State v. Alston

Citation88 N.J. 211,440 A.2d 1311
PartiesSTATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald ALSTON, James Barnes, Harry Williams and Abdullah Khaliq, a/k/a ErnestCaulfield, a/k/a Ernest Cofield, Defendants-Respondents.
Decision Date21 October 1981
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)

Susan W. Sciacca, Asst. Prosecutor, for plaintiff-appellant (Roger W. Breslin, Jr., Bergen County Prosecutor, attorney).

Susan Heller Fessler, Asst. Deputy Public Defender, for defendants-respondents (Stanley C. Van Ness, Public Defender, attorney).

Debra L. Stone, Deputy Atty. Gen., for amicus curiae, Atty. Gen. (John J. Degnan, Atty. Gen., attorney).

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

CLIFFORD, J.

This appeal presents us with the task of clarifying the scope of the "automobile exception" to the Fourth Amendment requirement that searches be conducted pursuant to a warrant based on probable cause. More particularly, the question to be resolved is whether the primary rationale for this exception-the inherent mobility of an automobile stopped on an open highway-dissipates once the vehicle's occupants are arrested and removed from the car. The trial court and Appellate Division read this Court's decision in State v. Ercolano, 79 N.J. 25, 397 A.2d 1062 (1979), to require the holding that once the occupants of an automobile are arrested for possession of contraband and taken into police custody, the vehicle is no longer readily movable and the police must obtain a warrant before conducting a full search of the passenger compartment for further contraband, even if there existed sufficient probable cause for the search at the scene. We disagree.

I

On the night of October 23, 1978 Bergen County Police Detectives Marc Fenech and John Schmidig, stationed in an unmarked patrol car, pursued a Buick automobile speeding westbound on Route 46 in Ridgefield Park. During the chase the officers observed three of the four occupants moving about in the vehicle as if attempting to conceal something. After they succeeded in stopping the Buick, the detectives asked the driver for vehicle credentials, whereupon Alston opened the glove compartment, removed a large envelope, and began looking through its contents. Detective Schmidig then shone his flashlight into the open glove compartment and observed three shotgun shells. The four men were asked to exit from the vehicle. The officers patted them down for weapons but found none on their persons. Detective Fenech then returned to the Buick to retrieve the shotgun shells while his partner remained at the rear of the car with the four occupants.

Detective Fenech opened the front passenger door of the vehicle, reached into the open glove compartment and took the shells. In the process, Fenech observed an opaque plastic bag lying on the floor, protruding about twelve inches from under the front passenger seat, and covering what appeared to be a long, thin object. The detective reached down and felt the protruding end of the bag. Because the object "felt like a gun," he picked it up, opened the bag, and discovered that it was indeed a sawed-off shotgun. Thereupon the four occupants of the vehicle were placed under arrest, advised of their rights and handcuffed. A further search of the vehicle uncovered additional weapons secreted in the passenger compartment-a revolver in a holster under the front seat, and a .38 caliber revolver, fully loaded, wedged in a crevice between the top and bottom halves of the back seat.

After the weapons had been removed, the contents of the vehicle were inventoried and the vehicle itself towed from the scene. The four defendants were taken to police headquarters and charged under N.J.S.A. 2A:151-41 with the unlawful carrying and possession of the three weapons seized from the car. Defendant Alston was also issued summonses for speeding and for driving with a suspended license.

The trial court granted defendants' motions to suppress the three weapons obtained in the warrantless search of the car. 1 On appeal the Appellate Division reversed the trial court's order suppressing the shotgun found under the front seat, but affirmed the suppression of the two revolvers seized after defendants had been placed under arrest. In regard to the shotgun the court below held that "once the officers observed the live shotgun shells, reasonable precautions for their own safety justified their ordering defendants out of the car, looking into it cursorily and unwrapping the object observed protruding from under the seat which had the appearance of being a firearm," citing State v. Kennedy, 134 N.J.Super. 454, 341 A.2d 685 (App.Div.1975). Regarding the two handguns, however, the Appellate Division read Ercolano to require that a warrantless search of a car cannot be justified under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement unless both probable cause and sufficient exigent or exceptional circumstances exist. It held that "once the defendants were out of the car, their persons searched, and they were placed under arrest and handcuffed, there were no longer any exigent or exceptional circumstances present justifying the warrantless search of the vehicle."

We granted the State's motion for leave to appeal the Appellate Division's affirmance of the trial court order suppressing the two revolvers, but denied the defendants' cross-motion for leave to appeal the reversal of the order suppressing the shotgun. Therefore, this appeal involves only the State's challenge to the suppression of the two handguns, the fruits of the post-arrest search. Because we find that the officers conducted a valid automobile search, we now reverse and remand for trial.

II

As a preliminary matter the Attorney General, as amicus curiae, argues that the defendants lacked the legitimate or reasonable expectation of privacy in the particular areas of the vehicle searched necessary to confer "standing" to challenge the warrantless search as a violation of personal rights under the Fourth Amendment. 2 There is some debate over whether the issue is properly before this Court. 3 Nevertheless, we believe that the challenge to defendants' standing raises important questions in the administration of criminal justice in this state. Therefore, we address fully this troublesome issue of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

Relying on the recent Supreme Court decisions in Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978), and United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 100 S.Ct. 2547, 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980), the State argues that defendants Barnes, Williams and Khaliq, as mere passengers in an automobile not owned by them, had no standing to challenge the legality of the search of the vehicle, despite any ownership or possessory interest in the weapons seized. As to defendant Alston, the driver of the vehicle and the son of its owner, the State urges that although he may have legitimately possessed the car, the totality of the circumstances does not suggest that he entertained a reasonable expectation of privacy in the particular areas of the vehicle searched.

The underlying facts of Rakas v. Illinois, supra, are not unlike those of the present appeal. In Rakas, the defendants were passengers in an automobile stopped on an open highway searched by law enforcement officials without a warrant. The officers in that case, however, stopped the vehicle on information that it may have been an instrumentality in the commission of an armed robbery. The search in Rakas, conducted after defendants were ordered from the vehicle, revealed a box of rifle shells in the locked glove compartment and a sawed-off shotgun under the front passenger seat. The defendants' motion to suppress was denied for the reason that defendants, as mere passengers who alleged no property interest in either the automobile searched or the items seized, lacked the requisite standing to bring the motion. On appeal an Illinois appellate court affirmed the defendants' lack of standing and the Illinois Supreme Court declined further review.

In reviewing the case on certiorari, the Supreme Court noted that "Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights which * * * may not be vicariously asserted." 439 U.S. at 133-34, 99 S.Ct. at 425, 58 L.Ed.2d at 394-95. Thus, a motion to suppress evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment may be successfully brought only by those persons whose rights were violated by the search itself, not by those who are aggrieved solely by the introduction of the incriminating evidence obtained in the search. Id.; see Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 171-72, 89 S.Ct. 961, 965, 22 L.Ed.2d 176, 185-86 (1969). The Court then set forth the appropriate inquiry under its substantive Fourth Amendment doctrine, see supra at 84 n. 2:

(T)he question is whether the challenged search or seizure violated the Fourth Amendment rights of a criminal defendant who seeks to exclude the evidence obtained during it. That inquiry in turn requires a determination of whether the disputed search and seizure has infringed an interest of the defendant which the Fourth Amendment was designed to protect. (439 U.S. at 140, 99 S.Ct. at 429, 58 L.Ed.2d at 399.)

Relying on Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960), a case involving a prosecution for certain possessory offenses, the petitioners in Rakas claimed that as passengers occupying the automobile searched, they had standing to contest the legality of the search because they were "legitimately on (the) premises" where the search occurred. 439 U.S. at 142, 99 S.Ct. at 429, 58 L.Ed.2d at 399-400. Jones, the leading case on the standing issue prior to Rakas, had posited two tests for determination of Fourth Amendment standing. The first was the rule of "automatic standing" in cases where an essential element of the crime charged is possession of the seized property at the time of the contested search. See 362 U.S. at 263, 80 S.Ct. at 732,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
159 cases
  • State v. Novembrino
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • January 7, 1987
    ...... State v. Williams, 93 N.J. 39, 459 A.2d 641 (1983); Right to Choose v. Byrne, 91 N.J. 287, 450 A.2d 925 (1982); State v. Hunt, supra, 91 N.J. 338 450 A.2d 952; State v. Alston, 88 N.J. 211, 440 A.2d 1311 (1981); State v. Schmid, 84 N.J. 535, 423 A.2d 615 (1980), appeal dismissed sub nom. Princeton Univ. v. Schmid, 455 U.S. 100, 102 S.Ct. 867, 70 L.Ed.2d 855 (1982); State v. Johnson, 68 N.J. 349, 346 A.2d 66 (1975). Although the [519 A.2d 850] language of article I, ......
  • State v. Caronna
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • November 3, 2021
    ......Brown , 216 N.J. 508, 528, 83 A.3d 45 (2014) (explaining that "[f]or standing purposes, Article I, Paragraph 7 provides broader protection to the privacy rights of New Jersey citizens than the Fourth Amendment"); State v. Johnson , 193 N.J. 528, 542-43, 940 A.2d 1185 (2008) ; State v. Alston , 88 N.J. 211, 228, 440 A.2d 1311 (1981). 469 N.J.Super. 486 The New Jersey Supreme Court recently reiterated that our State Constitution "is a source of fundamental rights independent of the United States Constitution." State v. Melvin , 248 N.J. 321, 258 A.3d 1075, 1090 (2021) (citing State v. ......
  • Southern Burlington County N.A.A.C.P. v. Mount Laurel Tp., A-35
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • January 20, 1983
    ......v. . TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT LAUREL, Defendant-Appellant (A-172). . URBAN LEAGUE OF GREATER NEW BRUNSWICK, a nonprofit . corporation of the State of New Jersey, Cleveland Benson, . Judith Champion, Barbara Tippett and Kenneth Tuskey, on . their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly . ... Id. at 107-08, 275 A.2d 433. See also State v. Alston, 88 N.J. 211, 225-230, 440 A.2d 1311 (1981); N.J. Chamb. Commerce v. N.J. Elec. Law Enforce. Comm., 82 N.J. 57, 67-69, 411 A.2d 168 (1980); Home ......
  • Commonwealth v. Sell
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • December 30, 1983
    ...we find the United States Supreme Court's grounds for abandoning the Jones "automatic standing" rule unpersuasive. See State v. Alston, 88 N.J. 211, 440 A.2d 1311 (1981). Rather we are convinced, as is the New Jersey Supreme Court, that [t]he automatic standing rule is a salutary one which ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Social Capital and Protecting the Rights of the Accused in the American States
    • United States
    • Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice No. 18-2, May 2002
    • May 1, 2002
    ...1356 (1991); State v. Bullock, 272 Mont. 361, 901 P.2d61, 69 (1995);State v. Settle, 122 N.H. 214, 447 A.2d 1284 (1982); State v. Alston, 88 N.J. 211, 440A.2d 1311 (1981); Commonwealth v. Sell, 504 Pa. 46, 470 A.2d 457 (1983); State v.Wood, 148 Vt. 479, 536 A.2d 902 (1987); State v. Simpson......
  • Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 1988 Update
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 11-03, March 1988
    • Invalid date
    ...v. Allman, 19 Wash. App. 169, 573 P.2d 1329 (1977) § 7.10 State v. Allun, 40 Wash. App. 27, 696 P.2d 45 (1985) § 3.7(c) State v. Alston, 88 N.J. 211, 440 A.2d 1311 (1981) § 1.4 State v. Anderson, 41 Wash. App. 85, 702 P.2d 481 (1985) §§ 2.5(a), 3.2(b), 3.9, 3.9(c), 5.7(a), 5.13 State v. And......
  • TABLE OF CASES
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Criminal Procedure, Volume One: Investigation (CAP) (2017) Title Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...Allen, State v., 255 P.3d 784 (Wash. App. 2011) , 507 Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973), 270, 298 Alston, State v., 440 A.2d 1311 (N.J. 1981), 320 Alvarez, State v., 138 Haw. 173 (2016), 268 Amendola, Commonwealth v., 550 N.E.2d 121 (Mass. 1990), 324 Amos v. United State......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Criminal Procedure, Volume One: Investigation (CAP) (2021) Title Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...State v., 255 P.3d 784 (Wash. App. 2011), 87, 551 Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973), 289, 320 Alston, State v., 440 A.2d 1311 (N.J. 1981), 346 Alvarez, State v., 138 Haw. 173 (2016), 286 Amendola, Commonwealth v., 550 N.E.2d 121 (Mass. 1990), 351 Amos v. United States, 2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT