State v. Johnson

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court
• Writing for the Court: OSTRER, J.A.D. (retired and temporarily assigned on recall):
• Docket Number: MER-24-1611
• Decision Date: 19 December 2025
• Citation: State v. Johnson, MER-24-1611 (N.J. Super. Dec 19, 2025)
• Parties: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff, v. GEORGE V. JOHNSON AND RYAN MONTGOMERY, Defendants.

1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff,
v.
GEORGE V. JOHNSON AND RYAN MONTGOMERY, Defendants.

No. MER-24-1611

Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer

December 19, 2025

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS

CRIMINAL PART IND. 25-04-0276

MATTHEW S. SAMEL, ESQ., assistant prosecutor, attorney for State of New Jersey (Mercer County Prosecutor's Office).

JOHN S. FURLONG, ESQ., attorney for George Johnson, (Furlong and Krasny).

ROBERT B. ROGERS, ESQ., attorney for Ryan Montgomery.

OSTRER, J.A.D. (retired and temporarily assigned on recall):

Defendant George Johnson moves to suppress a handgun. He contends that police unlawfully detained him during a motor vehicle stop and then unlawfully seized his truck. He argues that those alleged constitutional violations tainted the

2

subsequent warrant-based search of his truck and seizure of a handgun. Defendant Ryan Montgomery, a passenger, joins in the motion. An indictment, No. 25-0400276, charges both defendants with various weapons-related offenses, and charges Mr. Johnson with assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest.

The court denies the motion. Police stopped Mr. Johnson's truck because he ran a red light and crossed the double-yellow line. Although police then prolonged the stop beyond the time necessary to complete the traffic mission, the "circumstances 'g[a]ve rise to suspicions unrelated to the traffic offense,'" which authorized the officer to 'broaden [the] inquiry and satisfy those suspicions.'" State v. Dickey, 152 N.J. 468, 480 (1998) (quoting United States v. Johnson, 58 F.3d 356, 357-58 (8th Cir. 1995)). During the justifiably prolonged stop, police subjected the truck to a canine sniff. The canine alerted to the odor of gunshot residue while outside the truck. That alert and the totality of circumstances generated probable cause to believe the truck contained a contraband firearm. That justified seizing the truck. Thus, no constitutional violation tainted the search that police later conducted pursuant to a warrant.

I.

The principal witnesses at the testimonial hearing were Trenton Police Patrol Officer Michael Manning, who conducted the motor vehicle stop and led the on-the-scene investigation that followed; and Trenton Police Detective and canine officer

3

Robert Batestrieri, who described the steps leading to the canine's alert to suspected gunshot residue. The State also introduced into evidence body-worn-camera video of the motor vehicle stop and the canine sniff and other exhibits. Both officers were credible. They did not appear to dissemble. Ofcr. Manning, who had three-and-a-half years of experience on the police force when he testified, freely admitted when his memory failed him. He answered questions thoughtfully and deliberately. Det. Balestrieri confidently described his canine's training and typical behaviors.

Officer Manning stopped defendant in the pre-dawn hours of May 18, 2024, after observing him cross the double yellow line while traveling northbound on Pennington Avenue in Trenton and then drive through a red light at the Calhoun Street intersection. He activated his body worn camera and evidently removed it from his police vest and raised it to capture a view of the truck in front of him. He narrated the motor vehicle violations, stating the truck was "all over the road," "all over the center line" and "blowing the red light." At 4:54:38 a.m., the truck appeared to be returning to the right side of the double-yellow line after having crossed it. The red-light violation that followed was clearly visible on the recording. See Exh. S-4 Evid. (video); Exh. S-7 Evid. (photo of Pennington Avenue and Calhoun Street).

Officer Manning accelerated to shorten the distance between him and defendants. He activated his siren at 4:54:51 a.m., and defendants came to a stop six seconds after that.

4

Officer Manning's interest went beyond motor vehicle enforcement. About two-and-a-half hours earlier, his sergeant had conveyed information received from the New Jersey State Police. The sergeant said an individual reportedly saw the driver of a black Ford truck brandish a handgun in a verbal altercation behind a place called Weedman's Joint. The State Police considered the witness a "documented confidential source." Notably, Ofcr. Manning testified that there had been numerous fights and shootings in the area of Weedman's Joint. He had been called to respond to calls for service and conducted investigations there in the past.

Work on a separate investigation prevented Ofcr. Manning from following up on his sergeant's information until after 4:00 a.m. He saw no sign of the truck near Weedman's Joint. So, he drove to the 100 block of East Hanover Street nearby, where, in his experience, Weedman's Joint customers sometimes attended afterhours parties. See Exh. S-3 Evid. (street map). He spotted a parked, unoccupied black Ford F-150 with Texas tag numbers that matched those in the earlier report. He waited almost an hour, until two people entered the truck. He then followed it until he observed the suspected motor vehicle violations.

Once the truck stopped, Ofcr. Manning approached Mr. Johnson, the driver, while his partner, Ofcr. Herrera, approached Mr. Montgomery, the front-seat passenger. The window was down. Mr. Johnson gave Ofcr. Manning his driver's license but he could not produce proof of insurance or registration. He told Ofcr.

5

Manning the truck was a rental vehicle, but he could not produce a rental agreement upon the officer's request. He produced a document that Ofcr. Manning said was a receipt, not the rental agreement.

Mr. Johnson spoke slowly. At times, he appeared to slur his words. He asserted that Ofcr. Manning knew who he was and asked, "Why are you doing this to me." The officer responded, "What do you want me to do? You blew a red light right in front of me." The officer said he needed "to check everything out."

Mr. Johnson said, "I want to get Wendy's," and asked the officer if he would escort him so he could get there quickly. Mr. Johnson evidently thought the restaurant closed at 5:00 a.m. Ofcr. Manning said that the restaurant already had closed and would reopen at 6:00 a.m.

Ofcr. Manning walked to the passenger side of the truck, where Ofcr. Herrera handed him what appeared to be Mr. Montgomery's driver's license, and then, at about 4:58 a.m., Ofcr. Manning returned to his patrol car to check out the two men's driver's license information on the on-board computer. Roughly five minutes later, he asked a dispatcher to run warrants for him.

After returning to the truck, at 5:01:56, Ofcr. Manning asked Mr. Johnson "to hop out of the car real quick." Mr. Johnson opened the door and left it open, keeping his hands up. Ofcr. Manning pat-frisked Mr. Johnson and then asked him to stand

6

at the rear of the truck. It was almost 5:03 a.m. By this time, backup officers had arrived.

Ofcr. Manning then questioned Mr. Johnson. He asked where Mr. Johnson worked - he said he worked with fire extinguishers; if he had anything to drink -he said he hadn't; where he was headed - he said "I live right there" and he was going home (not Wendy's or another restaurant); where he got the yellow bracelet on his right wrist - his answer was unintelligible but he said he had come from a baby shower for his own child, prompting a brief discussion of the baby's name; and who was his passenger - he said Mr. Montgomery was his brother.

Mr. Johnson then inquired about the purpose of the stop, asking, "What's going on?" Ofcr. Manning testified that he believed Mr. Johnson's demeanor had changed. Mr. Johnson's impatience was evident on the video. Ofcr. Manning answered that he asked him to get out of the truck because he was "all over the road." Mr. Johnson again asserted he had not been drinking. The officer asked Mr. Johnson to "hang out here with my partner . . . [and] we'll get you out of here."

One of the officers who arrived as back-up remained with Mr. Johnson while Ofcr. Manning approached Mr. Montgomery, who was still seated in the truck. It was after 5:04 a.m. Asked if Mr. Johnson was his brother or a friend, Mr. Montgomery identified Mr. Johnson as his cousin. He identified the place they were coming from, but it was unintelligible on the video and did not sound like

7

Weedman's Joint. He mentioned "chilling with some girls." He said they were headed to get food at Wendy's or a place on Route 1. Ofcr. Manning told Mr. Montgomery that Mr. Johnson seemed "really nervous."

Ofcr. Manning then returned to Mr. Johnson. At 5:05:33 a.m., the officer asked if there were "drugs, hand grenades or rifles" in the car. Mr. Johnson responded, "Can you see anything?" Ofcr. Manning responded, "That really wasn't my question." Mr. Johnson became increasingly impatient and irritated. He asked, "Can I go home? Can I go home now? Everything is being recorded."

Ofcr. Manning explained that he was conducting an investigation of a motor vehicle stop, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Montgomery appeared "super nervous," and Mr. Johnson's response to the question about weapons - he said he "want[ed] to get out of here" - only furthered the officer's suspicion. The officer asked again about the contents of the truck. Mr. Johnson asked, "What's the question that you're asking?" The officer asked more pointedly if there was anything illegal in the car. Mr. Johnson again evaded the question, becoming increasingly agitated. He said, "Why are you asking me questions like that? Is this a [sic] illegal stop? What have I done?" And then he said, "There's nothing in the car illegal."

At 5:06:51 a.m., Ofcr. Manning asked, "Do you mind if I take a quick look [in the truck] and get you out of here?" Mr. Johnson did not consent. He asked the officer to step closer to the truck's tailgate, evidently to come within the range of the

8

...