STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JIHAD EWINGÂ (14-09-2760, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3611-15T1

Background

At ~midnight in a high-crime Camden neighborhood, two state troopers in an unmarked SUV observed a silver Dodge wagon stopped near the side/middle of the road with no other traffic or parked cars nearby.
Troopers pulled up 4–5 feet behind the vehicle with headlights shining into it; testimony conflicted on whether emergency lights were activated.
From behind, troopers observed the driver and front-seat passenger make brief movements as if hiding something beneath the seat; troopers found the movements suspicious based on training and the location/time.
Troopers exited their vehicle and approached; Burke (driver) knocked, asked the driver to lower the window, and repeated the request when it was not fully lowered; the driver complied only after repetition.
Burke ordered the driver (defendant) out for officer safety; as defendant stepped out he said, “I have a gun.” Trooper Burke handcuffed and frisked him and recovered a loaded semi-automatic handgun.
Defendant moved to suppress the gun as the product of an unlawful seizure/stop; the trial court credited the troopers’ testimony, found reasonable suspicion to stop and order defendant out of the car, and that the gun was lawfully recovered.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the initial encounter/stop was lawful (reasonable and particularized suspicion)	Troopers had reasonable suspicion based on time, location (high-crime area), vehicle location/placement, and furtive movements	Trooper conduct amounted to a seizure without probable cause; no reasonable suspicion or probable cause supported the stop	Court affirmed: totality of circumstances gave reasonable, particularized suspicion to justify investigatory stop
Whether ordering defendant out of the vehicle was permitted (officer safety)	Specific and articulable facts (movement suggesting concealment, reluctance to fully lower window, late-night high-crime location) justified ordering him out	Ordering occupant from vehicle requires more than a hunch; no such facts existed here	Court affirmed: specific and articulable facts justified ordering defendant out for officer safety
Whether frisk/seizure of gun was lawful under Terry	Officer reasonably believed defendant might be armed and dangerous; defendant volunteered he had a gun before frisk	Frisk/seizure was unlawful because the stop/order out was unlawful	Court affirmed: even aside from Terry frisk, defendant’s voluntary statement “I have a gun” gave probable cause for arrest and justified seizure
Whether activation of lights changed analysis (i.e., constituted a seizure requiring suspicion at that moment)	Even assuming emergency lights were on, troopers had reasonable suspicion at that moment	If lights constituted a seizure, there was no sufficient suspicion to detain	Court assumed lights were activated and still found reasonable suspicion under the more exacting standard; affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (authorizes limited frisk for officer safety during an investigatory stop)
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (objective-reasonableness analysis for traffic stops)
State v. Stovall, 170 N.J. 346 (2002) (defines reasonable and particularized suspicion standard)
State v. Smith, 134 N.J. 599 (1994) (ordering occupant from a vehicle requires specific and articulable facts justifying heightened caution)
State v. Dangerfield, 339 N.J. Super. 229 (App. Div. 2001) (presence in high-crime area alone insufficient for reasonable suspicion)
State v. Rosario, 229 N.J. 263 (2017) (reaffirmed standards for investigatory detentions and Terry stops)