State v. Harris
211 N.J. 566
| N.J. | 2012Background
- WJS obtained a domestic violence restraining order against defendant after sworn complaint alleging abuse and threats involving firearms.
- A search warrant was issued under N.J.S.A. 2C:25-28(j) to search for weapons at defendant’s home, purportedly to protect the victim, not to investigate criminal conduct.
- Weapons recovered during the search included a Cetme .308 assault rifle, five large-capacity magazines, a Colt Anaconda .45 revolver (stolen), and a Ruger P89, with some items found in a safe and others in attic space.
- Colt Anaconda’s serial number check revealed it was reported stolen; the P89 had no immediate criminal nexus established at the suppression stage.
- Defendant moved to suppress the weapons as fruits of a search under a civil DV statute, the trial court granted suppression of all items, and the Appellate Division affirmed in part and remanded in part; the Supreme Court granted review and reversed in part.
- This opinion addresses whether the weapons seized under the DV warrant may be used in defendant’s subsequent criminal trial, and how the Fourth Amendment and New Jersey Constitution standards apply to such evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether weapons seized under a DV warrant may be used in a later criminal trial. | State argues DV warrant is valid; search complies with special needs doctrine. | Warrant issued under DV statute lacks probable cause; evidence inadmissible in criminal trial. | Partially reversed; suppression of handguns reversed; rifle and magazines remanded for factual determination. |
| Whether the Anaconda’s stolen status and serial-number check affect admissibility. | Serial-number check shows illegality of possession; admissible. | Serial check is an impermissible search; may implicate privacy interests. | Serial-number check and NCIC entry do not constitute a search; admissible evidence to prove possession. |
| Whether the large-capacity magazines and Cetme rifle require suppression or remand for identification of illegality. | DV warrant valid; items are admissible if seized correctly. | Illegality of items not immediately apparent; require suppression or remand. | Remanded to determine if items were immediately illegal; final ruling reserved. |
| Whether the DV statute’s use of reasonable cause rather than probable cause undermines Fourth Amendment protections. | Statute provides reasonable cause; search valid. | Probable cause required for home searches; DV statute’s standard too low. | Dissent concludes probable cause is required; majority opinion rejects by reversing in part. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Perkins, 358 N.J. Super. 151 (App.Div. 2003) (domestic-violence context; cautions against using DV searches to prosecute unrelated crimes (distinguishable))
- State v. Dispoto, 189 N.J. 108 (2007) (probable cause required before DV TRO and related search warrant; admissibility framework)
- Joy v. Hunterdon Central Reg. High Sch., 176 N.J. 568 (2003) (special needs framework; random drug testing in schools)
- State v. O’Hagen, 189 N.J. 140 (2007) (special needs doctrine applications; DNA testing)
- State v. Frankel, 179 N.J. 586 (2004) (warrants preferred; home searches require strong protections)