NJ Court Reverses Ruling: Unlawful Terry Stop in Firearm Case

State of New Jersey v. Javarus Patterson

Docket No. A-3325-22

Decided August 26, 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In a recent unpublished opinion, the Appellate Court of New Jersey decided defendant’s appeal from an order denying his motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a warrantless search following a Terry stop.

In this case, the detective testified that while driving an unmarked patrol car in the city of Paterson, he observed the defendant and approximately nine other individuals standing near the intersection of Madison and Essex streets in an area known for being a “hotspot” for criminal activity. A “hotspot” for criminal activity, according to the officers, is an area that has been deemed a high crime area; somewhere where there has been an uptick in shootings comma; Somewhere where there has been an uptick in shootings, whether fatal, non-fatal, or just a round of ammunition being fired. While observing the individuals, the detective testified that there was one individual wearing a fanny pack bag across his chest (the defendant) who the detective believed saw the unmarked police car. The detective alleged that he observed the defendant perform a “security check” once he noticed the police’s presence. Based on these observations and his training and experience in law enforcement, the detective believed that the individual wearing the fanny pack was more than likely in possession of a firearm.

Detectives then drove their vehicle over to the individuals, exited the car, and told them to put their hands up. Defendant was even mentioned by first name by one of the detectives that had arrested defendant a year prior for unlawful possession of a firearm. The detective testified that as he approached, defendant’s hands went closer to the fanny pack but when he ordered defendant to put his hands up, defendant raised them. After a pat down of defendant and the fanny pack, the detectives recovered CDS and a firearm. Defendant was eventually indicted and filed a motion to suppress evidence.

The trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress, finding that the officers had a reasonable and articulable suspicion defendant was armed with a handgun such that they had a proper basis for the Terry stop and the subsequent frisk. Following the denial of his motion, defendant pled guilty to two CDS charges and unlawful possession of a handgun. Defendant subsequently appealed his firearm conviction only.

On appeal, defendant contended that the detective stopped him based on an inarticulate hunch that he was armed with a gun. Defendant further argued that there were no intervening facts between the detective stop and the protective search that would have provided the detective with reasonable belief that he was armed. Defendant maintained his (1) innocuous act of tapping once or twice on his bag; (2) the location in a high-crime area during the daytime, and (3) the detective’s knowledge of his prior offense, when collectively considered, were not facts that suggested that he was engaged in criminal activity. Finally, defendant argued that the detective’s testimony regarding “hotspots” is too generic and should be given little weight in the totality of the circumstances calculation.

The State argued that the detective conducted a proper Terry stop of defendant when he exited the police vehicle and ordered defendant to raise his hands. The State does not contend, however, that defendant’s presence in the hotspot and prior arrest for possession of a handgun constituted a totality of circumstances supporting a reasonable and articulable suspicion defendant unlawfully possessed a handgun.

The issue before the Appellate Court was whether the detective’s observation of defendant’s taps of the fanny pack, and his opinion the taps constituted defendant’s subconscious acknowledgement he possessed a firearm, coupled with the other circumstances—the hotspot and plaintiff’s arrest a year earlier for possession of a handgun—supported a reasonable suspicion defendant was in possession of a handgun such that the Terry stop was lawful.

Ultimately, the Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s ruling because the competent evidence presented by the State did not establish a reasonable articulable suspicion defendant was engaged in criminal activity permitting the Terry stop preceding the frisk that resulted in the recovery of the handgun. The court articulated that the fact that defendant was present in a hot spot and had a prior firearms possession record did not provide a sufficiently objective reasonable inference defendant was in possession of a handgun, and defendant’s taps of the bag added nothing to the calculus. Since the court found that the investigatory detention of defendant was unlawful, the court did not address defendant’s claim that the frisk and search of the bag was otherwise unlawful.

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 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.