Docket No. A-0025-23
Decided April 15, 2025
Submitted by New Jersey Criminal Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark
In a recent unpublished opinion, the Appellate Court of New Jersey decided defendant’s appeal from his judgment of conviction, specifically challenging the denial of his motion to suppress a gun that police seized from his waistband in the course of a warrantless pat-down of his person after a motor vehicle stop.
On May 12, 2002, at around 11:00 a.m., Trenton police detectives, trailed by a K-9 unit, were on patrol in an area known for its high crime rate. The detectives were patrolling in an unmarked police vehicle equipped with lights and sirens and dressed in plain clothes when they observed a gray Jeep Grand Cherokee with heavily tinted front windows circle the block a couple of times. When following the Jeep, officers observed a defective rear brake light. After observing these motor vehicle violations, officers initiated a motor vehicle stop.
When officers approached the vehicle and made contact with the driver/defendant, they noted that he appeared visibly nervous, and his hands were shaking frantically while he provided officers with his credentials. Without being asked a question, defendant immediately began telling officers why he was in the area and referenced that he was not lying at least three times. One of the officers also located in plain view an open Heineken beer bottle in the driver’s side door pocket.
Defendant then reached in the back seat and held up an orange safety vest while explaining to officers that he was on his way to work. He then placed the safety vest over his waistband area. One of the detectives, from his training and experience, knew that criminals commonly conceal weapons in their waistband, so the detective was immediately alerted by the fact that defendant chose to place the safety vest over his waist. Officers also observed defendant was partially hunched over in his seat with his arms and hands as if he was concealing an object in his waistband.
At this time, officers ordered defendant out of the vehicle and escorted him to the rear of the vehicle. Defendant held the safety vest in his right hand when he was escorted to the rear of the vehicle. As he was walking, officers observed defendant place the vest in front of his waistband as if he was concealing something. Defendant was then ordered to place his hands on top of the Jeep. As he did so, defendant tightened his abdomen area and thrust his waist against the trunk of the Jeep. The detectives pulled defendant’s body away from the vehicle and immediately felt the handle of a handgun in his waistband. One of the officers pulled a Ruger P95 9mm handgun from defendant’s waistband.
Shortly after defendant was placed under arrest, a K-9 detective and his K-9 partner, Caesar, conducted a “sniff” of the vehicle. After conducting the “sniff,” Caesar indicated the presence of illegal narcotics on the driver’s side of the vehicle. A search of the vehicle revealed approximately twenty-one grams of crack cocaine located in the driver’s side door where detectives had previously seen the beer bottle. Defendant was eventually indicted on firearm and CDS related offenses.
Defendant eventually moved to suppress the CDS and the handgun seized from his person. Defendant argued that, under the circumstances, the police did not have reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle or search him. The State presented testimony from one of the detectives on scene at the suppression hearing. He described the officers’ actions at the scene and their reasons for conducting the pat-down. After considering the evidence and legal argument made by the parties, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress. The trial court judge found that police had acted appropriately in stopping the vehicle, removing defendant, patting him down, and searching the vehicle. The court specifically found that based on “defendant’s conduct and use of the safety vest to obstruct officers’ view of his waistband, the officers had a reasonable and justifiable suspicion to conduct the pat-down of defendant.”
Defendant entered a guilty plea to second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun. Consistent with the plea agreement, the court sentenced defendant to a five-year custodial term with forty-two months of parole ineligibility. The remaining counts of the indictment were dismissed. Defendant subsequently appealed the suppression ruling under Rule 3:5-7.
On appeal, defendant contended that the court erred in failing to suppress the evidence because he was frisked absent reasonable suspicion he had a weapon. Specifically, defendant argued that 1. On body worn camera footage he displayed no nervous behavior; 2. Alternatively, his supposed furtive gestures and nervousness did not establish reasonable suspicion to frisk him; and 3. The motion court erred in denying suppression based on his conduct after he exited the car, because it was equally ambiguous evidence of nervousness. The State argued that these contentions lack merit, and that the officers’ actions were justified by case law governing warrantless searches and seizures.
Ultimately, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny defendant’s suppression motion. The court articulated that defendant’s attempt to isolate each circumstance presented to the officers was unavailing and ignored the totality of the circumstances that the detectives faced. The appellate court noted that the trial court accepted the detective’s testimony and made its findings after watching the detective and listening to his testimony, then reviewing the body worn camera footage from the incident. The court also determined that the officer had reasonable suspicion to perform a pat-down frisk of defendant’s waist under the Terry doctrine.
At Hark & Hark, we are experienced attorneys who represent clients for appeals 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 either party 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.