State v. Gene Hinton (070386)
78 A.3d 553
| N.J. | 2013Background
- Defendant Gene Hinton lived with his mother in a Newark Housing Authority apartment; the mother (the named tenant) died in March 2009.
- Landlord initiated summary dispossess proceedings for nonpayment of rent; a warrant of removal naming the tenant was issued and served by a Special Civil Part officer on April 6, 2009, giving 72 hours to vacate.
- One week after service (April 13, 2009) the court officer returned to change locks and conduct a safety sweep pursuant to the warrant’s execution; he observed a shoe box on the bed containing heroin and currency and contacted police.
- Newark police entered the apartment without a warrant, seized the shoe box, and arrested Hinton when he arrived and identified the apartment as his.
- Hinton was indicted and convicted in bench trial of possession/distribution offenses; the Appellate Division reversed, holding Hinton had a reasonable expectation of privacy and the warrantless police entry violated the constitution.
- The New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification, reversed the Appellate Division, and held that at the advanced stage of the eviction Hinton lacked an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy; the case was remanded for consideration of the constitutionality of the seizure and unresolved issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether police search violated Fourth Amendment / NJ Const. art. I, ¶7 | State: No search occurred because Hinton lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy after service of the warrant and lockout; entry/padlocking and court-authorized sweep were lawful | Hinton: Pending eviction and available judicial remedies did not eliminate his reasonable expectation of privacy; police needed a warrant | Held: Hinton lacked an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy at that advanced stage of eviction, so police action was not a "search" under federal or state constitutional law |
| Admissibility of evidence found in plain view during execution of warrant | State: Evidence was lawfully observed during court officer’s authorized entry and police acted on that observation | Hinton: Seizure and subsequent police entry were warrantless and unconstitutional | Held: Court did not decide seizure constitutionality on merits; remanded to Appellate Division to address constitutionality of the seizure and other unresolved issues |
| Applicability of New Jersey automatic standing rule (Alston) | State: Standing does not guarantee a substantive privacy right when eviction has eliminated reasonable expectation of privacy | Hinton: Under Alston/Johnson, possessory interest confers standing and privacy protection; no extra layer of federal-style expectation analysis should bar suppression | Held: Court recognized Alston standing but separately held Hinton lacked a substantive, reasonable expectation of privacy under state law given the eviction’s advanced stage |
| Whether exigent circumstances or other exceptions justified warrantless police entry | State: Relied primarily on lawful court officer entry and plain-view observations; police contended prompt action was justified | Hinton: No exigency; police could have obtained warrant after locks were changed | Held: Appellate Division had addressed exigency and found none; Supreme Court’s disposition turned on absence of a reasonable expectation of privacy and remanded seizure issue for further consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (defines Fourth Amendment "reasonable expectation of privacy" framework)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (establishes subjective/objective expectation of privacy test)
- Salvucci v. United States, 448 U.S. 83 (clarifies expectation-of-privacy/standing principles)
- California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (articulates Katz two-part inquiry in Fourth Amendment context)
- United States v. Curlin, 638 F.3d 562 (7th Cir.) (holding eviction advance can eliminate reasonable expectation of privacy)
- State v. Alston, 88 N.J. 211 (1981) (New Jersey’s automatic standing for possessory offenses)
- State v. Johnson, 193 N.J. 528 (2008) (distinguishes standing from substantive privacy right under NJ Constitution)
- State v. Hempele, 120 N.J. 182 (1990) (NJ rejects federal two-pronged test for standing; asks only whether expectation is reasonable under state constitution)
- State v. Perry, 124 N.J. 128 (1991) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in apparently abandoned premises)
- State v. Mark, 46 N.J. 262 (1966) (tenancy expired and landlord/authority acquiescence relevant to reasonableness of police entry)