State v. Randolph, 120 A.3d 237

Background

September 19, 2011: Undercover surveillance of a high-crime Jersey City building observed suspected hand-to-hand drug sales by Markees King and activity by Edward Wright; both were arrested nearby with drugs and money.
After perimeter arrests, Sergeant Trowbridge approached the locked building, gained entry with a first-floor tenant's permission, heard running upstairs, found a handgun in a vestibule grill, and then observed an open second-floor apartment door with "debris."
Trowbridge entered the second-floor apartment, performed a quick walkthrough, saw personal effects and drug paraphernalia, and recovered heroin and marijuana; mail addressed to Amir Randolph (defendant) was found there.
U.S. Marshals (with an unrelated arrest warrant for Randolph) located Randolph hiding in a third-floor closet and arrested him; Marshals had been concurrently surveilling the building.
At the suppression hearing the trial court denied the motion to suppress, finding the second-floor apartment abandoned and that Randolph lacked an expectation of privacy; the Appellate Division reversed, vacated the suppression ruling, and remanded for further evidentiary hearing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Randolph)	Held
1. Standing / expectation of privacy in second-floor apartment	Officers reasonably believed apartment was abandoned; Randolph had no privacy interest	Randolph had a possessory/occupancy interest (mail, personal effects); State bore burden to prove abandonment	Trial court erred: defendant may have had reasonable expectation of privacy; State must prove abandonment/trespassability; remand for further suppression hearing
2. Validity of warrantless entry/search (exigency / protective sweep)	Exigent circumstances and risk of alerted occupants justified entry and sweep; Bentley’s alleged phone warning made exigency credible	No evidence police attempted ordinary means to get warrant; disputed factual basis for exigency; defense should be allowed to develop evidence (cellphone operability)	Court declined to affirm on these grounds; ordered additional factfinding at remand because exigency/protective-sweep issues are fact-sensitive
3. Jury instruction on "mere presence" for constructive possession	Flight and circumstantial evidence supported constructive possession; model possession charge sufficient	Requested specific "mere presence" instruction because connection between Randolph and contraband was minimal (mail only)	Trial court’s refusal to give a tailored "mere presence" instruction was prejudicial; reversal and new trial required
4. Jury charge on flight	Flight instruction was proper, based on evidence of movement between floors and prosecutor argument	Flight instruction was untethered to facts and could mislead jurors without clear nexus to consciousness of guilt	Court cautioned that flight charges must be fact-specific; issue need not be resolved due to reversal but must be carefully considered on retrial

Key Cases Cited

State v. Brown, 216 N.J. 508 (N.J. 2014) (tests for abandonment and objective-reasonableness of belief a property is abandoned)
State v. Alston, 88 N.J. 211 (N.J. 1981) (standing to challenge searches requires proprietary, possessory, or participatory interest)
State v. Linton, 356 N.J. Super. 255 (App. Div. 2002) (holding that hiding drugs in vacant property can defeat reasonable expectation of privacy)
State v. Palacio, 111 N.J. 543 (N.J. 1988) (factors for constructive possession jury instructions beyond mere presence)
State v. Penalber, 386 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2006) (warrantless entry not excused merely because a door is open)
State v. Mann, 132 N.J. 410 (N.J. 1993) (standards for admitting evidence of flight as consciousness of guilt)