State v. Lurdes Rosario (077420) (Monmouth and Statewide), A-91-15

Background

At ~11:30 p.m., Officer Campan saw a burgundy car parked head‑on to a curb in a residential development with a lone occupant who was "scuffling" inside the vehicle. He parked his cruiser behind the car and activated an alley light.
Officer asked the occupant (Lurdes Rosario) for identification; she produced a driver's license and he recognized her from a prior drug arrest and from a recent anonymous patrol notice linking her to heroin distribution and a burgundy Lumina.
Officer asked what she was doing; Rosario said she was smoking (no cigarette seen) and later said she was putting on makeup. Officer found her answers "strange" and then asked whether there was anything illegal in the vehicle.
Rosario volunteered that she had "the same thing you arrested me before," produced a fur mitten, an eyeglass case, and exposed a white powdery substance and paraphernalia. She was arrested for paraphernalia and charged with third‑degree possession of cocaine.
Rosario moved to suppress her statements and the seized evidence, arguing the encounter was an unjustified investigative stop and that her statement was the product of custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings; the trial court denied suppression and she entered a conditional guilty plea.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the initial contact was a field inquiry or an investigative stop	Officer: initial request for ID was a permissible field inquiry; it only became a stop when officer asked about illegal items	Rosario: she was effectively detained from the outset; the encounter was an investigative stop not supported by reasonable suspicion	Court: initial encounter was a field inquiry; it became an investigative stop when officer asked about illegal items
Whether, by the time Rosario admitted possession, officer had reasonable suspicion to justify the stop	State: officer had particularized suspicion based on late hour, furtive movements, inconsistent answers, prior arrest, and anonymous tip identifying car and driver	Rosario: facts did not amount to objectively reasonable suspicion to detain her	Court: totality of circumstances supported reasonable suspicion once encounter evolved into a stop
Whether Rosario was in custody for Miranda purposes when she volunteered the incriminating statement	State: the interaction was brief, noncoercive, and investigatory — not custodial interrogation — so Miranda warnings were not required	Rosario: she was deprived of freedom in a significant way and thus in custody; her statement should be suppressed	Court: not in custody — brief detention, familiar officer, no weapon drawn or coercive language; statement was volunteered and Miranda did not apply
Whether the physical evidence was tainted by illegality in the stop or interrogation	State: seizure followed defendant’s voluntary production of items; stop was supported by reasonable suspicion and statement was voluntary	Rosario: evidence flowed from unlawful detention/interrogation and must be suppressed	Court: suppression denied — detention was lawful when incriminating statement and seizure occurred; evidence admissible

Key Cases Cited

State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224 (discussing appellate deference to trial court factfinding)
State v. Maryland, 167 N.J. 471 (warrant requirement and field inquiry doctrine)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (Terry stop—reasonable suspicion standard for investigatory stops)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (custodial interrogation/miranda warnings rule)
Berkemer v. McCarthy, 468 U.S. 420 (brief investigatory stops not necessarily custodial for Miranda)
Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (limits of anonymous tips for reasonable suspicion)
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (objective test for seizure: would a reasonable person feel free to leave)