NJ Court Reverses Evidence Suppression in Drug Case Appeal

State of New Jersey v. Troy Smith

Docket No. A-3796-23

Decided January 27, 2025

Submitted by New Jersey Criminal Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark

In a recent unpublished opinion, the Appellate Court of New Jersey decided the State’s back-to-back appeals from a June 26, 2024 Law Division order granting defendant’s motion to suppress certain evidence seized after the execution of the State’s search warrant.

In November 2023, after a reported increase in narcotics-related crimes in New Brunswick, the New Jersey State Police (NJSP) Weapon Trafficking Central Unit (WTCU) conducted several surveillance operations. WTCU officers began surveillance of a house on Suydam Street, as law enforcement suspected a person was distributing controlled dangerous substances (CDS) from the home. The officers specifically identified the person was distributing CDS from the first-floor residence of the two-family house on Suydam Street. While surveilling the residence, officers observed several hand-to-hand CDS transactions.

On November 29, 2023, officers witnessed an individual, later identified as this defendant, selling suspected CDS to individuals who walked up to the door on the left side of the Suydam Street house or to a window to the right of the door. One of the individuals suspected of buying CDS from the defendant was stopped after the transaction when he reached another street and placed under arrest. Officers located three wax folds of suspected heroin and one plastic bag of suspected cocaine on the suspect’s person. After receiving Miranda warnings, the suspect confirmed defendant sold and distributed the suspected CDS from the door and window on the left side of the Suydam Street house.

On December 5, 2023, WTCU officers again observed multiple individuals purchasing suspected CDS from the home while conducting surveillance at the house. WTCU officers again stopped one of the individual’s buying the suspected CDS from defendant, and discovered the suspect had two wax folds of suspected heroin and suspected cocaine in the pill container. After checking defendant’s criminal history, WTCU officers learned that he had three prior indictable convictions, including a third-degree conviction for manufacturing or distributing CDS. Defendant’s driver’s license also listed the Suydam Street house as his address.

On December 11, 2023, a NJSP WTCU detective applied to a superior court judge for two search warrants. The detective’s application requested warrants to search the first-floor apartment of the “two-story, multi-family residence” at the Suydam Street house and defendant’s person, because he believed defendant had committed CDS-related criminal offenses. The judge ultimately granted both search warrants after reviewing the State’s applications. The following day, WTCU officers executed the search warrant and found CDS, including three bricks and two bundles of suspected heroin, in different locations of defendant’s first-floor residence. The officers also found CDS and two handguns in the basement below his residence.

Defendant was eventually indicted on multiple CDS, money laundering, and firearm related offenses. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence seized from the execution of the residence search warrant. On June 26, 2024, after hearing oral argument, the motion judge entered an order accompanied by an oral and written statement of reasons granting defendant’s motion to suppress in part. The motion judge ordered the suppression of all items seized from the basement of the premises searched, resulting in the dismissal of counts 1, 2, 7, and 8 of Indictment No. 24-02-00181 and “Indictment 24-02-00182 in its entirety. The State appealed.

On appeal, the State contended that the Appellate Court should reverse the trial court’s June 26, 2024 order, which erroneously suppressed evidence and relied on that erroneous suppression to justify the dismissal of four counts of indictment 24-02-00181 and the entirety of indictment 24-02-00182. Specifically, the State argued that reversal is warranted because the search warrant judge correctly found probable cause extended to the basement in authorizing the warrant, and deference should be afforded.

Ultimately, the Appellate Court agreed with the State’s argument and reversed the motion judge’s order suppressing the evidence found in defendant’s basement and remand for reinstatement of Indictment No. 24-02-00182 and counts one, two, seven, and eight of Indictment No. 24-02-00181. The court articulated that the four corners of the detective’s affidavit reveal the request to search defendant’s premises was sufficiently specific. The detective limited the search request to the areas of defendant’s premises that he used or occupied, and the detective believed were connected to the first-floor unit and CDS distribution. He did not seek to search the second-floor residence or any attic space. Even without providing the search warrant judge the required substantial deference, it was reasonable to conclude the first-floor residence had access to a basement area reachable by the door on the left side of the house, just as the second floor would similarly have access to an attic. The court noted that if the warrant lacked the requisite specificity and instead authorized a search of the entire multi-family residence, the court would agree that evidence seized would be subject to suppression. However, the court concluded that the search warrant judge’s finding of probable cause, based on his review of the detective’s attested to observations and CDS experience, was sufficiently supported to issue the warrant for the first-floor residence, including the basement as an area to be searched, because there was a probability that evidence of criminality would be found in the premises defendant occupied.

At Hark & Hark, we are experienced attorneys who represent clients in Superior Court for issues like the previously discussed case pertaining motions to suppress evidence 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.