STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DARRYL A. ROUNDTREEÂ (16-04-1114, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-0178-16T2

Background

On Jan. 1, 2016, two Brooklawn police officers observed Maurice Peace walking from the rear of a 24-hour diner toward a parked BMW; the officers found Peace’s presence in that area "suspicious."
Officers entered the parking lot, parked perpendicular behind the BMW, exited the patrol car, identified themselves, and told Peace to stop and asked questions. Peace said he had gotten a ride in the BMW and was waiting for another ride.
Officer Nicholas approached the BMW (plainclothes, gun holstered) and knocked on the passenger-side window; a passenger (Owens) opened the door and Nicholas smelled burnt marijuana.
Nicholas ordered occupants to sit still, opened the rear door, and observed Roundtree kick a loaded .38 under the front seat; all occupants were arrested; counterfeit currency and a grinder were later found in searches; no marijuana was recovered.
The trial court suppressed all evidence as the product of an unlawful investigative detention and seizure of the BMW; the State appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed, adopting the trial judge’s bench opinion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendants' Argument	Held
1) Was the initial encounter with Maurice Peace a field inquiry or an investigative stop?	It was a noncoercive field inquiry — officer merely approached to ask questions.	The command to "stop" and the circumstances made it an investigative detention.	Investigative stop: court found ordering Peace to stop converted the encounter into a seizure without reasonable suspicion.
2) Was the BMW and its occupants lawfully approached/seized independently of the Peace stop?	The knock on the passenger window was an unrelated, routine field inquiry to the parked car.	The BMW seizure flowed from the unlawful detention of Peace; officers’ positioning and actions also seized the car.	Not independent: the BMW was effectively seized; approach was part of the same investigatory detention and lacked reasonable suspicion.
3) Were the gun and other evidence admissible under independent-source or inevitable-discovery doctrines?	Even if initial actions were improper, discovery of contraband would have occurred by lawful means.	Evidence was tainted by the unlawful stop and seizure; no independent basis existed.	Rejected: no record support that police would have discovered the evidence absent the unlawful detention. Evidence suppressed.
4) Was suppression required as fruit of the poisonous tree?	The evidence was not fruit of any unlawful act and should not be suppressed.	The evidence was tainted by the unlawful detention and seizure of the BMW.	Held: suppression required; evidence (including gun and subsequent search results) suppressed as tainted.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Wilson, 178 N.J. 7 (2003) (distinguishes field inquiry from investigatory stop and requires further facts for lawful stop)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine)
State v. Shaw, 213 N.J. 398 (2012) (discusses suppression principles and taint analysis)
State v. Rodriguez, 172 N.J. 117 (2002) (evidence admissibility following Fourth Amendment violations)
State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224 (2007) (standard of appellate review for factual findings on suppression motions)
State v. Gamble, 218 N.J. 412 (2014) (deference to trial court factfinding on suppression)
State v. Hubbard, 222 N.J. 249 (2015) (plenary review of legal application to facts)
State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146 (1964) (rationale for deference to trial-court witness credibility)
State v. Davis, 104 N.J. 490 (1986) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for stop reasonableness)