Court Opinion

ID: 9958445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 14:06:40.820007+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:22.524202
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

                                                        SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                                        APPELLATE DIVISION
                                                        DOCKET NO. A-0369-22

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ANTONIO SUMMA, a/k/a
CORY MAYBEE, KEVIN
PARKER, JAMES SUMMA,
ANTI SUMMA, and
ANDREW SUMMA,

     Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________

                   Argued January 29, 2024 – Decided April 9, 2024

                   Before Judges Gilson and DeAlmeida.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                   Division, Morris County, Indictment No. 19-05-0449.

                   Morgan A. Birck, Assistant Deputy Public Defender,
                   argued the cause for appellant (Joseph E. Krakora,
                   Public Defender, attorney; Morgan A. Birck, of counsel
                   and on the briefs).

                   Robert John Lombardo, Assistant Prosecutor, argued
                   the cause for respondent (Robert J. Carroll, Morris
             County Prosecutor, attorney; Robert John Lombardo, of
             counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

      Following the denial of his motion to suppress illegal drugs seized without

a warrant from a motor vehicle, defendant Antonio Summa pled guilty to

second-degree possession of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) with intent to

distribute in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(7). He was sentenced to five years

in prison.

      Defendant appeals from the order denying his motion to suppress the

drugs, arguing that there were no exceptions justifying the warrantless search

and seizure. We reject defendant's arguments because the trial court's factual

findings support the series of progressive inquiries made by the police that led

to the search of the vehicle and seizure of the drugs.

                                        I.

      We summarize the facts from the record on the motion to suppress. The

trial court conducted a three-day evidentiary hearing, during which two

witnesses testified: Patrol Officer David Chieppa and Detective John Granato.

The court also reviewed documents and videos of recordings taken from the dash

camera on Chieppa's vehicle.

                                                                           A-0369-22
                                        2
      Officer Chieppa, a member of the Montville Police Department, testified

that on August 30, 2018, he was on routine patrol. At approximately 11:30 p.m.,

he responded to a motor vehicle stop made by another officer. While at that

scene, Chieppa was approached by a person who informed him that he had been

driving behind a green van with a Pennsylvania license plate and that the van

had abruptly turned into an industrial complex parking lot after observing the

police's overhead lights.   The motorist described the van's abrupt turn as

suspicious.

      Chieppa decided to investigate and drove to the nearby industrial complex

located on Hook Mountain Road. After entering the parking lot, Chieppa saw a

green van parked in the far southeast corner of the parking lot. The van's

headlights were off, and Chieppa observed two occupants inside. Chieppa

turned on his vehicle's spotlight, and both occupants got out of the van. The

occupants were later identified as defendant and E.A.1 Defendant exited from

the driver's side and E.A. exited from the passenger side. Chieppa then observed

defendant open the hood of the vehicle and look inside the engine bay.

1
 We use initials to refer to the other occupant because the charges against her
were ultimately dismissed.
                                                                          A-0369-22
                                       3
      At that point, Chieppa activated his emergency lights, exited his vehicle,

and approached defendant and E.A. The officer asked what was going on, and

defendant responded that they were experiencing some type of mechanical issue

with the van.

      Chieppa    then   requested   defendant    and   E.A.    to   provide    their

identifications. E.A. provided a Colorado driver's license. Defendant responded

that he had a driver's license, but it was expired, and he did not have the license

on him. Chieppa then asked him for his name, birth date, and Social Security

number. Defendant provided the name, "Andrew Summa," and initially stated

that his birth date was October 14, 1959. It was later revealed that defendant

had provided his brother's information and that defendant's license had been

suspended.

      Chieppa then asked defendant and E.A. where they were coming from and

where they were headed. When their answers were not consistent, he asked E.A.

to step aside so that he could question defendant.         While speaking with

defendant, Chieppa observed what he described as various scabs on defend ant's

arms and a musty odor emanating from defendant's person. He testified that

those observations made him suspicious that defendant used illegal drugs. He

                                                                              A-0369-22
                                        4
also testified that while walking around the van, he detected a faint odor of burnt

marijuana.

      Shortly after Chieppa arrived at the parking lot, he called for backup.

Eventually, several other officers responded, including Sergeant Kenny. When

Kenny arrived, he asked defendant for consent to search the vehicle. Defendant

declined to provide that consent. Kenny then called for a K-9 dog and handler

unit to come to the scene. The record does not clearly establish how long it took

the K-9 unit to arrive, but it is clear that at least thirty minutes elapsed between

when Chieppa first arrived and when the K-9 unit was called.

      Detective Granato was the K-9 detective who arrived with two trained

dogs. One of the dogs conducted a "free-air sniff" while passing around the

exterior of the van. The dog alerted to the rear window of the van. Granato then

opened the van and allowed the dog to search inside the van. While searching

the interior of the van, the dog indicated on several items that might contain

narcotics, including a metal lockbox. The police removed several items from

the van, including a glass jar, a plastic box, glass pipes, and the metal lockbox.

The glass jar, plastic box, and one of the glass pipes all had traces of residue,

which was later identified as marijuana or marijuana wax.

                                                                              A-0369-22
                                         5
      The box was locked, and when Chieppa asked defendant if he had a key,

defendant tossed the key in front of the officer. When the box was opened, the

officers found several sheets of LSD and bags containing cocaine, ketamine, and

marijuana. The officers also found drug paraphernalia inside the lockbox.

      Defendant and E.A. were then placed under arrest.           Defendant was

charged with various drug offenses and hindering apprehension or prosecution.

Thereafter, he was indicted for four drug offenses, including first-degree

possession of LSD with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) and 2C:35-

5(b)(6).   He was also indicted for third-degree hindering apprehension or

prosecution, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3(b)(4).

      After hearing the testimony and considering the evidence and arguments

of counsel, on November 12, 2020, the trial court issued a written opinion and

order denying defendant's motion to suppress the drugs. The court found that

Chieppa initially went to investigate the situation under the community

caretaking doctrine. When Chieppa learned that defendant and E.A. were not in

danger, the officer made some field inquiries.       When defendant could not

produce identification, the officer had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that

Chieppa had been driving without a license. While investigating that situation,

Chieppa made observations that gave him reasonable and articulable suspicion

                                                                             A-0369-22
                                        6
that the van might contain drugs, particularly because Chieppa had smelled the

odor of burnt marijuana. The trial court found that those observations justified

calling for a K-9 unit to further the investigation. When the K-9 unit arrived

and detected the presence of narcotics from outside the van, the trial court found

that the officers then had probable cause to conduct an automobile search.

Consequently, the court entered an order denying defendant's motion to suppress

the drugs seized from the motor vehicle.

                                       II.

      On appeal, defendant presents the following arguments for our

consideration:

            POINT I – THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN
            DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS
            BECAUSE THE POLICE STOPPED DEFENDANT
            AND THEN EXTENDED THE STOP, BOTH
            WITHOUT REASONABLE SUSPICION OR AN
            EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT.

            A.    Patrolman Chieppa stopped Summa and [E.A.].

            B.    There was no reasonable and articulable
                  suspicion to stop Summa and [E.A.].

            C.    The community caretaking exception does not
                  apply in this case.

      In evaluating a trial court's ruling on a suppression motion following a

hearing, our review is "exceedingly narrow." State v. Barrow, 408 N.J. Super.

                                                                            A-0369-22
                                        7
509, 516 (App. Div. 2009) (quoting State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 470 (1999)).

"[A]n appellate court reviewing a motion to suppress must uphold the factual

findings underlying the trial court's decision so long as those findings are

supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record." State v. Ahmad, 246

N.J. 592, 609 (2021) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Elders, 192 N.J.

224, 243 (2007)).      "[F]actual findings based on a video recording or

documentary evidence" are reviewed under the same standard. State v. S.S., 229

N.J. 360, 381 (2017). By contrast, the trial court's interpretation of the law and

the legal "consequences that flow from established facts" are reviewed de novo.

State v. Gamble, 218 N.J. 412, 425 (2014).

      The United States and New Jersey Constitutions guarantee that

individuals shall be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const.

amend. IV; N.J. Const. art. I, ¶ 7. "Generally, a warrantless search or seizure is

invalid absent a showing that it 'falls within one of the few well-delineated

exceptions to the warrant requirement.'" State v. Alessi, 240 N.J. 501, 517

(2020) (quoting State v. Mann, 203 N.J. 328, 337-38 (2010)).

      In this matter, a series of exceptions to the warrant requirement justified

the progressive investigation conducted by the police.         The investigation

progressed from community caretaking, to a field inquiry, to an investigative

                                                                            A-0369-22
                                        8
detention. Ultimately, the search and seizure were based on the automobile

exception after a trained dog indicated that there were drugs in the van.

      Under the community caretaking doctrine, "police officers, who act in an

objectively reasonable manner, may check on the welfare or safety of a citizen

who appears in need of help on the roadway without securing a warrant or

offending the Constitution." State v. Scriven, 226 N.J. 20, 38 (2016). When

engaged in community caretaking, police do not need to have probable cause or

an articulable suspicion because they are not investigating a potential crime.

State v. Diloreto, 180 N.J. 264, 276 (2004); see also Cady v. Dombrowski, 413

U.S. 433, 441 (1973) (explaining that the doctrine applies to police conduct that

is "totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence

relating to the violation of a criminal statute").

      "A field inquiry is essentially a voluntary encounter between the police

and a member of the public in which the police ask questions and do not compel

an individual to answer." State v. Rosario, 229 N.J. 263, 271 (2017) (citing

State v. Maryland, 167 N.J. 471, 483 (2001)). "The test of a field inquiry is

'whether [a] defendant, under all of the attendant circumstances, reasonabl y

believed he could walk away without answering any of [the officer's] questions."

Id. at 271-72 (alterations in original) (quoting Maryland, 167 N.J. at 483).

                                                                            A-0369-22
                                         9
      An investigative detention or stop occurs when "an objectively reasonable

person" would feel "that his or her right to move has been restricted." Id. at 272

(quoting State v. Rodriguez, 172 N.J. 117, 126 (2002)).               "Because an

investigative detention is a temporary seizure that restricts a person's movement,

it must be based on an officer's 'reasonable and particularized suspicion . . . that

an individual has just engaged in, or was about to engage in, criminal activity. '"

Ibid. (quoting State v. Stovall, 170 N.J. 346, 356 (2002)). A reasonable and

articulable suspicion that someone has committed a motor vehicle offense will

support an investigative detention or motor vehicle stop. State v. Atwood, 232

N.J. 433, 444 (2018); Scriven, 226 N.J. at 33-34. A police officer may make

"ordinary inquiries incident to [the traffic] stop, such as 'checking the driver's

license,' verifying whether the driver has any outstanding warrants, 'and

inspecting the automobile's registration and proof of insurance.'"          State v.

Dunbar, 229 N.J. 521, 533 (2017) (alteration in original) (citations omitted)

(quoting Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 355 (2015)). "[I]f, as a result

of the initial stop or further inquiries, 'the circumstances "give rise to suspicions

unrelated to the traffic offense, an officer may broaden [the] inquiry and satisfy

those suspicions."'"    Ibid. (second alteration in original) (quoting State v.

Dickey, 152 N.J. 468, 480 (1998)).

                                                                               A-0369-22
                                        10
      To conduct a search under the automobile exception to the warrant

requirement, the State must "prove that probable cause to believe the vehicle

contains contraband or other evidence of unlawful activity arose spontaneously

and unforeseeably." State v. Courtney, ___ N.J. Super. ___, ___ (App. Div.

2024) (slip op. at 11) (citing State v. Witt, 223 N.J. 409, 446-48 (2015)). In that

regard, the Court has explained that a warrantless roadside search of a vehicle

is permissible under the automobile exception where "the circumstances giving

rise to probable cause were unforeseeable and spontaneous," and the probable

cause did not exist "well in advance of" the search. State v. Smart, 253 N.J. 156,

173-74 (2023). When these criteria are satisfied, police officers have discretion

to proceed with a warrantless roadside search or impound the vehicle and secure

a warrant. See Courtney, ___ N.J. Super. at ___ (slip op. at 13-14); State v.

Rodriguez, 459 N.J. Super. 13, 15 (App. Div. 2019).

      The factual findings made by the trial court support the progression of the

police inquiries and the ultimate search of the vehicle and seizure of the drugs.

The trial court credited Chieppa's testimony that he initially went to investigate

the van to ensure that the van's occupants were not in need of assistance. So,

the trial court found that Chieppa was acting under the community caretaking

exception. The facts, moreover, establish that Chieppa did not stop the van.

                                                                             A-0369-22
                                       11
When he approached the van, it was already stopped.                 Under those

circumstances, Chieppa could have also lawfully conducted a field inquiry.

      The evidence at the suppression hearing also confirms that shortly after

Chieppa arrived, his inquiries progressed from field inquiries to an investigative

detention. That progression was lawful because defendant could not produce a

driver's license, and Chieppa had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that he

had been driving without a license.

      As part of his investigation of defendant's identity, Chieppa learned that

defendant's license was suspended and defendant had given a false first name

and birth date.   Chieppa also made observations that the trial court found

supported his reasonable and articulable suspicion that there might be illegal

drugs in the van. In particular, the trial court credited Chieppa's testimony that

he detected a faint smell of burnt marijuana.

      At the time of defendant's arrest in 2018, "the smell of marijuana itself

constitute[d] probable cause 'that a criminal offense ha[d] been committed and

that additional contraband might be present,'" and "the detection of that smell

satisfie[d] the probable-cause requirement." State v. Walker, 213 N.J. 281, 290,

288 (2013) (quoting State v. Nishina, 175 N.J. 502, 515-16 (2003)).           The

                                                                            A-0369-22
                                       12
strength of the odor, moreover, was irrelevant for the purpose of establishing

probable cause. State v. Judge, 275 N.J. Super. 194, 203 (App. Div. 1994). 2

      The police did not search defendant's van based on Chieppa's detection of

the smell of marijuana.        Instead, the trial court found that Chieppa's

observations, including the smell of marijuana, gave rise to a reasonable and

articulable suspicion that drugs were present in the van and that the officers,

therefore, could detain defendant while they called for a K-9 unit. That finding

by the trial court is supported by the law.

      Our Supreme Court has adopted the federal standard for K-9 sniffs.

Dunbar, 229 N.J. at 538. A canine sniff performed during a lawful detention

does not constitute a search under either the United States or New Jersey

Constitution. Id. at 539. If, however, bringing the K-9 unit out to conduct the

sniff unreasonably prolongs a traffic stop beyond its lawful purpose, there must

2
   On February 22, 2021, the Legislature enacted the New Jersey Cannabis
Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act
(CREAMMA), N.J.S.A. 24:6I-31 to -56. Under CREAMMA, an odor of
marijuana cannot create reasonable articulable suspicion or probable cause to
conduct a warrantless search. N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10c(a). CREAMMA, however,
only applies prospectively and, therefore, is not applicable to the search and
arrest of defendant. See State v. Cohen, 254 N.J. 308, 328 (2023) (explaining
that CREAMMA does not apply retroactively).
                                                                          A-0369-22
                                       13
be independent reasonable suspicion of criminal activity beyond the motor

vehicle violation. Id. at 536, 539.

      The trial court found that the roadside detention was justifiable because

Chieppa had independent reasonable suspicion that illegal drugs might be

present in the van.       Accordingly, the detention that went beyond the

investigation of defendant's failure to have a license was justifiable.

      Finally, when the K-9 dog indicated that narcotics might be in the van, the

police then had probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the van under

the automobile exception. See Smart, 253 N.J. at 172-73; Witt, 223 N.J. at 432.

We are satisfied that the finding of probable cause here, predicated on the smell

of burnt marijuana and then the K-9 sniff, arose from unforeseeable and

spontaneous circumstances.      Cf. Smart, 253 N.J. at 173 (finding that the

circumstances giving rise to probable cause were not unforeseeable and

spontaneous when officers reasonably expected to find drugs in the vehicle prior

to the stop after almost two hours of investigation).

      We reject defendant's arguments because he tries to dissect an ongoing

investigation into pieces, and then he tries to pick the pieces apart. As already

summarized, there was never a stop of the van; rather, there was an inquiry,

followed by a field investigation, followed by an investigative detention. The

                                                                           A-0369-22
                                       14
community caretaking exception only started the chain of events, and once there

was reasonable and articulable suspicion that defendant had been driving

without a license, the subsequent inquiries and detentions were justified.

Accordingly, the ensuing search and seizure of the drugs were lawful.

      Affirmed.

                                                                         A-0369-22
                                     15