State v. Atwood, 180 A.3d 1119

Background

On June 12, 2015 Lakewood police stopped Atwood's moving vehicle after officers reported seeing a front headlight out and the vehicle "quickly leave the area." Mizrahi was a passenger.
Officers claimed an odor and visible traces of marijuana, summoned a K-9 that alerted to the trunk, impounded the vehicle, arrested defendants, and later obtained a search warrant (issued ~3:00 a.m.) that yielded marijuana and cocaine.
Defendants moved to suppress all evidence, challenging the warrantless investigatory stop; the State argued the later-issued warrant validated the prior stop and sought to shift burdens to defendants.
The trial court ordered the State to prove legality of the warrantless stop; the State declined to present witnesses at the evidentiary hearing and the court suppressed the evidence as fruit of the poisonous tree.
The State appealed, arguing a warrant presumptively validates the search and that the warrant affidavit alone sufficed to justify the stop; the Supreme Court granted leave and affirmed suppression.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Defendants' Argument	Held
Whether a subsequently issued search warrant retroactively validates an earlier warrantless vehicular stop	Warrant is presumptively valid; affidavit recounting the stop means the judge's grant retroactively legitimizes the stop, shifting burden to defendants	A later warrant cannot cleanse prior unconstitutional seizure; the stop required independent proof at a suppression hearing	No. A later-obtained warrant does not retroactively validate a prior warrantless stop; State must prove the stop was lawful
Allocation of burden at suppression hearing over pre-warrant seizure	Because the search occurred only after a warrant, the motion falls on the "warrant" side and defendants should bear burden	The stop was warrantless; State bears burden to prove reasonable and articulable suspicion for the seizure	State bears burden to justify the warrantless stop by a preponderance of the evidence
Sufficiency of warrant affidavit (four-corners) to replace live testimony at an evidentiary hearing	The affidavit’s recitation of the stop suffices to establish justification for the stop without officer testimony	Defendants entitled to an evidentiary hearing and cross-examination to test conflicting facts (e.g., MVR vs. officer account)	Affidavit alone is insufficient to carry the State’s burden when material facts are disputed; live testimony was required
Whether evidence should be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree if the stop is unlawful	Even with a later warrant, evidence is still admissible if the warrant supports the search	Illegality of the stop taints subsequent search and evidence; suppression warranted	Evidence suppressed: the search flowed directly from the unsupported stop and is fruit of the poisonous tree

Key Cases Cited

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (defendant may challenge veracity of warrant affidavit and seek hearing)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (reasonable and articulable suspicion standard for investigative stops)
Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979) (limits on vehicle stops; need for suspicion)
State v. Robinson, 228 N.J. 529 (2017) (automobile stop requires specific, articulable facts giving rise to reasonable suspicion)
State v. Wilson, 178 N.J. 7 (2003) (State bears burden to prove absence of constitutional violation at suppression hearing)
State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224 (2007) (warrantless seizure presumptively unreasonable)
State v. Holland, 176 N.J. 344 (2003) (discussion of fruit of the poisonous tree and suppression of later-derived evidence)