In a Superior Court of New Jersey trial case, Ender Pompa was initially convicted by a jury of multiple drug charges after 30 pounds of marijuana were found in his possession.
On July 2, 2010, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, reversed the trial court's decision and entered an order suppressing the evidence and for the conducting of a new trial. State v. Pompa, New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, Docket No. A-0139-08T4, approved for publication July 2, 2010.
The facts of the case involved a State Trooper's traffic stop of a tractor-trailer for an invalid registration. During the traffic stop, the Trooper's suspicion was aroused due to an overwhelming smell from roughly 20 air fresheners hanging within the truck's cabin. The Trooper then performed a safety inspection in compliance with federal regulations to make sure all proper safety mechanisms were functioning within the truck's cabin. Upon entering the cabin, the Trooper smelled a strong odor of unburned marijuana. Without first obtaining a warrant, the Trooper entered the cabin's private sleeping quarters and searched a closet where he found several duffel bags containing marijuana. The truck was then impounded and the driver was taken to the State Police barracks to be processed. The driver was cooperative with the Trooper during the traffic stop.
In conducting a safety inspection of a vehicle, a law enforcement officer's search may not exceed the "spatial scope" allowed by regulation; a search of a driver's private belongings is not authorized without a warrant. However, there is an exception where a lawful warrantless search may be justified. State v. Pineiro, 181 N.J. 13, 19 (2004) and State v. Pena-Flores, 198 N.J. 6, 28 (2009). As to the circumstances of this case, a warrantless search would have been valid if: the traffic stop was unexpected; the police had probable cause that the vehicle contained contraband; and exigent (or pressing) circumstances made it unsuitable to seek a warrant. State v. Pena-Flores, 198 N.J. 6, 28 (2009). Some exigent circumstances may include whether it is safe to leave the vehicle unguarded or whether the delay caused by obtaining a warrant would place the Trooper in undue risk. Pena-Flores requires more than probable cause; exigent cicircumstances are also required.
The Appellate Division found that no exigent circumstances existed in this case that would justify a warrantless search of the driver's private quarters. The court reasoned that the Trooper was in possession of the keys to the truck and could have obtained a warrant while he had the truck towed or impounded. The Court reinforced that mere proof of probable cause as to the odor of marijuana during an unexpected vehicle stop is not enough to justify an unauthorized search of a truck driver's sleeping quarters. The Court held that since the Trooper performed an unauthorized warrantless search when no exigent circumstances existed, the search was invalid and the discovery of the contraband could not be admissible evidence at trial; the lower court's decision was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial with the suppression of evidence as to the finding of marijuana.
This case helped to identify the variety of factors that must be considered that would justify a warrantless search when probable cause exists: the time of day; the location of the stop; the nature of the neighborhood; the unfolding of the events establishing probable cause; the ratio of officers to suspects; the existence of confederates who know the location of the car and could remove it or its contents; whether the arrest was observed by a passerby who could tamper with the car or its contents; whether it would be safe to leave the car unguarded and, if not, whether the delay that would be caused by obtaining a warrant would place the officers or the evidence at risk.
If you are arrested for a serious drug offense you need to discuss with an experienced criminal defense attorney these factors and the totality of the circumstances leading to your arrest to determine if the evidence in your case should be suppressed. The case law on warrantless searches continues to evolve as new facts and circumstances are presented to the courts.
Sources:
