STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. RASHAD S. SEARLESÂ (13-05-1239, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-4764-14T1

Background

Police affidavits described a CI who identified Searles as distributing heroin from two homes (Red Cedar St. and First Ave.) and arranged three controlled buys from him; surveillance showed Searles traveling from the target houses to conduct buys and returning afterward.
Affiant Detective Fox relied on CI information, prosecutor’s records linking Searles to the two addresses, and Searles’ criminal history (multiple arrests and several convictions, including prior CDS distribution) to seek "no-knock" warrants for both residences.
The warrants were issued with no-knock provisions; the Red Cedar Street warrant was executed at 5:03 a.m. and the First Avenue warrant by a separate team at 5:18 a.m.; Searles was arrested at Red Cedar and CDS was seized at both locations.
Searles moved to suppress, arguing the no-knock entries were unsupported; the trial court denied suppression. He pleaded guilty to second-degree possession with intent to distribute and was sentenced to an extended ten-year term with a 46-month parole disqualifier (concurrent to a parole-violation term).
On appeal Searles challenged (1) the validity of the no-knock warrants and (2) the excessiveness of his sentence; the Appellate Division affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Searles)	Held
Whether the no-knock warrants were supported by reasonable, particularized suspicion	Affidavit supplied specific facts (controlled buys, surveillance, defendant’s violent arrests/convictions, gang membership) that, under Johnson, established reasonable, particularized suspicion for no-knock entries	Warrants relied on generalized drug/weapon assertions and gang membership; moreover, arrest at Red Cedar obviated any danger at First Ave, so no-knock there was unnecessary	The court held the affidavit (particularly Searles’ violent arrest history and distribution convictions) gave sufficient, particularized suspicion for no-knock entries at both houses; separate teams and timed entries made the First Ave no-knock reasonable
Whether generalized assertions about destruction of drugs and weapons can justify no-knock warrants	Such generalizations are insufficient alone; but they can be supplemented by particularized facts	Argues the generalizations dominated the affidavit and were insufficient; gang claim was weakly supported	Court rejected reliance on generalities alone but found other particularized facts adequate under Johnson
Whether gang membership disclosure meaningfully supported no-knock suspicion	Gang affiliation can heighten risk of violence and support officer safety concerns	Contended informant disclosure was stale/unspecific and not decisive	Court treated gang information as a supportive factor but not essential; it did not rely on it as the dispositive basis
Whether the sentence (10 years, 46-month parole bar) was excessive	Sentence was within plea framework and justified by aggravating factors (risk of reoffense, criminal history, deterrence); judge reduced parole bar below plea term	Argued mitigating factors (employment/education, family hardship) warranted lower parole ineligibility	Court affirmed: judge properly found and weighed aggravating factors, reasonably rejected mitigating weight claimed by defendant, and the sentence was not manifestly unreasonable

Key Cases Cited

Johnson v. State, 168 N.J. 608 (2001) (announcing tripartite test for no‑knock entries)
Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006) (constitutional context for knock-and-announce protections)
Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (1997) (standard for no-knock exceptions)
State v. Vargas, 213 N.J. 301 (2013) (standard of appellate review of suppression rulings)
State v. Jones, 179 N.J. 377 (2004) (use of defendant’s violent arrest history to support no‑knock suspicion)
State v. Byrd, 198 N.J. 319 (2009) (gang retaliation and informant safety considerations)
State v. Maristany, 133 N.J. 299 (1993) (objective reasonableness governing police conduct in searches)
State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334 (1984) (appellate review framework for sentencing)
State v. Carey, 168 N.J. 413 (2001) (review of findings supporting aggravating/mitigating factors)
State v. Sainz, 107 N.J. 283 (1987) (reasonableness presumption for plea-agreement sentences)