State v. Brown, 194 A.3d 534

Background

Police surveilled Ricky Brown based on a confidential informant who said Brown sold narcotics at a hotel, provided his address, vehicle description, and stated he "always has a gun."
Detectives observed Brown conduct a hand-to-hand transaction, followed him, and stopped him for a tinted window violation; a K-9 alerted to narcotics in his car.
While officers attempted a roadside pat-down, Brown appeared nervous, reached toward a bulge in his groin, and resisted the pat-down; the officer felt a hard object.
Brown was handcuffed, transported to the station, and a supervisor authorized a warrantless strip search in a private room, which produced five bricks of heroin concealed in his groin.
Brown was indicted on indictable heroin charges and moved to suppress the heroin as seized in violation of the Strip Search Statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:161A-1 to -10 and the Attorney General Guidelines; the trial court denied suppression.
The Appellate Division affirmed, addressing (1) whether the Statute or AG Guidelines apply to indictable crimes and (2) whether exigent circumstances justified the warrantless strip search.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does N.J.S.A. 2A:161A-1 (the strip search statute) apply to persons arrested for crimes (indictable offenses)?	State/AG: Statute’s plain language limits it to non‑indictable offenses; AG Guidelines are not authorized to extend statute to crimes.	Brown: AG Guidelines (issued under N.J.S.A. 2A:161A-8) extend protections to crimes and were violated.	Held: Statute applies only to non‑indictable offenses; AG Guidelines may cover crimes but cannot lawfully expand the statute’s requirements to those arrested for crimes.
Are the Attorney General’s Strip Search Guidelines statutorily authorized to impose more exacting requirements on strip searches of persons arrested for crimes?	AG: Guidelines govern procedures but not to change statutory scope; even if applicable, search complied with constitutional standards.	Brown/Public Defender/ACLU: Guidelines set objective requirements and extend statutory protections to crimes; officers violated them.	Held: The Legislature did not empower the AG to extend the statute’s protections to indictable offenses; Guidelines exceed statutory authority when they impose more exacting requirements for crimes.
Was the warrantless strip search at the station unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment/State constitution?	State: Probable cause to arrest plus exigent circumstances (officer safety, possible weapon in groin) justified the warrantless strip search.	Brown: No exigency—he could have remained handcuffed under surveillance while police obtained a warrant; AG Guidelines not followed.	Held: Warrantless strip search was reasonable; exigent circumstances existed because Brown’s resistance and conduct suggested an immediately concealed weapon, justifying a search without waiting for a warrant.
Did the trial court err in denying suppression of the heroin seized during the strip search?	State: Suppression not required because search was constitutional and authorized by supervisor.	Brown: Evidence should be suppressed due to statutory/Guidelines violation and lack of exigency.	Held: No error—suppression was not required because the warrantless search was justified by exigent circumstances and probable cause.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Evans, 235 N.J. 125 (recognizes AG Guidelines and addresses plain-feel exception)
State v. Brannon, 178 N.J. 500 (statutory interpretation principles)
State v. Butler, 89 N.J. 220 (statutory construction: look to plain language)
State v. DeLuca, 168 N.J. 626 (exigent-circumstances factors and totality-of-circumstances test)
State v. Gibson, 218 N.J. 277 (authority to search arrestee for weapons/contraband before transport)
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (plain-feel doctrine for tactile detection of contraband)
State v. Hayes, 327 N.J. Super. 373 (Statute provides greater protection than Fourth Amendment; legislative purpose of strip-search statute)