216 A.3d 118
N.J.2019Background
- D.S. obtained an ex parte Family Part TRO under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act seeking to bar James Hemenway from contact and to seize weapons; the judge authorized a weapons-search order for Hemenway’s apartment and three cars without articulating probable cause.
- At the scene, police arrested Hemenway for obstructing the domestic-violence order, entered his apartment, detected and observed suspected marijuana and cocaine, and photographed those items.
- Based on the observed drugs, police obtained a telephonic criminal search warrant and seized drugs, cash, and bullets; no firearms or switchblades were found.
- Hemenway was indicted on drug charges, moved to suppress evidence seized from the domestic-violence-ordered search and the subsequent criminal warrant, and later pled guilty.
- The trial court and Appellate Division denied suppression; the New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification to decide whether N.J.S.A. 2C:25-28(j) and the Appellate Division’s reasonable-cause standard comport with the Fourth Amendment and N.J. Const. art. I, ¶ 7.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Hemenway's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Family Part weapons-search order under N.J.S.A. 2C:25-28(j) may issue on less than probable cause | Special-needs rationale: protecting victims is a non-law-enforcement purpose justifying a lower (reasonable-cause) standard | The Fourth Amendment and NJ Constitution require probable cause for any search/warrant to enter a home; statute is facially unconstitutional as written | Statute must be applied to require probable cause; reasonable-cause standard insufficient for home searches under the Act |
| Whether the special-needs doctrine permits civil weapons-search warrants for homes without probable cause | Special needs (victim protection) make the probable-cause requirement impracticable in this context | Special-needs exception does not apply to searches of homes here; doctrine is for exceptional contexts with reduced privacy expectations | Rejected special-needs justification for lowering probable-cause requirement for home searches under the Act |
| What findings are required before issuing a weapons-search warrant under the Act | The victim’s complaint and testimony satisfy the standards used by family courts; the order here was reasonable | The TRO/warrant here lacked the constitutionally required factual basis; evidence derived must be suppressed | Court requires three probable-cause findings before issuing such a warrant: (1) act of domestic violence by defendant, (2) seizure of weapons is necessary to protect victim, (3) weapons are likely located in place to be searched |
| Remedy for evidence seized after defective domestic-violence warrant | Evidence was obtained lawfully (State) and independently supported later criminal warrant | Evidence was the fruit of an unconstitutional search and must be suppressed | Suppressed all evidence derived from the defective domestic-violence warrant, and derivative criminal searches; reversal and remand; defendant may withdraw guilty plea |
Key Cases Cited
- Camara v. Mun. Court, 387 U.S. 523 (U.S. 1967) (probable-cause requirement applies to administrative/civil inspections of homes and must be adapted to the program’s goals)
- DEP v. Huber, 213 N.J. 338 (N.J. 2013) (administrative entry into residential property requires a probable-cause-based court order adapted to civil context)
- State v. Johnson, 352 N.J. Super. 15 (App. Div. 2002) (adopted a reasonableness standard for domestic-violence weapons searches under the Act)
- State v. Dispoto, 189 N.J. 108 (N.J. 2007) (held the family court must find probable cause that an act of domestic violence occurred before issuing TRO and related warrant)
- State v. Edmonds, 211 N.J. 117 (N.J. 2012) (warrantless home entry requires exigent circumstances; heightened protection for the home)