STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANDRE T. LINDSEY(13-10-0922, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3024-14T3

Background

On July 22, 2013, Plainfield narcotics units stopped a BMW after an undercover detective reported a possible narcotics transaction; defendant Andre T. Lindsey was the driver, removed, handcuffed, and seated on a curb.
Sergeant Sylvester smelled raw marijuana, asked for registration/insurance (found in visor), and attempted the locked glove box; defendant said he had no problem with a search of the interior.
After an interior search yielded nothing, Sylvester asked Lindsey to sign a standard consent-to-search-trunk form; Lindsey was handcuffed when asked.
Sylvester told Lindsey calmly that if he did not sign, the car would be towed and held until a warrant could be obtained; Lindsey signed, then told Sylvester there was a gun and marijuana in the trunk.
The trunk was opened: officers found a handgun and marijuana; Lindsey was charged on multiple counts but pled guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm and fourth-degree possession of marijuana with intent to distribute; he appealed the denial of his suppression motion.
The trial judge denied suppression, finding Lindsey voluntarily and knowingly consented; the Appellate Division affirmed and remanded for correction of the Judgment of Conviction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lindsey's consent to search was voluntary and knowing	State: consent was voluntary—Lindsey signed form, admitted contents, and voluntarily assisted; officers’ statement about towing was not coercive	Lindsey: consent coerced by threat to tow and hold car until warrant obtained; handcuffed and under arrest when asked	Court: Consent was voluntary under totality of circumstances; towing statement not coercive; admission after signing corroborates voluntariness
Whether exigent circumstances justified warrantless search (under Pena‑Flores standard)	State: exigent circumstances (narcotics area, officers outnumbered by suspects risk, practical difficulties obtaining electronic warrant) justified warrantless search	Lindsey: officers should have obtained an electronic warrant; no exigency permitted warrantless trunk search	Court: Because consent was valid, no need to decide whether Pena‑Flores exigency standards were met (but Pena‑Flores applied at time)
Burden of proof for consent	State: bears burden to prove consent was clear, positive, voluntary	Lindsey: consent not established given coercive context	Held: State met burden via testimony and judge’s credibility findings; appellate court defers to trial judge’s credibility assessment
Remedy re: Judgment of Conviction (JOC) sentencing entry	State: agrees remand needed to impose and reflect sentence on fourth-degree count per plea	Lindsey: JOC incorrectly states sentence and omitted separate sentence on marijuana count	Held: Affirmed denial of suppression; remanded to sentence on fourth-degree marijuana count and amend JOC

Key Cases Cited

State v. King, 44 N.J. 346 (superseding appellate guidance on voluntariness of consent to search) (sets multi‑factor test for evaluating voluntariness of consent)
State v. Johnson, 68 N.J. 349 (1975) (State bears burden to show consent was knowingly given)
State v. Pena‑Flores, 198 N.J. 6 (2009) (pre‑Witt framework for exigent‑circumstances vehicle searches and factors to consider)
State v. Witt, 223 N.J. 409 (2015) (overruled Pena‑Flores prospectively; new rule given prospective effect)
State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224 (2007) (appellate deference to trial judge’s credibility and factual findings on suppression)