STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DEE THOMAS (13-10-1272, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-5187-14T2

Mercer County detectives used a confidential informant (CI) who had purchased cocaine from defendant “Cork” and identified him from a motor-vehicle photograph; the CI provided addresses and vehicle descriptions.
Police coordinated three controlled buys where officers surveilled the CI and observed defendant travel between a residential address and a second address where the CI purchased cocaine; the buys yielded cocaine.
After the third buy, detectives obtained warrants for defendant, two addresses, and two vehicles; searches recovered cocaine, packaging materials, scales, cash, ammunition, and car documents in defendant’s name.
Defendant waived Miranda rights and admitted ownership of the drugs and intent to distribute.
Defendant moved to suppress, claiming material falsehoods and lack of probable cause; the trial court denied the motion.
Defendant pled guilty to first-degree possession with intent to distribute, was sentenced to 10 years with 4 years parole ineligibility, appealed the suppression denial and the additional parole-ineligibility time.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of search warrants / need for Franks hearing	Warrant affidavit, supported by CI identification and multiple controlled buys corroborated by surveillance, established probable cause and no material falsehoods that would require a Franks hearing.	Affidavit contained material misstatements and omissions (inaccurate physical description, failure to note second address was a gambling house, unreliable officer observations) warranting a Franks hearing and suppression.	Court affirmed denial of Franks hearing and suppression motion: CI identification, controlled buys, and corroborating surveillance supplied sufficient probable cause; alleged inaccuracies were not material or would not defeat probable cause.
Parole-ineligibility period	State relied on plea agreement and recommended sentence imposing 4 years parole ineligibility.	Four years exceeded the statutory minimum for a 10-year sentence (which requires between one-third and one-half of the term), and judge failed to state reasons for imposing the extra time.	Court remanded for the sentencing judge to state reasons explaining imposition of a four-year parole-ineligibility period (affirming conviction otherwise).

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (establishes standard for challenge to warrant based on deliberate or reckless false statements)
State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224 (2007) (standard of review for suppression motion factual findings)
State v. Keyes, 184 N.J. 541 (2005) (presumption of warrant validity and informant reliability analysis)
State v. Jones, 179 N.J. 377 (2004) (totality of circumstances—veracity and basis of knowledge of informant)
State v. Sullivan, 169 N.J. 204 (2001) (probable cause and controlled buy context)
State v. Howery, 80 N.J. 563 (Franks threshold and proof requirements)
State v. Goldberg, 214 N.J. Super. 401 (App. Div. 1986) (inaccurate descriptive detail does not require hearing if remaining facts support probable cause)
State v. Smith, 155 N.J. 83 (1998) (limitations of prior reliability instances and informant reliability analysis)
State v. Zutic, 155 N.J. 103 (1998) (Gates totality approach to informant tips)
State v. Novembrino, 105 N.J. 95 (1987) (consideration of informant veracity and basis of knowledge)