State v. Sencion, 183 A.3d 961

Around 1:00 a.m., Fort Lee police stopped Jose Rivas for a reported flat tire; Rivas said he was heading to a friend "Shorty" in a nearby five-story building.
Patrolman Hernandez went to the building, found the inner entry door locked, and twice forced entry using a slim jim (an entry tool) to access the locked common hallway.
After forcing entry, officers knocked on several apartment doors; opening one door led to seeing drugs and drug paraphernalia in plain view in Apartment 4A; police secured the apartment and later obtained a search warrant.
Defendants pled guilty to drug and weapons offenses based on items discovered after the forced entries; the State conceded there was no probable cause to obtain a warrant prior to entry.
The trial court denied the defendants’ suppression motion; on appeal the court held that forcing entry into the locked common hallway violated occupants’ reasonable expectation of privacy and reversed, ordering suppression/remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether forcing entry into locked common hallway violated privacy	Break-ins were not constitutionally intrusive given multi-unit building and plain-view discovery	Occupants have reasonable expectation of privacy in locked common areas; entry required warrant or consent	Forced entries violated reasonable expectation of privacy; unlawful entry
Whether evidence in plain view after the entry was admissible	Plain-view doctrine permits seizure without warrant	Evidence is fruit of poisonous tree from unlawful entry and must be suppressed	Plain-view did not cure the initial unlawful entry; evidence suppressed
Whether building size reduces expectation of privacy	Larger building with many tenants reduces privacy expectation	Lock on common door is dispositive; locked common area remains private	Size is less important than whether common entry is locked; lock supported reasonable expectation of privacy
Whether investigatory purpose/exigency justified warrantless entry	Investigation into alleged suspicious conduct justified limited entry without warrant	Investigatory interest does not create exigency; police may not force entry to conduct an investigation	No exigent circumstances; investigatory motives do not justify forced entry without warrant

State v. Johnson, 793 A.2d 619 (N.J. 2002) (plain-view seizure from unlocked access held reasonable in specific facts)
State v. Jefferson, 994 A.2d 1067 (App. Div. 2010) (locked common hallway of two-family home not open to public; forced entry impermissible)
State v. Nunez, 754 A.2d 581 (App. Div. 2000) (whether door is locked is a reliable predictor of reasonable expectation of privacy)
State v. Penalber, 898 A.2d 538 (App. Div. 2006) (entry into open apartment door invalidated where investigation, not exigency, prompted entry)
State v. Hempele, 576 A.2d 793 (N.J. 1990) (New Jersey adopts an objective reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test distinct from federal two-prong test)
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (U.S. 1961) (exclusionary rule bars introduction of evidence obtained through unlawful searches and seizures)