State v. Jenkins
| Decision Date | 07 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | A-1413-19 |
| Parties | STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. OTIS R. JENKINS, a/k/a EZEKIEL JENKINS, EZEKIEL J. JENKINS, OZ, and OTIS JENKINS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted November 4, 2021
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division Gloucester County, Indictment Nos. 18-05-0366 and 18-06-0534.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Michele E. Friedman, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
Christine A. Hoffman, Acting Gloucester County Prosecutor attorney for respondent (Dana R. Anton, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Senior Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).
Before Judges Fuentes, Gilson, and Gummer.
In two separate indictments, defendant Otis Jenkins was charged with six drug-related crimes and two offenses involving the altering of and presenting false motor-vehicle documents. Following the denial of his motions to suppress physical evidence and one of his statements, defendant pled guilty to second-and third-degree possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(2) and (3). He was sentenced to seven years in prison with three years of parole ineligibility.
Defendant appeals from the orders denying his motions to suppress. He argues that one of the searches was illegal because it was conducted without valid consent, his statement was not voluntary, and the search of his vehicle was illegal. We reject these arguments because the trial court's factual findings are supported by substantial credible evidence and the law was correctly applied in denying the motions. Accordingly, we affirm both of defendant's convictions.
The charges against defendant arose out of two separate events. Both involved searches and seizures and, after each event defendant gave a statement.
The first incident occurred on October 5, 2017, and involved the search of a vehicle defendant was driving. Officer Matthew Martinez stopped the vehicle because the temporary license plate appeared to be fake. Defendant was not able to produce a valid driver's license and Officer Martinez believed the registration defendant had shown him was not valid. During the stop, Martinez was advised by dispatch that defendant had an active arrest warrant because he had failed to pay child support. Defendant was, therefore, asked to get out of the car, was arrested, and was placed in a police vehicle. While in the police vehicle, defendant was questioned by Martinez. In response to those questions, defendant made several incriminating statements.
Officer David Paul, who had arrived as backup, separately questioned two passengers who had remained in the vehicle. When Officer Paul leaned down to speak with the passengers through an open window, he smelled the odor of raw marijuana. Officers then searched the car and found a vial of marijuana, two marijuana cigarettes in the purse of one of the passengers, a bag of crack cocaine, and packaging materials.
Based on the drugs found in the vehicle and the documents defendant had produced, defendant was charged and later indicted for six crimes: third-degree possession of cocaine, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1); third-degree possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(3); third-degree possession of cocaine with intent to distribute within 1, 000 feet of school property, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7(a); second-degree possession of cocaine with intent to distribute within 500 feet of a public park, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7.1(a); third-degree altering a temporary registration tag, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-1(a)(1); and third-degree uttering a fraudulent car insurance card, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-1(a)(3).
The second incident occurred approximately six months later in April 2018. On April 3, 2018, a citizen came to the Clayton police station and told Detective Jackson Harrington that defendant was involved in narcotics activity. Harrington checked and learned that defendant had an outstanding arrest warrant.
Early the next morning, Harrington and several other law enforcement personnel went to an apartment where they had reason to believe defendant was staying. Based on prior communications with the occupant of that apartment, Harrington knew the apartment was leased to A.G.[1] When the police knocked on the apartment door, A.G. opened the door and officers could see defendant sitting on the couch in the room behind A.G. Defendant was arrested, and officers conducted a protective sweep of the one-bedroom apartment.
After defendant was removed from the apartment, Harrington asked A.G. for consent to search the apartment. A.G. was shown and signed a consent-to-search form. Harrington's conversation with A.G. concerning the consent form was not recorded. During the search of the apartment, police found crack cocaine hidden above a drop-ceiling panel in the bathroom. The police also found drug paraphernalia in a suitcase located in the living room.
Following his arrest, defendant was taken to the police station where he was interrogated by Detective Harrington. Before the formal interrogation, Harrington briefly spoke with defendant in the processing room. Thereafter, defendant was moved to another room, where he was interrogated by Harrington. That interrogation was recorded. Initially, Harrington read defendant his Miranda rights, and defendant reviewed and signed a Miranda waiver form. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
During questioning, defendant admitted that he had bought and possessed illegal drugs to sell. In response to one of Harrington's questions, defendant asked: Harrington responded:
Based on the drugs seized from the apartment and defendant's statements, defendant was later indicted for two crimes: third-degree possession of cocaine, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1), and second-degree possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(2).
Defendant moved to suppress the physical evidence seized from his car and A.G.'s apartment. He also moved to suppress the statements he had given following both incidents. The trial court conducted separate hearings concerning the vehicle stop and the search of the apartment.
At the hearing concerning the October 2017 vehicle search, the State presented testimony from Officers Martinez and Paul. The State also submitted and played the video recordings from the body cameras worn by both officers. Officer Martinez's body camera showed his interaction with defendant after he had made the motor vehicle stop and questioned defendant about his license and registration. The body camera from Officer Martinez captured his questioning of defendant following defendant's arrest. Defendant did not testify and did not call any witnesses.
The trial court found the testimony by both officers to be credible. The court also found that the body camera recordings corroborated the officers' testimony. Based on Officer Martinez's testimony, the court found that the officer had lawfully stopped defendant's vehicle because the license plate was fake. The court also found that defendant had been lawfully arrested because he had an outstanding arrest warrant for failure to pay child support.
Concerning the search of the vehicle, the trial court credited Officer Paul's testimony that he smelled raw marijuana when he was standing outside the car speaking to the passengers in the car. In making that finding, the court found no inconsistency between the testimony of Officer Martinez and Officer Paul. Although the court noted that Martinez had not smelled marijuana when he was next to the car, the court found that Officer Paul had been at a different "vantage point" when he smelled the raw marijuana. The court then reasoned that the roadside search of the vehicle was based on probable cause and lawful. See State v. Witt, 223 N.J. 409, 432-33 (2015) ( that police can lawfully search a car when probable cause arises from unforeseeable and spontaneous circumstances).
The trial court suppressed the statements made by defendant to Officer Martinez because those statements were made after defendant was arrested, but before defendant had been advised of his Miranda rights. Accordingly, on August 13, 2019, the trial court entered two orders, one denying defendant's motion to suppress the physical evidence seized from defendant's vehicle and the other granting defendant's motion to suppress the statements he had given after his arrest.
At the hearing concerning the search of the apartment and defendant's subsequent statement, the court heard testimony from one witness: Detective Harrington. The court also reviewed the consent-to-search form signed by A.G., the Miranda waiver form signed by defendant, and the video...
To continue reading
Request your trial