New Jersey Appellate Division Decision – Warrantless Vehicle Search

On March 7, 2024, the New Jersey Appellate Division decided State of New Jersey v. Robert A. Baker, 478 N.J. Super. 116 (App. Div. 2024), which affirmed the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless vehicle search. The Appellate Division held that the search was lawful under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.

Facts and Procedural History – Warrantless Vehicle Search

The case arose when a law enforcement officer observed defendant Robert A. Baker driving erratically, swerving out of his lane and making an illegal U-turn. The officer initiated a traffic stop and approached Baker’s vehicle. During the initial interaction, Baker failed to provide a driver’s license or vehicle documentation. During their second interaction the officer informed Baker that he was under arrest for an outstanding traffic warrant. At that point the officer noticed the faint odor of burnt marijuana emanating from the vehicle, but did not intend to search the vehicle. The officer searched Baker incident to arrest and found a large wad of cash, but no marijuana.

The officer assisted Baker into the back of the patrol car and informed him that dispatch had found a second outstanding warrant for a violation of probation. As they sat in the vehicle waiting for confirmation of the second warrant, the officer smelled a perceptible odor of raw marijuana on Baker’s person. The officer decided to search the vehicle at that point and found a large sum of cash in the center console and a backpack containing various types of controlled dangerous substances and baggies used for distribution.

The trial judge denied defendant’s motion to suppress, finding: the initial stop of the vehicle was based on a reasonable articulable suspicion of a motor vehicle violation; Baker’s arrest was valid due to the outstanding motor vehicle warrant; and the officer had detected a faint burnt odor inside the vehicle and the smell of raw marijuana on Baker, thereby furnishing him with probable cause to search the vehicle. Baker appealed.

Legal Issue of the Warrantless Vehicle Search

The primary legal issue on appeal was whether the warrantless vehicle search violated the Fourth Amendment and the New Jersey Constitution, which protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. Baker argued that there was no credible evidence that the officer smelled marijuana and that the circumstances were not unforeseeable or spontaneous as required for the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.

Probable Cause for the Warrantless Vehicle Search

The Appellate Division upheld the trial court’s finding that the officer’s testimony as to his detection of the marijuana odor was credible. The Appellate Division emphasized the deference it gives to trial courts on credibility determinations and concluded that the faint odor of burnt marijuana and the stronger odor of raw marijuana provided probable cause for the warrantless vehicle search. The Appellate Court noted that, at the time of the stop, the smell of marijuana was enough to establish probable cause for a warrantless search, a standard supported by State v. Walker, 213 N.J. 281 (2013) and State v. Nishina, 175 N.J. 502 (2003). The strength of the odor was not relevant for purposes of establishing probable cause.

Automobile Exception to the Warrant Requirement

The Appellate Division rejected Baker’s argument that the search did not arise from unforeseeable and spontaneous circumstances. The Appellate Division held that the probable cause arose during the traffic stop, a spontaneous and unforeseeable event. There were not two stops as argued by Baker, instead, the discovery of the second warrant and new smell emanating from Baker’s person permitted the officer to continue the investigation. The Appellate Court distinguished the case from other cases where officers conducted investigations for drugs over an extended period. Here, probable cause had developed during the routine traffic stop interactions, rendering the search lawful under the automobile exception, as articulated by the New Jersey Supreme Court in State v. Witt, 223 N.J. 409 (2015).

Conclusion – Warrantless Vehicle Search and Key Takeaways

In conclusion, the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision denying Baker’s motion to suppress. The ruling reaffirmed that marijuana odor, at the time of the stop, provided sufficient probable cause for a warrantless vehicle search under the automobile exception. The decision further clarified that probable cause in roadside stops must arise spontaneously and unforeseeably, a condition met in this case. This decision will continue to guide law enforcement on the application of the automobile exception in New Jersey.

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.