State v. Dickerson, 177 A.3d 788

Background

Police executed a search warrant at Welcome Back Unisex Hair Cuts in Asbury Park; officers found drugs, firearms, and documents addressed to defendant Melvin Dickerson and arrested him.
A complaint-warrant charged Dickerson with multiple drug and weapons offenses; the prosecutor provided the PLEIR, complaint, affidavit of probable cause (referencing the search execution), PSA, and incident/arrest reports but not the search-warrant affidavit.
At the CJRA pretrial detention hearing the defense requested the underlying search-warrant affidavit; the trial court ordered production and, as a discovery sanction for nonproduction, released Dickerson subject to conditions.
The Appellate Division agreed the State must produce the warrant affidavit but held release was an improper sanction and remanded for a full detention hearing and consideration of appropriate sanctions.
The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division as to compelled production (holding no automatic duty to produce warrant affidavits pre-detention) but affirmed the remand for a detention hearing, holding the trial court’s release order was an improper sanction given no misconduct by the State.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 3:4-2(c)(1)(B) requires automatic pre-detention production of search-warrant affidavits	State: discovery at detention is limited to materials the State relies on to establish probable cause and risk; automatic disclosure would harm informant confidentiality and burden operations	Dickerson: Rule requires disclosure of all materials relating to the affidavit of probable cause; warrant affidavit may be necessary to show nexus to contraband and challenge detention	No automatic production rule; disclosure depends on whether the warrant affidavit "relates to" the State’s detention presentation or the affidavit of probable cause; courts may order production when necessary to assess nexus
Proper remedy for State’s alleged failure to produce discovery at detention hearing	State: if it did not rely on the affidavit, production is unnecessary; protective order available if confidentiality concerns exist	Dickerson: nonproduction justified release as a discovery sanction	Release is not a permissible discovery sanction; sanctions exist under rules but pretrial release may occur only if State fails to meet its CJRA burden; here no misconduct alleged so release was improper
How to reconcile Rule 3:4-2(c) (detention discovery) with warrant confidentiality rules (R. 3:5-4, 3:5-6(c))	State/CPANJ: confidentiality exceptions in R.3:5-6(c) mean warrant materials are generally reserved for post-indictment discovery or suppression proceedings; pre-detention rule shouldn't override confidentiality	Dickerson/ACLU: Rule 3:4-2(c) must be read to allow production where nexus is at issue; protective orders can address confidentiality	Rules must be balanced: detention discovery is broader than federal practice but not coextensive with post-indictment discovery; confidentiality preserved where affidavit does not relate to detention or where protective orders are warranted
Standard for trial court ordering additional discovery (including warrant affidavits) at detention stage	State: court should not compel unrelated warrant materials; can rely on materials produced	Dickerson: trial court should order affidavit where nexus or weight-of-evidence is unclear	Trial courts have discretion to require additional discovery if necessary to evaluate probable cause/nexus; if State cannot produce needed evidence, it fails its burden and defendant must be released under CJRA

Key Cases Cited

State v. Robinson, 229 N.J. 44 (2017) (establishes principles and Rule 3:4-2(c) disclosure framework for CJRA detention hearings)
State in Interest of N.H., 226 N.J. 242 (2016) (describes use of protective orders to safeguard informants and ongoing investigations)
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (recognizes detention before trial is a limited exception to the norm of pretrial liberty)