State v. Herrerra, 211 N.J. 308

Background

Trooper Acevedo stopped two Hispanic men for speeding on the Turnpike in 1992; a struggle followed during which the trooper was attacked and forced to use his weapon.
Cocaine was found in the defendants’ car the day after the stop, and they were convicted of multiple offenses including attempted murder and drug offenses.
PCR relief sought racial profiling discovery to challenge the stop and the credibility of the trooper; drug convictions were later dismissed by the Attorney General.
Lower courts grappled with whether exclusionary rules should apply to a prosecution for attempted murder after an unlawful stop and whether discovery should be compelled.
Appellate panels initially ordered discovery related to racial profiling; the Supreme Court granted certification to resolve the scope and limits of such discovery.
The Court held the exclusionary rule does not apply to the attempted murder charges, and thus racial profiling discovery is not warranted to suppress drug evidence or to attack credibility.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the exclusionary rule apply to a violent attack on an officer after an unlawful stop?	State argued no; since remaining charges are violent offenses, suppression is inappropriate.	Gonzalez and Herrerra contended the stop could be unlawful and evidence should be suppressed to deter police misconduct.	Exclusionary rule does not apply to attempted murder after an unlawful stop.
Is attenuation analysis required or appropriate where the drug evidence is at issue after an unlawful stop?	Attenuation may govern whether drug evidence should be suppressed if linked to an unlawful stop.	Attenuation analysis should determine suppression if the stop was illegal and the drugs were discovered as a result.	Attenuation analysis unnecessary because exclusionary rule does not apply to the violent offense; drug evidence need not be suppressed.
Are racial profiling discovery materials available to challenge the trooper’s credibility at a new trial?	Defendants seek broad profiling data to attack credibility and support an attenuation-based challenge.	Discovery should illuminate the trooper’s credibility and support selective enforcement claims.	Racial profiling discovery not warranted to challenge trooper credibility or for a new trial.
May racial profiling discovery be used to suppress drug evidence or in PCR proceedings under evidentiary rules?	Discovery could potentially support suppression or credibility challenges under Ballard and related orders.	Disclosure would mislead and complicate proceedings; evidence would be collateral and inadmissible under 404(b) and 608(b).	Not entitled to racial profiling discovery; 404(b) and 608(b) limits prevent admissibility or collateral mini-trials.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Ballard, 381 N.J. Super. 545 (App.Div. 2005) (colorable claim required for discovery; guidance on attenuation and selective enforcement)
State v. Ballard, 331 N.J. Super. 529 (App.Div. 2000) (colorable basis for selective enforcement; framework for discovery orders)
State v. Soto, 324 N.J. Super. 66 (Law Div. 1996) (found prima facie selective enforcement of racial profiling)
State v. Lee, 190 N.J. 270 (2007) (attenuation analysis and discovery context for profiling claims)
State v. Crawley, 187 N.J. 440 (2006) (stated rules about resisting unlawful stop and attenuation principles)
State v. Williams, 192 N.J. 1 (2007) (limits on resisting an unlawful stop and attenuation framework)
State v. Johnson, 118 N.J. 639 (1990) (attenuation factors and use of evidence after an unlawful stop or seizure)
State v. Spivey, 179 N.J. 229 (2004) (limits on admitting prior misconduct to impeach credibility; collateral issues)
State v. Cofield, 127 N.J. 328 (1992) (four-part test for admitting 404(b) extrinsic evidence)
Lee v. Ball, See State v. Ball (App.Div. 2000-2005) (coordination of discovery in profiling cases and attenuation groundwork)