State v. Radel
| Decision Date | 20 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | A-44 September Term 2020,A-45 September Term 2020,085129, 084778 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Christopher RADEL a/k/a Christoph R. Radel, Christpoh R. Radel, and Christohe R. Radel, Defendant-Respondent. State of New Jersey, Plaintiff- Respondent, v. Keith Terres, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Deborah Bartolomey, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant in State v. Radel (A-44-20) (Andrew J. Bruck, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Deborah Bartolomey, of counsel and on the briefs).
Stefan Van Jura, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for respondent in State v. Radel (A-44-20) (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Stefan Van Jura, of counsel and on the briefs).
Tamar Y. Lerer, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant in State v. Terres (A-45-20) (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Tamar Y. Lerer, of counsel and on the briefs).
David M. Galemba, Special Deputy Attorney General/Assistant Salem County Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent in State v. Terres (A-45-20) (John T. Lenahan, Salem County Prosecutor, attorney; David M. Galemba, of counsel and on the briefs).
Deborah Bartolomey, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae Attorney General of New Jersey in State v. Christopher Radel (A-45-20) (Andrew J. Bruck, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Sarah D. Brigham, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the briefs).
Jason LeBoeuf argued the cause for amicus curiae Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey in State v. Radel (A-44-20), and State v. Keith Terres (A-45-20) (Zeigler, Resnick & Epstein, attorneys; Law Offices of Robert J. De Groot, attorneys; and Fox Rothschild, attorneys; Jason LeBoeuf, East Orange, Oleg Nekritin, East Hanover, and Matthew S. Adams, Morristown, on the brief).
One of the most valued of all constitutional rights is the right to be free from unreasonable searches of one's home. State v. Brown, 216 N.J. 508, 526, 83 A.3d 45 (2014). Because of the special status of the home in our constitutional jurisprudence, the warrantless search of a home is presumptively unreasonable. State v. Edmonds, 211 N.J. 117, 121, 47 A.3d 737 (2012). The warrant requirement, however, is subject to exceptions. One such exception allows law enforcement officers, who make an arrest inside a home, to conduct a warrantless sweep of the dwelling to prevent other occupants from potentially launching an attack against them. State v. Cope, 224 N.J. 530, 546-47, 135 A.3d 562 (2016). To conduct a sweep beyond the area contiguous to where the arrest occurred, the officers must possess a reasonable and articulable suspicion of the presence of one or more occupants in the home who pose an imminent threat to their safety. Id. at 547, 135 A.3d 562 ; see also State v. Bryant, 227 N.J. 60, 71, 148 A.3d 398 (2016) ; Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 334, 110 S.Ct. 1093, 108 L.Ed.2d 276 (1990).
The two consolidated appeals before us present different scenarios. In both cases, police officers, armed with arrest warrants, apprehended the suspects outside of homes -- defendant Christopher Radel as he carried laundry to his car parked in his driveway, and Tyler Fuller as he was brought to the ground on the front porch of defendant Keith Terres's mobile home from which he had fled. The police conducted protective sweeps of the homes based on claims of officer safety and, though discovering no one inside the dwellings, observed in plain view weapons in both homes, and also drugs in Radel's home.
The trial judges presiding over those cases denied defendants’ motions to suppress the evidence uncovered during the protective sweeps. In the Radel case, the Appellate Division reversed, finding that the protective sweep did not pass constitutional muster. In the Terres case, the Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that officer safety justified an immediate protective sweep.
Based on our review of the different factual scenarios presented in Radel and Terres, we now uphold the conclusions reached by the Appellate Division in both cases. First, when an arrest occurs outside a home, the police may not enter the dwelling or conduct a protective sweep in the absence of a reasonable and articulable suspicion that a person or persons are present inside and pose an imminent threat to the officers’ safety. See, e.g., United States v. Lawlor, 406 F.3d 37, 41 (1st Cir. 2005) ; United States v. Colbert, 76 F.3d 773, 776-77 (6th Cir. 1996). Entering a home to conduct a protective sweep when an arrest is made outside a dwelling should be the rare circumstance, in light of the special constitutional protections afforded the home. Nevertheless, when objective facts provide the police with a reasonable and articulable suspicion that their lives may be placed in imminent danger by a person or persons inside the home, officers will be justified in entering the dwelling to carry out a protective sweep to safeguard their lives.
Second, this sensible balancing of the fundamental right to privacy in one's home and the compelling interest in officer safety will depend on an objective assessment of the particular circumstances in each case, such as the manner of the arrest, the distance of the arrest from the home, the reasonableness of the officers’ suspicion that persons were in the dwelling and likely to launch an imminent attack, and any other relevant factors. A self-created exigency by the police cannot justify entry into the home or a protective sweep. See State v. Davila, 203 N.J. 97, 103, 999 A.2d 1116 (2010).
The two cases before us present bookends -- one in which a protective sweep was not warranted, the Radel case, and the other in which a sweep was constitutionally justified, the Terres case. As explained in this opinion, the judgments of the Appellate Division are affirmed.
A.
Those charges were based on evidence discovered during two searches of Radel's home, one without a warrant, and a later one with a warrant.
The first search -- a warrantless protective sweep of Radel's home -- is the subject of this appeal. Radel filed a motion to suppress all evidence uncovered during the allegedly unconstitutional sweep. He also claimed that the later-issued search warrant was secured by the use of the fruits of the initial unlawful entry into his home. The record is based on the testimony from three Little Falls police officers -- Sergeant Robert Prall (Prall), Sergeant Bryan Prall (B. Prall),1 and Detective John Moncato -- as well as from Radel at the motion-to-suppress hearing.
In June 2011, pursuant to an agreement with the Passaic County Prosecutor's Office, Radel pled guilty to second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a). In March 2015, the trial court sentenced Radel to a probationary term with credit for two days served in custody. Additionally, on October 27, 2015, the court entered an order (1) revoking Radel's "firearm purchaser identification cards for any and all firearms," including for a Smith & Wesson handgun and a Beretta handgun; (2) instructing Radel to surrender those cards to the State Police Superintendent within ten days of entry of the order; and (3) directing that "members of Little Falls Police Department respond to [Radel's] home, located at 103 Browertown Road in the Township of Little Falls, immediately upon receipt of a copy of this Order, for the limited purpose of retrieving" any firearms, including the Beretta. (emphasis added).
The Prosecutor's Office faxed the order to Sergeant Robert Prall on January 7, 2016, more than two months after entry of the order. Before carrying out the order twelve days later, Sergeant Prall did some background work. He learned that Radel resided at 81 Browertown Road, not 103 Browertown Road; that Radel had two active municipal arrest warrants with bail set at $500 each for failure to appear in municipal court for a traffic violation and criminal offense; and that -- based on a firearms registry search -- Radel possessed firearms other than the Beretta listed on the order. On January 19, 2016, Sergeant Prall set in motion a plan to enforce the order to retrieve weapons and arrest Radel on the outstanding warrants.
That day, Sergeant Prall met in advance with six officers who would participate in the operation. He also spoke by telephone with Radel's mother, who resided at 103 Browertown Road, in an effort to pinpoint Radel's whereabouts, but that did not prove helpful.
At 10 a.m., seven Little Falls police officers positioned themselves to surveil both 103 and 81 Browertown Road, which were separated by only two other houses.2 Within ten minutes of the start of the surveillance, Sergeant B. Prall heard a very loud metallic bang coming from the backyard of 81 Browertown and, almost simultaneously, saw a person "wearing something blue" enter the rear door of the residence. According to Detective John Moncato's later-prepared warrant affidavit, Sergeant B. Prall explained that the man was "wearing a blue jacket." Although Sergeant B. Prall could not identify the person he momentarily observed, he relayed the information to Detective Moncato, who was covering the front of the house.
Less than ten minutes after Sergeant B. Prall's sighting of a blue-clad person in the backyard, Radel walked out the front door of 81 Browertown, wearing a blue coat and carrying a laundry basket. Radel placed the basket in the backseat of his car, which was parked in the driveway. When Radel turned around, Detective Moncato arrested and handcuffed him. He did not resist.
Sergeant Prall -- the officer in charge -- hoped to secure Radel's consent to search his house but determined that Radel's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Goldsmith
...against violence, law-enforcement officers are particularly vulnerable to violence often becoming its victims."); State v. Radel, 249 N.J. 469, 505-06, 267 A.3d 426 (2022) (describing situation officers faced as "dynamic and uncertain" and how the officers in that case "faced unexpected and......
-
State v. Goldsmith
...line against violence, law-enforcement officers are particularly vulnerable to violence often becoming its victims."); State v. Radel, 249 N.J. 469, 505-06 (2022) (describing situation officers faced as "dynamic and uncertain" and how the officers in that case "faced unexpected and fast-evo......
-
State v. Edmond
...is made outside a dwelling should be the rare circumstance, considering the special constitutional protections afforded the home. Radel, 249 N.J. at 477-78. objective facts give the police a reasonable and articulable suspicion that their lives may be placed in imminent danger by someone in......
-
State v. Abbott
...(quoting State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 471 (1999)). We review the legal conclusions drawn from the facts de novo. State v. Radel, 249 N.J. 469, 493 (2022); State v. Hubbard, 222 N.J. 249, 263 (2015). The right against self-incrimination is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the United S......