Warrantless search suppressed State v. Adl

Warrantless search suppressed State v. Adl 

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence found in a warrantless search of a home. Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute CDS and witness tampering in a plea agreement that reserved his right to appeal. Police went to a home to execute an arrest warrant, defendant opened the door, police said "where is he[?]," defendant moved aside and police entered and arrested their suspect. They observed a handgun and narcotics in the vicinity of their suspect, secured all the occupants of the home, applied for a search warrant and found additional contraband. Defendant testified he did not have the authority or intention to let the police enter. Trial court found officers reasonably believed defendant had the authority to consent to a search and allowed them in by moving aside. The court disagreed. Police did not testify that defendant was advised of his right to refuse consent and there was insufficient proof that he knowingly and voluntarily consented to their search. Police did not identify themselves other than by their apparel and only said "where is he[?]" when the door was opened. The totality of the circumstances would have intimidated a citizen opening the door. Additionally, the record did not establish that defendant had apparent authority to allow the officers into the home. source https://www.law.com/njlawjournal/almID/1565230468NJA553016T/

 Ken V represented a co-defendant in this case.