NJ Court Reverses Evidence Suppression Denial in Traffic Stop Weapon Case
State of New Jersey v. Devontae Mills
Docket No. A-2043-22
Decided December 5, 2024
Submitted by New Jersey Criminal Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark
In a recent unpublished opinion, the Appellate Court of New Jersey decided defendant’s appeal from a Law Division order denying his motion to suppress a handgun and large capacity magazine seized from his motor vehicle after a traffic stop.
On March 23, 2022, an officer conducted a motor vehicle stop of defendant’s vehicle because defendant was using his cellphone while driving. Defendant advised the officer that he did not have a driver’s license, insurance or the vehicle’s registration with him, and that the vehicle belonged to his girlfriend who had the registration. Defendant also advised that he had a suspended driver’s license that listed a New York address, and the vehicle’s registration was with his girlfriend because it was her vehicle. The officer told defendant that someone is going to have to pick him up anyway because he is not going to be able to drive the car. Two additional officers then arrived on scene. Defendant was instructed to provide his identification and he provided the officers with a false name and a false date of birth. Defendant informed the officers that he had no form of identification on his person or in the vehicle.
After viewing a photograph, the officers were able to positively identify the suspect as this defendant. Officers learned defendant had outstanding bench warrants for his arrest. Defendant was subsequently removed from the vehicle and arrested. The arresting officer noted that he observed a grey man purse or satchel on the driver’s side seat to the immediate left of where defendant was seated when defendant opened the driver’s side door to exit the car. The search of defendant’s person revealed nothing illegal. At this time, another officer on scene approached the driver’s side door to close it since the vehicle was on a busy roadway. He then saw the grey satchel next to the driver’s side seat, resting on the door frame. Believing the satchel was defendant’s personal property, he picked it up to bring it to the police station. When asked if the bag was his, defendant indicated that it was. The officer in possession of the satchel then opened it, revealing a gun and large capacity magazine inside. The officer later testified that when he grabbed the satchel he felt a gun in the bag. After being placed in the back of the police car, defendant consented to a search of his vehicle.
Once indicted on multiple weapons offenses, defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized comprising of the handgun and magazine. After conducting a testimonial hearing on the motion, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress. The court found that the stop was justified because the officer saw defendant using his cell phone while driving; the officer was also justified in arresting defendant because defendant had outstanding warrants and no driver’s license; that the car had been lawfully impounded because it was stopped on a busy highway and leaving it “unaccompanied could have constituted a danger” to the public and other drivers; and that the inspection of the car which led to the discovery of the gun in the defendant’s satchel, fell within the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement. The trial court concluded that the officer who opened the satchel felt the gun only after he had removed the satchel from the car, and his training and experience led him to recognize that there was a gun within the bag, providing probable cause to search the bag. Defendant appealed.
On appeal, defendant contended that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence because there was no actual or lawful impoundment of the car, no lawful inventory search, and no emergency that required the police to search the car and removed the closed grey satchel. Defendant also argued that the seven-year sentence for weapons possession was excessive where this was defendant’s second indictable conviction and both convictions were for non-violent offenses.
The State argued that the officers conducted a lawful inventory search when obtaining the satchel because defendant was under arrest at the time of its seizure, and they determined it was the personal property of defendant. Relying upon State v. Hummel, 232 N.J. 196 (2016), the state contended the “impoundment” of the satchel was valid to (1) protect the property while the detainee is in police custody, (2) shield “the police and storage bailees from false property claims,” and (3) safeguard “the police from potential danger.”
Ultimately, the Appellate Court concluded that the seizure of the bag does not fall under the inventory and impoundment exception to the warrant requirement. The court noted that the satchel was clearly located in the vehicle and was not in the defendant’s possession. The court determined that the satchel containing the gun and magazine was seized prior to any determination to impound the vehicle. Under these circumstances the inventory search which discovered the weapon and magazine was invalid. The Appellate Court also concluded that that the trial court’s reliance on the community caretaking function exception was a misapplication of this principle. The court found that the department’s policy supporting the taking of the satchel from the vehicle in this instance was unreasonable and was not part of the community caretaking function because the department’s policy would permit law enforcement to seize any “personal items” of the arrestee, including items not on the arrestee’s possession. Finally, the court further concluded that the inevitable discovery doctrine does not justify the warrantless search of defendant’s vehicle because the State failed to provide foundational testimony or other evidence at the hearing establishing the department procedures which would have been utilized after the impoundment of the vehicle and that these investigative procedures would have resulted in discovery of the gun and magazine. As a result, the court reversed and remanded the case, vacated the trial court’s order, and ordered the trial court to enter an order granting defendant’s motion.
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. 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.
