State v. Parker, 207 A.3d 279

In Feb 2016 FIT detectives responded to a shots-fired call and encountered Deandre Parker and another man by a parked car; an officer observed Parker drop a silver metal object and another officer retrieved it and identified it as a revolver.
Police arrested Parker after what officers say was physical resistance; the recovered .38 revolver held live, hollow-point, and spent rounds. Parker had prior convictions and open warrants.
Two indictments charged Parker with unlawful possession of a handgun, possession of hollow-nose ammunition, resisting arrest, and possession of a handgun by a person with prior predicate convictions.
Parker moved to suppress the physical evidence; the State opposed with the indictments, an incident report, and grand jury transcript; Parker supplied a CAD report and a conflicting factual narrative denying the gun drop and resistance.
The trial judge granted suppression without an evidentiary hearing and denied the State’s reconsideration request, again without oral argument, explaining his decision in a letter-opinion that credited the defense counterstatement of facts.
The State appealed, arguing the judge erred by resolving disputed material facts without holding a Rule 3:5-7(c) evidentiary hearing; the Appellate Division agreed and reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Parker)	Held
Whether the motion judge erred by suppressing evidence without an evidentiary hearing when parties disputed material facts	The State argued the facts were disputed and required an N.J.R.E. 104 evidentiary hearing under Rule 3:5-7(c); witnesses should be heard and cross-examined	Parker argued the written submissions (incident report, grand jury transcript) were sufficient and contended he never dropped a gun or resisted arrest	The court held the judge erred: where material facts are disputed, an evidentiary hearing is required; reversed and remanded for a hearing and findings
Whether the judge erred by deciding the motion without allowing oral argument	The State contended oral argument is implicitly available under Rule 1:6-2(a) and is a fundamental part of criminal motions	Parker did not assert a need to deny oral argument; his filings were treated as sufficient	The court held the judge should have afforded counsel the opportunity for oral argument; admonished that oral advocacy should be preserved

State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224 (2007) (discusses articulable suspicion in vehicle search/consent contexts)
State v. Rodriguez, 172 N.J. 117 (2002) (addresses requirements for valid investigative detention)
State v. Atwood, 232 N.J. 433 (2018) (explains evidentiary hearings are the proper mechanism to test constitutionality of warrantless police conduct)
State v. Gamble, 218 N.J. 412 (2014) (discusses the trial judge’s need to make factual findings based on live testimony)
State v. Mayron, 344 N.J. Super. 382 (App. Div. 2001) (recognizes the availability of oral argument on criminal motions)