Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-4500-13T3
06-21-2016
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. STEVEN M. MEREDITH, a/k/a STEVEN B. INMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Brian Plunkett, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief). Robert Lougy, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Jenny M. Hsu, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges St. John and Guadagno. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County, Indictment No. 12-06-0629. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Brian Plunkett, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief). Robert Lougy, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Jenny M. Hsu, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM
After his motion to suppress was denied, defendant Steven M. Meredith pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun, N.J.S.A. 2C:39- 5(b). He was sentenced, in accordance with the plea agreement, to a five-year prison term, with three years of parole ineligibility.
On appeal, defendant now challenges the motion judge's decision to deny his motion to suppress:
POINT ONE
THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THE OFFICER'S CONDUCT IN ENTERING THE HOME OF A THIRD PARTY WAS NOT REASONABLE.
The following facts are taken from the testimony presented at the hearing on defendant's motion to suppress. On March 22, 2012, Detective Alan Constance of the New Jersey State Police (NJSP) was on patrol in an unmarked police car with NJSP Detective Blair Astbury, Detective Jason Astbury of the Trenton Police Department (TPD), and TPD Officer Wilfredo Delgado, Jr. The officers were working as part of a joint anti-crime task force.
It is not clear from the record whether Blair and Jason Astbury are related.
Constance noticed several individuals drinking outside of what appeared to be a house party on Whittaker Avenue in Trenton. Defendant was among the crowd, wearing a blue Kansas City Royals baseball cap and drinking a bottle of VSOP Brandy. Jason Astbury recognized defendant and told Constance that defendant had outstanding arrest warrants.
The officers pulled up in front of the residence and got out of the car. After noticing the police, defendant started "to shuffle . . . sideways and backwards." Constance yelled, "stop, police," and defendant looked at him, but did not comply.
Defendant ran up the stairs and through the front door of the house, closing the door behind him. Constance forced the door open and entered the home. Defendant was approximately fifteen feet ahead of him, entering the kitchen. From a distance of between eight and ten feet, Constance observed defendant remove a gun from his waistband and throw it into a microwave oven. Defendant then put his hands up and attempted to walk past Constance. Constance called for back-up, and defendant was arrested by other officers while Constance retrieved the gun from the microwave. The State rested after Constance's testimony.
Defendant called Officer Delgado, who testified that he and the other officers got out of the police car to detain defendant after they observed him drinking in front of the Whittaker Avenue house. Delgado did not mention that defendant had outstanding warrants and apparently did not include any reference to warrants in a report he prepared regarding injuries suffered that night by another officer.
The report was not provided to us. --------
Defendant then called Shirley Howard, who lived at the Whittaker Avenue house. Howard testified that on March 22, 2012, she had a family gathering for her son's birthday. When the police entered the house, Howard was in the dining room using a laptop computer. One of the officers asked Howard "where did he go," but Howard claimed she did not see anyone come in. The police then entered the kitchen and emerged with defendant, who Howard identified as her granddaughter's father. Howard confirmed that the police did not ask for consent to search the house.
On September 6, 2013, Judge Thomas W. Sumners, Jr., entered an order denying defendant's motion to suppress. The order was accompanied by a twelve-page written decision. Judge Sumners found all three witnesses credible, but noted that Delgado's testimony was of limited relevance. Further, the judge noted that Howard's testimony that the police did not obtain her consent to enter or search the house was not disputed.
Judge Sumners noted that defendant's public drinking, standing alone, did not constitute an exigency because it was not a "serious [violation] and there was no immediate threat to anyone's physical well-being." However, the judge found that because Constance was told of the existence of the outstanding warrant for defendant's arrest, Constance had a duty to follow defendant into the residence after defendant did not obey his order to stop. After determining that Constance was justified in entering the home, Judge Sumners found that the seizure of the handgun fell within the plain view exception to the warrant requirement.
On appeal, defendant argues that the hot pursuit exception to the warrant requirement did not apply because it was unreasonable for the officers to forcibly enter the home of a third party in order to arrest him.
When reviewing a decision on a motion to suppress, we must uphold the factual findings underlying the trial court's decision so long as those findings are supported by sufficient, credible evidence in the record. State v. Rockford, 213 N.J. 424, 440 (2013). We accord deference to those findings which are substantially influenced by the trial court's opportunity to hear and see the witnesses and to have the feel of the case, which a reviewing court cannot enjoy. State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 161 (1964). We will only disturb a trial court's factual findings if they are so clearly mistaken that the interests of justice demand intervention and correction. State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224, 244 (2007). To the extent that the trial court's determination rests upon a legal conclusion, we conduct a de novo, plenary review. Rockford, supra, 213 N.J. at 440.
"A search conducted without a warrant is presumptively invalid, and the burden falls on the State to demonstrate that the search is justified by one of the 'few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions' to the warrant requirement." State v. Frankel, 179 N.J. 586, 598 (2004) (quoting Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 390, 98 S. Ct. 2408, 2412, 57 L. Ed. 2d 290, 298-99 (1978)).
Proof of both exigent circumstances and probable cause "may excuse police from compliance with the warrant requirement." 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)). In determining whether the circumstances in a particular case are exigent, courts consider several factors:
(1) the degree of urgency involved and the amount of time necessary to obtain a warrant; (2) reasonable belief that the contraband is about to be removed; (3) the possibility of danger to police officers guarding the site of contraband while a search warrant is sought; (4) information indicating the possessors of the contraband are aware that the police are on their trail; (5) the ready destructibility of the contraband and the knowledge that efforts to dispose of narcotics and to escape are
characteristic behavior of persons engaged in narcotics traffic; (6) the gravity of the offense involved; (7) the possibility that the suspect is armed; (8) the strength or weakness of the facts establishing probable cause[;] and (9) the time of the entry.
[State v. DeLuca, 325 N.J. Super. 376, 391 (App. Div. 1999) (alteration in original), aff'd as modified, 168 N.J. 626 (2001) (quoting State v. Alvarez, 238 N.J. Super. 560, 568 (App. Div. 1990)).]
Judge Sumners determined that the police were attempting to execute a valid arrest warrant. He found that Constance reasonably relied on Jason Astbury's identification of defendant and the information he provided regarding defendant's outstanding warrants. Based on this information, Constance could have detained defendant to confirm his identify and determine whether active warrants for his arrest were outstanding. When defendant fled into Howard's home and refused Constance's order to stop, Constance had a duty to pursue him and attempt to arrest him. State v. Jones, 143 N.J. 4, 14 (1995). In Jones, the Court held that "[o]fficers have no discretion in making arrests where there is an outstanding warrant." Ibid. (quoting Stone v. State, 620 So. 2d 200, 201 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)).
Once inside the home, the seizure of the gun by Constance satisfied the requirements for the plain view exception, as the officer was lawfully in the home, he did not know in advance that defendant possessed a gun, and the gun was subject to seizure. State v. Bruzzese, 94 N.J. 210, 236 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1030, 104 S. Ct. 1295, 79 L. Ed. 2d 695 (1984).
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION