IN THE MATTER OF JOHN HUGATE, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONÂ (CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION)
A-1687-15T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jul 17, 2017Background
- At ~9:00 p.m. police observed Phitts driving a minivan stopped in a no-parking zone and speaking on a cell phone; officers initiated a traffic stop.
- Officer Opaleski saw the corner of a wax fold with lettering in the vehicle's center console and observed signs the driver was impaired (constricted pupils, heavy breathing, slow movements).
- Officers ordered Phitts out; a pat-down yielded no weapons. During the encounter Opaleski observed a whitish-yellow powder under Phitts’ nostril.
- Opaleski concluded, based on training and experience, the wax fold and powder were consistent with heroin packaging and impairment; he decided to arrest for driving while suspended and possession of drug paraphernalia.
- Before a formal arrest was completed, Opaleski searched Phitts and found nine packets of heroin in his jacket pocket; Opaleski also recovered additional wax folds from the vehicle console.
- Trial court denied suppression; Phitts pleaded guilty to third-degree possession and appealed the suppression ruling.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Phitts' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the wax fold in the console could be seized or justify further action (plain view/probable cause) | Officer’s training/experience made it immediately apparent the wax fold was drug paraphernalia; totality of circumstances gave probable cause | The corner of the wax fold was intrinsically innocent and not immediately identifiable as contraband; plain-view seizure unjustified | Court upheld: officer’s experience plus surrounding facts made the fold indicia of drug paraphernalia and supported probable cause |
| Whether the pat-down/search of Phitts and seizure of heroin were lawful (search incident to arrest) | There was probable cause to arrest for possession of drug paraphernalia before or at time of search; search was incident to lawful arrest | Search was unlawful (pat-down unjustified); evidence obtained as fruit of illegal search must be suppressed | Court upheld: even if some observations came during pat-down, independent probable cause existed before/at search so search incident to lawful arrest was valid |
| Whether statements/admissions about recent drug use required suppression (Miranda) | Arrest/search were supported by facts independent of any post-stop statements; statements did not supply the probable cause for arrest/search | Statements were elicited without Miranda warnings and any evidence flowing from them should be suppressed | Court held statements did not supply probable cause; questioning occurred after search began and suppression not warranted |
| Validity of later entry into vehicle and seizure of additional wax folds | Officer lawfully inspected/seized items in plain view when he went into the car to retrieve glasses; additional folds were in plain view | Entry was pretextual and improper; vehicle seizure fruits should be suppressed | Court upheld: officer was entitled to seize the initially observed fold in plain view and additional folds seen then were also lawfully seized |
Key Cases Cited
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (search incident to lawful arrest doctrine)
- Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (plain-view seizure where officer’s training/experience identifies packaging as narcotics-related)
- State v. Demeter, 124 N.J. 374 (container that is intrinsically innocent does not by itself support probable cause)
- State v. Johnson, 171 N.J. 192 (plain-view and container analyses; discussion of inadvertent discovery)
- State v. O'Neal, 190 N.J. 601 (probable cause/right-to-arrest analysis; search timing relative to arrest)