Police Could Search Car Involved in Robbery Without a Warrant. State v. Minitee 210 NJ 307
(2012)
Under the circumstances
of this case, the trial court correctly denied the defendant’s motion to
suppress because the warrantless search of the SUV that was involved in the
robbery fit within the scope of the automobile exception to the search warrant
requirement.
Under the circumstances of
this case, the trial court correctly denied the defendants’ motion to suppress
because the warrantless search of the SUV that was involved in the robbery fit
within the scope of the automobile exception to the search warrant requirement.
1. The United States
Constitution and the New Jersey Constitution guarantee an individual’s right to
be secure against unreasonable searches or seizures. A search conducted without
a warrant is presumed to be invalid. There are exceptions to the warrant
requirement, and the State bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance
of the credible evidence that one of the exceptions applies. Only two
exceptions are pertinent to this matter—the search incident to arrest exception
and the automobile exception. With regard to search incident to arrest, when
police place an individual under arrest, they may search his person and the
area within his immediate grasp. In the automobile context, New Jersey
restricts the scope of the search to the area from which an individual may
seize a weapon or destroy evidence. The search in this case cannot be sustained
as one incident to Minitee’s arrest. It can only withstand challenge if its
circumstances bring it within the scope of the automobile exception.
2. The New Jersey
Constitution provides citizens with greater protections than its federal
counterpart. Under New Jersey law, three factors are considered before applying
the automobile exception to the warrant requirement: 1) whether the stop was
unplanned and unforeseen--the police must have no advance knowledge of the
events to unfold so that they cannot create the exigency; 2) whether police had
probable cause to believe the automobile contained evidence of criminality; and
3) whether exigent circumstances made it impractical to obtain a warrant.
3. The Appellate Division
based its conclusion that exigent circumstances were lacking in this case on State
v. Pena-Flores, 198 N.J. 6 (2009), which discussed facts that can
contribute to the presence of exigent circumstances, such as the time of day,
location of the stop, unfolding events establishing probable cause, whether it
would be safe to leave the car unguarded, and others. However, the discussion
in Pena-Flores was not intended to provide an exhaustive list and was
focused on the facts of that case. In this case, other facts demonstrate that
police were confronted with exigent circumstances. These include an armed
robbery, at least two perpetrators on the run who were possibly armed, a search
for them that spanned several municipalities, and an attempt to find a
discarded weapon before a bystander was injured or it was taken and hidden for
future criminal activity. Additionally, the site where the SUV came to rest was
poorly lit and not amenable to a thorough search, and the officers had no
assurance that the perpetrators on the run were not in the vicinity and able to
fire at them. Because the facts of Pena-Flores are distinguishable from
this matter, its legal principles are not dispositive of this case.
4. State v. Martin,
87 N.J. 561 (1981), is instructive. In Martin, police located a
car involved in a robbery and could see in the car a glove that matched the
description of a glove worn by one of the robbers. The police had the car towed
to the station and searched it without a warrant. The Court upheld the search,
explaining that the suspected robbers were at large, lighting where the car was
discovered was dim, exigency was heightened by the fact that police were
actively involved in an ongoing investigation shortly after the robbery and
near to where it occurred, and there was an urgent need to ascertain whether
the car contained evidence of the armed robbery before the suspects could leave
the area or destroy or dispose of other evidence.
5. In this case, it is not
dispositive that the vehicle had been at police headquarters for some time
before it was searched. The difficulties the officers faced were exacerbated by
the multiple sites that had to be examined for clues, the critical need to
locate the handgun, and the fact that events were unfolding close to midnight
in the dead of winter. The officers’ actions were reasonable under the
circumstances.
The judgment of the Appellate
Division was REVERSED, and the defendants’ convictions were REINSTATED.
