The Jersey Lawyer

On February 25, 2009, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided, in the case of State v. Pena-Flores, that police officers can only search a vehicle without a warrant only if there is both probable cause that the vehicle contains evidence and exigent circumstances that justify dispensing with the warrant requirement. A New Jersey criminal defense lawyer can be invaluable to a suspect to help the suspect determine whether a search conducted by the police was illegal and whether the evidence obtained from that search can be suppressed.

Both the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey guarantee the right of the people to be secure from unlawful searches and seizures. Normally, for a government official (e.g., a police officer) to perform a search, that official must obtain a search warrant. Under certain circumstances, officers are permitted to conduct a search without a warrant; however, in order to do so, the search must fall into one of the categories of “exigent circumstances” exceptions that either the Supreme Court of New Jersey or the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized: the “regulatory authority” exception, the “third-party intervention” exception, the “emergency” exception, the “inventory search” exception; the “hot pursuit” exception, the “community caretaking” exception, the “consent search” exception, the “search incident to arrest” exception, the “deceptive guest” exception, and the “automobile” exception.

Under the “search incident to arrest” exception, when a suspect is arrested, the police may search the suspect’s person and his “grab area.” The “grab area” is defined as the entire area where a suspect can potentially reach for a weapon or to destroy evidence. The United States Supreme Court has held that when a suspect has been arrested, the police may search the passenger compartment of his vehicle even if the suspect has been taken out of the vehicle and secured outside of the vehicle. However, the New Jersey Supreme Court has held that, under the New Jersey Constitution, if a suspect has been removed from his vehicle and has been secured outside of the vehicle, the passenger compartment of the vehicle is no longer part of the “grab area,” and therefore, the police cannot search the passenger compartment without a warrant unless some other exception to the warrant requirement exists.

Under the “automobile” exception, the police may search a suspect’s automobile as long as the automobile is readily mobile and there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of a crime. Under the federal constitution, the “exigent circumstances” are automatic based on the fact that a vehicle is mobile, even if, in fact, no circumstances exist that would indicate to the police that there is a likelihood that the vehicle is going anywhere. The Supreme Court of New Jersey, interpreting the New Jersey Constitution, has taken a different approach. In addition to the requirements that the automobile be readily mobile and there be probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of a crime, New Jersey has added two additional requirements: (1) the stop of the vehicle has to be unforeseen and spontaneous, and (2) the exigency has to be assessed based on the particular circumstances of the situation.

In order to determine whether the particular facts of the situation justify a warrantless search, courts have looked at many factors, including: the time of day, the location of the stop, the nature of the neighborhood, the unfolding of the events establishing probable cause, the ratio of officers to suspects, the existence of confederates who know the location of the car and who could remove it or its contents, whether the arrest was observed by passersby who could tamper with the car or its contents, whether it would be safe to leave the car unguarded, and whether the delay caused by waiting for a warrant would place the officers or the evidence at risk.

In State v. Pena-Flores, the suspect was pulled over by a police officer when he committed a traffic violation. When the police officer approached the vehicle, he smelled a strong “raw marijuana” smell coming from the vehicle.; however, the officer could not see inside the vehicle because of tinted windows. The officer asked the driver to step out of the vehicle and go to the rear of the vehicle. The officer then conducted a pat down search of the driver. A second officer arrived on the scene. The first officer passed the driver on to the second officer and then removed the passenger from the vehicle. After no contraband was found on either suspect, the first officer opened the passenger door of the vehicle and began searching the passenger compartment. The officer then discover two clear bags of marijuana on the floor of the passenger side of the vehicle. The first officer then instructed the second officer to place both suspects under arrest. The officer continued his search of the vehicle and discovered additional bags of marijuana and a nine-millimeter handgun. The entire search was conducted without a warrant.

In analyzing the facts of this case under the “automobile” exception to the warrant requirement, the Supreme Court first determined that the stop of the vehicle was lawful because the driver had committed a traffic violation. The Court then reasoned that the smell of “raw marijuana” and the officer’s experience and training related to marijuana provided probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained contraband. The stop was also spontaneous and unforeseen. Therefore, the only issue is whether an “exigency” existed in fact, based on the circumstances of the situation. Given the fact that it was late at night, the ratio of officers to suspects was two to two, and there was no backup available, the Supreme Court determined that exigency existed sufficient to allow the police to conduct a warrantless search.

The companion case of State v. Fuller was also decided by the Supreme Court. In that case, a state trooper pulled over a vehicle driven by the suspect because the suspect was driving without wearing a seatbelt. The trooper asked the suspect for his license, insurance, and registration. The suspect gave the trooper a Pennsylvania license and a bill of sale for the vehicle. The trooper called in the license and discovered that it was fake. The bill of sale also pertained to a different vehicle other than the one that was being driven by the suspect. While conversing with the suspect, three additional state troopers arrived on the scene. The trooper then asked the suspect to step out of the vehicle and proceed to the rear of the vehicle. At that point, the suspect admitted that he had presented a fake driver’s license. The trooper then arrested the suspect for displaying a false driver’s license.

The trooper searched the suspect and discovered large bundles of cash in his pockets. After the search, the suspect was placed inside of the police cruiser. Two troopers then conducted a search of the suspect’s vehicle. The troopers discovered a loaded handgun wedged between the center console of the vehicle and the driver’s seat. The troopers also found money and two prescription bottles containing 106 Xanax inside the console. The troopers found bags of marijuana in the dashboard compartment, additional bags of marijuana under the back seat, and a sword behind the back seat. The Supreme Court determined that the warrantless search of the center console and dashboard compartment was legal because a police officer is permitted to search for credentials in areas where credentials are normally kept when false credentials are presented to the officer. However, the Court determined that further search of the vehicle (including the search conducted underneath and behind the back seat) was illegal because an exigency did not exist in this case. In this case, the suspect was pulled over in broad daylight, the suspect was arrested and secured in the back of the police cruiser, there was nothing to suggest that the suspect had any cohorts who might try to move the vehicle, and the arresting officer was assisted by several other troopers.

The Supreme Court went on to decide that the police can obtain a search warrant by telephone without the need to prove that an exigency exists and that telephone warrants would be given the same weight and effect as in-person warrants. This case has cemented the Court’s long history of jurisprudence in New Jersey regarding the “automobile” exception that has strayed from federal jurisprudence. Therefore, a suspect should contact a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer to determine whether evidence against the suspect can be suppressed as the fruit of an illegal search.