The Jersey Lawyer

The New Jersey State Supreme Court today invalidated a search warrant that was conditioned on verification by the police of the particular apartment to be searched in a two-unit apartment building as violating the particularity requirement of the warrant requirement in the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution.  In State v. Marshall, the Supreme Court held that by permitting the police to determine at the facts needed to accurately describe the particular place that would be searched, the trial court delegated to the police the role of the neutral, detached magistrate.  Accordingly, the evidence discovered by the police at the apartment that was eventually searched should have been suppressed.  Anyone accused of a crime in New Jersey should contact a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer to determine whether evidence discovered by the police can be suppressed.

In the Marshall case, a police detective requested a warrant to search 105 Wayne Avenue in Trenton.  The apartment building contained two unites and the detective did not know which unit the main suspect, Allen Daniels, had entered to obtain drugs.  While being observed by police officers, Daniels and a confidential informant drove to 105 Wayne Avenue.  Daniels entered the building while the confidential informant waited in the car.  Approximately five minutes later, Daniels emerged from the apartment building with defendant Marshall and sold drugs to the confidential informant.  The confidential informant was unable to tell the police the exact apartment from which Daniels and Marshall had retrieved the drugs.  Neither PSE&G, the Division of Motor Vehicles, nor the State Bureau of Identification were able to assist in identifying which unit within 105 Wayne Avenue Daniels had entered.

The detective applied for a search warrant for a search of the apartment within the premises of 105 Wayne Avenue to which Daniels had “possession, custody, control or access.”  The search warrant contained conditional language, which provided that the search warrant for 105 Wayne Avenue would only be executed if and only if “Allen Daniels is secured outside 105 Wayne Avenue and (2) that a search of Allen Daniels reveals documentation or keys which identify the specific apartment inside 105 Wayne Avenue to which Allen Daniels has possession, custody, control or access, or if he divulges such information to the officers executing the search warrant for his person.”  The trial court approved the search warrant, including the conditional language.

A few days later, the police executed the search warrant as to locations other than 105 Wayne Avenue.  Daniels was apprehended at an address in Lawrenceville.  Daniels was arrested and informed of his rights under Miranda.  During questioning, Daniels revealed that his source for drugs stayed in the first floor apartment at 105 Wayne Avenue.  Based on information given to them by Daniels, police executed the search warrant for the first floor apartment of 105 Wayne Avenue.  Officers found defendant Marshall at 105 Wayne Avenue, along with cocaine, marijuana, and several firearms.  Marshall was arrested and charged with various drug and weapon charges.

In analyzing the constitutionality of the search warrant in this case, the New Jersey Supreme Court first noted that both the United States Constitution and the New Jersey Constitution provide that “no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the papers and things to be seized.”  This language requires a court to make a practical, common sense determination whether, given all the circumstances, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.   The New Jersey Supreme Court has held that the probable cause determination must be made based on the four corners of the supporting affidavit and the sworn testimony before the judge issuing the warrant.  The Court also noted that it has widely been recognized, both by New Jersey courts and the United States Supreme Court, that when the place to be searched is within a multi-unit apartment building, the search warrant must exclude units for which the police do not have probable cause.

The Court also noted that the warrant must be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate.  In applying for a search warrant, police are entitled to all of the reasonable inferences which reasonable men can draw from evidence; however, the Supreme Court has noted that those inferences must be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate, instead of the police officer engaged in ferreting out crime.  In the present case, it was clear from the text of the warrant that the police did not know which unit within 105 Wayne Avenue they had probable cause to search.  The Court noted that the warrant had two fatal flaws: first, the probable cause determination was not made prior to the warrant being issued because the anticipated conditions listed in the warrant were to be satisfied after the warrant was issued; and second, because the police were authorized to determine if the conditions were satisfied, the role of the neutral and detached magistrate was delegated to the police.

The State also argued that, irrespective of any infirmities in the affidavit or warrant, the police still acted in good faith and followed the procedure approved by the trial court, and therefore suppression is not justified.  The Court disagreed, and held that the police’s failure to comply with the particularity requirement and the failure to have a neutral magistrate determine whether the conditions in the warrant were satisfied are not merely technicalities, but constitutional violations.  Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the search was unconstitutional and the evidence should be suppressed.  Anyone arrested or charged with a crime in New Jersey should contact a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer for assistance.