STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JUAN GUERRERO-ESTRADASTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JUAN M. FLORES SANTOS(15-01-0008, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(CONSOLIDATED), A-2375-15T1/A-2821-15T1

Background

Officers conducting unrelated surveillance in a large-box-store parking lot observed a vehicle with Kansas plates (Guerrero-Estrada driving; Flores Santos passenger) parked atypically near tractor-trailers and facing incoming traffic.
The vehicle circled, parked again in an out-of-the-way spot, and Guerrero-Estrada stood by his trunk while on a cellphone; officers found the conduct suspicious.
A Zipcar driven by co-defendant Nunez arrived; Nunez met Guerrero-Estrada, repositioned his vehicle, and officers observed a weighted plastic bag tossed from defendants’ car into the Zipcar.
Officers conducted simultaneous investigative stops; searches (after consent) of the Zipcar revealed five bricks of methamphetamine.
Nunez pleaded guilty and testified he met defendants to pick up drugs; both defendants were convicted after a joint trial and sentenced.
Trial court denied suppression, denied acquittal motions, found police testimony admissible (any error harmless), merged certain counts at sentencing, but the Appellate Division remanded to correct duplicate financial penalties.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Defendants' Argument	Held
Legality of investigatory stop/search (4th Amendment)	Officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion based on furtive parking, circling, meeting, and transfer of a bag	Stop lacked reasonable suspicion; seizure and downstream evidence should be suppressed	Denied suppression — totality of circumstances and trial court credibility support reasonable suspicion
Sufficiency of evidence (Rule 3:18-1)	Evidence (observed transfer, Nunez’s testimony, phone arrangements) supported possession, intent, and distribution	Cannot intend to distribute to someone with whom you already jointly possess; acquittal warranted	Denied acquittal — State presented sufficient evidence for jury to convict
Admissibility of detective opinion/hearsay (McLean/Bankston issues)	Detective’s testimony about observing an illicit transaction explained officers’ actions; any fleeting error harmless	Detective improperly gave opinion/hearsay that other officers believed a drug transaction occurred; violated confrontation and McLean limits	No reversible error — statement distinguished from McLean; hearsay/collective-belief comment harmless
Merger and fines at sentencing	Distribution and possession-with-intent are distinct offenses at different stages; merged counts should not carry duplicate assessments	Possession-with-intent should merge with distribution; fines on merged counts improper	Substantive merger denied (offenses distinct); but remanded to vacate duplicate financial penalties on merged counts

Key Cases Cited

State v. Scriven, 226 N.J. 20 (deference to trial court factual findings on suppression)
State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146 (trial court credibility and review deference)
State v. Rockford, 213 N.J. 424 (plenary review of legal conclusions)
State v. Stovall, 170 N.J. 346 (reasonable suspicion standard for investigatory stops)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (constitutional basis for investigative stops)
State v. Walker, 213 N.J. 281 (deference to trial court credibility findings for single-witness testimony)
State v. McLean, 205 N.J. 438 (limits on police opinion testimony about drug transactions)
State v. Odom, 116 N.J. 65 (expert characterization of conduct may embrace ultimate issues)
State v. Bankston, 63 N.J. 263 (restrictions on hearsay implicating unidentified witnesses)
State v. Reyes, 50 N.J. 454 (standard for denying acquittal motion)
State v. Valentine, 69 N.J. 205 (possession with intent and distribution do not necessarily merge)
State v. Davis, 68 N.J. 69 (same: possession-with-intent and distribution are distinct offenses)