State of New Jersey v. Ramier A. Dunbar, 85 A.3d 421

Background

In the early morning after a radio report of "shots fired," two uniformed Jersey City officers arrived within seconds to find a dispersing crowd; defendant Ramier Dunbar alone appeared nervous and watched the officers.
Dunbar briefly ducked into an alley, re-emerged, walked away while repeatedly looking back at the marked patrol car, and did not answer an officer's initial question about hearing shots.
When Officer Perez exited the patrol car and told Dunbar to stop, Dunbar ran; while fleeing he reached into his waistband and tossed a handgun to the ground; officers recovered the gun and later found marijuana on Dunbar.
Dunbar was indicted on counts including unlawful possession of a weapon, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, possession of a hollow-point bullet, resisting arrest, and obstruction.
The trial court granted Dunbar’s suppression motion and excluded all evidence seized; the State appealed challenging suppression and arguing the stop was a lawful field inquiry/ investigatory stop, the gun was abandoned, and other seizures were lawful.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers had reasonable articulable suspicion to detain Dunbar (Terry stop)	Officers cite proximity to a recent "shots fired" call, Dunbar's furtive movements, alley entry, nervousness, looking back, and flight as creating reasonable suspicion	Dunbar relied on precedent (State v. Williams) arguing behavior was innocent (leaving scene) and insufficient for a Terry stop	Court held totality of circumstances (reported shooting + defendant’s conduct and flight) provided reasonable and articulable suspicion to justify investigatory stop
Whether evidence (gun) was lawfully seized as abandoned property	State argued gun was abandoned when thrown during flight and thus lawfully recovered	Dunbar argued seizure flowed from an unlawful stop and recovery was tainted	Because stop was lawful, discarding the gun during flight was properly seized and not excluded
Whether subsequent arrest and seizure of drugs were lawful incident to arrest	State argued arrest flowed from lawful stop and recovered contraband was properly seized incident to arrest	Dunbar argued suppression of initial evidence requires suppression of subsequent evidence	Court held arrest and related seizures were lawful following a valid investigatory stop and discovery of the weapon
Whether Williams controls to require suppression	Dunbar relied on Williams (bicycle case) to distinguish conduct as innocent and insufficient	State distinguished facts from Williams: here there was an active shooting report and more suspicious conduct and flight	Court distinguished Williams and reversed suppression, finding Williams inapplicable

Key Cases Cited

State v. Williams, 410 N.J. Super. 549 (App. Div. 2009) (suppression affirmed where mere departure on bicycle and hand in pocket insufficient for stop)
State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224 (2007) (standard of review for suppression findings; State bears burden to prove exception to warrant requirement)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (police may conduct brief investigatory stops upon reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot and suspect may be armed)
State v. Pineiro, 181 N.J. 13 (2004) (Terry-type stop requires specific, articulable facts supporting reasonable suspicion)
State v. Stovall, 170 N.J. 346 (2002) (aggregate innocent factors can support reasonable suspicion)
State v. Nishina, 175 N.J. 502 (2003) (totality of circumstances analysis for reasonable suspicion)
State v. Crawley, 187 N.J. 440 (2006) (flight in context of violent crime report can create concern suspect is armed and dangerous)
State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146 (1964) (deference afforded to trial court factual findings on suppression)