STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. WILSON GEORGE (17-07-0389, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0379-18

Background

Trenton detectives in an unmarked but community-recognized police sedan responded to a radio dispatch of a shooting in Prospect Village and information that suspects were fleeing toward North 25, a nearby high-crime housing project engaged in a local gang feud.
About a minute after the dispatch, detectives saw three men (defendant Wilson George and two co-defendants) running on Louise Lane toward North 25 along the quickest route between the neighborhoods; the men stopped and began walking when they saw the detectives.
Detectives observed the men sweating on a hot day; defendant carried and then dropped a black hooded sweatshirt beside a parked car, appearing to shake or discard it. One co-defendant fled and dropped a 9mm handgun; another had a .22 in his pocket.
Officers ordered the three to the ground at gunpoint; defendant and one co-defendant were handcuffed and detained; later, after returning to the scene, police recovered a .32 caliber handgun under the parked car where defendant had dropped the sweatshirt, which ballistically matched shell casings from the shooting.
A motion to suppress evidence from the stop was denied after a two-day hearing; defendant pled guilty to first-degree aggravated manslaughter and was sentenced, including joint-and-several restitution to the VCCO and to the victim’s mother; defendant appealed arguing the stop was unlawful and that a restitution ability-to-pay hearing was required.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of the investigatory stop / ordering suspects to the ground	Officers had reasonable, particularized suspicion based on the shooting dispatch, knowledge of local gang feud, observed flight toward North 25, heavy breathing/sweating, and defendant's suspicious handling/dropping of a sweatshirt	Radio dispatch and the men’s presence alone did not justify ordering three Black men onto the ground at gunpoint; stop was unreasonable	Court affirmed: under the totality of circumstances and officers’ credibility, detectives had reasonable suspicion to detain the men and the stop was lawful
Admissibility of the .32 caliber handgun (abandonment/standing)	Handgun was abandoned when defendant discarded the sweatshirt and left the weapon under a public parked car; thus no expectation of privacy	Defendant contended (late) the gun was seized as a result of an unlawful detention and he did not abandon it	Court found defendant effectively waived the new abandonment challenge on appeal; judge’s findings that, under the State’s credible account, the gun was abandoned were persuasive; suppression not required
Restitution — need for a hearing on defendant’s ability to pay	State sought restitution to VCCO and funeral expenses; court offered a hearing but allowed defendants to review documentation and advise if a hearing was needed	Defendant argued on appeal the matter should be remanded for an ability-to-pay hearing	Court affirmed: defendant’s counsel agreed to the restitution amounts after review and did not request the offered hearing; no error in imposing the agreed restitution

Key Cases Cited

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (establishes investigatory stop / seizure rule)
State v. Pineiro, 181 N.J. 13 (totality of circumstances and officer experience considered for reasonable suspicion)
State v. Rosario, 229 N.J. 263 (nervousness and conduct may contribute to reasonable suspicion)
State v. Stovall, 170 N.J. 346 (aggregate of innocent facts can support reasonable suspicion)
State v. Burgos, 185 N.J. Super. 424 (abandonment doctrine for property left in public places)
State v. Ahmad, 246 N.J. 592 (standard of review for suppression rulings)
State v. Chisum, 236 N.J. 530 (investigatory stop as an exception to warrant requirement)
RSI Bank v. Providence Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 234 N.J. 459 (restitution orders require meaningful evaluation of ability to pay)
State v. Orji, 277 N.J. Super. 582 (no restitution hearing required when amount and defendant’s ability are undisputed)
State v. DeAngelis, 329 N.J. Super. 178 (purpose of restitution is compensation and rehabilitation)