Court Opinion

ID: 9765222
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:56:41.170969+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:06.653702
License: Public Domain

Justice WALLACE, JR.,
concurring and dissenting.
In my view, the Court is not required to address the difficult issue of whether the reasonable and articulable suspicion standard is a prerequisite to a consent search of a home. Defendant did not raise that issue at his suppression hearing or before the Appellate Division. We have frequently “expressed our reluctance to decide issues that were not addressed in the trial court or the Appellate Division.” Gac v. Gac, 186 N.J. 535, 547, 897 A.2d 1018 (2006). Moreover, “[w]e have applied that principle even when a constitutional issue is presented.” Ibid. Although the majority opinion recognizes that the issue of the standard for a consent search of a home was not raised below, it nevertheless decides the issue. Because I disagree with the majority’s disposition, I dissent from the conclusion that police are not required to have a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity in a home before seeking a consent search.
Similar to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the New Jersey Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. N.J. Const. art. I, ¶ 7. “A warrantless search is presumed invalid unless it falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement.” State v. Cooke, 163 N.J. 657, 664, 751 A.2d 92 (2000) (citing State v. Alston, 88 N.J. 211, 230, 440 A.2d 1311 (1981)). The State has the burden of establishing that a warrantless search falls within one of the recognized exceptions. Ibid. In the present case the State urges that the warrantless search of defendant’s home was valid under the consent-search exception. See Schneckloth v. Bustamante, 412 U.S. 218, 280, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2075, 36 L.Ed.2d 854, 893 (1973).
We have interpreted Article I, paragraph 7 of the State Constitution to provide enhanced protections beyond that of the Fourth *316Amendment. See, e.g., State v. Eckel, 185 N.J. 523, 524, 538, 888 A.2d 1266 (2006) (holding New Jersey Constitution prohibits search of auto incident to arrest where occupant removed from vehicle and secured elsewhere); State v. McAllister, 184 N.J. 17, 33, 875 A.2d 866 (2005) (finding legitimate expectation of privacy in bank records under State Constitution in contrast to Federal Constitution); State v. Pierce, 136 N.J. 184, 215, 642 A.2d 947 (1994) (invalidating warrantless vehicular search based on arrest for motor vehicle offense); State v. Tucker, 136 N.J. 158, 166-70, 642 A.2d 401 (1994) (holding that in contrast with Fourth Amendment, New Jersey Constitution prohibits police from stopping defendant solely because of flight upon seeing police); State v. Hempele, 120 N.J. 182, 195-215, 576 A.2d 793 (1990) (holding warrantless searches of garbage bags left on curb for collection invalid under State Constitution); State v. Novembrino, 105 N.J. 95, 145-58, 519 A.2d 820 (1987) (rejecting under State Constitution federal “good faith” exception to exclusionary rule for search warrants issued in good faith but without probable cause); State v. Hunt, 91 N.J. 338, 350, 450 A.2d 952 (1982) (holding State Constitution affords protectable interest in telephone toll billing records); Alston, supra, at 224-30, 440 A.2d 1311 (recognizing possessory interest in property sufficient to confer standing under State Constitution to challenge validity of vehicle search); State v. Johnson, 68 N.J. 349, 353-54, 346 A.2d 66 (1975) (holding under State Constitution that validity of consent search requires knowledge of right to refuse consent).
Specifically, our consent-search jurisprudence requires the police to inform the person from whom consent is sought of the right to refuse consent. That requirement is not provided under the Federal Constitution. In Schneckloth, supra, the United States Supreme Court held that a consent to search need only be voluntary and whether the defendant knew of the right to refuse consent is only one of the factors to be considered in evaluating the totality of circumstances to determine whether the consent was voluntary. 412 U.S. at 227, 93 S.Ct. at 2047-48, 36 L.Ed.2d at 862-63. In Johnson, supra, we added to those requirements and *317held that the validity of a consent to search requires proof that the defendant had “knowledge of the right to refuse consent.” 68 N.J. at 354, 346 A.2d 66. We recognized that “[m]any persons, perhaps most, would view the request of a police officer to make a search as having the force of law.” Ibid. As a result, we concluded that “[u]nless it is shown by the State that the person involved knew that he had the right to refuse to accede to such a request [for a consent search], his assenting to the search is not meaningful.” Ibid.
At least one other jurisdiction has followed Johnson and expanded upon the protective procedures for a valid consent to search a home. In State v. Ferrier, 136 Wash.2d 103, 960 P.2d 927, 928 (1998), the Supreme Court of Washington addressed a fact pattern analogous to the present case. There the police received information that the defendant was growing marijuana in her home and planned to conduct a “knock and talk.”1 Ibid. One of three officers who testified at the suppression hearing indicated that almost everyone subject to a “knock and talk” lets the police into their homes. Ibid. Four officers went to the defendant’s home, two in the front and two in the back to secure the premises. Ibid. After the defendant opened the front door and invited the two officers inside, the two remaining officers were let inside the home. Ibid. The police explained that they had information the defendant was growing marijuana and asked for consent to search the home. Id. at 929. They read the consent form to the defendant, who signed it. Ibid. The search of the home revealed numerous marijuana plants. Ibid. Subsequently, the defendant moved to suppress the evidence. Ibid. In invalidating the search, the court declared that “any knock and talk is inherently coercive to some degree,” id. at 933, and “the home receives heightened constitutional protection,” id. at 934 (quoting State v. Young, *318123 Wash.2d 173, 867 P.2d 593, 599 (1994)). As a result, the court held that
when police officers conduct a knock and talk for the purpose of obtaining consent to search a home, and thereby avoid the necessity of obtaining a warrant, they must, prior to entering the home, inform the person from whom consent is sought that he or she may lawfully refuse to consent to the search and that they can revoke, at any time, the consent that they give, and can limit the scope of the consent to certain areas of the home. The failure to provide these warnings, prior to entering the home, vitiates any consent given thereafter.
[Ibid. (emphasis added).]
Recently, in the context of a motor vehicle stop, we expanded the requirements for a consent search. In State v. Carty, 170 N.J. 632, 647, 790 A.2d 903, modified on other grounds, 174 N.J. 351, 806 A.2d 798 (2002), we affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Division “that consent searches following a lawful stop of a motor vehicle should not be deemed valid under Johnson unless there is reasonable and articulable suspicion to believe that an errant motorist or passenger has engaged in, or is about to engage in, criminal activity.” In explaining the need for a modification of the Johnson standard, we emphasized that our review of scholarly articles, eases from other jurisdictions, and the empirical data available, demonstrated
that despite use of the first-tell-then-ask rule or the voluntary and knowing standard adopted in Johnson, consent searches following valid motor vehicle stops are either not voluntary because people feel compelled to consent for various reasons, or are not reasonable because of the detention associated with obtaining and executing the consent search.
[Id. at 646, 790 A.2d 903.]
In the present case, the Appellate Division concluded that the standard we applied to motor vehicles in Carty must apply to the home. State v. Domicz, 377 N.J.Super. 515, 551 n. 17, 873 A.2d 630 (2005). The panel reasoned that “it would be incongruous to view Carty as being limited to motor vehicles since intrusion into the privacy of the home is ‘the chief evil’ that the Fourth Amendment and Article I, paragraph 7 were designed to prevent.” Ibid. I agree.
We provide greater protections against unreasonable searches and seizures of the home than for other encounters. As expressed *319by one court, “ ‘[a]n individual’s privacy interests are nowhere more clearly defined or rigorously protected by the courts than in the home[,] the core of fourth amendment rights.’ ” Kornegay v. Cottingham, 120 F.3d 392, 399-400 (3d Cir.1997) (quoting Wanger v. Bonner, 621 F.2d 675, 681 (5th Cir.1980)). We have emphasized that “[t]here is a lesser expectation of privacy in one’s automobile and in one’s office, than in one’s home.” State v. Johnson, 168 N.J. 608, 625, 775 A.2d 1273 (2001) (citations omitted); see also State v. Stott, 171 N.J. 343, 355, 794 A.2d 120 (2002) (noting that “hospital room is more akin to one’s home than to one’s car or office” in invalidating warrantless search of hospital room). It naturally follows that whatever protections pertain to an automobile search, at a minimum, they must apply to a home.
In refusing to apply the reasonable and articulable suspicion standard to the consent search of the home, the majority overlooks the express limitation of the holding in Carty that was directed to the motor vehicle context. Justice Coleman explained that
[t]o avoid confusion in attempts to overextend our holding in this case in light of the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, we wish to make clear the limitations of this opinion. This decision does not affect the principles enunciated in various state and federal cases that allow roadblocks, checkpoints and the like based on a concern for the public safety.
[Carty, supra, 170 N.J. at 652, 790 A.2d 903.]
In short, Carty did not place a restriction on the application of its holding to the private home but rather expressed the Court’s concern that it not be extended to “roadblocks, checkpoints and the like.”
Further, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that police presence at a home is not coercive. On the contrary, I believe a “knock and talk,” like the one at issue involving numerous officers attempting to enter the home at both means of egress, suffers from at least the same infirmities identified in Carty. See Adrian J. Barrio, Note, Rethinking Schneckloth v. Bustamonte: Incorporating Obedience Theory into the Supreme Court’s Conception of Voluntary Consent, 1997 U. Ill. L.Rev. 215, 218 (“consent searches *320contain inherently compelling pressures that threaten the exercise of valuable privacy right”). Until today, the application of our consent-search jurisprudence, including the clear logical extension of our holding in Carty, would require that we extend to the house the reasonable and articulable suspicion standard that we apply to consent searches of automobiles. See also State v. Rodriguez, 172 N.J. 117, 132, 796 A.2d 857 (2002) (ordering suppression of evidence seized in consent search not supported by reasonable and articulable suspicion because “illegal detention voids the consent”).
I would also follow the approach of the Supreme Court of Washington and rule that in the future, when the police have reasonable and articulable suspicion to request a consent search, that before they enter the premises, they must make the request for the search and explain the right to refuse and to stop the search at any time. See Ferrier, supra, 960 P.2d at 934.
I would affirm that part of the Appellate Division judgment remanding the case to the Law Division for a hearing to determine whether the police had reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity to request a valid consent search. In all other respects, I concur in the opinion of the Court.
Chief Justice PORITZ and Justice LONG join in this opinion.
For reversal and reinstatement — Justices LáVECCHIA, ZAZZALI, ALBIN and RIVERA-SOTO — 4.
For concurrence in part/'dissent in part — Chief Justice PORITZ and Justices LONG and WALLACE — 3.

 A "knock and talk" occurs when the police knock on the door, make contact with the resident, ask if they may enter to talk about their concern, and once inside, ask permission to search the premises.