State v. Evans
193 A.3d 843
N.J.2018Background
- Officer Laboy stopped Robert Evans after seeing him leave a Days Inn parking lot and confirming Evans had an active bench warrant; Laboy arrested him and conducted a pat-down.
- During the pat-down Laboy found $2,000 in cash and a "rocklike" bulge in Evans's groin area; Laboy, a narcotics officer who had felt similar concealments "hundreds of times," believed it was crack cocaine.
- With supervisor permission, Laboy transported Evans to the station and performed a more invasive search (underwear not removed or genitals exposed), recovering baggies of crack cocaine and heroin between Evans’s pants and underwear.
- Evans moved to suppress the evidence under New Jersey’s Strip Search Act, arguing the warrantless strip search was unlawful and that the officer should have inquired into the warrant’s underlying offense.
- The trial court denied suppression, the Appellate Division reversed (finding Laboy’s testimony insufficient to show the contraband’s character was "immediately apparent"), and the State sought review by the New Jersey Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court adopted the federal "plain feel" doctrine, found Laboy’s experience, the cash, and the tactile description sufficient to meet the statute’s two-prong requirement, reversed the Appellate Division, and reinstated the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "plain feel" can justify a warrantless strip search under N.J.S.A. 2A:161A-1(b) | Evans: "plain feel" should not apply to strip searches under the Strip Search Act and would undermine legislative protections | State: "plain feel" is a recognized warrant exception and may justify a strip search when statutory prongs are met | Court: Adopts "plain feel" exception; it can satisfy the statute when immediate tactile recognition of contraband exists |
| Whether Officer Laboy had probable cause to conduct a strip search | Evans: Arrest was for a minor bench warrant; officer should have checked its subject before searching | State: Active warrant authorized arrest; officer need not inquire into warrant’s underlying offense | Court: Probable cause present based on circumstances and was undisputed |
| Whether the officer was in a lawful position to feel and seize the object | Evans: Officer’s actions exceeded lawful scope if tactile inference required additional probing | State: Pat-down incident to arrest was lawful and provided the vantage for "plain feel" | Court: Pat-down was lawful; officer was in a lawful position to feel the bulge |
| Whether Laboy’s testimony met the "immediately apparent" requirement | Evans: Laboy’s description was conclusory and lacked sufficient tactile detail | State: Laboy’s description, cash found, and extensive narcotics experience sufficed | Court: Laboy’s "rocklike" description, location of bulge, cash, and his experience met the immediacy requirement; strip search lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (recognizes "plain feel" exception where contraband’s identity is immediately apparent)
- State v. Toth, 321 N.J. Super. 609 (App. Div.) (upheld seizure under "plain feel" given officer’s immediate tactile identification and circumstances)
- State v. Jackson, 276 N.J. Super. 626 (App. Div.) (rejected "plain feel" where officer could not immediately identify contraband by touch)
- State v. Hayes, 327 N.J. Super. 373 (App. Div.) (holding search-incident-to-arrest cannot alone justify a strip search under the Strip Search Act)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (discusses limits on searches incident to arrest)
- State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224 (standard of deference to trial court findings on suppression)