State v. Smart Police dog case
The state appealed the judgment of the appellate division, which affirmed the order of the trial court granting defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Police were conducting surveillance of a condominium complex known for narcotics transactions and other criminal activity. Using information received a month prior from a confidential informant, the surveilling officer identified a SUV parked in the complex's lot as a vehicle that was involved in drug transactions conducted by an individual known as "Killer." The officer searched the police database and found that defendant's record listed "Killer" as a known alias. Defendant's record also reflected prior drug-related arrests and convictions.
After 30 minutes of surveillance, the officer observed defendant, a female, and a child get into the SUV, which was driven by the female. The officer followed the vehicle to another residence, where he witnessed activity consistent with drug transactions. A second officer had also followed the vehicle to the residence; she knew that multiple drug users resided at that property. The second officer saw defendant get out of the SUV and walk to the residence's backyard. Defendant later returned from the backyard accompanied by another female and got back into the SUV, while the female reentered the residence.
Based on the officers' prior information and what they had witnessed during their surveillance, they directed other officers to initiate a traffic stop of the SUV. The other officers ordered defendant out of the vehicle and conducted a pat-down, which found no incriminating evidence. Defendant and the female driver also refused to consent to a search of the vehicle. The officers then called in a canine unit, which arrived over 20 minutes later. The canine provided a positive hit for contraband, and the officers found drugs, paraphernalia, and weapons. Defendant admitted that the contraband belonged to him.
Defendant moved to suppress the evidence. The trial court granted the motion, ruling that police lacked probable cause for a warrantless search. The appellate division affirmed.
On appeal, the court Supreme court affirmed the grant of defendant's suppression motion. The court found that the facts and circumstances that gave rise to probable cause for the traffic stop and subsequent search were not "unforeseeable and spontaneous." Instead, the court noted that officers developed probable cause over a period of time based on information previously in their possession, their surveillance of defendant and the SUV, and the positive canine search. Thus, the court that police were in a position to impound the vehicle and obtain a warrant before conducting a search. source https://www.law.com/njlawjournal/almID/1678776926NJA62208/
