A-111-13 State v. Thomas Shannon(074315), 120 A.3d 924

In 2009 Asbury Park Municipal Court issued an arrest warrant against defendant for unpaid fines; the fines (and thus the warrant) were vacated in April 2010 but the vacatur was not entered into the criminal database (ACS).
In October 2011 Officer Love arrested defendant after dispatch reported an outstanding warrant based on the database; neither officer nor dispatchers knew the warrant had been vacated 18 months earlier.
During transport and after removing defendant from the patrol car officers discovered suspected cocaine and seized $2,317; those items formed the basis for drug indictments.
Defendant moved to suppress the evidence as fruits of an unlawful arrest; the trial court granted suppression after re-opening the motion based on court-administration testimony that the warrant had been vacated.
The Appellate Division affirmed suppression (relying on Novembrino and Moore); the State appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court and the Court was equally divided, resulting in affirmance of the Appellate Division judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the arrest constitutional where officers relied on database showing an active warrant that had been judicially vacated?	Officer acted with objective reasonableness in relying on official database; reliance makes arrest constitutionally permissible.	Arrest was unlawful because no valid warrant or independent probable cause existed at the time of arrest.	Arrest was unlawful: an invalid (vacated) warrant cannot supply probable cause; officer’s good faith does not cure lack of a valid warrant.
Should the exclusionary rule apply to suppress evidence seized incident to that arrest (i.e., is a good-faith exception available)?	Exclusionary rule should not apply because suppression would not further deterrence or judicial integrity here; follow federal cases (Leon/Evans/Herring) that permit admission when reliance on records was objectively reasonable.	Exclusionary rule applies under New Jersey precedent (Novembrino); evidence must be excluded even if officers acted in good faith because state constitution affords broader protection and the rule also vindicates rights and judicial integrity.	Exclusionary rule applies under New Jersey law: Novembrino controls; subjective good faith of executing officers does not avoid suppression for an arrest lacking a valid warrant.

State v. Novembrino, 105 N.J. 95 (1987) (rejecting federal Leon good-faith exception under New Jersey Constitution)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (establishing federal good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995) (creating a categorical exception for clerical judicial errors in federal law)
Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (holding negligent police recordkeeping does not necessarily trigger suppression under federal law)
State v. Moore, 260 N.J. Super. 12 (App. Div. 1992) (suppressing fruits of arrest on a warrant that remained active in police records despite judicial vacatur)
State v. Handy, 206 N.J. 39 (2011) (applying objective-reasonableness standard and finding dispatcher conduct unreasonable)
State v. Diloreto, 180 N.J. 264 (2004) (applying community-caretaker doctrine; database error did not supply probable cause)
State v. Pitcher, 379 N.J. Super. 308 (App. Div. 2005) (database misinformation about license status can be an articulable fact supporting a stop, not a basis for automatic suppression)