New Jersey Appellate Division Decision – Criminal Law

On February 7, 2024, the New Jersey Appellate Division decided State of New Jersey v. Khalil H. Haskins, 477 N.J. Super. 630 (App. Div. 2024), in which it addressed the legality of a warrantless search following a vehicle stop based on the suspicion that the tinted windows violated the Motor Vehicle Code. The Appellate Division vacated the trial judge’s order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found during the warrantless search and remanded the case for reconsideration based on the newly established legal standards in State v. Smith, 251 N.J. 244 (2022).

Facts and Procedural History of the New Jersey Appellate Division Decision

On January 19, 2021, a law enforcement officer observed defendant Khalil H. Haskins driving a vehicle with “heavily tinted” front and back windows on both the driver and passenger sides. The officer stopped the car based on his belief that the tinted windows violated the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Code, and conducted a warrantless search. The officer discovered marijuana, a loaded handgun, and drug paraphernalia in the car, and suspected heroin on Haskins.

The trial court denied Haskins’ motion to suppress the physical evidence seized during the warrantless search, The trial court, relying on State v. Cohen, 347 N.J. Super. 375 (App. Div. 2002), found that the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe the windows were illegally tinted. Haskins later pleaded guilty to charges of fourth-degree possession of a defaced firearm and second-degree unlawful possession of a weapon. Thereafter, he appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress, arguing the stop of his vehicle was unlawful because the State failed to establish his car’s tinted windows violated the Motor Vehicle Code under the recent test set forth in State v. Smith, 251 N.J. 244 (2022).

Legal Issue – The Validity of the Traffic Stop in the New Jersey Appellate Division Decision

The primary legal issue in this New Jersey Appellate Division decision was whether the police officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant’s car based on the belief that its windows were unlawfully tinted. At the time of the stop in this case, the legal standard was established by State v. Cohen, 347 N.J. Super. 375 (App. Div. 2002), under which the State was required only to show that the officer reasonably believed a car’s windows were so darkly tinted as to obstruct the driver’s vision. The trial court applied this standard in denying the motion to suppress.

The New Jersey Supreme Court decided State v. Smith, 251 N.J. 244 (2022), on June 28, 2022, approximately four months after the trial court denied Haskins’ motion to suppress. The Supreme Court announced a new rule of law in Smith. The Court imposed a new obligation on the State, that is, the requirement to establish “that tinting on the front windshield or front side windows inhibited officers’ ability to clearly see the vehicle’s occupants or articles inside” when relying upon a tinted windows violation as a basis for reasonable suspicion. This new rule created a stricter burden for police officers stopping vehicles based on window tint violations.

Legal Issue – Retroactivity of Court Decisions in the New Jersey Appellate Division Decision

The Appellate Division applied the three-step analysis in determining whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Smith applied prospectively or retroactively. In applying that analysis, the Appellate Division found that Smith announced a new rule of law, the factors weighed in favor of retroactivity, and that “pipeline retroactivity,” as opposed to complete retroactivity was the most appropriate option. Thus, the Appellate Division held that Smith should apply to this case, and to all other cases on direct appeal when the decision was issued.

The Court’s Holding and Reasoning in the New Jersey Appellate Division Decision

The Appellate Division vacated the trial judge’s order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found during the warrantless search and remanded the case for reconsideration based on the newly established legal standards in State v. Smith, 251 N.J. 244 (2022). Because the trial court’s ruling did not consider whether the tinted windows prevented the law enforcement officer from clearly seeing inside the car, the Appellate Division remanded the case for a new hearing where the State would be required to present evidence in line with the Smith standard. The Appellate Division also directed that the new suppression hearing be held before a different judge, as the original trial judge had made credibility findings and might be committed to the prior decision.

Conclusion – Key Takeaways from the New Jersey Appellate Division Decision

The New Jersey Appellate Division’s decision underscores the importance of determining whether new law is applied prospectively or retroactively. The ruling in State v. Haskins clarifies that under the new standard set forth in State v Smith, the State must meet heightened requirements to justify vehicle stops based on tinted window Motor Vehicle violations. This decision will impact how New Jersey courts evaluate the validity of traffic stops based on a suspected tinted window violation.

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.