STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MELVIN R. DOUGLASÂ (14-04-1146, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2047-15T1

Background

In Dec. 2013 Camden County police, monitoring an "Eye in the Sky" camera at a tactical center, observed two men (later identified as Douglas and Council) repeatedly approach stopped vehicles in a neighborhood known for open-air drug sales. Officers reported 7–8 similar short interactions over about an hour.
Officer Fesi (remote surveillance) relayed clothing descriptions and observed the repeated pattern (approach, brief interaction, leave, return with an object) but could not see faces or a clear exchange due to a tree obstructing the view.
Officers Ramirez and Rivera were dispatched, stopped the men based on the descriptions, and arrested them for loitering to commit a drug offense (N.J.S.A. 2C:33-2.1). A pat-down/search incident to arrest produced ~21 small bags of marijuana from Douglas’s sleeve.
Douglas pled guilty to fourth-degree possession with intent to distribute (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1)) and third-degree distribution within 1000 feet of school property (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7); he was sentenced to five years with two years parole ineligibility.
On appeal he argued (1) N.J.S.A. 2C:33-2.1 is unconstitutionally vague/overbroad and authorizes arrests on less than probable cause, (2) officers lacked probable cause to arrest so the search was unlawful and the marijuana should have been suppressed, and (3) the custodial arrest was an abuse of discretion for a disorderly persons offense. The trial court denied suppression; the Appellate Division affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Douglas)	Held
1. Constitutionality of N.J.S.A. 2C:33-2.1 (drug-loitering statute)	Statute targets specific conduct tied to drug distribution and is not a general loitering ban; it gives adequate standards.	Statute is vague/overbroad, infringes liberty to loiter, and allows arrests without probable cause.	Statute is constitutional as applied; it targets conduct manifesting intent to distribute, not innocent loitering.
2. Probable cause for arrest based on remote surveillance	Officers had a well-grounded, objective basis (repeated, consistent pattern in known drug area; matching clothing descriptions) to believe criminal activity was occurring.	Remote video did not show faces or an actual money/object exchange; observations were insufficient for probable cause.	Totality of circumstances (repeated patterns, locale, corroboration by descriptions) established probable cause to arrest.
3. Admissibility of evidence found incident to arrest	Search incident to lawful arrest uncovered marijuana; arrest was valid so evidence admissible.	If arrest was unlawful, search and seizure were unconstitutional and evidence should be suppressed.	Because arrest was supported by probable cause, the search was lawful and evidence was admissible.
4. Claim that judge erred by not viewing full one-hour video	State: defendant declined further playback and waived error; court heard and corroborated key portions.	Douglas: failure to view full video prejudiced the suppression ruling.	Claim rejected as invited/error by defendant; he was given chances and declined to continue playback.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Gibson, 218 N.J. 277 (N.J. 2014) (articulates Fourth Amendment arrest/probable-cause principles and discusses loitering concepts)
City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (U.S. 1999) (general loitering statutes may be unconstitutionally vague and infringe liberty to loiter)
Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399 (U.S. 1966) (vagueness doctrine under Due Process Clause)
Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (U.S. 1972) (struck down broad vagrancy/loitering statutes as vague and arbitrary)
State v. Crawley, 90 N.J. 241 (N.J. 1982) (New Jersey legislative history reflects no general loitering proscription; courts must construe penal statutes narrowly)