State v. Edmond

• Docket Number: A-2092-20
• Decision Date: 25 May 2023
• Parties: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DAVID A. EDMOND, a/k/a CHRIS STEWART, DAVE, DAVID ALEXANDER EDMOND, DAVID D. EDMOND, DAVID EDMOND, and POLO D, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DAVID A. EDMOND, a/k/a CHRIS STEWART, DAVE, DAVID ALEXANDER EDMOND, DAVID D. EDMOND, DAVID EDMOND, and POLO D, Defendant-Appellant.

No. A-2092-20

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

May 25, 2023

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

Argued March 8, 2023

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division Union County, Indictment No. 17-08-0589.

Cody T. Mason, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney Cody T. Mason, of counsel and on the briefs).

Meredith L. Balo, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (James O. Tansey, First Assistant Prosecutor, Designated Union County Prosecutor for purpose of this appeal, attorney; Meredith L. Balo, of counsel and on the brief).

Before Judges Firko and Natali.

PER CURIAM

Following the denial of his motions to suppress out-of-court identifications and physical evidence seized after law enforcement's warrantless entry into the backyard of his mother Marlene Edmond's home in Plainfield, defendant David A. Edmond pled guilty to first-degree robbery, N.J.S.A 2C:15-1(a)(3). The court sentenced defendant to an eight-year custodial term subject to the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2, to run concurrently with his sentences in two other cases. Defendant challenges his conviction and jail credits awarded and raises the following points for our consideration:

POINT I

SUPPRESSION IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE STATE FAILED TO JUSTIFY THE OFFICERS' WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF THE BACKYARD AND SHOEBOX.^[1]

A. The State Failed To Show That Exigent Circumstances Justified The Searches Of The Backyard And Shoebox.

B. The State Did Not Clearly And Convincingly Show That The Evidence Would Have Inevitably

Been Discovered If Not For The Initial Unlawful Searches.

1. The inevitable-discovery doctrine is a narrow exception that imposes a high burden of proof on the State, particularly in this case.

2. The State did not show that the officers would have inevitably applied for a warrant, searched the yard, and found the sneakers.

3. The State did not show that the officers would have recovered the evidence if not for the unlawful consent search of defendant's room.

4. The State did not show that the officers had probable cause to procure a search warrant absent the initial unlawful searches.

POINT II

THE MATTER MUST BE REMANDED TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL JAIL CREDIT.

We agree with defendant's arguments in Point I. The police officers' warrantless entry into his mother's backyard and home was not supported by a well-grounded suspicion of criminal activity. We therefore reverse the denial of defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. However, we disagree with defendant's arguments in Point II and affirm the jail credit awarded.

I.

We derive the following facts from the suppression hearing. On June 2, 2017, Alexander Brady arranged to sell three pairs of sneakers for $1,150 to an individual by the name of "Chris Stewart" on the LetGo app. Brady and his friend, Raymond Aguero, arranged to meet with the buyer at a location in Plainfield between 10:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. While waiting for the buyer to arrive, Brady noticed an Infiniti, with damage to the front bumper and headlight, circle the block twice, which made him feel anxious.

Defendant and another man approached the passenger side of Brady's car. Brady was the driver. Defendant asked Brady to see the sneakers. Aguero had two boxes of sneakers on his lap and passed one to defendant, who looked them over. Defendant asked Brady if he could try a pair of the sneakers on, but he responded, "No, because if you do, it cuts the value in half." The second man pulled out a gun and pointed it at Aguero's head. Just as the men ordered "give me all your sh . . .," Brady, who had the car in drive, hit the gas, leaving the box of sneakers with defendant, who ran away. Later, Brady described the sneakers were Jordan 5 Take Flight.

As he drove away, Brady called 9-1-1 and met with police at a gas station. Brady described one individual, later identified as defendant, as a black male wearing a white Versace sweatshirt, between nineteen and twenty-three years old, and also gave a physical description. According to Brady, the second perpetrator wore a "hoodie very tight over their head."

A few hours later on June 3, 2017, at approximately 12:30 a.m., the police received a report of an armed robbery that occurred on the east end of town in the Reeve Terrace area. The victims identified the suspects as two black males, one wearing a white hoodie shirt with a Versace logo, and the other wearing dark clothing and possessing a silver handgun. The victims of the second reported robbery, as well as Brady, informed the officers that the suspects were driving a black Infiniti with black rims and a headlight out.

Detective Pierre McCall and his partner, Sergeant Thomas Carvalho, canvassed the Reeve Terrace area. The officers noticed a black Infiniti matching the description given by the victim and Brady on the 200 block of Sumner Avenue, a couple of blocks away from where the robbery in the Reeve Terrace area took place. The Infiniti was parked in a driveway, and a Honda was parked across the sidewalk behind it. Three black males stood between the two vehicles, one wearing a white hoodie shirt with a Versace logo.

The officers exited their vehicles and approached the house. As Detective McCall walked toward the house, he observed black rims on the Infiniti and a damaged headlight, which matched the description of the car involved in the reported robberies. Based on their observations, the officers patted down and handcuffed the three men who were standing outside the vehicles and ordered the fourth man inside the Honda to keep his hands on the wheel. The three men were later identified as defendant, co-defendant Gary I. Manley, and defendant's brother Matthew Edmond. The fourth man inside the Honda was identified as "a Hispanic male," possibly named Jose. Detective McCall stayed with the four men and checked for outstanding warrants.

Back up units, including Sergeant Thomas Collina, Detective Michael Bowe, and Detective Michael Metz responded. Sergeant Collina, a patrol supervisor, was concerned about the officers' safety because the house only had a light on in front and there was a "vast, dark backyard," which was "not very well-lit," and "deep." The backyard was partially blocked off by bushes and trees and was not visible from the street. Sergeant Collina started to "look around" to secure the area for the officers' safety because the reported crime involved a firearm, and he was unaware if another suspect was involved.

Sergeant Collina testified he decided to enter the backyard, which contained large piles of construction material and debris, siding, wood, and "a ladder going to the roof," to look for the firearm. Sergeant Collina explained he entered the backyard "just to make sure no one was back there or hiding behind these big mounds of trash." The house was being renovated. Sergeant Collina testified there were "no fences" from the front of the house to the backyard, and he was able to walk around the house to the backyard. Officers Charles Martina and Johnson^[2] also went into the backyard.

Meanwhile, Sergeant Collina and Officers Martina and Johnson looked behind the piles of debris and shone their flashlights towards the roof but did not find any individuals or weapons. However, they noticed a box of Jordan sneakers underneath a stairway situated diagonally across the house. The sneaker box was "sitting next to the back door on top of boxes" and was "not covered." Sergeant Collina opened the box and confirmed it contained a pair of sneakers. He thought this was relevant to the reported robbery, which involved a pair of Jordan sneakers. Sergeant Collina also testified the officers found a sweatshirt and masks near the sneaker box. Detective Bowe searched the backyard and did not find anything.

Sergeant Collina and Officers Martina and Johnson were all wearing body cameras during the search, but Collina's camera was not activated. Sergeant Collina testified that as the "road supervisor" taking other calls, it was unnecessary to activate his body camera. Although Officers Martina and Johnson's body cameras were activated, according to Sergeant Collina, the State did not present any footage from their body cameras at the suppression hearing.

Detective Bowe then went to the front of the house and knocked on the door. A woman identified as Marlene^[3] answered and let Bowe and Metz in. She inquired if her sons were in trouble. In response, the officers "downplayed" the situation and simply stated they were "conducting an investigation" and were "not sure" what the situation was. The officers did not advise Marlene they were looking for a weapon or that defendant and Matthew had already been arrested in connection with a robbery.

Detective Bowe then asked Marlene where defendant slept, and she responded his room was located in the basement. When asked about her "involvement" with defendant's room Marlene answered, "I only clean, I do laundry." Detective Metz asked Marlene for permission to search defendant's room and presented her with a "Permission to Search" form. Marlene read and signed the form after she orally consented to a search of defendant's room. According to defendant, the detectives did...