Defendant was tried in absentia. See State v. Reininger, 430 N.J. Super. 517, 525 (App. Div. 2013). In a published opinion affirming Petitioner's conviction and sentence, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division provided the following summary of the facts underlying this matter:

The Court ruled that the officer "was lawfully standing outside the Yukon when he looked inside the open window and observed the suspected drugs," and "conclude[d] that the plain view exception to the warrant requirement applies, and that [the officer]'s seizure of the drugs from the back seat of defendant's vehicle was lawful." Id. at 340-41; see State v. Reininger, 430 N.J. Super. 517, 526-27, 535-36 (App. Div. 2013) (ruling an officer who saw firearm cases in a vehicle could open the door and seize them under the plain view doctrine); State v. Smith, 306 N.J. Super. 370, 379-81 (App. Div. 1997). "There is no legitimate expectation of privacy shielding that portion of the interior of an automobile which may be viewed from outside the vehicle by either inquisitive passersby or diligent police officers."

Thus, defendant's contention the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for first-degree sexual assault "is procedurally barred because defendant failed to move for a new trial based on that ground as required by Rule 2:10-1." State v. Reininger, 430 N.J. Super. 517, 538 (App. Div. 2013). For that reason alone, we affirm defendant's conviction for first-degree sexual assault under count one.

The plain view doctrine is another exception to the warrant requirement. See State v. Reininger, 430 N.J. Super. 517 (App. Div. 2013); see also State v.Gonzales, 227 N.J. 77. "'[A] police officer lawfully in the viewing area' need not 'close his eyes to suspicious evidence in plain view.'" Reininger, 430 N.J. Super. at 535 (quoting State v. Bruzzese, 94 N.J. 210, 237 (1983) (overruled in part by Gonzales, 227 N.J. at 101)).

That is so because "[t]here is no legitimate expectation of privacy shielding that portion of the interior of an automobile which may be viewed from outside the vehicle by either inquisitive passersby or diligent police officers." State v. Reininger, 430 N.J. Super. 517, 534 (App. Div. 2013) (quoting Brown, supra, 460 U.S. at 740, 103 S. Ct. at 1542, 75 L. Ed. 2d at 513). Of course, to pass constitutional muster, a police officer's observations and seizure of contraband from an automobile must fall within an exception to the warrant requirement.

Our court has held that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in those areas of a vehicle viewable through the windows by a police officer located outside the vehicle. State v. Reininger, 430 N.J. Super. 517, 534 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 216 N.J. 367 (2013) (citation omitted). Thus, the seizure of suspected illegal weapons seen by illuminating the backseat of a vehicle was valid under the plain view exception to the search warrant requirement.

However, the application of the plain view exception to the warrant requirement does not require a finding that exigent circumstances are present. State v. Reininger, 430 N.J. Super. 517, 537 (App. Div.) (citing State v. Pena-Flores, 198 N.J. 6, 32 (2009), overruled on other grounds by State v. Witt, 223 N.J. 409 (2015)), certif. denied, 216 N.J. 367 (2013), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 1947, 188 L. Ed. 2d 962 (2014). Under the plain view doctrine, a warrant is not required to perform a search when a police officer is: (1) lawfully present in the viewing area, (2) the officer inadvertently discovers the evidence in plain view, and (3) it is "'immediately apparent' to the officer that items in plain view were evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure."

In the context of a traffic stop, "[a] simple observation into the interior of an automobile by a police officer located outside the automobile is not a 'search' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment." State v. Reininger, 430 N.J. Super. 517, 534 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 216 N.J. 367 (2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1947, 188 L. Ed. 2d 962 (2014) (quoting State v. Foley, 218 N.J. Super. 210, 215 (App. Div. 1987)).

Thus, "'[a] simple observation into the interior of an automobile by a police officer located outside the automobile is not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.'" State v. Reininger, 430 N.J. Super. 517, 534 (App. Div.) (citing, e.g., Brown, supra, 460 U.S. at 739-40, 103 S. Ct. at 1541-42, 75 L. Ed. 2d at 513)), certif. denied, 216 N.J. 367 (2013), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 1947, 188 L. Ed. 2d 962 (2014). "'There is no legitimate expectation of privacy shielding that portion of the interior of an automobile which may be viewed from outside the vehicle by either inquisitive passersby or diligent police officers.'" Ibid. (quoting Brown, supra, 460 U.S. at 740, 103 S. Ct. at 1542, 75 L. Ed. 2d at 513); see also State v. Mann, 203 N.J. 328, 341 (2010).

Because the warrantless seizure of the package from the vehicle was independently justified under the plain view exception, we need not address defendant's contention that there were no exigent circumstances to justify the immediate entry into the Pontiac under the automobile exception set forth in Pena-Flores. See State v. Reininger, 430 N.J. Super. 517, 537 (App. Div.) (holding that because the seizure of the item from inside a parked vehicle was proper under the plain view exception, it was not necessary for the State to establish exigent circumstances under the automobile exception), certif. denied, 216 N.J. 367 (2013), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 1947, 188 L. Ed. 2d 962 (2014). We thus focus on the plain view exception.