZ and GILSON.
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 444
Pages: 393–408

Head Matter:
133 A.3d 684
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. DANIEL MORDENTE, A/K/A KEIS EVAN HAMWAY, DANIEL MORDENT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Submitted December 2, 2015
Decided March 2, 2016.
Before Judges FUENTES, KOBLITZ and GILSON.
Triarsi, Betancourt, Wukovits & Dugan, LLC, attorneys for appellant (Steven F. Wukovits, on the brief).
Grace H. Park, Acting Union County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Stephen K. Kaiser, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
KOBLITZ, J.A.D.
After losing a motion to suppress evidence of numerous marijuana plants growing in his basement, defendant Daniel Mordente pled guilty to third-degree possession of marijuana plants with the intent to distribute within 1000 feet of a school, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7. The first-degree charge of operating a marijuana production facility, N.J.S.A. 2C:35 — i, and three other related lesser drug charges were dismissed. Defendant was sentenced to probation for five years with six hundred hours of community service. He now appeals from the denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm based on the State's right, as part of its communityearetaking function, to search a home for a missing person in an emergency.
The testimony at the suppression hearing reveals the following facts. A Plainfield police officer went to defendant's home at approximately 8:25 a.m. on February 8, 2012, in response to defendant's report that his sixty-five year old mother, who suffers from dementia, was missing since 11:30 p.m. the night before. Six months earlier this officer had received a similar report and on that occasion defendant's mother was later found approximately eight miles away. When the officer arrived one of the mother's caretakers was present at the home. Defendant was out search ing for his mother with a different caretaker. He was called to the home, arriving ten minutes later. Defendant allowed the officers to enter, and signed a police missing person report. Defendant was "distraught and frantic." He reported to the police officer that he had already searched the home, and then left to continue looking for his mother.
Approximately one hour later, after entering the missing person report in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) data base at headquarters, the officer returned to the home where he met the Union County Sheriffs Department K-9 unit. They asked the caretaker for a piece of clothing belonging to the missing woman to acquire her scent and also received permission from the caretaker to enter the house to search it pursuant to the Sheriffs Department missing person protocol.
Sheriffs Officer Ryan Wilson testified that he had served as a K-9 handler with the Union County Sheriffs Office for five years. He had participated in more than fifty searches for missing persons. He testified: "Part of my initial investigation for all missing persons cases is to actually — I check the home myself, areas where people could hide, areas that may have been overlooked by a family member because they're distraught or upset at the time." He also testified to three specific instances where he located a missing person inside the home after family members had indicated that the house was clear. He specifically described an incident where an elderly woman in a nursing home was found behind a locked door.
During his search of the home, which was done without a dog, Wilson began on the top floor. Wilson found the basement door locked. The caretaker did not have a key, but the Plainfield police officer was able to "pop open" the door using his "pen light." Both officers testified that after the door was opened they smelled the strong odor of marijuana. They descended the stairs and looked around the basement, finding several marijuana plants, but not the missing woman. A warrant was obtained and the plants were seized. The missing woman was located at Pennsylvania Station in Newark sometime after 10:00 a.m. that morning, after the officers entered the basement.
The motion judge found that the police had "an objectively reasonable basis to believe that immediate police action was necessary based on [ ] defendant's emergency call to police." The judge also found it relevant that defendant had left the initial officer in the home in the company of the caretaker, and determined that the officers were not restricted to a search outside of the home because defendant thought his mother was not in the home.
On appeal defendant raises the following issues:
POINT I: THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS.
A. REASONABLENESS STANDARD.
B. COMMUNITY CARETAKING FUNCTION.
C. EXIGENCY STANDARD.
POINT II: THE FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE DOCTRINE SHOULD BAR ALL EVIDENCE SEIZED AS A DIRECT CONSEQUENCE OF THE UNLAWFUL POLICE ACTIVITY.
'We consider the factual findings of the trial court, premised upon detailed testimony elicited in a lengthy suppression hearing, in accordance with a deferential standard of review." State v. Rockford, 213 N.J. 424, 440, 64 A.3d 514 (2013). It is well established that we "should defer to trial courts' credibility findings that are often influenced by matters such as observations of the character and demeanor of witnesses and common human experience that are not transmitted by the record." State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 474, 724 A.2d 234 (1999). Moreover, in reviewing a trial court's determination, we are careful not to substitute our decision merely because we might have concluded differently. State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224, 244, 927 A.2d 1250 (2007).
Our Supreme Court recently held that "the community-caretaking doctrine is not a justification for the warrantless entry and search of a home in the absence of some form of an objectively reasonable emergency." State v. Vargas, 213 N.J. 301, 305, 63 A.3d 175 (2013). In Vargas, a landlord called the police after a tenant failed to pay rent, his mail piled up, and his car was left unmoved and unattended in the driveway for two weeks. The police conducted a "welfare check" during which illicit drugs were discovered. Id. at 307-08, 63 A.3d 175. The Court determined explicitly that "[wjithout the presence of consent or some species of exigent circumstances, the eommunity-caretaking doctrine is not a basis for the warrantless entry into and search of a home." Id. at 321, 63 A.3d 175.
Nevertheless, in Vargas, Justice Albin also explained:
In that regal'd, this is unlike the case of a close family member whose housebound elderly relative is not responding to telephone calls and knocks on the door. Nor is this like the ease of a diabetic or infirm neighbor who is not seen carrying out routine daily activities and who is not answering the door or the telephone. We need not describe the myriad circumstances that might give rise to an objectively reasonable basis to believe that an emergency requires immediate action for the safety or welfare of another.
[Id. at 327, 63 A.3d 175.]
Here, the motion judge found there was an emergency; a woman suffering from dementia was missing. The motion judge also credited the testimony of Sheriff Officer Wilson that it was established protocol to search the home in every missing person's case to ensure that the individual had not been overlooked by a distraught relative. Importantly, there was no evidence that any officer had an ulterior motive to search the home for illegal activity. The sole reason the officers were at the home was at defendant's urgent request to help find his mother. Defendant had also given no indication that he did not want his home searched. To the contrary, defendant had previously invited an officer into the home and his actions reflected a paramount desire to find his mother as soon as possible. Thus, all the facts establish that the sanctity and privacy of this home was not being invaded; rather, the sole object of the search of the home was to find a missing person as part of law enforcement's eommunitycaretaking function.
Our dissenting colleague views the search of the home as a mechanical adherence to protocol rather than a response to exigent circumstances. The facts demonstrate a true emergency where time was of the essence. Defendant's mother suffered from dementia, she had been missing overnight in the wintertime, and defendant himself was clearly extremely worried about her welfare. The possibility that the basement door had been locked by her after she entered the basement, and that she had then fallen down the steps was posited by the motion judge and accepted by counsel as a distinct possibility. The fact that Officer Wilson was following established protocol in searching the home top to bottom does not undercut the conclusion that he was responding to an emergency. Indeed, it is often the case that standard police protocols are designed specifically to respond to emergency situations. See id. at 315, 63 A.3d 175.
This factual scenario fulfills the "objectively reasonable basis to believe that an emergency requires immediate action for the safety or welfare of another." Ibid. The fact that more than an hour had elapsed from the time of the initial report to the actual search reflects the practical realities of calling in a specially-trained missing persons unit, not a reduction in the emergent nature of the situation. While the dissent's affirmation of the unique and powerful protections afforded to the home by the Fourth Amendment, State v. Wright, 221 N.J. 456, 467, 114 A.3d 340 (2015), is unassailable, in this instance the situation presented the type of crisis requiring immediate action of emergency responders who specialize in finding missing persons. The community-caretaking function of the police was not used as a pretext to search the home. The officers did not detect the odor of marijuana emanating from the basement until they opened the basement door. To defendant's credit, his concern for his mother overcame his fear of law enforcement involvement, and he called the police to assist in finding his mother. The police did their best to locate his mother as they were trained to do, but also inadvertently happened upon defendant's illegal drug activity. Defendant's mother was found, as were his marijuana plants.
Affirmed.
The co-defendant did not participate in this appeal and we were provided no information regarding the result of charges against him.
The NCIC maintains "a computerized database of criminal justice information available to law enforcement agencies nationwide." State v. Sloane, 193 N.J. 423, 433, 939 A.2d 796 (2008). According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation website, "NCIC helps criminal justice professionals apprehend fugitives, locate missing persons, recover stolen property, and identify terrorists." National Crime Information Center, FBI.gov, https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ncic/ncic (last visited Dec. 8, 2015). The NCIC apparently assisted in locating defendant's mother.