State v. Michael Lamb (071262)
218 N.J. 300
| N.J. | 2014Background
- July 3, 2009: police investigating a street shooting traced two cars to a mobile-home where Michael Lamb sometimes stayed; victims identified Lamb as the shooter.
- At the door Lamb's stepfather, Steven Marcus, loudly told officers to leave and denied Lamb was present; Lamb's girlfriend, Jennifer Garcia, was removed from the house and told police Lamb was hiding under a bed and that she saw him shoot.
- Police telephoned occupants; Marcus left and was detained offsite; shortly thereafter Lamb left at his mother's insistence and was arrested.
- Karen Marcus (Lamb's mother) remained in the house with three young children; officers told her they would obtain a warrant if she refused, and she signed a consent-to-search form and led them to Lamb's bedroom where they found a loaded .45 handgun.
- Lamb moved to suppress claiming his mother's consent was involuntary and that Marcus's earlier on-site objection should nullify her consent; the trial court and Appellate Division denied suppression. The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted certification limited to whether consenting occupant's authorization is effective against an absent co-occupant who previously objected.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Lamb's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an occupant's knowing, voluntary consent to search is constitutionally effective against a third party when an absent co-occupant previously objected on-scene | A consenting co-occupant may authorize a search when the objector is absent and was not removed to avoid objection; removal by lawful detention/arrest ends the prior objection's force | Marcus's on-site, emphatic objection should continue to bar a warrantless search for co-tenant evidence, especially given proximity and short interval; consent was coerced | Consent by Karen was valid as to Lamb because Marcus was absent and not removed to evade an objection; Fernandez treats lawful detention/ arrest as making absence equivalent to any other absence, so Karen's consent was effective |
| Whether Karen's consent was voluntary given police statements they would obtain a warrant if she refused | Accurate statement that police could obtain a warrant does not negate voluntary consent; officers had probable cause and exigent concerns | Statements about obtaining a warrant and threats (family jailed, home torn apart) overbore her will | Court found consent knowing and voluntary under totality: she was told she could refuse, read form, not coerced, and circumstances (children, loaded gun, proximate residences) supported reasonableness |
| Whether Randolph's "physically present and objecting" rule prevents search when the objector left before consent was given | Randolph's narrow exception applies only to a physically present objector; absent objector (lawfully detained or otherwise absent) loses controlling effect | Randolph should be read to protect objector even if briefly removed or still nearby; automatic standing should allow Lamb to contest | Court applied Randolph narrowly and relied on Fernandez: lawful removal nullified Marcus's earlier objection; search reasonable as to Lamb |
| Standing to challenge the search under New Jersey law | The State accepts Lamb has standing to challenge (possessory interest in seized gun) | Lamb argued Randolph's dictum limiting standing conflicted with NJ automatic-standing doctrine | Court reaffirmed NJ automatic standing (Alston), so Lamb had standing; nevertheless, consent search was valid as to him |
Key Cases Cited
- Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) (a physically present co-tenant's express refusal defeats another co-tenant's consent for a warrantless search)
- Fernandez v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1126 (2014) (an occupant absent due to lawful detention/arrest is treated like any other absent occupant; Randolph's exception does not apply)
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (third-party consent is valid when the consenting co-occupant has common authority over the premises)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (consent to search must be voluntary under the totality of the circumstances)
- State v. Alston, 88 N.J. 211 (1981) (New Jersey recognizes automatic standing for defendants with possessory, proprietary, or participatory interest)