NJ Appellate Court Partially Suppresses Post-Admit Statements in Drug Case

State of New Jersey v. Dale Edwards

Docket No. A-3184-22

Decided November 12, 2024

Submitted by New Jersey Drug Crime Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark.

In a recent unpublished opinion, the Appellate Court of New Jersey decided defendant’s appeal from a trial court order denying his motion to suppress his statements and derivative evidence obtained during a motor vehicle stop.

On April 16, 2022, an officer observed a vehicle make an illegal U-turn on Route 46 in South Hackensack, N.J. The officer then activated the emergency lights on his patrol car and performed a motor vehicle stop. During the stop, the officer noted that the defendant/driver was extremely nervous, shaking, avoiding eye contact, and when he did make eye contact, his eyes were extremely constricted. The officer believed the defendant may be under the influence or in possession of narcotics due to this behavior. After the officer returned to his patrol vehicle to run defendant’s license, he learned that defendant had a “non-extraditable” warrant out of Montana. When the officer returned to defendant’s vehicle, he asked defendant to step out of the car and also asked if defendant wanted to tell him about the “trouble back home.” Defendant explained “different choices” — “drugs.”

The officer then asked defendant if he would consent to the search of his vehicle, to which defendant responded that it was not his vehicle so he could not consent to the search. The officer then gave defendant three options: (1) consent to a search of the motor vehicle; (2) he could get a canine; or (3) defendant could just tell him where the drugs were in the car. Defendant eventually told the officer that there were drugs in the vehicle. When the officer asked the defendant “do you want to show me where”, the defendant directed the officer to the driver’s side compartment where three red plastic containers containing suspected methamphetamine were located. The officer then questioned the defendant whether the drugs were his or the passenger’s. Defendant first indicated the drugs weren’t his, but then admitted they were his drugs. The officer then asked the defendant when the last time he used the drugs were and he responded, “last night.” Defendant was subsequently placed under arrest for possession of methamphetamine. A search of his vehicle also revealed a New Hampshire driver’s license with defendant’s picture on it but with a different name; (2) a social security card with the different name on it; and (3) a loaded nine-millimeter handgun.

After being indicted on the counterfeit New Hampshire License, firearm-related offenses, and CDS offense, defendant moved to suppress his statements, verbal and nonverbal, made at the scene of the stop and the physical evidence seized thereafter. In an oral decision, the trial judge found that initial stop of defendant’s vehicle was permissible because the officer witnessed defendant make an illegal U-turn. The trial judge noted that in distinguishing between “a custodial interrogation” or an “investigatory procedure,” the court must “view objectively the totality of the circumstances, including the length of a detention, the time and place of the questioning or interrogation, and the conduct of the police officers. The trial judge opined that defendant’s statements on the scene were voluntary, not obtained in violation of any rights and accordingly were admissible. As to the search of the motor vehicle and the seizure of the physical evidence, the trial judge determined that the search was not based on defendant’s consent but on the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. The judge determined that the search of defendant’s vehicle did not violate his rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and accordingly the items seized from the vehicle were admissible at trial. Defendant appealed.

On appeal, defendant contended that (1) The police prolonged the detention and requested consent to search without reasonable suspicion, requiring suppression; (2) Because defendant’s confession was involuntary, both the confession and the derivative evidence should be suppressed; (3) Suppression of defendant’s responses to the officer’s questions is required because defendant was in custody when the police questioned him without first advising him of his rights; and (4) If this court does not order suppression of all of the evidence, it should remand for another suppression hearing.

Ultimately, the Appellate Court determined that the officer possessed reasonable suspicion regarding defendant’s drug possession or use, and his request that defendant consent to a search of the motor vehicle and the suggestion that he could bring a canine to sniff the motor vehicle were appropriate in these circumstances. The court also opined that under the totality of the circumstances, taking into account the officer and defendant were outside, in the daylight, along a busy street with motorists, and the entire exchange occurred in mere minutes were sufficiently supported in the record and support the trial judge’s conclusion that defendant’s will was not overborne. Thus, the court found defendant’s admission was voluntary.

The court also had to determine when defendant was subjected to custodial interrogation and thus entitled to Miranda warnings. The court determined that not all of defendant’s pre-arrest statements were admissible under State v. Sessions, 172 N.J. Super. 558 (App. Div. 1980). The court noted that the officer had a reasonable suspicion defendant was in possession of or under the influence of illegal drugs.  Therefore, the officer had the authority to inquire without providing Miranda warnings within a reasonable period. Defendant’s admission was not subject to suppression. However, once defendant admitted to possessing illegal drugs, a reasonable police officer would have believed he or she had probable cause to arrest defendant and would not have permitted defendant to leave. Thus, after defendant admitted to possession of illegal drugs he was in custody, for purposes of Miranda, and the officer was required to administer the Miranda warnings to defendant. As a result, the court concluded that defendant’s post-admission responses should have been suppressed under Miranda. The Appellate Court vacated the suppression order in part and remanded for the court to suppress defendant’s responses, verbal and non-verbal, after he admitted he possessed illegal drugs.

At Hark & Hark, we are experienced attorneys who represent clients in Superior Court for issues like the previously discussed case pertaining to motions to suppress evidence/statements. We work hard to ensure that our clients receive exceptional representation in order for them to receive the most favorable outcome in their case as a result.

We offer payment plan options to clients financially incapable of providing full payment upfront. If you are facing a similar situation to that of the defendant in this case, please call us to discuss the matter. At Hark & Hark, we represent clients for any case in any county in New Jersey including Atlantic County, Bergen County, Burlington County, Camden County, Cape May County, Cumberland County, Essex County, Gloucester County, Hudson County, Hunterdon County, Mercer County, Middlesex County, Monmouth County, Morris County, Ocean County, Passaic County, Salem County, Somerset County, Sussex County, Union County, and Warren County and any town including Audubon, Gloucester City, Oaklyn, Audubon Park, Gloucester Township, Pennsauken, Barrington, Haddon Heights, Pine Hill, Bellmawr, Haddon Township, Pine Valley, Berlin Borough, Haddonfield, Runnemede, Berlin Township, Hi-Nella, Somerdale, Brooklawn, Laurel Springs, Stratford, Camden, Lawnside, Voorhees, Cherry Hill, Lindenwold, Waterford, Chesilhurst, Magnolia, Winslow, Clementon, Merchantville, Woodlynne, Collingswood, Mt. Ephraim, and Gibbsboro.