State v. MacRae
| Decision Date | 06 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | DOCKET NO. A-1303-18T2 |
| Parties | STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. KRISTINE MACRAE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
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.
Before Judges Moynihan and Mitterhoff.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Indictment No. 16-08-0643.
Steven E. Braun argued the cause for appellant.
Christopher W. Hsieh, Chief Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Camelia M. Valdes, Passaic County Prosecutor, attorney; Christopher W. Hsieh, on the brief).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
MITTERHOFF, J.A.D.
Defendant Kristine MacRae appeals her conviction for unlawful possession of a handgun, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b). Police officers arrested defendant and co-defendant Linda Sosa after uncovering an unregistered handgun, as well as drugs, in defendant's car. A grand jury indicted defendant on eight different counts related to drug possession, and she moved to suppress the physical evidence recovered from her vehicle. After the trial court denied the suppression motion, defendant pled guilty to the weapons offense. On appeal, defendant asserts that the trial judge should have granted her motion to suppress because the officers were without a sufficient basis to detain or arrest her, to remove her from her vehicle, or to search her vehicle. Defendant also asserts that the officers arrested her outside of their jurisdiction, and that the duration and scope of her detention and arrest were impermissible. After reviewing the record, and in light of the applicable law, we affirm.
We discern the following facts from the motion record. On December 10, 2015 at 1:45 p.m., the Passaic County Police Department was conducting narcotics surveillance in the Town of Passaic, in response to complaints of drug activity in the area. The surveillance was led by Detective Jason Cancel (Cancel), who was stationed in an immobile vehicle, and involved several Passaic County police officers, including Officer Ruperto Soriano (Soriano).
Cancel testified that he observed Gerard Hill, a known narcotics user and dealer, enter a Nissan occupied by a driver and passenger that had stopped in the area of Passaic and 5th Streets. Cancel notified other officers, who began to follow the Nissan. The Nissan circled the block and then dropped Hill off at Passaic and 6th Streets. Cancel witnessed Hill engage in a "suspected drug transaction" with a woman in an alleyway.
Cancel testified that officers followed the Nissan to 5th and South Streets, where it pulled up next to a Chevrolet Traverse, in which defendant was the driver and Sosa was her passenger. At this point, both vehicles were in Soriano's view from his vantage point between 150 and 200 feet away. Using binoculars, Soriano observed the drivers of the vehicles exchange "items." Soriano later testified that he saw the Nissan's driver hand over a "clear plastic bag" to defendant through the open window of the Traverse.
On cross-examination, Soriano acknowledged that he was unable to identify the bag's contents from his distance. During the exchange, no doors to either vehicle were opened, nor did any money change hands. Soriano also conceded that another vehicle was between his vehicle and the Traverse. Nevertheless, Soriano claimed he was still able to view the exchange from his vantage point.
Soriano testified that one officer's unmarked vehicle then passed both the Nissan and Traverse, at which time the driver of the Nissan motioned to defendant. Soriano interpreted this motion as a gesture for defendant to leave the area. The two vehicles separated, with the Traverse driving towards Wallington, Bergen County. Soriano reported his observations to Cancel, who directed him to follow the Traverse. Soriano tailed the Traverse for four blocks into Wallington, where it parked in a parking lot. At around 2:00 p.m., Soriano parked parallel to the Traverse, exited his car, and knocked on the window of the Traverse.
Soriano stated that he and two detectives then identified themselves to defendant and advised that they had conducted surveillance "in the area and that [the officers] observed . . . a suspected drug transaction." Soriano testified that defendant "spontaneously uttered that she . . . had smoked [a blunt], and . . . that there was a loaded handgun registered under her name [inside the Traverse's center console]." Soriano acknowledged that he never found a blunt in the Traverse but testified that he could smell the odor of both raw and burnt marijuana coming from the Traverse.
After defendant's unsolicited admission about the handgun, the officers removed both defendant and Sosa from the Traverse. Officers searched thevehicle's center console and discovered a Glock handgun, loaded with five bullets in its magazine. Cancel then joined the other officers on scene. Cancel testified that upon arriving, he could also smell marijuana coming from the Traverse. After defendant refused to consent to a search of the car, a narcotics dog was brought to the scene. The dog "indicated" the presence of narcotics on both the driver's door and the front passenger door of the Traverse. Cancel issued defendant a ticket at 2:15 p.m. for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) in a motor vehicle. Defendant and Sosa were then arrested, transported, and held at the police headquarters.
Defendant testified to a different account of events. Defendant testified that she had been on 5th Street in Passaic to visit her mother-in-law. Defendant stated that while parked at 5th and South Street in Passaic, a friend of both defendant's and Sosa's pulled up next to the Traverse to say hello, without an exchange of a plastic bag or other items.
Defendant testified that she then drove away, pulling into the parking lot of a laundromat in Wallington to make a phone call. Defendant claimed that after making the call, she was going to pick up her children, and then go to a firing range in Belleville. Defendant explained that, while in the parking lot, officers arrived in a van, and Soriano exited the van and approached theTraverse. Defendant testified that she told Soriano that she did not have anything, and that based on her education and background as a paralegal working in criminal matters, she would not have blurted out that she was smoking a blunt. Defendant claimed that Soriano asked her to exit the vehicle prior to learning of her weapon.
Defendant testified that after her removal, Soriano asked whether there was anything notable in her trunk. Defendant replied that she had a registered weapon for which she had a permit, and that she was on her way to a firing range. Defendant testified that the officers handcuffed both her and Sosa. Defendant also testified that Soriano then asked for her consent to search the Traverse, adding that he threatened her and Sosa with repercussions if they did not consent to a search or disclose what was in the vehicle.
Defendant testified that after the officers recovered the gun, both she and Sosa were taken into custody and transported to the police station. She testified that they were uncuffed at the police station, and that they were processed for around thirty minutes, during which time they were moved between several holding cells.
Meanwhile, it is undisputed that the Traverse was towed from the parking lot to the police headquarters. At 6:08 p.m., a warrant to search the Traversewas approved and signed. Officers executed the warrant at 6:15 p.m., and discovered contraband in the glove compartment, center console, dashboard of the Traverse, and in defendant's purse, which was located on top of the Traverse's center console. The following day, defendant was released at around 5:00 p.m.
On November 30, 2017, the trial judge entered an order and written opinion denying defendant's motion to suppress. The judge found that defendant's detention was justified, as officers had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that both defendant and Sosa were engaged in a drug deal. Although Soriano could not identify the items exchanged, the judge determined that the officer could reasonably infer, based on his training, experience, and observations, that a hand-to-hand drug transaction had occurred. Further, the judge found Soriano to be credible, as he provided direct answers and acknowledged that there were several inconsistencies between his actual observations and his report.
The trial judge also found that the officers had probable cause to arrest defendant and Sosa at the time both were removed from the Traverse. The judge emphasized that defendant's spontaneous statements converted the officers' reasonable and articulable suspicion to probable cause to search for a handgunin the car's center console. In that same vein, the judge found that defendant's utterance was unforeseeable and spontaneous, and that both the Traverse's mobility and the presence of the handgun implicated the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.
The trial judge also found that the officers were permitted to remove defendant and Sosa from the vehicle. The judge explained that defendant's statement denoted specific and articulable facts that would warrant heightened caution from law enforcement. The judge opined that the interest in protecting the officers' safety outweighed the inconvenience to defendant and Sosa from being removed, and thus found that the officers' reasonable heightened sense of danger justified the removal.
Additionally, the trial judge determined that, based on the complicated circumstances and heightened danger that was present, four hours was not an unreasonable period for police to...
To continue reading
Request your trial