State v. Derrick Brown, Leroy Carstarphen, and Kareem Strong (070200)
83 A.3d 45
| N.J. | 2014Background
- Police surveilled 820 Line Street in Camden over two days and observed drug transactions from the premises.
- Officers obtained a key from a defendant to operate a padlock on the front door and conducted a warrantless search of 820 Line Street, yielding a gun and drugs.
- Trial court found the house was not established as abandoned by a preponderance of the evidence and thus defendants had standing; suppression was granted.
- Appellate Division affirmed the suppression ruling, agreeing the State failed to prove abandonment or trespass as a basis to bypass the warrant requirement.
- State urged abandonment as the basis for a warrantless search; the Attorney General urged focusing on privacy interests and ownership rather than abandonment, while defendants relied on possessory/privacy interests and Johnson-based abandonment standards.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the suppression order, adopting an objective-reasonableness, totality-of-circumstances approach to abandonment and standing under Article I, Paragraph 7, and remanded for consistent proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants had standing to object to the 820 Line Street search. | State: abandonment or trespass rules support standing. | Brown/Strong: defendants maintained possessory/privacy interests. | No standing if abandoned or trespasser; State failed to prove abandonment. |
| Whether 820 Line Street was abandoned under objective reasonableness. | State: factors (broken windows, missing meter, disarray) show abandonment. | Defendants: no clear, unequivocal abandonment; two-day surveillance insufficient. | Abandonment not proven; warrantless search invalid. |
| Whether exigent circumstances or a protective sweep justified entry without a warrant. | State: protective sweep allowed; exigent circumstances existed. | No exigency; warrantless entry unsupported by exigent need. | Exigent circumstances not established; warrantless entry impermissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johnson, 193 N.J. 528 (2008) (abandonment test for standing under N.J. Const.)
- State v. Perry, 124 N.J. 128 (1991) (vacant-looking house affects privacy expectations)
- Harrison v. United States, 689 F.3d 301 (3d Cir. 2012) (abandonment requires clear, unequivocal, objective analysis)
- Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (1983) (abandonment yields no Fourth Amendment interest)
- Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (1948) (standing to search home rooted in constitutionally protected privacy)