State v. Ricky Wright (073137), 114 A.3d 340

Landlord entered unoccupied apartment to fix a reported water leak; police observed drugs, a scale, and other items in rear bedroom drawer; officers entered without a warrant and later conducted a full search with consent; landlord and plumber initiated the initial observations and notified police; defendant Wright arrived as other officers were leaving and was arrested; Appellate Division upheld admissibility under third-party intervention; Supreme Court granted certification on whether the doctrine applies to residential property.
Initial private actor entry by landlord and plumber preceded police entry; officer’s follow-up search occurred without a warrant; private observations formed the basis for later police actions; question presented was whether private search exception applies to home.
Police conducted a full search moments after the initial private entry; James consented to a later search; various narcotics and weapons were seized; Wright challenged suppression of evidence.
Trial court relied on third-party intervention doctrine to justify warrantless entry; consent to search was found valid; Appellate Division affirmed; Court granted certification to limit issue to private search doctrine in homes.
Court held that third-party intervention/private search doctrine does not exempt initial home entry from warrant requirement; absent exigency, police must obtain a warrant to enter a private home and conduct a search; remanded to assess taint from initial unlawful entry.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the third-party intervention doctrine apply to warrantless home searches?	Wright contends the doctrine should not extend to homes.	State argues doctrine justifies confirmatory police entry within scope of private search.	No; doctrine does not apply to private dwellings.
Is the initial landlord/plumber entry lawful under the Fourth Amendment/State Constitution?	Private search cannot justify warrantless home entry.	Police may rely on private observations to justify warrants if within scope.	Initial entry unlawful absent exigent circumstances; warrant required.
Whether taint from the initial unlawful entry affects later consent search.	Consent search may be tainted by unlawful initial entry.	Consent could validate subsequent searches if independent.	Remand to determine taint; decision reserved.

Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465 (1921) (privacy doctrine: private actors not bound by Fourth Amendment unless government involvement arises)
Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649 (1980) (private search initial observations; government must stay within private search scope)
United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) (private search vs. government expansion; scope governs admissibility)
State v. Lamb, 218 N.J. 300 (2014) (home searches are presumptively invalid without warrant or exception)
Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (2013) (home is highly protected under Fourth Amendment)
State v. Earls, 214 N.J. 564 (2013) (exigency considerations to warrant exceptions)
State v. Vargas, 213 N.J. 301 (2013) (private caretaking doctrine limits in home contexts)
State v. Brown, 216 N.J. 508 (2014) (heightened protection for private residences)
State v. Saez, 268 N.J. Super. 250 (1993) (early articulation of third-party intervention limits)
State v. Premone, 348 N.J. Super. 505 (2002) (private search exceeded; taint theory applied)