New Jersey Search Warrant Law: Key Takeaways from State of New Jersey v. Jorge L. Gomez

New Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division Decision – New Jersey Search Warrant Law

On February 19, 2025, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, decided State of New Jersey v. Jorge L. Gomez, ___ N.J. Super ___ (App. Div. 2025), which addressed an issue of first impression, that is, whether the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act (CREAMMA), codified in relevant part at N.J.S.A. 24:6I-31 to -56; and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5 to -10, requires police to issue a written warning before obtaining a search warrant for a first offense of marijuana distribution and whether a probable cause determination requires proof that a person is distributing more than one ounce of marijuana. The court concluded that the adoption of CREAMMA did not alter how police conduct investigations of those illegally distributing marijuana or alter the probable cause requirement for obtaining search warrants and upheld the defendant’s conviction.

Facts and Procedural History: How the Case Relates to New Jersey Search Warrant Law

The case arose after New Jersey State Police (NJSP) investigated the defendant Jorge L. Gomez for suspected marijuana distribution in Trenton. A confidential source (CS) informed the NJSP that Gomez was selling marijuana, leading to two controlled drug purchases at his residence. Surveillance further revealed behavior indicative of drug transactions.

The police obtained a search warrant based on the CS’s tip, prior controlled buys, and Gomez’s criminal history, which included convictions for credit card theft, aggravated assault, conspiracy to commit murder, and distribution of synthetic cannabinoid. The search of Gomez’s apartment resulted in the seizure of five pounds of marijuana, a firearm, ammunition, drug paraphernalia, and electronic devices.

Legal Issue: Was the Search Warrant Valid Under New Jersey Search Warrant Law?

Gomez was indicted for multiple drug and firearm offenses. He moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the search warrant was improperly issued because the police had not  issued a written warning as required under CREAMMA for a first-time offense involving the distribution of one ounce or less of marijuana. He also contended that the warrant lacked probable cause since the application did not specify the quantity of marijuana involved in the controlled buys. The trial court denied the motion, finding that probable cause was established and that CREAMMA did not alter the standard for obtaining search warrants in drug distribution cases.

Appellate Review: The Court’s Interpretation of New Jersey Search Warrant Law

On appeal, Gomez reiterated his arguments that the absence of a written warning precluded the issuance of the search warrant and that the warrant application lacked probable cause because it failed to specify whether he was distributing more than one ounce of marijuana.

The Appellate Division rejected both claims. It held that while CREAMMA decriminalized certain aspects of marijuana possession and distribution, it did not eliminate law enforcement’s ability to investigate illegal marijuana sales or alter the requirements for obtaining a search warrant. The appellate court emphasized that New Jersey search warrant law does not require a written warning before seeking a warrant for marijuana distribution and that the search warrant was supported by ample evidence, including controlled buys, surveillance, and Gomez’s prior drug-related conviction.

Court’s Reasoning: How CREAMMA Affects New Jersey Search Warrant Law

The appellate court reasoned that CREAMMA’s intent was to regulate the legal cannabis market, not to impede law enforcement’s ability to investigate and prosecute unregulated marijuana sales. It clarified that the requirement for a written warning before prosecution for first-time distribution of one ounce or less applied to charging decisions, not to the probable cause analysis for search warrants. Additionally, the court found that probable cause for a search does not require proving a specific quantity of marijuana in advance, as the standard only requires a reasonable belief that evidence of a crime will be found.

Conclusion: Key Takeaways on New Jersey Search Warrant Law

The Appellate Division’s decision in State of New Jersey v. Jorge L. Gomez reinforces that New Jersey search warrant law remains unchanged despite CREAMMA’s amendments to marijuana-related offenses. The court made clear that police do not need to issue a written warning before obtaining a search warrant for marijuana distribution and that probable cause does not require proof of distribution exceeding one ounce. This ruling of first impression underscores law enforcement’s continued authority to investigate illegal marijuana sales and obtain search warrants based on standard probable cause principles.

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.