Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-1783-13T1
04-23-2015
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. IBN J. ROGERS, a/k/a JAMIL GREEN, JAMIL JONES, IBN HOLT, Defendant-Appellant.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Michael C. Kazer, Designated Counsel, on the brief). John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Sarah Lichter, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Fasciale and Whipple. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 12-09-02399. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Michael C. Kazer, Designated Counsel, on the brief). John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Sarah Lichter, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM
After his motion to suppress was denied, defendant pled guilty to second-degree unlawful possession of an assault firearm, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5f. Defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court, and argues that the court erred by denying his motion to suppress. We affirm.
We discern the following facts from the suppression hearing. Members of the New Jersey State Police and U.S. Marshall's Fugitive Task Force went to a residence in Newark to serve arrest warrants on defendant and his girlfriend, in connection to a homicide investigation. When the officers arrived at the residence, they split into groups. One group set up a perimeter and the other group approached the front door of the apartment building. An officer, standing at the back of the building, observed defendant open a window at the back of the apartment and begin to climb out. The officer identified himself and ordered defendant to stop. Defendant complied. The officer alerted other officers that defendant was attempting to flee and those officers forcibly entered the first floor apartment and arrested defendant and his girlfriend.
The officer who had observed defendant attempt to flee then entered the apartment to assist the other officers in securing and clearing the apartment, including securing a bathroom locked from the inside. As the officer approached the bathroom, he asked both arrestees if there was anyone in the bathroom, and neither responded. While attempting to open the locked bathroom, the officer observed a black nylon rifle case "sticking out" from an adjacent bedroom. Fearing that someone hiding in the bathroom could access a possible weapon, the officer picked up the rifle case and moved it away from the bathroom. The officer took the case to the kitchen, opened it, rendered the assault rifle safe, and removed it from the residence.
Defendant was indicted for third-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS), N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10a(1) (count one); third-degree possession of CDS with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5a(1), b(3) (count two); second-degree unlawful possession of an assault firearm, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5f (count three); fourth-degree unlawful possession of a large capacity ammunition magazine, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3j (count four); and second-degree possession of a firearm while committing a drug offense, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4.1 (count five).
Defendant moved to suppress the evidence seized in his apartment. The State dismissed counts one, two, and five. The trial judge conducted a suppression hearing with regard to the remaining counts and denied defendant's motion.
The defendant pled guilty to unlawful possession of an assault firearm, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5f. He was sentenced to a five-year term of imprisonment with three years of parole ineligibility.
On appeal, defendant argues:
SINCE THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE POLICE USED THE WARRANT FOR DEFENDANT'S ARREST AS A "SURROGATE FOR A SEARCH WARRANT," THE TRIAL COURT'S FACTUAL FINDINGS AND CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ARE ENTITLED TO NO DEFERENCE BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT CREDIBLE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD.
In reviewing a decision on a motion to suppress, we "uphold the factual findings underlying the trial court's decision so long as those findings are supported by substantial credible evidence in the record." State v. Gamble, 218 N.J. 412, 424 (2014). We only reverse if the decision was "so clearly mistaken that the interests of justice demand intervention and correction." Id. at 425 (citation and internal quotations omitted). However, "[a] trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deference." Manalapan Realty v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995). Applying these standards, we discern no reason to disturb the judge's ruling.
We reject defendant's argument that the assault rifle was inadmissible as fruit of an illegal search. An entry into a home and search by officers is presumptively unreasonable and therefore constitutionally prohibited unless the police can show "'exigent circumstances in conjunction with probable cause'" and proof of the reasonableness of the police conduct. State v. Walker, 213 N.J. 281, 289 (2013) (quoting State v. Bolte, 115 N.J. 579, 585-86, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 936, 110 S. Ct. 330, 107 L. Ed. 2d 320 (1989)). "Under state as well as federal constitutional norms, '[a] warrantless search of a person's home must be subjected to particularly careful scrutiny, because physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is direct[ed].'" State v. Hinton, 216 N.J. 211, 233 (2013) (alterations in original) (quoting State v. Cassidy, 179 N.J. 150, 160 (2004)).
Here, the trial court found that the officers lawfully entered the residence because they had a valid arrest warrant for defendant, who was observed trying to flee out of the back window. Exigent circumstances existed because defendant was under investigation for homicide, had several outstanding bench warrants at the time of the arrest, and had previously been convicted for unlawful possession of a handgun. Defendant's attempt to flee was an exigent circumstance and the officers already had probable cause to arrest as well as an arrest warrant. Under the totality of the circumstances, the police conduct in entering without first seeking a search warrant was reasonable. See, e.g., State v. Jones, 143 N.J. 4, 19 (1995) ("Police officers acting pursuant to a valid arrest warrant have the right to follow a fleeing suspect into a private residence.").
We also reject defendant's argument that the plain view seizure of the assault weapon from the apartment is not supported by credible evidence in the record. The weapon was inadvertently found in plain view pursuant to a protective sweep incident to a valid arrest, wherein officers had a valid concern for their safety. See State v. Craft, 425 N.J. Super. 546, 555 (App. Div. 2012) (holding that officers who had an arrest warrant for a potentially dangerous defendant and heard the defendant in an adjoining room in a home did not need a search warrant to immediately enter the room to detain defendant and seize appropriate items in plain view).
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION