STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. KENNETH E. BURRELL (13-06-1106, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-5364-14T1

Background

On December 14, 2012, Asbury Park Street Crimes Unit officers in plain but marked SCU attire in an unmarked car observed Kenneth Burrell and Christine Labord walking in a high-crime area; Burrell pulled his hood up, slowed, and trailed Labord, which an officer found suspicious.
Officer Pettway pulled alongside, exited, and calmly asked to speak; Pettway questioned Labord in a conversational tone while partners remained with Burrell.
Labord appeared nervous, clutched her large purse, and when asked what was in it immediately opened it and said the gun wasn’t hers — she produced a Tec-9–type firearm, which officers secured and cleared.
Burrell spontaneously admitted the gun was his; both were placed under arrest, read Miranda, and later gave inculpatory recorded statements at the station after waiving Miranda.
Burrell moved to suppress the handgun seized without a warrant and his statements as fruits of an unlawful stop; the motion judge credited Pettway, found the encounter was a lawful field inquiry and the gun was legally seized under plain view, and admitted the statements.
Burrell pleaded guilty to second-degree possession-prohibited person; on appeal he challenged only the denial of suppression, arguing the encounter was an investigatory Terry stop unsupported by reasonable suspicion and that he lacked notice of the suppression motion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the officers’ contact was a consensual field inquiry or an investigatory Terry stop	State: Contact was a noncoercive, conversational field inquiry — defendants could have walked away	Burrell: Officer’s approach and questioning amounted to an investigatory stop based on mere hunch, so it lacked reasonable suspicion	Court: Field inquiry — no reasonable person was restrained; questions were casual and noncoercive; upheld motion judge
Whether the firearm seizure was lawful without a warrant	State: Labord voluntarily produced the gun and it was plainly visible, so plain-view seizure lawful	Burrell: Seizure flowed from an unlawful stop and should be suppressed	Held: Gun lawfully seized after voluntary disclosure by Labord; plain view applies
Admissibility of pre- and post-Miranda statements	State: Labord’s statement and Burrell’s spontaneous admission were unsolicited and admissible; recorded statements at station were made after valid Miranda warnings and waivers	Burrell: Statements are fruits of unlawful stop and involuntary	Held: Pre-Miranda spontaneous admissions admissible; custodial recorded statements were knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived and admissible
Procedural adequacy of notice of suppression motion (pro se claim)	State: (implicit) motion was litigated at suppression hearing; no prejudice	Burrell (pro se): Trial court erred by denying notice of motion to suppress evidence	Held: Issue not persuasive; appellate court affirms denial of suppression and did not find reversible notice error

Key Cases Cited

State v. Gonzales, 227 N.J. 77 (2016) (appellate review deference to trial judge’s factual findings in suppression hearings)
State v. Rosario, 229 N.J. 263 (2017) (distinguishes consensual field inquiry from investigatory stop; test is whether person reasonably believed they could walk away)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (investigatory stop requires reasonable and particularized suspicion)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation requires Miranda warnings; waiver must be knowing and voluntary)
State v. Williams, 192 N.J. 1 (2007) (officer may frisk if reasonable suspicion the person is armed and dangerous)
State v. Daniels, 393 N.J. Super. 476 (App. Div. 2007) (field inquiry may be conducted without suspicion; officers may ask questions in noncoercive manner)
State v. Cryan, 363 N.J. Super. 442 (App. Div. 2003) (unsolicited, spontaneous statements are not the product of interrogation and are admissible)