NJ Appellate Court Upholds Plain View Doctrine in Firearm Suppression Case
State of New Jersey v. Raheem Wilson
Docket No. A-2472-22
Decided October 23, 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In a recent unpublished opinion, the Appellate Court of New Jersey decided defendant’s appeal from a Law Division order denying his motion to suppress the handgun recovered from his vehicle pursuant to the plain view doctrine.
On July 10, 2021 at approximately 8:53 p.m., while in an unmarked police car, an officer observed defendant’s vehicle traveling down the road at a high rate of speed without a front license plate. The officer stated that defendant’s vehicle swerved into his lane, almost making contact with his vehicle. Based on this, officers conducted a motor vehicle stop of defendant’s vehicle. Multiple officers arrived on scene and surrounded defendant’s car. The additional officers were looking into the vehicle with their flashlights. One officer purportedly observed a firearm in plain view and alerted other officers to its presence by shouting the three-digit code word for a gun. The officer who observed the firearm was positioned by the rear driver’s side with his flashlight and hand partially over the rear window and pointed into the car’s interior. Defendant was quickly removed from the vehicle and placed under arrest. Officers then searched the vehicle and located the handgun underneath the front passenger seat. Officers also located additional high-capacity ammunition in the vehicle’s center console and suspected CDS in the driver’s side door coin pocket and a digital scale and zip-lock style bags in the rear compartment. Based on the discovery in the center console, the officers reasonably believed there was another firearm in the car, so a search of the trunk was also conducted. The search of the trunk revealed an AK47 assault rifle, additional ammunition and drum magazines and live rounds.
The officer who observed the firearm testified at the suppression hearing that as soon as he looked into the rear passenger window, he noticed a “few inches of a drum magazine on the floorboard” next to a “small little white container” that may have contained a controlled substance. He further testified that his hand with the flashlight did not cross over into the car before he saw the drum magazine, it was not until after he saw the gun did his hand cross into the car.
Defendant was later indicted on firearm and CDS offenses by a Mercer County grand jury. Defendant subsequently moved to suppress the evidence seized as the result of a warrantless search of his vehicle. The trial court denied defendant’s motion and found that the handgun was properly seized under the plain view doctrine. The trial judge rejected defendant’s argument that the officer impermissibly “broke the plane” of the vehicle by extending his flashlight through the partially open rear window to illuminate the floor of the car and conducted a search. The judge articulated that the officer peered through the window, spotted the firearm, and did not break the plane of the car to discover the weapon. The motion judge similarly denied defendant’s motion regarding the weapons seized in his trunk as well, determining that probable cause arose from unforeseeable and spontaneous circumstances. Defendant appealed.
On appeal, defendant contended that:
- Officers conducted an illegal search when they reached inside the car in order to see the evidence; and
- Without breaching the interior of the car to get a better look, it was not “immediately apparent” to the officers that the items on the floorboard were contraband.
Ultimately, the Appellate Court determined that the officer observed the firearm lawfully under the plain view doctrine and affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. Officers lawfully stopped defendant for a traffic violation and there was ample evidence in the record to support the motion judge’s findings of fact that the officer that peered into the rear passenger window did not constitute a search of defendant’s car. No officer on scene broke the plane of the window before one of the officers discovered the handgun underneath the front passenger seat.
At Hark & Hark, we are experienced attorneys who represent clients in Superior Court for issues like the previously discussed case pertaining to motions suppress evidence seized as the result of an unlawful search. 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.
