State v. Miller
| Decision Date | 14 February 1974 |
| Citation | 316 A.2d 16,126 N.J.Super. 572 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael MILLER and William Lorber, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
R. Peter Connell, Asst. Prosecutor, for plaintiff-appellant (John S. Kuhlthau, Middlesex County Prosecutor, attorney; Lawrence Silver, Asst. Prosecutor, on the brief).
Michael Suffness, Asst. Deputy Public Defender, for defendants-respondents (Stanley c. Van Ness, Public Defender, attorney).
Before Judges LYNCH, MEHLER and MICHELS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
MEHLER, J.A.D.
By leave of court the State appeals a portion of an order suppressing evidence. Following an anonymous telephone call that a party was in progress in a certain apartment and that a large quantity of marijuana was present, police officers went to the apartment. When one knocked on the door, Officer Haskins asked that it be opened. Defendant Lorber complied with the request. When the door was opened more than a quarter of the way, Officer Reff was able to look into the apartment. There he saw a large copper tray and six hand-rolled cigarettes which, based on his experience and training, appeared to him to be marijuana cigarettes. Reff thereupon entered the apartment and arrested Lorber and one Vincere. Reff testified that before Lorber and Vincere were taken out of the apartment by the police 'a lot of creaking overhead' was heard. When a detective asked if anybody was upstairs Lorber was said to have replied, 'Why don't you go up and see?' Reff thereupon went upstairs to the attic and as he got to the top step he saw in the attic seven large plastic bags which contained marijuana. The bags were seized.
Lorber and Vincere denied there was any creaking noise from the attic or any discussion about it. A female, Ebert, who was found in the apartment, testified that Lorber and Vincere were removed from it before Reff went to the attic.
The trial judge denied the motion to suppress the seizure of the six cigarettes found in the apartment and their use as evidence on the ground that they were in plain view and hence could be seized without a warrant. See State v. Griffin, 84 N.J.Super. 508, 519, 202 A.2d 856 (App.Div.1964); State v. McKnight, 52 N.J. 35, 56--57, 243 A.2d 240 (1968); Cf. State v. Smith, 37 N.J. 481, 496, 181 A.2d 761 (1962); State v. Jordan, 115 N.J.Super. 73, 278 A.2d 223 (App.Div.1971). Defendants do not appeal from the portion of the order denying this part of the motion.
The judge granted the motion to suppress the seven bags of marijuana as evidence. Citing State v. Rice, 115 N.J.Super. 128, 131, 278 A.2d 498 (App.Div.1971), he held that Lorber could not legally consent to a search of the attic because he was not the tenant (Miller appears to have been but was not then in the apartment). See also Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 548--549, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 20 L.Ed.2d 797 (1968). We refrain from passing on this holding because the State does not take issue with it and does not endeavor to justify the seizure on the basis of consent. But see, State v. hagan, 99 N.J.Super. 249, 239 A.2d 262 (App.Div.1968).
The judge reasoned that having arrested two offenders, the police had no right to search any area other than the one within the immediate control of the two persons arrested, and said that a search warrant could have been applied for and obtained. It is clear that a search incidental to a lawful arrest may generally not extend beyond the person and the area within his immediate control from within which he might obtain a weapon or destroy evidence. Chimel v. California 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969). The State, however, argued in the court below, as it does here, that the seizure of the seven bags of marijuana in the attic was proper because they were in plain view of the officer who was investigating the noises wich could lead an officer to believe that other persons were present in the apartment. The State contends that because policemen have become targets of criminals, Officer Reff had the right to investigate the creaking noises to protect the safety of the officers in the apartment and thus had a right to go to the source of the noises.
Thus far the Supreme Court of the United States and the courts of our State have held that there are only a few specifically established and well delineated situations in which a dwelling house may be searched without a warrant. They are summarized in State v. Allen, 113 N.J.Super. 245, 273 A.2d 587 (App.Div.1970):
These exceptions will exist if there is consent, or if the police involved were responding to an emergency, or if they were in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon, or if the goods were in the process of destruction, or if they were about to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Seiss
...without any reasonable cause to believe there were third persons who might endanger his safety. Compare, State v. Miller, 126 N.J.Super. 572, 316 A.2d 16 (App.Div.1974), where the officers heard "creaking" overhead justifying their exploration of the attic. Although the officer here did fin......
-
State v. Dolce
...(1971); State v. Campbell, 53 N.J. 230, 250 A.2d 1 (1969); State v. Mark, 46 N.J. 262, 216 A.2d 377 (1962); State v. Miller, 126 N.J.Super. 572, 574-576, 316 A.2d 16 (App.Div.1974). Moreover, the search of the pick-up truck and the carrying case and the seizure of the controlled dangerous s......
-
State v. Dayton
...v. Blake, 484 F.2d 50, 57(7) (8th Cir. 1973). See, also, United States v. Looney, 481 F.2d 31 (5th Cir. 1973); State v. Miller, 126 N.J.Super. 572, 316 A.2d 16 (1973). This rule which allows a police officer a cursory glance of the premises to insure safety against attack does not countenan......
-
State v. Bradley
...83 N.J. at 8, 414 A.2d 1327 (citing Chimel, supra, 395 U.S. at 763, 89 S.Ct. at 2040, 23 L.Ed.2d at 694); State v. Miller, 126 N.J.Super. 572, 574, 316 A.2d 16 (App.Div.1974) (citing Chimel, supra, 395 U.S. at 763, 89 S.Ct. at 2040, 23 L.Ed.2d at 694). Such a search is permitted to protect ......