State v. Rockford
213 N.J. 424
| N.J. | 2013Background
- Anonymous tip leads to investigation of Rockford Jr. living with his elderly parents, with officers concerned he had access to firearms.
- Six days of surveillance show defendant admitting individuals into the garage and others handling objects; drugs and activity suggesting a CDS operation.
- A warrant for Rockford’s residence, a shed, and vehicles is issued; the officers seek both no-knock and knock-and-announce options, but the court orders knock-and-announce.
- The plan divides twelve officers into three teams: outdoor flash-bang deployment, front-door knock-and-entry, and a rear perimeter capture.
- The flash-bang is deployed outdoors on the driveway before approaching the open garage; police announce and enter the garage, then proceed to the interior with other team members.
- A substantial amount of CDS, CDS paraphernalia, and weapons are seized; defendant challenges suppression, trial court denies, defendant pleads guilty to two counts, appellate division reverses, State appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre-entry use of a flash-bang violates knock-and-announce | State argues case-by-case reasonableness; device can be lawful outdoors given safety concerns. | Rockford argues flash-bang is inherently inconsistent with knock-and-announce and should be prohibited absent no-exigency. | Not per se unconstitutional; court adopts case-by-case totality-of-circumstances approach. |
| Whether outdoor deployment complied with knock-and-announce terms | State contends outdoor use did not breach warrant terms and aided safe entry. | Rockford contends pre-announcement device undermined the knock-and-announce requirement. | Objective reasonableness supported by planning and context; no automatic violation. |
| Whether the sequence and timing between knocking and entering the residence was reasonable | State emphasizes multiple, repeated announcements and controlled entry after brief delays. | Rockford argues the time between knocking and entry was too short and breached knock-and-announce. | Time between announcements and entry was reasonable under the circumstances; did not violate knock-and-announce. |
| Remedy for unconstitutional execution of the warrant | Not expressly addressed; suppression not required given reasonableness. | Exclusionary remedy should apply for unconstitutional execution. | Court does not decide suppression remedy in light of the finding of reasonableness. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johnson, 168 N.J. 608 (2001) (knock-and-announce standards coextensive with Fourth Amendment)
- State v. Robinson, 399 N.J. Super. 400 (App.Div. 2008) (flash-bang use discussed; no-knock guidance on appeal)
- State v. Jones, 179 N.J. 377 (2004) (balance of safety and privacy in knock-and-announce)
- State v. Fanelle, 385 N.J. Super. 518 (App.Div. 2006) (no-knock/no indoor deployment context for flash-bang debates)
- Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006) (exclusionary rule not applied to knock-and-announce violations in federal context)
- United States v. Banks, 540 U.S. 31 (2003) (case-by-case reasonableness balancing for entries under warrant)