STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LUIS A. GONZALEZ (17-10-0674, CAPE MAY COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0878-19

In June 2017 officers observed Defendant Luis Gonzalez and another man leave the boardwalk parking lot and get into a blue Hyundai Sonata; the other man returned to the boardwalk and was not identified.
Officer James Stevens (Street Crimes Unit) told Officer Andrew Kolimaga to stop the Sonata several blocks away; the State asserted the stop was based on suspected drug activity observed by Stevens and illegal window tint.
After the stop officers allegedly smelled raw marijuana, detained Gonzalez, summoned a K‑9 that alerted to narcotics, and impounded the car; a later warrant search uncovered ~1,900 individually packaged bags of heroin or meth, a scale, and packaging materials.
At the suppression hearing the State offered only a police report and the warrant affidavit (no live testimony); Defendant testified and disputed both that a drug transaction occurred and that his windows were up when stopped.
The trial court denied suppression relying on the report and affidavit (and some of Defendant’s testimony about windows) without assessing witness credibility or permitting cross‑examination of the officers who made/initiated the stop.
The Appellate Division vacated the denial and remanded for a full evidentiary hearing, holding that disputed material facts required live testimony and cross‑examination and that a later warrant cannot retroactively justify a challenged warrantless seizure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Legality of the traffic stop (reasonable articulable suspicion)	Stop was justified because Stevens observed a drug transaction and the vehicle had illegal tint	No drug transaction occurred; windows were down before the stop so tint could not be the basis	Disputed material facts about why the stop occurred required live testimony; remand for evidentiary hearing
Burden to prove lawfulness of pre‑warrant seizure	Warrant affidavit and police report establish basis for the stop and subsequent search	Later‑obtained warrant cannot retroactively validate an earlier warrantless seizure; State must prove the seizure was lawful at suppression hearing	State bears burden to prove legitimacy of the seizure; affidavits/reports alone insufficient where facts are disputed
Adequacy of suppression hearing procedure	Admission of report and affidavit was adequate for ruling	The absence of live witnesses deprived Defendant of opportunity to cross‑examine and challenge hearsay statements	When material facts are disputed, the State must present witnesses so defense can cross‑examine; court must hear testimony
Use/weight of hearsay police reports and affidavits	Hearsay admitted and relied upon by trial court	Hearsay should not supplant firsthand testimony when credibility and factual disputes exist	Hearsay may be admissible but its weight is limited; trial court improperly relied on unverified reports without testimony

State v. Atwood, 232 N.J. 433 (N.J. 2018) (State must prove legitimacy of pre‑warrant seizure; warrants do not retroactively validate earlier warrantless stops)
State v. Scriven, 226 N.J. 20 (N.J. 2016) (officer must have reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify a vehicle stop)
State v. Sloane, 193 N.J. 423 (N.J. 2008) (vehicle stops require reasonable, articulable suspicion under state and federal constitutions)
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (standard for challenging truthfulness of factual assertions in a warrant affidavit)
State v. Watts, 223 N.J. 503 (N.J. 2015) (hearsay may be admissible at suppression hearings but the court must assess its weight)
State v. Keyes, 184 N.J. 541 (N.J. 2005) (statements from confidential informants in police reports are hearsay)