State v. Lurdes Rosario (077420) (Monmouth and Statewide), 162 A.3d 249

Background

On Apr. 27, 2013 police received an anonymous tip that Lurdes Rosario was selling heroin from her home (6 Parker Pass) and a burgundy Chevy Lumina; the tip was circulated to officers.
On May 1, 2013 at ~11:30 pm Officer Campan saw a woman in a parked Lumina in front of 6 Parker Pass, pulled his cruiser perpendicular behind it (blocking it), activated an alley light, exited, and approached the driver’s-side window.
Campan asked for identification; upon seeing Rosario he recalled a prior drug arrest and the anonymous tip. He asked what she was doing and why she was "scuffling" in the passenger area.
Rosario said she was smoking (no cigarette observed) and then said she had been applying makeup. Campan asked if there was “anything he should know about” in the car; Rosario reportedly said it was the same thing he had arrested her for before and produced an eyeglass case containing a white powder.
Rosario was arrested and charged with third-degree possession; she moved to suppress the statements and contraband. Trial court and Appellate Division denied suppression; the Supreme Court granted review and reversed suppression denials.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the encounter was a field inquiry or an investigative detention (and when detention began)	The interaction remained a field inquiry until Campan asked whether there was anything illegal in the car; earlier conduct was nonseizure questioning	Campan’s actions (boxing in car, alley light, approach, immediate ID request) would make a reasonable person feel restrained — detention began when officer blocked/illuminated and approached	Detention began when officer blocked in the car, shone alley light, and approached the driver’s window; objectively reasonable person would not feel free to leave
Whether reasonable, articulable suspicion supported the detention at its inception	Even if detention began earlier, Campan had reasonable suspicion by the time he asked about contraband based on location/time, furtive movements, implausible answers, prior arrest, and tip	Anonymous tip and mere furtive movement did not establish reasonable suspicion at the point the seizure began; later statements/contraband cannot retroactively justify earlier seizure	Reasonable suspicion did not exist at the moment the investigative detention began; anonymous tip and observed furtive movements were insufficient, so evidence/statements obtained thereafter must be suppressed
Whether the exclusionary rule requires suppression of statements/contraband obtained after the unlawful detention	State argued that defendant’s admission and voluntary production could validate or be used to justify the stop	Rosario argued post-stop statements and the contraband were fruits of an unlawful seizure and thus inadmissible	Court held post hoc statements and surrendered contraband cannot retroactively create reasonable suspicion; suppression required
Whether Miranda or voluntariness issues required separate relief	State and dissent argued Miranda inapplicable and statements voluntary	Rosario argued custodial interrogation/Miranda violation and involuntary statements	Majority found it unnecessary to resolve Miranda/voluntariness because suppression on Fourth Amendment grounds disposed of the case (dissent thought detention lawful so reached different conclusion)

Key Cases Cited

State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224 (warrantless searches/seizures presumptively violate Fourth Amendment)
State v. Maryland, 167 N.J. 471 (test for field inquiry: whether person reasonably believed they could walk away)
State v. Rodriguez, 172 N.J. 117 (investigative detention when reasonable person would feel movement restricted)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (Terry stop standard for investigatory detention)
Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (anonymous tip alone lacks reliability to support reasonable suspicion)
State v. Lund, 119 N.J. 35 (furtive movements generally insufficient absent corroborating circumstances)
State v. Herrerra, 211 N.J. 308 (exclusionary rule bars fruits of illegal searches/seizures)
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (reasonable person test for seizure assessed under totality of circumstances)