In this case the defendant was involved in
a serious motor vehicle accident in which is vehicle overturned on a major
highway. Although he was being treated for injuries by EMT his injuries were
not life threatening. Without asking for
permission of the defendant, the trooper crawled into the overturned vehicle
and retrieved the defendant’s driving credentials. While doing so, the trooper discovered a
handgun and CDS in which the defendant was indicted.
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts
motion to suppress evidence of the contraband seized.
The court began its argument by reaffirming
that the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey
Constitution protect against warrantless searches. Both provide that [t]he
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. U.S. Const.
amend. IV; N.J. Const. art. I, 7. The police are required to obtain a warrant
to conduct a search unless an exception to the warrant requirement applies. State
v. Earls, 214 N.J. 564, 588 (2013).
In this case because the trooper did not
have a warrant and the State argued that the plain view exception applied. However, the court rejected that first
argument holding that the items discovered in defendant’s vehicle did not fall
within the plain view doctrine, and were illegally seized, because the trooper
was not lawfully within the viewing area at the time of the contraband s
discovery. State v. Bruzzese, 94 N.J. 210, 236 (1983)). Bruzzese, supra,
94 N.J. at 236 (requiring police officer to be lawfully in the viewing area to
seize evidence under plain view doctrine). The court held that because the
defendant was never provided with a reasonable opportunity to present his
credentials the search was unjustified under the plain view exception to the
warrant requirement.
The State also argued unsuccessfully that
evidence would be admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine. Under
that doctrine, in order to have otherwise inadmissible evidence admitted, the
State is required to show the following: (1) proper, normal and specific
investigatory procedures would have been pursued in order to complete the
investigation of the case; (2) under all of the surrounding relevant
circumstances the pursuit of those procedures would have inevitably resulted in
discovery of the evidence; and (3) the discovery of the evidence through the
use of such procedures would have occurred wholly independently of such
evidence by unlawful means. State v. Sugar, 100 N.J. 214, 238
(1985). In that regard the State must
offer clear and convincing evidence to sustain its burden. Id. at 240.
Again in rejecting that argument as well
the court held that the State failed to demonstrate, by clear and convincing
evidence, that law enforcement officials would have inevitably discovered the
contraband in defendant s vehicle. Specifically, the court found no evidence to
suggest that the police intended to impound or inventory defendant s vehicle.
That logically indicates that the State did not demonstrate that proper,
normal, and specific investigatory procedures would have been pursued in order
to complete the investigation of the case. Id. at 238. Because the State has
failed to show that the police would have impounded or inventoried the vehicle,
the inevitable discovery doctrine also does not apply.
Lastly, the court addressed whether the
community-caretaking doctrine permitted the trooper to enter the vehicle in
order to complete the accident report, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:4-131.
It is well settled that the
community-caretaking doctrine is a narrow exception to the warrant requirement.
State v. Edwards, 211 N.J. 117, 141 (2012). This doctrine only recognizes
that police officers are able and sometimes required to provide a wide range of
social services outside of their traditional law enforcement and criminal
investigatory roles. These social-welfare activities include, among other
things, protecting the vulnerable from harm and preserving property. In
performing these tasks, typically, there is not time to acquire a warrant when
emergent circumstances arise and an immediate search is required to preserve
life or property. This narrow exception to the warrant requirement has been
applied to such circumstances as allowing the police to conduct a warrantless
search of a car to locate a gun that was missing from a police officer, to
perform a welfare check of a vehicle that was parked in an area known for
suicides and whose last authorized driver was listed as a missing person, and
to set foot in an apartment to ascertain the welfare of a child who was home
from school, with no apparent excuse, in a residence that had been the site of
an alleged sexual assault earlier that day, among other things.
However, the court rejected this last
exception argued by the State and held
that although an accident report must be prepared by the trooper pursuant to N.J.S.A.
39:4-131, that task did not permit the trooper to conduct the search of
defendant s vehicle. The trooper s statutory duty to prepare an accident report
is not an exigent circumstance encompassed by the community-caretaker exception
to the warrant requirement. While we recognize that the trooper may have had an
obligation as a community-caretaker to remove defendant s damaged vehicle from
the highway, he did not have a duty to search defendant s vehicle.
Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq., 25 years of protecting the rights and defending people accused of criminal offenses. (908) 354-7006, Union, Essex, Hudson, Middlesex, Bergen counties.
Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq., 25 years of protecting the rights and defending people accused of criminal offenses. (908) 354-7006, Union, Essex, Hudson, Middlesex, Bergen counties.
Telephone No. (908) 354-7006
