State v. Handy
18 A.3d 179
| N.J. | 2011Background
- Handy arrested for riding bicycle on sidewalk after dispatcher incorrectly informs officer of an outstanding warrant for Handy, despite discrepancies with a decade-old California warrant
- Discrepancies include different DOB (1972 vs 1974) and a different name spellings; warrant issued to Jermaine O. Handy in Los Angeles
- Arrest led to a narcotics seizure during a search incident to arrest
- Dispatcher knew of discrepancies but told the officer there was an outstanding warrant for Handy; officer relied on that information
- Officer Drogo did not pursue the warrant after discovering the discrepancies and Handy was released; Handy later pled to the indictment
- Appellate Division reversed; Supreme Court granted certification and now suppresses the evidence
- The Court holds that the dispatcher’s conduct was objectively unreasonable and that the exclusionary rule applies to suppress the evidence against Handy
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the dispatcher's misstatement was objectively reasonable | Handy argues dispatcher acted unreasonably | Handy argues the officer reasonably relied on dispatch | Unreasonable; suppression required |
| Whether the exclusionary rule can apply to dispatcher conduct | Handy supports applying exclusionary rule to dispatcher | State argues deterrence limited; may not require suppression | Applied; suppression warranted |
| Whether Herring/attenuation applies to this case | Herring not controlling; case is not attenuated clerical error | Herring may limit deterrence in some contexts | Not controlling; dispatcher was integral to the chain and conduct was not attenuated; suppression applies |
| Whether New Jersey constitutional analysis aligns with or exceeds federal standard | New Jersey will not adopt Herring-contrary approach | Federal framework guides, but state may differ | New Jersey standard applied; suppression affirmed because of objective unreasonableness |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1984) (exclusionary rule deterrence; reasonable reliance on warrant)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1961) (establishment of incorporation of Fourth Amendment to states; exclusionary rule)
- Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1914) (exclusionary rule foundational principle)
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1990) (limited mistakes by police in reasonableness standard)
- State v. Bruzzese, 94 N.J. 210 (New Jersey Supreme Court, 1983) (objective reasonableness in executing warrants)
- Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1995) (attenuation doctrine; reliance on subsequent developments)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2009) (attenuation and reliance on non-deliberate clerical error; deterrence)
- Ramirez, 523 U.S. 65 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1998) (objective reasonableness; deterrence focus on officer conduct)