CARLOS MOORE VS. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD(NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD), A-4822-15T1

Background

On November 29, 2013, Elizabeth Police executed a warrant at defendant G.A.’s apartment; officers stopped G.A. in the parking lot and escorted him to the unit.
Detective Jose Torres obtained and executed the warrant and testified he heard officers knock but did not hear an announcement; he could not see whether the door was opened by G.A.’s grandmother or with G.A.’s key.
Officers ultimately entered, found and seized 63 baggies of cocaine, a defaced handgun, ammunition, and other items; G.A. was indicted on multiple drug and weapons charges.
G.A. and his 77‑year‑old grandmother (with a Creole interpreter) testified they heard no knock or announcement, the police appeared in the doorway unexpectedly, G.A. was stripped and handcuffed, and no contraband was seized (grandmother said officers gave her a key and a piece of paper when they left).
The suppression judge credited Torres and discredited G.A. and his grandmother but ruled the officers failed to both knock and announce before entry and that the failure rendered the search unreasonable; she granted suppression.
The State appealed and the Appellate Division reversed, holding the record did not establish an unreasonable entry because the door may have been opened peaceably (by the grandmother or a key) immediately after a knock, making announcement impractical and the entry objectively reasonable.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether suppression was required because officers failed to comply with knock‑and‑announce before entry	State: entry was peaceable and objectively reasonable; any failure to announce was harmless because door was opened immediately or with a key	G.A.: officers did not announce or knock and thus executed the warrant unlawfully, requiring suppression	Reversed suppression: entry may have been peaceable (opened by occupant or key after a knock); defendant did not carry burden to prove invalid execution
Whether use of defendant’s key to gain entry (if used) violates warrant conditions	State: using key is a peaceable means to enter, reduces property damage and risk, and can justify lack of announcement	G.A.: use of key could amount to improper amendment of warrant conditions and avoid required announcement	Held: use of key can be objectively reasonable and peaceable; does not automatically require suppression
Applicability of knock‑and‑announce exceptions (danger, evidence destruction, flight, unoccupied premises)	State: rapid, peaceable opening made announcement impractical; objective reasonableness controls	G.A.: no exception shown; police should have announced	Held: fact‑sensitive analysis; record ambiguous and supports reasonableness without suppression
Whether Rule 3:5‑7(g) excuses technical irregularities in execution absent bad faith	State: the rule counsels against invalidating warrants for technical execution irregularities	G.A.: execution was unlawful and not merely technical	Held: Rule 3:5‑7(g) supports upholding the search where no bad faith and entry was objectively reasonable

Key Cases Cited

State v. Gonzales, 227 N.J. 77 (discusses standard of deference to trial court factual findings)
State v. Rockford, 213 N.J. 424 (factual findings sustained if supported by credible evidence)
State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1 (burden shifts to defendant to show illegality in execution)
State v. Watts, 223 N.J. 503 (no‑knock entry and use of keys can be reasonable)
State v. Vargas, 213 N.J. 301 (appellate review standards)
State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146 (deference owed to trial court’s opportunity to assess witnesses)
State v. Handy, 206 N.J. 39 (objective reasonableness governs manner of execution)
State v. Bruzzese, 94 N.J. 210 (objective‑reasonableness inquiry explained)
State v. Fair, 45 N.J. 77 (exceptions to knock‑and‑announce)
State v. Bilancio, 318 N.J. Super. 408 (unoccupied premises exception)
State v. Nunez, 333 N.J. Super. 42 (when knock‑and‑announce is suspended)
State v. Valencia, 93 N.J. 126 (burden to prove invalidity of search)
State v. Sullivan, 169 N.J. 204 (defendant bears burden to establish wrongfulness of execution)
State v. Broom‑Smith, 406 N.J. Super. 228 (Rule 3:5‑7(g) and reluctance to invalidate warrants for technical defects)