State v. Alessi
| Decision Date | 27 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | 079255,A-41/42 September Term 2017 |
| Citation | 223 A.3d 184,240 N.J. 501 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Respondent, v. Donna M. ALESSI, Defendant-Respondent/Cross-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Jeffrey L. Weinstein, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant/cross-respondent (Michael J. Williams, Acting Hunterdon County Prosecutor, attorney; Jeffrey L. Weinstein, of counsel and on the briefs).
Lauren S. Michaels, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for respondent/cross-appellant (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Lauren S. Michaels, of counsel and on the briefs, Elizabeth C. Jarit, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, and Jaime B. Herrera, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, on the briefs).
Jane C. Schuster, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae Attorney General of New Jersey (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney; Jane C. Schuster, of counsel and on the briefs).
Alexander Shalom argued the cause for amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation, attorneys; Alexander Shalom, Liza Weisberg, Edward Barocas, and Jeanne LoCicero, on the brief).
In this appeal, we determine whether the police may pull over a driver for questioning in furtherance of an investigation without reasonable suspicion that she committed a crime or traffic violation. We find the circumstances of this case do not legitimize the stop. Indeed, we reiterate that law enforcement must have reasonable and articulable suspicion of a traffic violation, the commission of a crime, or unlawful activity before executing a traffic stop.
Accordingly, we hold that the roadside statement given by defendant during the unlawful stop should have been excluded at trial, and we affirm the Appellate Division's reversal of her convictions for hindering apprehension and false reporting. We further conclude defendant's roadside statement permeated the trial, severely affecting her credibility and ability to mount a defense to the separate burglary charge. We reverse that conviction as well. We remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
We adduce the following facts from the trial record, suppression hearing, and remand hearing.
In 2011, defendant Donna Alessi began dating her married co-worker, Philip Izzo. Izzo was a construction official for Raritan Township responsible for supervising the construction staff, including an inspector, Mark Fornaciari. During that time, Fornaciari filed a whistleblower claim under New Jersey's Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 to -14, naming Izzo as a defendant. In preparing his defense, Izzo took documents from the Township's construction office, including Fornaciari's personnel file, and stored them in his truck. Izzo showed a synopsis of those materials to defendant and discussed the lawsuit with her.
In 2013, the relationship between defendant and Izzo ended. Their relationship soured to the extent that they asserted claims of harassing conduct against one another. One night in June 2013, Izzo parked his truck in the parking lot of a bar in Hillsborough Township and entered the bar. Defendant, who saw Izzo at the bar, went to the parking lot, entered Izzo's truck, and removed some of her personal items as well as Fornaciari's personnel file. A surveillance camera at the bar captured defendant's actions that evening.
Defendant went to the Hillsborough Post Office to mail the personnel file to Fornaciari. She included an unsigned cover letter indicating she hoped the file would be of assistance in his lawsuit. She also warned Fornaciari that Izzo "has been planning to get rid of you for quite some time now," and he "got hold of the contractor he says you were inappropriate with to push that you are not a good employee." Initially, defendant attempted to mail this package without a return address, but a postal worker informed her that a return address was necessary. Defendant wrote the name and address of a Technical Assistant at the Township's construction office, Tina Stockelberg, on the return label.
Nevertheless, the package wound
up "returned" to the construction office because of an issue with the mailing address. The Township Administrator, Allan Pietrefesa, determined that Stockelberg had not sent the package and that Fornaciari's personnel file may have been illegally removed from the construction office. Pietrefesa contacted the Raritan Township Police Department.
Detective Thomas Camporeale began an investigation into the removal of Fornaciari's personnel file. Pietrefesa told Camporeale that he had not removed the file. He further informed Camporeale that the file was kept in a locked file in a locked office, which only Pietrefesa and Izzo could access. Camporeale contacted an officer at the Hunterdon County Prosecutor's Office and explained the circumstances surrounding the investigation. An assistant prosecutor relayed that charges of both official misconduct and misapplication of entrusted property might be brought "depending on what [the police] learned in the case and how this envelope left the building."
Based on the postage stamp, Camporeale knew the package had been mailed from the Hillsborough Post Office. At the post office, he reviewed the surveillance video. The footage showed a woman inscribing the return address, mailing the package, and getting into her car. He later learned from other employees at the construction office that Izzo had dated defendant. Additionally, Camporeale ran a Motor Vehicles Commission search to obtain a photograph of defendant. He compared it to the post office surveillance video and concluded that "it was the same person."
In advance of a planned vacation, Camporeale formally transferred the investigation to his colleague, Detective Benedict Donaruma. Camporeale "briefed him on everything to make sure that he was up-to-date." Donaruma viewed the surveillance footage and likewise concluded the woman in the video appeared "very similar" to defendant. Determined to learn why the personnel file went missing and wound
up in defendant's possession, Donaruma called defendant at least twice and left one or more unreturned voicemails. Donaruma would later testify that "for the most part ... when we leave messages people do get back to us."
One of Donaruma's colleagues who lived in defendant's area drove past her home on two occasions in failed attempts to make contact with her. Detectives Camporeale and Donaruma determined the next step in their investigation was to visit defendant's home personally. They arrived at her condominium complex in an unmarked police car and knocked on the door, but no one answered and defendant's car was not present. Donaruma left his business card either "in the door in-between the screen door" or wedged in the home number on the front door. Again, Donaruma testified that, in his experience, this practice ordinarily led to a return call.
After several days passed without hearing from defendant, Donaruma decided to return to her home. Early on the morning of July 30, Donaruma ventured back to the condominium complex by himself because Camporeale had left for vacation. This time, he spotted defendant's car. He parked, walked up to the front door, and knocked multiple times "for about a minute or two." Although no one answered the door, he noticed a woman peer out from behind the curtain. Donaruma then identified himself by saying "police department, need to speak to you," and knocked again. After another minute, he concluded no one would answer the door and returned to his car. As before, Donaruma testified that, in his experience, if someone was home when he knocked, that person typically answered the door.
Donaruma drove around the corner of defendant's complex and waited to see if the woman would leave. After a couple of minutes, he spotted defendant's vehicle on a local road within her development. Though Donaruma did not observe her commit a traffic violation, he pulled behind her in his marked patrol car and activated the overhead lights. When defendant stopped, Donaruma approached her car and said he wanted to discuss his investigation into the mailing of an envelope containing a missing personnel file. After questioning defendant for a few minutes by the side of the road, defendant asked to move to a more private location. Donaruma followed her to a nearby parking lot where the questioning continued for about an hour. Over the course of the questioning, Donaruma informed defendant multiple times that she was free to leave.
According to Donaruma, defendant initially denied involvement until he showed defendant an image of herself from the post office's surveillance footage. Defendant then admitted she sent the package at the behest of her then-boyfriend Izzo in an effort to get Fornaciari and Stockelberg in trouble with the Township. Defendant explained how Izzo wanted to create the appearance that Stockelberg, who "had an alliance" with Fornaciari, stole the personnel file at Fornaciari's direction to help with his lawsuit. Defendant conceded she and Izzo drafted the letter together and she intentionally listed the wrong return address so the package would end up with the Township.
Eventually, defendant asked to leave for work. She agreed to meet Donaruma later that day at the police department. Donaruma arranged to have her picked up in a nearby parking lot and taken to the garage entrance at the police station because she did not want to be seen or have her car seen in the Township parking lot. At the police station, defendant initially gave a statement, then was advised of her Miranda rights, and invoked her right to counsel. This statement was not admitted at trial.
Using the information defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Goldsmith
...concurring in part and dissenting in part) (quoting State v. Arthur, 149 N.J. 1, 7-8, 691 A.2d 808 (1997) ); accord State v. Alessi, 240 N.J. 501, 518, 223 A.3d 184 (2020). Determining whether reasonable and articulable suspicion exists for an investigatory stop is a highly fact-intensive i......
-
State v. Nyema
...concurring in part and dissenting in part) (quoting State v. Arthur, 149 N.J. 1, 7-8, 691 A.2d 808 (1997) ); accord State v. Alessi, 240 N.J. 501, 518, 223 A.3d 184 (2020). Determining whether reasonable and articulable suspicion exists for an investigatory stop is a highly fact-intensive i......
-
State v. Smith
...the seizure ... warrant[ed] a [person] of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate.’ " State v. Alessi, 240 N.J. 501, 518, 223 A.3d 184 (2020) (alterations and omission in original) (quoting State v. Mann, 203 N.J. 328, 338, 2 A.3d 379 (2010) ). A motor vehicle......
-
State v. Landes
...which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, give rise to areasonable suspicion of criminal activity.'" State v. Alessi, 240 N.J. 501, 518 (2020) (quoting State v. Mann, 203 N.J. 328, 338 (2010)). Reasonable suspicion is a "lower standard" than probable cause, Stovall, 1......