NJ Court Suppresses Evidence from Warrantless Home Search
State of New Jersey v. Curtis Strickland
Indictment No. 22-12-786-I
Decided August 8, 2024
Submitted by New Jersey Criminal Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark
In a recent unpublished opinion, the trial court in Gloucester County, New Jersey decided defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a warrantless search.
The facts derived from the motion are as follows: On September 20, 2022, officers were called to a location on Tanyard road regarding a report of a man with a gun. Officers then spoke with the defendant and inquired as to whether he had any involvement in the incident. The defendant advised that he had been in a physical altercation with another man at the front door of the home of that location. During the scuffle, the handgun purportedly fell out of the defendant’s waistband. Officers asked what he had done with the firearm and defendant replied that he picked it up and put it in a drawer in the home.
Officers then spoke to a woman who appeared to be the owner and/or tenant of the home and asked for permission to enter the residence. She verbally consented. Officers then entered the home without a warrant and secured the handgun, which was found in the location they were told it would be by the defendant. Defendant was then placed in handcuffs at this time and read his Miranda rights. After being advised of his Miranda rights, defendant agreed to speak with officers. Officers did not speak with Mr. Williams, the other individual involved in the alleged scuffle, and Mr. Williams had not been charged. The woman was never informed that she had the right to deny consent to the search of her home. On the witness stand at the suppression hearing, the officer acknowledged that ordinarily, police would not enter a home without obtaining a written consent of the homeowner or tenant. The woman had never signed a consent form. The officers who initially responded also were not wearing body worn cameras.
Defense argued that the warrantless entry of the home, which produced a handgun, was outside any exception of the warrant requirement and should be void and the handgun and the other two handguns later found should be suppressed for the violation of the warrant requirement as fruit of the poisonous tree. Defense further argued that the exigent circumstances doctrine would allow a warrantless search to prevent imminent danger to life or destruction of evidence, which would be inapplicable in this case because the altercation had ended and there was no ongoing threat or immediate need for police action. Defense further articulated that everything that happened after the warrantless intrusion to the home constituted fruit of the poisonous tree and should be suppressed.
The State argued that all evidence should be admitted because it was recovered as a result of a valid consent search. The State argued that the woman consented to the police entry to her home, and that while the defendant was mirandized and handcuffed, he signed a valid consent to search form as to the motor vehicle.
Ultimately, the trial judge determined that when the woman and children came outside of the residence at/or around the time the officer asked for permission to enter to retrieve the firearm, there were no exigent circumstances that existed which would justify entering the home. The court articulated that, “there just happened to be a chance that there would be a handgun in the house which would be true of over half of the homes in this country.” The trial judge further determined that he had no reason to believe that the officer did not testify truthfully and that the woman gave him permission to enter the home, but it was also true that he did not have her sign a consent form and he did not tell her that she had the right to refuse consent. As a result, the trial judge found that the good faith entry to the home by police well seemingly reasonable was nevertheless contrary to the rights established against warrantless entry to a home as set forth in the 4th amendment to the United States constitution and article 1 paragraph seven of the New Jersey constitution in almost identical language which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The trial judge determined that there was no exigency, there was no meaningful consent because the woman was not told she could refuse consent, and the search of defendant’s car and the recovery of the handguns which were lawfully purchased in Delaware constituted fruit of the poisonous tree because if the police had not engaged in a warrantless search of the house, the investigation would have ended. Thus, the court granted defendant’s motion to suppress the handguns recovered.
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.
