State v. James Legette076124), 152 A.3d 887

Background

Officer Dill responded to a noise complaint, found Legette on a common porch, smelled burnt marijuana, and initiated an investigatory (Terry) stop.
Legette said his ID was in his apartment and offered to retrieve it; Dill said he would accompany him and followed Legette inside.
Inside, Legette removed a sweatshirt; Dill seized it after Legette placed it on the floor and, after a K-9 sniff outside, discovered a loaded handgun in the sweatshirt pocket.
Legette moved to suppress the handgun; the trial court denied suppression; Legette pleaded guilty to possession by a convicted person.
The Appellate Division affirmed, relying on Washington v. Chrisman and State v. Bruzzese to permit an officer to accompany a detained suspect; the Supreme Court granted certification.
The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, holding officers may not follow detainees into homes during a Terry stop and suppressed evidence obtained from the warrantless entry.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Legette)	Held
May an officer follow a suspect into a home during an investigatory (Terry) stop?	Chrisman/Bruzzese support accompanying a detained suspect for officer safety; movements of detainees pose safety risks like arrestees.	Terry stops lack probable cause; home entries require probable cause and a warrant—Terry-level suspicion is insufficient.	No. Chrisman and Bruzzese apply only when the suspect has been arrested; officers may not follow detainees into homes during Terry stops.
Was Legette’s silence/conduct consent to the warrantless entry?	Silence and failure to object indicate implied consent to accompaniment.	Accompaniment occurred while Legette was detained; silence under police authority is not knowing waiver of Fourth Amendment rights.	No consent. The State failed to show Legette knowingly waived the right to refuse entry.
Did the smell of marijuana or other facts give Dill probable cause to arrest such that entry/search was incident to arrest?	Smell of burnt marijuana and observed bulge gave probable cause; search incident to arrest or inevitable discovery would validate seizure.	Even if probable cause existed, Legette was not arrested before entry; Chrisman/Bruzzese require an arrest before entry-authority.	Irrelevant: probable cause does not cure an unlawful warrantless home entry when no arrest was made prior to entry; the entry was illegal.
Should the handgun be suppressed as fruit of the unlawful entry?	Evidence admissible under inevitable discovery or search-incident-to-arrest (argued first on appeal).	Suppress: entry and seizure unlawful.	Suppress. The State bore the burden to prove an exception to the warrant requirement and failed to do so at trial; appellate-only inevitable-discovery argument was not considered.

Key Cases Cited

Washington v. Chrisman, 455 U.S. 1 (1982) (officer may accompany an arrestee to dormitory and seize items in plain view; rationale grounded in diminished privacy of arrestee and officer safety)
State v. Bruzzese, 94 N.J. 210 (1983) (adopts Chrisman in NJ; permits monitoring an arrestee’s movements inside home so long as arrest is lawful and officer conduct is objectively reasonable)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (permits brief investigatory stops on reasonable suspicion; scope limited to verification and officer safety)
State v. Walker, 213 N.J. 281 (2013) (odor of marijuana can establish probable cause that an offense has occurred and additional contraband may be present)
State v. Nishina, 175 N.J. 502 (2003) (officer’s detection of marijuana odor can establish probable cause supporting further search steps)