STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. NATHAN CRAFT (12-03-0551, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1219-14T2

Officer stopped defendant's vehicle after a license-plate check showed the registered owner's license was suspended.
Officer smelled marijuana, asked defendant to exit, and defendant admitted smoking earlier; officer requested and obtained consent to pat-down, finding and returning a wad of cash (~$8,000).
Officer presented a written consent-to-search form; defendant refused to sign but verbally consented to a search, saying he did not want police to take his money.
During the search officers found 85 grams of cocaine in the backseat; defendant was arrested, cash later seized, and he gave a videotaped statement.
At the suppression hearing the officer testified he informed defendant of the right to refuse; defendant testified on videotape that he consented but refused to sign because he feared the form permitted seizure of his cash and believed officers would search regardless.
Trial judge found the stop and subsequent search lawful, concluded consent was knowing and voluntary, and denied suppression; defendant pled guilty and appealed the denial of suppression.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether consent to search was knowing and voluntary	State: Officer advised right to refuse; defendant verbally consented despite refusing to sign; consent therefore valid	Craft: Refused to sign, misunderstood form language, conditioned consent (no seizure of cash), and believed officers would search regardless — consent not voluntary	Court: Consent was knowing and voluntary; refusal to sign and subjective belief about coercion did not negate valid consent
Whether officer lawfully initiated stop and investigation	State: Plate check showing suspended license and odor of marijuana provided reasonable suspicion/grounds for stop and investigation	Craft: (implicit) stop/search invalid to vitiate consent	Court: Stop justified by suspended-license registration and odor of marijuana justified further investigative steps and search request
Whether scope/limitation (no seizure of cash) negated consent	State: Unwillingness to surrender cash did not limit unequivocal consent to search vehicle	Craft: Conditioned consent by expressly saying police could not take his money	Court: Condition did not limit consent to search; cash seizure resulted from arrest/search incident to arrest, not consent

State v. Donis, 157 N.J. 44 (discusses validity of investigatory stops following license-plate inquiries)
State v. Carty, 170 N.J. 632 (odor of marijuana as reasonable suspicion to investigate)
State v. Domicz, 188 N.J. 285 (consent to search standards — knowing and voluntary analysis)
State v. King, 44 N.J. 346 (factors to assess coercion in consent searches)
State v. Koedatich, 112 N.J. 225 (consent is factual inquiry judged from circumstances)
State v. Santana, 215 N.J. Super. 63 (scope of consent limited by its terms)
State v. Johnson, 68 N.J. 349 (a defendant’s acknowledgment of choice relevant to voluntariness)
State v. Binns, 222 N.J. Super. 583 (subjective belief of coercion does not invalidate otherwise voluntary consent)
State v. Gamble, 218 N.J. 412 (standard of appellate review on suppression rulings)
State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224 (deference to trial court factual findings on suppression)
State v. Hubbard, 222 N.J. 249 (plenary review of legal conclusions on suppression)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warnings and custodial interrogation)