State v. Marsh

• Decision Date: 14 August 1978
• Citation: 162 N.J.Super. 290,392 A.2d 672
• Parties: STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff, v. Raymond MARSH and Maurice E. Williams, Defendants.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court

Page 290

162 N.J.Super. 290

392 A.2d 672

STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff, v. Raymond MARSH and Maurice E. Williams, Defendants.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division.

Aug. 14, 1978.

John H. Stamler, Union County Prosecutor, for the State (Gerald M. Compeau, Jr., Asst. Prosecutor, appearing).

Francis X. Dorrity, Jersey City, for defendant Marsh.

S. David Levy, Deputy Public Defender, for defendant Williams (Frank R. Krack, Asst. Deputy Public Defender, appearing).

BRODY, J. C. C. (temporarily assigned).

Exigent circumstances usually excuse the failure to obtain a search warrant. But what of the case where police have probable cause and are able to predict the exigency well in advance of their warrantless search? These motions to suppress require dealing with some of the problems raised by that question.

On July 6, 1977, at 10 a. m. Elizabeth Desk Sergeant Leonard Giacalone received an anonymous telephone tip describing a theft in progress. The caller claimed to be watching warehouse employees unlawfully removing cartons of shoes from the building and loading them into a private van parked in the warehouse lot. He described the van as a tan vehicle bearing New York license plate number 638-7AY and stated that the loaded van would be driven out of the lot at about 3 p. m. that day. Then, advising Giacalone not to trace the call or he would "blow the whole thing," the caller hung up.

When the call came in, Detective Warren White and his partner were patrolling the neighborhood of the warehouse in an unmarked car available, according to White's testimony for any assignment from Giacalone. The municipal court judge was on the bench in a room adjoining the police desk. Giacalone disturbed neither the detectives nor the judge over the call. Instead, he asked his dispatcher to determine from a computer whether the license number matched the description of the van. When the dispatcher replied that the computer was broken indefinitely, Giacalone did not press the inquiry and did nothing more for several hours.

About 1:45 p. m. Giacalone summoned White and his partner to headquarters. When they arrived he advised them of the call and sent them to the warehouse with instructions to "intercept" the van when it left the lot. This instruction was intended and understood to mean that White should stop and search the van as soon as it pulled into the street.

On arriving at the warehouse around 2 p. m. White spotted a van fitting the informant's description. A guard at the lot advised him that it belonged to a truck driver employee who was expected back from the road about 3 p. m. White walked over to the van and tried to open its doors but they were locked. He then looked through a window and saw cargo covered by a quilt. White, who had become familiar with their shape through previous investigations of thefts at the warehouse, thought that shoe cartons may have been under the quilt. He and his partner then waited in their car outside the lot.

The van pulled out about 4:30 p. m. When it turned into the street, the police car blocked its path. White and his partner approached the van with guns drawn, ordered its occupants, the defendants, to step out, and asked the driver whether he had any stolen shoes in the back. The driver replied, "I don't know what's back there." White lifted the quilt, uncovering several cartons of shoes, and then placed defendants under arrest. White testified that he did not believe he had probable cause until he saw what was under the quilt. Defendants move to suppress the cartons of shoes which they are charged with having stolen from the warehouse.

Any number of circumstances prompt law enforcement officers to conduct warrantless searches. Reviewing courts must measure the particular circumstances of a search against evolving interpretations of the Fourth Amendment. Understandably, the results are sometimes difficult to predict. As some police make out the case law, however, one common situation can be counted on to justify a warrantless search: where there is probable cause, a moving motor vehicle can be stopped and searched. This oversimplification of the exigency rule as it applies to motor vehicles leads to the false corollary that once there is probable cause to search a parked vehicle, no warrant is required so long as the search is conducted after the vehicle gets under way.

The starting point, as always, is the Fourth Amendment mandate that a police search must be reasonable and, subject to recognized exceptions, may not be conducted unless a judge authorizes it by issuing a warrant. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). The issuing judge not only passes upon probable cause but also fashions in the warrant those particulars relating to its execution that contribute to the reasonableness of the search.

Our fundamental inquiry in considering Fourth Amendment issues is whether or not a search or seizure is reasonable under all the circumstances. The judicial warrant has a significant role to play in that it provides the detached scrutiny of a neutral magistrate * * * Once a lawful search has begun, it is also far more likely that it will not exceed proper bounds when it is done pursuant to a judicial authorization "particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized." Further, a warrant assures the individual whose property is searched or seized of the lawful authority of the executing officer, his need to search, and the limits of his power to search. (United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 9, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 2482, 53 L.Ed.2d 538, 546-547 (1977); citations omitted)

One exception to the warrant requirement occurs where police, having probable cause to search, must do so on the spot or lose the opportunity to search at all. Roaden v. Kentucky, 413 U.S. 496, 505, 93 S.Ct. 2796, 37 L.Ed.2d 757, 760 (1973). Faced with a moving motor vehicle which they have probable cause to search, police may usually stop and search it without a warrant because of the exigency of its movement and the risks attendant upon its mobility after it has been stopped. Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970). When circumstances first present probable cause moments before the police must either search or lose the opportunity, the lack of a warrant is clearly excused. But when probable cause and exigency do not arise at virtually the same time, police must exercise discretion which, on motion, is subject to judicial review to determine whether the search was "reasonable under all the circumstances" more particularly, to determine whether once they had probable cause, the police should have obtained a warrant before exigencies compelled the warrantless search.

Where law enforcement officers have squandered an overt opportunity to obtain a warrant antecedent to an otherwise acceptable search (justified by exigent circumstances or incident to a valid arrest), there must be a showing of compelling "countervailing factors" to sustain the constitutionality of the suspect intrusion. * * * (I)f a defendant's allegation of deliberate bypass of a warrant is supported by a finding that a realistic opportunity existed to procure one, as in this case, the Government must come forward with Objective evidence to justify this deviation from normal police procedure. Subjective good faith on the part of the authorities cannot suffice as a complete defense if we are to honor the principle that warrantless searches are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454-455, 91 S.Ct. 2122, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); United States v. Lewis, 504 F.2d 92, 100 (1974). We must satisfy ourselves from the facts that the officers conducted themselves reasonably under all of the circumstances and did not gratuitously usurp the role of the impartial magistrate. (United States v. Chuke, 554 F.2d 260, 263-264 (6 Cir. 1977); emphasis in original)

The question here is whether, given their awareness that the evidence would not be available after the known deadline, the police should have obtained a warrant before the van moved off.

As a rule, police are not obliged to seek a search warrant as soon as they obtain probable cause. Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583, 595-96, 94 S.Ct. 2464, 41 L.Ed.2d 325 (1974). There is little point to it; Fourth Amendment rights are generally not thereby jeopardized. Police should be left to strengthen their evidence of probable cause, to gather more trial evidence, to widen their investigation to do or not do as they please without fear that failure to apply promptly for a warrant will nullify all that follows. See United States v. Ferrara, 539 F.2d 799, 802 (1 Cir. 1976). Police must have this freedom to do their job even though in almost every investigation there is the chance that exigent circumstances, not totally unexpected, may develop which will necessitate a warrantless search.

But where police have probable cause, have no reason to believe or do not believe that a judge will disagree, have ample time to obtain a warrant before a known deadline of specifically anticipated exigent circumstances will render the evidence unavailable, and they fail to apply for a warrant, their search based upon that probable cause, despite exigent circumstances, transgresses the Fourth Amendment as an unlawful usurpation of the judicial function to certify the probable cause and authorize the search by the issuance of a warrant.

The first inquiry is...