140 A.3d 524
N.J.2016Background
- Police obtained a no‑knock warrant to search 1256 Park Boulevard for narcotics and “all persons present reasonably believed to be connected to said property and investigation.”
- Affidavit reported continuous drug sales from the residence and that a confidential informant observed armed individuals inside.
- Trooper Moore was posted several houses from the house to secure the street during the search; another officer radioed that “two guys were leaving the residence” and were “approaching” a gray Pontiac.
- When Moore arrived he found Chad Bivins and his cousin seated in a gray Pontiac parked about five or six houses down; Moore did not see them leave the house or enter the car.
- Officers removed and searched both men and found multiple bags of cocaine; Bivins moved to suppress, the trial court denied the motion, Bivins pleaded guilty, and the Appellate Division reversed.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the Appellate Division: because the State failed to prove Bivins had been present at the house when the warrant was executed, the all‑persons‑present warrant did not authorize the off‑premises search.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an all‑persons‑present warrant authorized searching individuals found off the premises shortly after execution began | The warrant’s language authorizing search of “all persons present” extends to persons who depart the scene; probable cause to search the house and its occupants did not dissipate because subjects left the property | The warrant covered only those present at 1256 Park; Bivins was off‑premises and not shown to be one of the occupants, so the warrant did not authorize his search | Held: Warrant did not authorize search of Bivins because State failed to prove he was present at the residence when the warrant was executed; search was therefore warrantless and unsupported by probable cause |
| Reliance on Bailey v. United States to limit scope of searches/detentions | State argued Bailey is inapplicable because it involved detention authority, not an all‑persons‑present warrant | Bivins argued officers exceeded the warrant; App. Div. relied on Bailey to hold detention/search beyond the immediate vicinity unwarranted | Held: Court declined to base decision on Bailey; Bailey limits detention under Summers but does not control where an all‑persons‑present warrant authorizes searches if presence at the scene is proven |
| Burden of proof at suppression hearing as to whether a searched person was covered by warrant | State argued warrant’s language sufficed if officers reasonably believed occupants fled into the car | Defendant argued State bore the burden to prove the searched person was among those present at the premises; trial court improperly shifted burden | Held: The case turned on the evidentiary record; State failed to present adequate proof linking Bivins to the house, so the search could not be sustained |
| Admissibility of hearsay statements relaying that occupants were leaving the house | State relied on radio report to Moore that two men were leaving and approaching a car | Defendant stressed the reporting officer did not testify; the claim that people were “approaching” a car did not establish they entered it | Held: Hearsay could have been admissible at suppression if the reporting officer’s observations had been relayed through a testifying witness, but no evidentiary link established Bivins was one of the departing occupants |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. De Simone, 60 N.J. 319 (1972) (approves warrants to search “all persons present” when location and criminal operation make presence a sufficient identifier)
- Bailey v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1031 (2013) (limits the authority to detain persons under Summers to the immediate vicinity of the premises being searched)
- Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981) (permitted detention of occupants during execution of a search warrant to protect safety and facilitate execution)