STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. RICHARD J. SABATINOÂ Â (15-04-0376, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-4703-15T3

Officer Togno stopped a Toyota Corolla for a faulty brake light and lane maintenance; Crane (driver) and Sabatino (front passenger) were occupants.
Crane produced a valid license; Sabatino produced registration/insurance from the glove compartment.
At the rear of the vehicle Togno observed Crane was nervous and had constricted pupils; he asked her to roll up her sleeve and saw fresh track marks.
Togno then questioned both occupants about recent whereabouts; Crane admitted prior heroin use and ultimately said they had just purchased heroin and the drugs were in the car.
Both occupants were Mirandized and signed consent-to-search forms; police recovered heroin, syringes, and pills from the rear upholstery.
Defendant pled guilty to third-degree possession; he appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and statements, arguing consent flowed from an unlawful detention and an illegal search of Crane.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Lawfulness of initial vehicle stop	Stop was valid based on traffic violations and reasonable suspicion	Stop exceeded lawful bounds because subsequent questioning and requests were intrusive	Stop was lawful as to inception (traffic violations supported stop)
Scope of investigative detention (asking Crane to roll up sleeve)	Officer's request was conversational and reasonable to investigate possible impairment/drug use	Request exceeded scope of stop and was an unlawful search/detention because Crane wasn't informed she could refuse	Request to show arms exceeded proper scope; officer lacked evidence Crane could refuse consent to that request
Validity of consent to search vehicle	Consent was voluntary and broke any causal chain from earlier detention/search	Consent was the fruit of the unlawful request/observations and therefore invalid under Carty	Consent invalid because the reasonable suspicion for the search was derived from the improper examination of Crane’s arms; suppression required
Attenuation / fruit of poisonous tree	Consent sufficiently attenuated from any prior illegality (relying on Chapman)	No attenuation because the alleged criminal suspicion sprang directly from the illegal act of examining Crane	No attenuation where the information supporting reasonable suspicion originated in unconstitutional conduct; suppression required

State v. Carty, 170 N.J. 632 (establishes that consent searches after vehicle stops require reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity)
State v. Chapman, 332 N.J. Super. 452 (discusses attenuation and voluntariness of consent following traffic stops)
State v. Privott, 203 N.J. 16 (holding that lifting a suspect's shirt exceeded the scope of an investigative detention)
State v. Smith, 155 N.J. 83 (consent attributable to police misconduct may be product of unconstitutional conduct)
State v. Legette, 227 N.J. 460 (State must show knowledge of right to refuse consent)
State v. Bacome, 228 N.J. 94 (traffic stop must be based on reasonable and articulable suspicion)