State v. Kaltner 210 NJ 114 (2012)
The Court considers whether the trial court correctly
suppressed drug evidence found in a bedroom during a warrantless search of a
residence by police officers who were responding to noise complaints.
The defense disputed the officers’ version of the
events, arguing that the party was small, and that the officers searched the
entire house and forcibly entered the bedrooms, including Kaltner’s, by kicking
down locked bedroom doors. The judge found credible Officer Camacho’s testimony
about the size and scope of the party and the volume of noise. The judge also
found that the unidentified adult male who answered the door invited the
officers at least into the common area of the home. However, the judge
suppressed the drug evidence after concluding that the officers unlawfully
extended their search beyond entry into the first floor main living area. The
judge explained that any number of methods could have been employed by the
officers to locate a resident of the premises that would not have required
invading the private areas of the home.
The Appellate Division affirmed. 420 N.J. Super.
524 (App. Div. 2011). The panel rejected the State’s argument that
by hosting a large party defendant had no expectation of privacy in the home
or, in the alternative, that the officers acted reasonably in their community
caretaking function to abate the noise nuisance. The panel explained that
Kaltner had a reasonable expectation of privacy despite the party, which was
not open to the public, therefore a search warrant grounded in probable cause
was needed unless an exception to the warrant requirement applied. The panel
agreed with the motion judge that the police officers’ initial entry into the
premises in response to the noise complaint was lawful. The question, however,
was whether, after their legitimate entry, the community caretaking exception
to the warrant requirement justified the officers’ conduct in fanning out in
search of those in control of the premises in an attempt to abate the noise
nuisance.
The panel explained that the community caretaking
exception to the warrant requirement requires a case-by-case, fact-sensitive
analysis. The relevant question focuses on the objective reasonableness of the
police action under the circumstances, and requires that the court balance the
nature of the intrusion necessary to handle the perceived threat to the
community caretaking concern, the seriousness of the underlying harm to be
averted, and the relative importance of the community caretaking concern. The
panel concluded that the police action in this case was not constitutionally
permitted. Although the officers’ entry into the dwelling was initially justified,
their subsequent action in fanning out and conducting, in essence, a full-blown
search of the home was not reasonably related in scope to the circumstances
that justified the entry in the first place, nor was it carried out in a manner
consistent with the factors supporting the entry’s initial legitimacy. As
explained by the motion judge, the objective of noise abatement could have been
achieved well short of the officers’ full-scale search. For example, given the
number of officers present and the fact that the offending noise emanated from
the crowd itself, the officers could easily have dispersed the partiers.
After balancing the competing interests, including the
important privacy interest in one’s home, the breadth and extent of the
invasion of the entire premises, the limited nature of the community caretaking
concern, and the relatively low threat posed in light of the available
less-drastic options, the panel concluded that Officer Camacho was not lawfully
in the hallway outside Kaltner’s bedroom when he viewed the evidence, and the
plain-view doctrine did not excuse his entry into the bedroom and seizure of
the drugs.
HELD: The decision of the Appellate Division is affirmed
substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Parrillo’s opinion. Because
the police officers’ warrantless search of the home after they were called to
address a noise complaint was not objectively reasonable, the evidence obtained
during the search was properly suppressed.
The
judgment of the Appellate Division is AFFIRMED.
