STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. RANDOLPH MCLEODÂ (13-07-0984 AND 13-07-0991, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0136-16T1

Background

Defendant Randolph McLeod (passenger) and co-defendant Edward Johnson IV (driver) stopped by Woodbridge police after officer observed driving behavior and tinted windows; officer followed into parking lot and activated body/camera recording.
Johnson approached officer, produced a bounty-hunter style ID, wore BDU pants, a ballistic vest embroidered "Sergeant Johnson," and had empty holsters; McLeod was similarly attired and handed the officer a phone; both gave inconsistent descriptions of their roles (bail bondsman / fugitive recovery / bounty hunters).
Officers discovered outstanding warrants for both men; backup arrived and officers discussed obtaining consent to search the vehicle; Detective Yanak attended and commented that most bounty hunters are not allowed to carry guns unless they have paperwork.
Johnson consented to a vehicle search; officers found firearms, hollow-point bullets, a stun gun, large-capacity magazines, and other items; consent's voluntariness was not contested.
At suppression hearing, trial court found consent voluntary but suppressed the evidence, concluding officers lacked the reasonable and articulable suspicion (under State v. Carty) to request consent and characterized Yanak's comment as a mere "hunch."
Appellate division reversed, holding the totality of circumstances — furtive driving, tinted windows, inconsistent statements about identity/employment, dress and empty holsters, outstanding warrants, and officers' experience — provided the objective reasonable and articulable suspicion to seek consent to search.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers had reasonable and articulable suspicion to request consent to search the vehicle under Carty	Officers had objective, experience-based grounds (driving, tinted windows, nervous, inconsistent IDs, empty holsters, warrants) supporting reasonable suspicion to request consent	Yanak's comment was a "hunch" and the facts (clothing, empty holsters, nervousness) did not rise to reasonable and articulable suspicion	Reversed: court held the totality of circumstances supplied an objective reasonable and articulable suspicion justifying the consent request
Whether Detective Yanak's statement was mere speculation or constituted permissible experience-based inference supporting suspicion	Yanak's statement reflected knowledge/experience about bounty hunters' carrying habits and was not pure speculation	Characterized by trial court as an unsupported presentiment	Appellate court treated Yanak's remark as experience-based, not a baseless hunch, and therefore probative of suspicion
Whether the stop/search framework (traffic stop plus consent) required suppression absent probable cause	State argued Carty requires only reasonable suspicion before asking for consent; consent was voluntary so evidence admissible	Defendant argued the stop had evolved into a suspicionless consent search, requiring suppression under Carty	Appellate court applied Carty but found reasonable suspicion present; consent search lawful and evidence admissible
Whether trial court erred in factual findings and legal conclusions	State argued trial court mischaracterized testimony and erred legally in applying Carty	Defendant argued trial court correctly found lack of reasonable suspicion	Reversed: appellate court deferred to credibility findings where applicable but reviewed legal conclusions de novo and found the trial court erred legally

Key Cases Cited

State v. Carty, 170 N.J. 632 (developed reasonable-and-articulable-suspicion requirement for consent searches after traffic stops)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (consent is an exception to the warrant requirement; voluntariness standard)
State v. Stovall, 170 N.J. 346 (prior officer experience may contribute to reasonable suspicion)
State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224 (reasonable suspicion is an objective, lower-than-probable-cause standard)
State v. Gonzales, 227 N.J. 77 (appellate review standards for suppression hearing factual findings)