State v. Dion E. Robinson (076267) (Atlantic County and Statewide)
159 A.3d 373
| N.J. | 2017Background
- Shortly after midnight Officer Ceci stopped a vehicle he suspected of unsafe driving in a high-crime area; four occupants were in the car (driver Robinson, front-seat passenger Carson, rear passengers Sanders and Henderson).
- Dispatcher/NCIC alerts indicated outstanding warrants for Robinson and Henderson and cautions that they might carry weapons; Ceci summoned four backup officers.
- Officers removed, frisked, handcuffed and arrested Robinson and Henderson; Carson and Sanders were detained, patted down, and kept under officer control away from the vehicle. None resisted or made furtive movements.
- At the direction of a sergeant, Ceci conducted a sweep of the passenger compartment; while lifting Carson’s purse he felt and retrieved a handgun from inside it.
- Robinson was charged with weapons and drug offenses, moved to suppress the gun, lost suppression at trial court, appealed; Appellate Division reversed the suppression; New Jersey Supreme Court reviewed and remanded for consideration of inevitable discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a warrantless search of the passenger compartment was a lawful protective sweep | Totality (NCIC weapon warnings, evasive answers, high-crime area, late hour, no licenses) justified belief occupants were dangerous and might gain immediate control of weapons | No specific, articulable facts showed any occupant (esp. Carson/Sanders) could imminently access a weapon; occupants were secured and monitored | Protective-sweep exception does not apply: officers’ coordinated control eliminated risk of immediate access to weapons |
| Whether community-caretaking exception justified the search | Search protected public/owner safety or would be reasonable if vehicle later impounded/inventoried | No exigency or public safety risk at time of search; vehicle and occupants were under police control | Community-caretaking exception inapplicable at the time of the search |
| Whether "plain-feel" justified retrieval of the gun from the purse | Officer felt a heavy object with outline of a handgun when manipulating the purse | Officer was not lawfully in passenger compartment when he picked up the purse; plain-feel not reached | Court did not decide plain-feel; declined to reach the issue |
| Whether evidence should nonetheless be admitted under inevitable discovery | State: given NCIC alerts, control of vehicle, and likely impound/inventory or contacting owner, the gun would have been discovered by lawful procedures | Defense: State cannot prove by clear and convincing evidence that lawful procedures would inevitably have produced the gun | Remanded: Court held inevitable discovery may be pertinent and directed trial court to allow State to prove inevitable discovery by clear and convincing evidence on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (establishing specific-and-articulable-facts standard for stops and weapons frisks)
- Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (extending protective-sweep standard to automobile passenger compartment)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (authorizing narrow protective sweeps during in-home arrests)
- Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (community-caretaking rationale for searching an impounded vehicle to secure weapons)
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (permitting routine inventory searches of impounded vehicles)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (federal recognition of inevitable discovery exception)
- State v. Lund, 119 N.J. 35 (adopting Long standard and rejecting protective sweep where facts insufficient)
- State v. Gamble, 218 N.J. 412 (upholding automobile protective sweep where occupants’ conduct and circumstances supported reasonable fear of access to weapons)
- State v. Sugar, 100 N.J. 214 (New Jersey framing of inevitable-discovery burden: State must prove inevitability by clear and convincing evidence)