State v. Rodriguez, DOCKET NO. A-0180-18T4
| Decision Date | 03 May 2019 |
| Docket Number | DOCKET NO. A-0180-18T4 |
| Citation | 459 N.J.Super. 13,207 A.3d 272 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Juan RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Paul H. Heinzel, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant (Michael H. Robertson, Somerset County Prosecutor, attorney; Paul H. Heinzel and Alexander C. Mech, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the briefs).
John P. Morris, Bridgeton, argued the cause for respondent.
Zachary G. Markarian, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for amicus curiae Office of the Public Defender (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Zachary G. Markarian, of counsel and on the brief).
Jane C. Schuster, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae Attorney General (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney; Jane C. Schuster, of counsel and on the brief).
Before Judges Sabatino, Sumners and Mitterhoff.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
SABATINO, P.J.A.D.
In State v. Witt, 223 N.J. 409, 415, 126 A.3d 850 (2015), the Supreme Court revised the standards under New Jersey law governing police searches of motor vehicles that have been lawfully stopped at the roadside. The Court held such nonconsensual roadside searches may be conducted without a warrant if: (1) the police have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity; and (2) the situation arose from unforeseeable and spontaneous circumstances. Id. at 446-48, 126 A.3d 850.
In the present roadside search case, the trial court suppressed bags of marijuana and other incriminating evidence police officers found within a vehicle driven by defendant, which they had stopped for traffic violations. The court construed Witt to disallow a warrantless on-the-spot roadside search where the police at the scene have sufficient grounds to have the vehicle towed away and impounded. The court ruled the police in such circumstances, absent valid consent, need to obtain a warrant in order to search the vehicle's interior.
We reverse the suppression order. We hold the police officers were not required to impound defendant's vehicle in order to search it under the circumstances presented. The officers had the discretion to proceed instead with a warrantless roadside search, because the two critical elements of Witt, i.e., probable cause and spontaneity, were satisfied. In addition, there was no unreasonable delay in the officers making their decision to proceed with the search at the scene.
The State has charged defendant Juan Rodriguez in a one-count indictment with first-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance, namely marijuana in a quantity of at least twenty-five pounds, with the intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense it, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) and -5(b)(10)(a). As we will explain in more detail, the bags of marijuana and other contraband were seized during a roadside stop without a warrant from a vehicle that defendant had been driving.
Defendant moved to suppress the seized items. The trial court conducted a suppression hearing at which one of the police officers who had been involved in the search testified. The court was also provided with the motor vehicle recordings ("MVRs") from two squad cars of responding police officers, which filmed portions of the events. The court also reviewed transcripts of the audio portions of the MVRs and several photographs and documents.
The pertinent facts that emerged at the suppression hearing were substantially undisputed by the parties.
On January 1, 2018, Police Officer Kevin Olah of Warren Township was in a marked patrol vehicle at a gas station on Martinsville Road in Basking Ridge. At approximately 2:07 a.m., Officer Olah observed a white Jeep Grand Cherokee with an Alabama license plate drive past. He noticed the Jeep's passenger-side headlight was out. He thereafter observed several air fresheners hanging from the rearview mirror, in violation of the traffic laws.
Olah followed the Jeep on Liberty Corner Road. As the Jeep took the eastbound entrance ramp for Interstate 78, Olah initiated a motor vehicle stop. A few minutes later, Police Officer Thomas Clarke arrived at the scene to assist.
Olah approached the passenger side of the vehicle and began speaking with the driver, the Jeep's sole occupant. The driver presented a California driver's license that identified him as Juan Rodriguez. Olah smelled the odor of raw marijuana emanating from the Jeep. He also noticed several small pieces of marijuana on the front passenger seat. Defendant told Olah that he did not own the vehicle. He claimed he had borrowed the Jeep from a friend earlier that evening, and was on his way back from Pennsylvania, where he had gone to see a woman.
Olah returned to his patrol car and conducted a computer check on defendant. The check revealed that defendant's driver's license was suspended. Olah approached the Jeep again and spoke with defendant about the odor of marijuana. Defendant told the officer that others might have smoked marijuana in the Jeep earlier that day.
Olah then instructed defendant to get out of the Jeep. He searched defendant, but found nothing of evidential value. The officer then presented defendant with a standard consent-to-search form and read it to him. Defendant denied consent. Defendant then signed the form and acknowledged his denial.
Although defendant was not yet arrested, he sat in the back of a patrol car while Officers Olah and Clarke searched the Jeep. Olah found approximately $ 5,600 in one-hundred dollar bills between the center console and the dashboard and $ 4,920 in twenty-dollar bills in the center console. Olah also discovered $ 15,000 in Western Union money order receipts in the center console.
According to Olah, the odor of marijuana became stronger as he moved toward the Jeep's rear cargo area. He accordingly searched that cargo area, which was contiguous with and not separate from the passenger area. There Olah spotted and seized a large, brown cardboard box, which he described as emanating an "overwhelming" odor of raw marijuana.
Olah asked defendant if the box was his, which defendant denied. Defendant claimed he did not know what was inside of the box and that it had already been in the Jeep when he borrowed it from his friend. At this point, another police officer arrived on the scene to provide additional backup.
Olah opened the box, which was taped and glued shut. Inside the box, Olah discovered twenty-seven plastic bags. Each bag had approximately one pound of what was suspected to be marijuana. Defendant was then placed under arrest.
The motion judge noted that the police report documented a tow dispatch at 2:42:58 a.m., less than a minute after defendant's arrest at 2:42:02 a.m. The police photographed the scene, and an officer remained with the Jeep until a tow truck arrived. All of the evidence was secured in the Jeep during the tow to the police headquarters. Officer Clarke followed closely behind the tow truck with his MVR activated, so as to ensure the security of the contraband and to document the contraband's chain of custody.
The tow truck parked the Jeep at police headquarters. Officer Olah removed the evidence from the Jeep and took it into headquarters. The tow truck took the Jeep to the towing lot, and Olah completed an impound report.1
Olah then field tested the contents of one of the bags, and the test yielded a positive result for marijuana. All told, the twenty-seven bags contained approximately twenty-eight pounds of marijuana.
Defendant was escorted to the processing room at the police station. A search of his person yielded $ 220 in cash. At approximately 3:31 a.m., Olah issued defendant Miranda 2 warnings. Defendant initialed and signed the Miranda form, but invoked his right to remain silent.
Officer Olah and a police detective counted and took photographs of all of the recovered currency. The cash totaled $ 10,740. The Western Union money order receipts totaling $ 15,000 were also photographed and logged into evidence.
Upon considering these events, the trial court issued an order and written opinion on July 27, 2018, granting defendant's motion to suppress the drugs and other contraband seized in the roadside stop. The court found the motor vehicle stop itself was justified, as defendant conceded. However, the court ruled the police needed a warrant in order to search the Jeep under the circumstances presented.
Specifically, the trial court rejected the State's reliance upon the automobile exception to the constitutional warrant requirement. The court accepted defendant's contention that, as the situation unfolded at the roadside, it was clear that the Jeep was going to be towed and impounded. The court noted in this regard that defendant lacked a valid driver's license, was secured in the back of a police car, and "the registered owner of the vehicle was not available or on sight." The court found "there was no indication to believe that the [Jeep] or its contents would be subject to being removed, tampered with, or otherwise disturbed before a warrant could be obtained." In addition, defendant had declined to give his consent to a search of the Jeep.
Given these circumstances, the trial court found no exigency present that could justify an immediate warrantless search of the Jeep's interior. Instead, the court's opinion signifies that the police should have impounded the Jeep and procured a warrant in order to search it.
The prosecution moved for leave to appeal the suppression ruling, which this court granted. At our invitation, the Attorney General filed an amicus brief in further support of the prosecutor's arguments, while the Office of the Public Defender filed an amicus brief supporting private defense counsel's opposition.3
The State argues the trial court strayed from the tenets of Witt in requiring the police to demonstrate exigency in order to justify a warrantless...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pannucci v. Edgewood Park Senior Hous. Phase 1, LLC
...Div. 1957), or "to engraft ... an exception that was not expressed" in the Court's own statement of a rule, State v. Rodriguez, 459 N.J. Super. 13, 25, 207 A.3d 272 (App. Div. 2019). Absent "significant precedent to suggest that the Court" is prepared to alter a settled rule of law, we shal......
-
State v. Smart
...or if they needed to impound the vehicle and obtain a search warrant." Citing Witt and our decision in State v. Rodriguez, 459 N.J. Super. 13, 207 A.3d 272 (App. Div. 2019), the judge was not persuaded by the State's argument that the circumstances giving rise to probable cause to search th......
-
State v. Wiggins
... ... unforeseeable and spontaneous." Witt , 223 N.J ... at 447; State v. Rodriguez , 459 N.J.Super. 13, 22 ... (App. Div. 2019) ... "In ... ...
-
State v. Cohen
...of a criminal offense; and (2) thecircumstances giving rise to probable cause are unforeseeable and spontaneous." State v. Rodriguez, 459 N.J. Super. 13, 22 (App. Div. 2019) (citing Witt, 223 N.J. at 447-48). See also State v. Alston, 88 N.J. 211, 230-31 (1981). "New Jersey courts have [lon......