Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-1950-14T2
04-14-2016
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER SEDIN, a/k/a SEDIN CHRISTOPHER, Defendant-Appellant.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Daniel S. Rockoff, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief). Andrew C. Carey, Middlesex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Joie Piderit, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Fisher and Currier. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Indictment No. 12-12-1722. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Daniel S. Rockoff, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief). Andrew C. Carey, Middlesex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Joie Piderit, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant Christopher Sedin appeals the denial of his suppression motion challenging the validity of a search warrant. Although there were technical deficiencies in the warrant, it was executed reasonably and in accordance with the law, and as a result, we affirm.
Following the denial of his motion to suppress physical evidence, defendant pled guilty to two counts of weapons offenses and was sentenced to an aggregate five-year prison term with a five-year period of parole ineligibility.
Defendant moved to suppress a firearm that had been recovered as a result of the search, arguing the warrant was invalid on its face as it (1) did not state the time during which law enforcement was authorized to execute the warrant and; (2) did not specify whether it was a "knock" or "no knock" warrant.
The warrant and police reports were provided to the judge in the motion briefs. The warrant reflected that it had been issued at 2 p.m., and the police report noted that defendant was in custody by 4 p.m. that afternoon. The warrant, therefore, was executed by police within two hours of its issuance. The police officer also stated in his report that he had knocked at the door to announce his presence prior to entry. The judge denied the motion, finding that although there were technical deficiencies on the face of the warrant:
it [was] clear that there was nothing in the execution of the warrant [that] was unreasonable. The defendant's argument might have some merit if the search warrants
were executed in the middle of the night and/or if the police failed to knock.
However, in this case, the officers executed the warrant almost immediately after it was issued at a reasonable time of day and knocked to announce their presence prior to entering.
On appeal, defendant presents the following issue:
BECAUSE THE COURT IMPROPERLY DELEGATED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ESSENTIAL DECISIONS ABOUT WHEN AND HOW TO EXECUTE THE SEARCH WARRANT, WITHOUT PROVIDING THE JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT REQUIRED BY THE U.S. CONST., AMENDS. IV, XIV; THE N.J. CONST., ART. 1, ¶7; R. 3:5-5; AND THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE WARRANT FORM, THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE SEIZED IN THE RESULTING SEARCH MUST BE SUPPRESSED.
We find defendant's argument to be without merit. It is undisputed that the warrant was missing certain information; the provision setting the hours the search was to be executed was left blank; the box indicating whether the warrant was a "knock" or "no knock" warrant was unchecked. But these deficiencies had no bearing on the validity of the search. The proper locations were searched and probable cause existed at the time of the search. The warrant was executed in the middle of the afternoon, less than two hours after its issuance. There was nothing improper as to this timeframe. See State v. Bickham, 285 N.J. Super. 365, 367-68 (App. Div. 1995), certif. denied, 143 N.J. 516 (1996) (finding the technical violation of executing a search warrant outside of the stated hours did not require the suppression of evidence from the search).
As to the second argument, we also find it lacks merit. The police officers knocked on the door of the house prior to entry, thus defeating any argument that the entry was unannounced and improper. It is undisputed that the warrant was executed properly by the police and, under these circumstances, any technicalities contained in the warrant did not provide a basis to suppress the recovered evidence.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION