State v. Griffin
| Decision Date | 13 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | A-1555-18 |
| Parties | STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JEROME GRIFFIN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Argued December 8, 2020
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division Middlesex County, Indictment No. 16-121852.
Kevin Walker, First Assistant Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney Kevin Walker, of counsel and on the briefs).
Nancy A. Hulett, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Yolanda Ciccone, Middlesex County Prosecutor attorney; Nancy A. Hulett, of counsel and on the brief).
Before Judges Yannotti and Natali.
Defendant pled guilty to third-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS), specifically heroin, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1). He appeals from the judgment of conviction (JOC) dated October 25, 2018 and challenges the denial of his motion to suppress. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
In December 2016, a Middlesex County grand jury charged defendant with third-degree possession of a CDS (heroin) N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1) (count one); third-degree possession of a CDS (heroin), with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(3) (count two); and third-degree possession of a CDS (cocaine), N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1) (count three). Co-defendant Michal Alegre was charged with third-degree possession of a CDS (heroin), N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1) (count four).
Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained in a search of his motor vehicle, and the judge conducted an evidentiary hearing on the motion. At the hearing, Officer Demetrius Katsoulis of the North Brunswick Police Department (NBPD) testified for the State. He stated that he has been an officer in the NBPD since 2006. He said that on September 7, 2016, he was on routine patrol in North Brunswick and observed a 2011 Dodge Avenger with a rear license plate, on which the words "Garden State" were "completely" covered.
Katsoulis stated that the vehicle was being operated in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:3-33, which provides, in pertinent part, that "[n]o person shall drive a motor vehicle which has a license plate frame or identification marker holder that conceals or otherwise obscures any part of any marking imprinted upon the vehicle's registration plate ...." The officer activated his emergency lights and initiated a traffic stop of the car.
Katsoulis exited his patrol vehicle and approached the car from the driver's side. He observed a male driver, a male in the front passenger seat, and a female passenger in the rear seat. The officer told the driver why he had stopped the vehicle, and asked him for his driver's license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance. As he was doing so, Katsoulis noticed that the female passenger was not wearing a seatbelt, which is a violation of N.J.S.A. 39:3-76.2.
Co-defendant Alegre was the female passenger and defendant was the front seat passenger. Defendant told the officer he was the owner of the car. Defendant provided the officer with the vehicle's registration and proof of insurance.
Katsoulis stated that when he approached the vehicle, the driver was "shaking" and "very nervous." He said the driver was sweating profusely, even though the temperature that day was about seventy-nine or eighty degrees. Katsoulis noticed that the driver had red injection marks on the inside of his forearms.
According to Katsoulis, the injection marks were bleeding slightly, and it appeared as if they were recent "injection points" from a needle used to inject a drug, such as heroin. He asked the driver to exit the car so he could have a conversation with him that the other passengers could not hear.
Katsoulis asked the driver why he was sweating, if there was any contraband such as heroin in the car, and if he uses heroin. The driver admitted he had been using heroin. Initially, the driver said the heroin was not in the vehicle, but he "changed his story" and stated that he did not know if there was any contraband in the car. Katsoulis asked the driver to sit by the side of the road and called for assistance.
Katsoulis entered information he had obtained from defendant and Alegre into his vehicle's computer. He learned that Alegre had several outstanding warrants. He asked her to exit the vehicle. He saw that she also had fresh injection marks on her arms, some of which were still bleeding. He also observed "a neatly folded wad of money with a rubber band in [defendant's] hat" on the car's dashboard. Katsoulis arrested Alegre and asked defendant to exit the car and hold the leash for her dog, which had been in the back seat of the car.
Katsoulis asked defendant if he would consent to a search of the vehicle. He testified that he made that request based on the totality of the circumstances, including the driver's admitted use of heroin, the money he observed, as well as the nervousness and inconsistencies in the passengers' statements.
Katsoulis read defendant the Middlesex County Law Enforcement Consent to Search Form. According to Katsoulis, at that time, defendant was not in custody or handcuffed. Defendant signed the form and stood near the driver, while Katsoulis searched the vehicle.
In the rear of the vehicle, Katsoulis found a small cloth duffel bag with draw strings. Defendant told the officer it was his bag. Inside the bag, Katsoulis found a brown glass vial with a black screw cap, which contained a white powdery residue. The officer also found a Brillo pad, a Zippo lighter, lighter fluid, a glass ashtray with powdery residue, and a small bag containing baking soda. He testified that the items all indicated someone had been heating a CDS.
Katsoulis placed defendant under arrest for possession of drug paraphernalia. The officer patted defendant down and secured him in the patrol vehicle. The officer issued summonses to the driver for violations of N.J.S.A. 39:3-33 and N.J.S.A. 39:3-74.[1] He told the driver he was free to leave with the car and the dog.
Officers then transported defendant and Alegre to the NBPD's headquarters. Katsoulis then searched defendant. In defendant's front pockets, he found 166 folds of heroin, 2.72 grams of raw heroin, and $967 in United States currency.
On cross examination, defense counsel questioned Katsoulis about the vehicle's license plate. Katsoulis stated that the plate was partially obstructed, but he acknowledged he could see the markings on the plate including the vehicle's registration number. He said that only the words "Garden State" were "completely" obstructed. He also acknowledged that he did not see any drug paraphernalia in plain sight when he approached the vehicle.
The judge issued a written opinion and order denying defendant's motion to suppress. The judge found that Katsoulis had reasonable suspicion to effectuate the motor vehicle stop because he had observed the motor vehicle violations, specifically, the partially obstructed rear license plate and item hanging from the rear-view mirror which obstructed the driver's vision.
The judge also found that since two of the vehicle's occupants appeared to have recently injected themselves with a CDS, the officer had the necessary degree of reasonable suspicion to seek defendant's consent to search the vehicle. The judge concluded that the officer lawfully searched the vehicle and arrested defendant and conducted a valid search incident to the arrest.
In June 2018, defendant pled guilty to count one of the indictment pursuant to a plea agreement with the State. The judge dismissed counts two and three. Thereafter, the judge sentenced defendant to probation for three years, conditioned on defendant serving 364 days in the county jail.
The judge also imposed various monetary penalties, required defendant to submit to random urine monitoring as recommended by probation, and suspended defendant's driver's license for six months. The judge filed the JOC dated October 25, 2018. This appeal followed.
On appeal, defendant raises the following arguments for our consideration:
We first consider defendant's contention that the officer did not have a reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop his car. He contends the officer did not have a basis to stop the vehicle for violating N.J.S.A. 39:3-33 because the markings on the rear license plate were not obstructed.
"When an appellate court reviews a trial court's decision on a motion to suppress, the reviewing court defers to the trial court's factual findings, upholding them 'so long as sufficient credible evidence in the record supports those findings.'" In Interest of J.A., 233 N.J 432, 445 (2018) (quoting State v. Gonzalez, 227 N.J. 77, 101 (2016)). An appellate court should defer "to those findings of the trial judge which are substantially influenced by his opportunity to hear and see the witnesses and to have the 'feel' of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial