179 A.3d 366
N.J.2018Background
- On Dec. 7, 2010, police brought Lori Hummel from a convenience store to the Gloucester County Prosecutor's Office about traffic warrants but then questioned her as a person of interest in a homicide investigation. She was not Mirandized before custodial questioning, and the trial court suppressed her statements.
- During interrogation Hummel kept her purse within reach, retrieved items (phone, receipts), and later offered a boot for inspection; detectives left and returned with a consent-to-search form for the boot which she initialed.
- After Hummel asked for a lawyer and was told she had warrants, detectives cuffed her ankle to a floor bar, took her purse, and searched its contents aloud; they found two EBT (Families First) cards bearing another person’s name.
- The trial court suppressed Hummel’s statements (Miranda violation) but denied suppression of the physical evidence, treating the purse search as a valid inventory search and the boots as voluntary exposure.
- The Appellate Division affirmed suppression of statements, reversed suppression denial for the EBT card (holding the inventory search became investigatory) and allowed Hummel to move to withdraw her guilty plea.
- The New Jersey Supreme Court (majority) held the purse search was not a justified inventory search and affirmed suppression of the evidence; remanded to allow withdrawal of the plea or PCR proceedings. Justice LaVecchia concurred in part and dissented in part, arguing broader review (including detention/Miranda consequences) was needed now.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hummel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of purse search under inventory-search exception | Search was an inventory to protect officers from a threatened false-theft claim and for safety; immediate inventory justified | Inventory exception inapplicable because Hummel was not formally arrested/bailed, no standard procedure followed, and less intrusive alternatives existed | Search was not a lawful inventory; evidence suppressed |
| Justification for impoundment of property | Safety and to guard against false theft allegation justified removing purse from room | Purse remained within Hummel’s reach; officers offered Hummel chance to search it; impoundment occurred only after she requested counsel | Impoundment unjustified; no lawful basis for inventory |
| Whether officers followed standardized inventory procedures | Rapid, improvised inventory was necessary given immediate threat | Officers had no evidence of routine policy use, no inventory list, and ‘‘improvised’’ search shows absence of standard procedure | No evidence of standardized procedure; weighed against State |
| Remedy / Consequence for conviction and plea | State sought review only of inventory issue | Hummel sought broader relief including vacatur based on Miranda/detention; Court should address those now (dissent) | Court suppressed evidence, affirmed Appellate Division, remanded to permit plea withdrawal or PCR proceedings; majority declined to decide broader Miranda/detention claims now |
Key Cases Cited
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (inventory searches serve administrative purposes)
- Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640 (inventory searches incidental to arrest and jailing)
- State v. Mangold, 82 N.J. 575 (two-step Mangold test: justified impoundment and lawful inventory procedure)
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (inventory-search purposes: protect property, guard against false claims, officer safety)
- Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (inventory searches cannot be a ruse to search for evidence; need standardized procedures)
- State v. Badessa, 185 N.J. 303 (fruits of unlawful search are inadmissible)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (exclusionary rule and ‘‘fruit of the poisonous tree")