State v. Ornette M. Terry (A-23-16)
(077942) Argued October 11, 2017 -- Decided March 14, 2018 -- Corrected
March 16, 2018ALBIN, J., writing for the Court. The Court considers whether
an officer acted reasonably, in accordance with New Jersey precedents
permitting a limited registration search without a warrant and the dictates of
the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Paragraph 7 of the State Constitution, when
he searched defendant’s glove box. Union Township Police Officer Devlin
observed defendant’s GMC truck run a stop sign and almost strike his patrol
car. Officer Devlin activated the overheard lights and siren. Defendant did not
pull to the side of the road. Instead, without signaling, he zigzagged back and
forth from the right to the left lane in traffic. Officer Devlin relayed the
truck’s license plate number to a dispatcher, who notified him that the vehicle
was a Hertz rental, which had not been reported stolen. After a half mile,
defendant turned into a gas station where he came to a stop. Officer Devlin
parked his patrol car behind defendant’s truck while a back-up police officer
in a marked unit pulled in front of the truck, effectively blocking it in. With
the other officer beside him and their guns trained on defendant, Officer
Devlin repeatedly ordered defendant to show his hands, but defendant made no
response. Twenty to thirty seconds later, Officer Devlin opened the driver’s
door and commanded that he step out of the vehicle. Defendant did so, leaned
against the truck, put his hands in his pockets, and asked why the officers had
pulled him over. Although Officer Devlin repeatedly instructed defendant to
show his hands, he was slow to comply. The two officers quickly patted
defendant down, assuring themselves he was not armed with a weapon. When
Officer Devlin asked defendant for identification, defendant reached into his
pocket and presented his license. Officer Devlin next requested that defendant
produce the vehicle’s registration and insurance card. Defendant did not
respond, “[h]e just stood there with a blank stare on his face.” The officer
asked a second time, and defendant “shrugged his shoulders.” Defendant made no
non-verbal gestures to indicate that the papers were on his person or in the
truck. Finally, Officer Devlin asked defendant whether he owned the truck or
had any paperwork for it. Again, defendant did not respond. Officer Devlin went
to the passenger’s side of the truck, opened the door, and looked in the glove
box—“[t]he most common place” where papers are stored. Although he found no
documentation in the glove box, the light from his flashlight reflected against
a white object on the passenger’s floorboard. That object was a handgun. The
trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress. The court found that Officer
Devlin “was a reasonable and credible witness” and concluded that because
defendant failed to produce the vehicle registration on demand, Officer Devlin
had a right to search for the registration, rental agreement, and insurance in
the area where such documents are usually kept. The court further determined
that Officer Devlin’s observation of the handgun met the plain view exception
to the warrant requirement. At the conclusion of a jury trial, defendant was found
guilty of second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun and fourth-degree
possession of hollow point bullets. A panel of the Appellate Division reversed,
determining that the warrantless search of defendant’s truck violated both the
Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Paragraph 7
of the New Jersey Constitution. The Court granted the State’s petition for
certification. 228 N.J. 448 (2016). HELD: Sufficient credible evidence
supported the trial court’s determination that defendant was given an adequate
opportunity to present the vehicle’s registration before the search commenced.
When a driver is unwilling or unable to present proof of a vehicle’s ownership,
a police officer may conduct a limited search for the registration papers in
the areas where they are likely kept in the vehicle. When a police officer can
readily determine that the driver or passenger is the lawful possessor of the
vehicle—despite an inability to produce the registration—a warrantless search
for proof of ownership will not be justified. 2
1.One of the well-established exceptions
to the warrant requirement is the automobile exception. A corollary is
theauthority of a police officer to conduct a pinpointed search for proof of
ownership when a motorist “is unable orunwilling to produce his registration or
insurance information.” State v. Keaton, 222 N.J. 438, 442-43 (2015). TheState
has a “compelling interest in maintaining highway safety by ensuring that only
qualified drivers operate motorvehicles and that motor vehicles are in a safe
condition.” State v. Donis, 157 N.J. 44, 51 (1998). That interestextends to
ensuring that operators are not in possession of stolen vehicles. The operator
of a motor vehicle must“exhibit the registration certificate, when requested to
so to do by a police officer,” N.J.S.A. 39:3-29, and must“comply with any
direction, by voice or hand” by the officer, N.J.S.A. 39:4-57. A “police
officer is authorized toremove any unregistered vehicle from the public highway
to a storage space or garage,” N.J.S.A. 39:3-4, or toimpound a car that he
reasonably believes may be stolen, N.J.S.A. 39:5-47. Had Officer Devlin not
been able tosearch the glove compartment, his other option would have been to
impound the vehicle. An inventory search of animpounded vehicle is a
constitutionally permissible practice. (pp. 14-21)
2.Since
State v. Boykins, 50 N.J. 73, 82-83 (1967), New Jersey courts have repeatedly
reaffirmed the vitality of thelimited registration exception to the warrant
requirement. In Keaton, a unanimous Court affirmed and applied thelimited
registration exception, holding that when an operator is “unable or unwilling”
to produce his registration, anofficer may conduct a limited and focused search
for the ownership credentials. 222 N.J. at 442-43. The Courtmade clear that a
search for proof of ownership must be reasonable in scope and therefore
“confined to the glovecompartment or other area where registration might
normally be kept in a vehicle.” Id. at 449. The authority toconduct a warrantless
registration search is premised on a driver’s lesser expectation of privacy in
his vehicle and onthe need to ensure highway and public safety. The courts in a
number of other jurisdictions have determined that, inappropriate
circumstances, a limited warrantless search of a motor vehicle for proof of
ownership does not violatethe Fourth Amendment, and the Court continues to
stand with those jurisdictions. (pp. 21-31)
3.The
rationale for a limited registration search exception is (1) the minimal invasion
of the driver’s reasonableexpectation of privacy; (2) the furtherance of public
safety in general and officer safety in particular; and (3) therecognition
that, for constitutional purposes, a brief and restricted search is arguably
less intrusive than impoundingthe vehicle and conducting an inventory search
later. Accordingly, after a driver is given the opportunity to presentthe
vehicle’s ownership credentials but is unwilling or unable to do so, a police
officer may engage in a pinpointedsearch limited to those places, such as a
glove box, where proof of ownership is ordinarily kept. If a driver orpassenger
explains to an officer that he has lost or forgotten his registration, and the
officer can readily determinethat either is the lawful possessor, then a
warrantless search for proof of ownership is not justified. Moderntechnology
may increasingly allow police officers to make such timely determinations. (pp.
31-34)
4.The
trial court held that defendant was given a meaningful opportunity to present
the truck’s rental papers, and hefailed to do so. There is sufficient credible
evidence to support that conclusion. From the objectively reasonableviewpoint
of the officers, defendant was unwilling or unable to produce proof of
ownership. At that point, thetotality of defendant’s behavior raised a
reasonable suspicion that the truck might be a stolen vehicle. Permitting
adriver to maintain possession of a potentially stolen motor vehicle is a
public safety risk. All in all, the officersacted reasonably, in accordance
with New Jersey precedents permitting a limited registration search without
awarrant and the dictates of the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Paragraph 7 of
the State Constitution. (pp. 34-39)
The
judgment of the Appellate Division is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED
to the Appellate Division for consideration of the issues not reached by it
on defendant’s direct appeal.
CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER, DISSENTING, observes that an
examination of the history and scope of the driving credentials exception reveals
that its foundation is far from strong. Chief Justice Rabner adds that the
exception is potentially quite broad and permits law enforcement to search a
vehicle without probable cause, when officer safety is not an issue, and when
there is no legitimate need for credentials. Stressing the Court’s limiting
principle—that a warrantless search for credentials cannot be justified when
“the officer can readily determine that either” the driver or passenger “is the
lawful possessor”—Chief Justice Rabner notes that, because officers on duty
nearly always have access to electronic records, few warrantless searches for
credentials could ever be justified.
JUSTICES PATTERSON,
FERNANDEZ-VINA, and SOLOMON join in JUSTICE ALBIN’s opinion. CHIEF JUSTICE
RABNER filed a separate, dissenting opinion, in which JUSTICES LaVECCHIA and
TIMPONE join.
