Title: State v. Edwin Keyes
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: a-70-04
State: new-jersey
Issuer: new-jersey Supreme Court
Date: August 3, 2005

(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized). Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EDWIN KEYES, Defendant-Respondent. Argued March 14, 2005 Decided August 3, 2005 On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division. Steven J. Zweig, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant (Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney). Diane Toscano, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for respondent (Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney). JUSTICE ZAZZALI delivered the opinion of the Court. After the police received a tip from a confidential informant that a man was selling cocaine from an apartment in Atlantic City, they attempted to confirm the tip by conducting a controlled drug buy with the informant s help. However, the police were only able to observe the informant enter the area surrounding the target residence, not the dwelling itself. The informant nonetheless returned from the controlled buy with a white powdery substance that field-tested positive for cocaine. After a subsequent investigation revealed that the suspected seller had prior drug-related convictions, the police obtained a search warrant for the residence. When the police entered the apartment, they found defendant, who was the suspect s brother, in possession of narcotics. Defendant was indicted on drug possession and distribution charges. Following the trial court s denial of his motion to suppress the drug evidence found during the search, defendant pled guilty and was sentenced to an eight-year prison term. The Appellate Division reversed the order denying defendant s motion to suppress, reasoning that the search warrant was not based on probable cause. Because we conclude that, under the totality of the circumstances, probable cause existed, we reverse. . . . . During the week of March 26th, 2000 through April 2nd, 2000, Detective DeGaetano of the Atlantic City Police Department Narcotics Unit was contacted by a reliable confidential informant ([RCI]). This [RCI] has been proven reliable and has provided information in the past that has resulted in the arrest of numerous suspects and the recovery of proceeds from drug sales. . . . RCI stated a black male who goes by the name of Bilal, described as approximately 25 years of age, 5 9 , 235 lbs is selling cocaine from 236 Rosemont Place in Atlantic City, New Jersey. This affiant obtained a picture of William Keyes AKA Bilal from ACPD files and showed it to the RCI. The RCI positively identified William Keyes as being the male selling cocaine from 236 Rosemont Place. . . . RCI again contacted the affiant and . . . agreed to make a controlled purchase from 236 Rosemont Place in Atlantic City, New Jersey. RCI was searched for personal funds and/or contraband and this search was negative. RCI was then supplied with ACPD Vice funds to purchase CDS from this target location. RCI was observed going into the area of the 200 block of Rosemont Place and entered an apartment on the west-side of the projects, which is the side apartment 236 is located. After a short time, RCI was observed leaving this area and returned to a predetermined location. RCI then turned over to the affiant one blue tinted ziploc bag that contained a white rocky substance and field-tested positive for cocaine by Detective DeGaetano. The RCI stated that he/she handled U.S. currency to Bilal in exchange for the CDS (cocaine) while inside 236 Rosemont Place. Due to the configuration of Stanley Holmes Village and the layout of the area, surveillance was not established on the target door. Surveillance could only be established looking into the projects and not at a direct angle to the target door. A New Jersey Criminal history check of William Keyes shows that he has four felony convictions. The first conviction is in 1992 for dangerous drugs. The second and third convictions are in 1994 for manufacture/distribute CDS and hindering apprehension. And the last conviction is in 1998 for forged writing. According to the Atlantic City Housing Authority list for Stanley Holmes Village, 236 Rosemont Place is occupied by Emma Nellom, DOB 8/20/50. A New Jersey criminal history check of Nellom shows that she was charged with Homicide in 1974. The Narcotics Office routinely receives complaints from residents in the area, about the constant activity in the 200 block of Rosemont Place. During periodic surveillance in the area of the 200 block of Rosemont Place, there have been known drug users observed entering an apartment on the west-side and exiting shortly after, which is consistent with narcotic activity. According to the RCI, there are lookouts that stand outside 236 Rosemont Place and alert drug dealers when Police come into the area. It is also common Police knowledge that it is difficult to gain entry into Stanley Holmes Village without being noticed by people hanging in the projects, who frequently alert others of Police presence. [(Emphasis added.)] The municipal court granted the search warrant for 236 Rosemont Place and, two days later, the police executed the warrant. Upon entering the premises, the police discovered four people, including defendant, in the residence. Within close proximity to defendant, the police found various narcotics paraphernalia and seven plastic bags containing a white rocky substance that field-tested positive for cocaine. When the police arrested defendant, they also discovered $140 in his possession. The State alleges that defendant admitted to ownership of the drugs at the scene. A grand jury indicted defendant, and the three other individuals found in the apartment, on five counts of drug possession and distribution. Arguing that the police did not have probable cause to search 236 Rosemont Place, defendant moved to suppress the drugs seized pursuant to the warrant. Following denial of that motion, defendant pled guilty to two counts, second-degree possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5a(1) and -5b(2), and third-degree distribution of cocaine within a school zone, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7. In accordance with the plea agreement, defendant was sentenced to concurrent eight-year terms, with thirty-nine months parole ineligibility on the possession count and forty-five months parole ineligibility on the distribution count. After concluding that the police lacked probable cause, the Appellate Division, in an unpublished per curiam opinion, reversed the trial court s order denying suppression of the drugs discovered during the search. The panel stated that although Detective DeGaetano s affidavit asserted that the informant was reliable, the statement lacked any detail whatsoever as to the informant s history of truthfulness. The court also found that the affidavit failed to sufficiently set forth the basis of the informant s knowledge because the document did not detail how the informant learned of William Keyes s alleged cocaine dealing. The panel further concluded that the officers independent corroboration of the informant s tip was insufficient. Specifically, the court found that the controlled buy was deficient because the police did not actually observe the informant enter 236 Rosemont Place. Nor did the police take any other steps to determine whether the apartment, registered under the name of Emma Nellon, was being used by William Keyes to sell drugs. According to the panel, this lapse rendered the police unable to verify the informant s bald assertion that the drug activity emanated from 236 Rosemont Place and was being conducted by a non-resident, William Keyes. The court did find, however, that the officers field-test of the drugs in question was adequate. We initially granted the State s petition for certification, 180 N.J. 149 (2004), and summarily ordered the Appellate Division to reconsider its decision in light of our holding in State v. Jones, 179 N.J. 377 (2004). Upon reconsideration, the same panel concluded that there was no basis in law or fact to alter [its] initial view of the matter. We again granted the State s petition for certification. 182 N.J. 208 (2004). STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EDWIN KEYES, Defendant-Respondent. DECIDED August 3, 2005 Chief Justice Poritz PRESIDING OPINION BY Justice Zazzali CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINIONS BY DISSENTING OPINION BY