Denise Brown v. State of New Jersey (076656) (Cumberland County and Statewide)
165 A.3d 735
| N.J. | 2017Background
- In Nov. 2008 State Police, investigating a Cape May County home invasion, believed Denise Brown’s boyfriend had given her a stolen locket; detectives had probable cause to search Brown’s car and later obtained a warrant for the car.
- Detectives asked Brown, encountered outside her apartment, for consent to search her home for the locket; she refused and told them to get a warrant.
- Detectives offered Brown the choice to wait outside while officers secured the apartment or to enter while accompanied by police; Brown entered and Detective Steet accompanied her inside while Detective Eskridge went for a warrant.
- Officers remained in Brown’s apartment for several hours awaiting the warrant; Brown left for work mid-day; a warrant was later obtained and the apartment searched (no locket found).
- Brown sued under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act alleging violation of Article I, ¶7 (unreasonable searches/seizures); lower courts split on whether Detective Steet was entitled to qualified immunity; the Supreme Court of New Jersey ultimately considered whether the constitutional right was clearly established in 2008.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Detective Steet’s warrantless accompaniment into Brown’s home to “secure” it pending a warrant violated Article I, ¶7 | Brown: entry was warrantless, without exigency or consent, and was premised on police-created exigency after she refused consent | State: conduct is permissible under McArthur-style authority to prevent destruction of evidence and was reasonable police practice; thus not unlawful | The Court: the entry was inconsistent with Article I, ¶7 (officers may not insist on entering without warrant or consent to secure a dwelling) but did not decide constitutional violation for immunity purposes because right was not clearly established in 2008 |
| Whether the officer is entitled to qualified immunity under NJCRA | Brown: right was clearly established; refusal of consent cannot create exigency; therefore no immunity | State: McArthur and mixed precedent left the law ambiguous; officer reasonably relied on McArthur and department policy, so immunity applies | The Court: qualified immunity applies because New Jersey law had not clearly established the unlawfulness of securing a home from inside pending a warrant in 2008 |
| Whether McArthur justifies accompanying an occupant into a home or securing it from inside while obtaining a warrant | Brown: McArthur requires exigency and does not permit police-created exigency; it does not authorize forced accompaniment following a refused consent | State: McArthur (and some precedents) permits temporarily restricting or accompanying occupants to prevent destruction of evidence | The Court: McArthur is ambiguous on interior accompaniment and New Jersey had no clear controlling interpretation in 2008; McArthur cannot be read to clearly prohibit or permit the conduct for qualified-immunity purposes |
| Whether police-created exigency (telling occupant the object of search and relying on refusal) can justify entry | Brown: police-created exigency is invalid; invoking refusal cannot justify entry | State: argued they properly sought consent per Kentucky v. King and acted reasonably | The Court: police-created exigency cannot justify entry; informing Brown of the object and relying on her refusal was impermissible — but on immunity the officer reasonably relied on ambiguous law and training |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326 (U.S. 2001) (upheld temporarily preventing reentry pending a warrant where exigency existed; ambiguous on interior accompaniment)
- Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (U.S. 1984) (plurality/majority disagreement on lawfulness of officers occupying premises while seeking a warrant)
- Hutchins v. State, 116 N.J. 457 (N.J. 1989) (warrantless home entry requires consent or probable cause plus exigent circumstances)
- Frankel v. State, 179 N.J. 586 (N.J. 2004) (refusal to consent is not probative of wrongdoing and cannot justify warrantless entry)
- Wright v. State, 221 N.J. 456 (N.J. 2015) (officer should secure a residence from outside while obtaining a warrant; entered-at-landlord-request held unlawful)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (two-step qualified immunity framework: constitutional violation and clearly established law)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (courts may decide qualified immunity’s prongs in the most efficient order)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (qualified immunity protects officials unless they violate clearly established law)
- Morillo v. Torres, 222 N.J. 104 (N.J. 2015) (qualified immunity under NJCRA tracks federal standard; ambiguity can support immunity)