New Jersey Appellate Division Decision – Criminal Law and Narcotics Detection Canine

On August 21, 2024, the New Jersey Appellate Division decided State of New Jersey v. Justin Morgan, in which it addressed a question of first impression as to when the State may be compelled to provide field and health reports of narcotics detection canines in establishing probable cause for a warrantless search.

Facts and Procedural History Involving a Narcotics Detection Canine

In the early hours of January 30, 2022, Officer Matthew Buchhofer of Voorhees Township conducted a traffic stop on a white Ford F-150 for a poorly lit license plate in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:3-61(k). Upon discovering that the vehicle was registered to a known narcotics dealer, the officer conducted a “narcotics sniff” with his narcotics detection canine, Jocko. The canine’s positive alert led to a warrantless search of the vehicle and its occupants. The officer found a loaded revolver and a substance suspected to be methamphetamine on the passenger in the vehicle, Justin Morgan.

Morgan was subsequently indicted on several charges, including unlawful possession of a weapon and possession of a controlled dangerous substance. He sought discovery under Rule 3:13-3, of all field performance records related to Jocko, arguing that these records were essential to challenge the reliability of the narcotics detection canine’s alert, which served as the basis for the search. In support of his motion to compel the production of the field reports, Morgan submitted a report by an expert in canine olfaction who opined that Jocko’s alert was false. The State cross-moved to bar the defense expert. The trial judge denied both the defendant’s motion and the State’s cross motion. .

The Legal Issue of Discovery in Cases Involving a Narcotics Detection Canine

The key legal issue in the case was whether the State may be compelled to provide field and health reports of narcotics detection canines in accordance with the Supreme Court’s holding in Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013). Morgan argued that these records were necessary to evaluate the reliability of the narcotics detection canine’s alert and, by extension, the probable cause for the warrantless search.

The trial court initially denied Morgan’s motion, relying on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013), which held that a dog’s training and certification records are sufficient to establish probable cause, without the need for field performance records. However, the Appellate Division held that when a defendant challenges a dog’s training and certification, field reports may be subject to discovery under Rule 3:13-3(b), but under the holding in Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. at 237, are not discoverable as of right. Thus, while Harris does not mandate the automatic disclosure of field records, it also does not preclude their discovery when a defendant challenges the reliability of the narcotics detection canine.

Appellate Division’s Reasoning and Decision on Narcotics Detection Canine Discovery

The Appellate Division reasoned that while the narcotics detection canine’s training records are generally sufficient to establish probable cause, field performance records could become relevant when the reliability of the dog’s alert is questioned. In this case, Morgan presented an expert report suggesting that Jocko’s alert might have been a false positive. The court concluded that these records might be necessary to evaluate the reliability of the narcotics detection canine and the legality of the search.

The court, therefore, reversed the trial court’s denial of Morgan’s motion and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the trial court to consider the admissibility of the expert’s testimony and the relevance of the field records in light of this expert opinion.

Conclusion: Key Takeaways from the Decision Involving Narcotics Detection Canine

This decision underscores the importance of discovery in cases involving a narcotics detection canine. The Appellate Division highlighted that while training records might often suffice, field performance records can be crucial in cases where the reliability of the canine’s alert is under scrutiny. This ruling sets a precedent in New Jersey, ensuring that defendants can challenge the evidence used against them, particularly in cases involving warrantless searches based on canine alerts.

Criminal law is complicated and constantly changing. If you are facing criminal charges, you should immediately contact our team of experienced former prosecutors to schedule a free case review with one of our expert criminal defense attorneys. A complete understanding of criminal law by your attorney is crucial to your defense. Your rights and freedoms are in jeopardy, and you owe it to yourself to act. We are available to provide immediate assistance and further counsel on your case at 862-315-7929.

No aspect of this attorney advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.