Summary
The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the reasonable-and-articulable-suspicion requirement for requesting consent to search a vehicle applies equally to vehicles disabled on the roadside. The Court further held that the Appellate Division improperly substituted its own factual findings for those of the trial court in reviewing the suppression hearing. Because the trial court's findings were supported by sufficient credible evidence, the Court reinstated the order suppressing the drugs and other evidence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the reasonable-and-articulable-suspicion requirement governing consent searches of vehicles stopped for motor-vehicle violations also applies when police encounter occupants of a disabled vehicle on the shoulder of a roadway.
- Whether the Appellate Division applied the proper deferential standard of review to the trial court's factual findings at the suppression hearing.
- Whether the trial court's findings that the investigative detention and consent search lacked reasonable and articulable suspicion were supported by sufficient credible evidence.
Holdings
- Under Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution, police may not request consent to search a disabled vehicle on the shoulder of a roadway unless they have reasonable and articulable suspicion to believe that evidence of criminal wrongdoing will be found in the vehicle.
- An appellate court reviewing a suppression ruling must defer to the trial court's factual findings when they are supported by sufficient credible evidence, even when a videotape is part of the record and the reviewing court might weigh the evidence differently.
- The trial court's findings that the troopers lacked reasonable and articulable suspicion for the investigative detention and consent search were supported by sufficient credible evidence and required suppression of the seized evidence.
Key quotations
“In both cases, a police officer who wishes to conduct a consent search must have reasonable and articulable suspicion to believe that evidence of criminal wrongdoing will be found in the vehicle before seeking consent for the search.” (927 A.2d at 1261)
“A disagreement with how the motion judge weighed the evidence in a close case is not a sufficient basis for an appellate court to substitute its own factual findings to decide the matter.” (927 A.2d at 1263)
Factual background
New Jersey State Police troopers encountered six defendants near two vehicles disabled on the shoulder of the New Jersey Turnpike. The troopers questioned and separated the defendants, ordered them to the guardrail, detained them, and requested consent to search a Lincoln Town Car based primarily on nervousness, inconsistent accounts of travel, the absence of the registered owner, and a loose gas tank. Leach eventually signed a consent form after requesting an attorney and being told that he would be detained while police summoned a drug-sniffing dog; the search uncovered cocaine, marijuana, and cash.
Procedural history
A Middlesex County trial court granted defendants' motion to suppress, finding that the troopers lacked reasonable and articulable suspicion for the investigative detention and consent search and that Leach's consent was not voluntary. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that Carty applied but that the troopers possessed reasonable suspicion and that Leach voluntarily consented. The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the Appellate Division, reinstated the suppression order, and remanded.
Remand instructions
Reinstate the trial court's order suppressing the evidence and conduct further proceedings consistent with the opinion.