State v. Tawian Bacome(075953), 154 A.3d 1253

Detectives on undercover drug patrol followed a Ford Bronco driven by Bacome with S.R. as front passenger; they had prior knowledge linking both men to narcotics activity and noted traffic to defendant’s apartment.
About an hour later in Woodbridge, detectives observed S.R. riding without a seatbelt and initiated a traffic stop for that violation.
After the stop, one detective saw Bacome make a furtive movement reaching under his seat; both occupants were ordered out of the vehicle and gave conflicting statements about their destination.
Once S.R. exited, an officer observed in plain view a rolled-up paper "straw" and Brillo-like steel wool consistent with drug use; S.R. consented in writing to a car search, which uncovered crack cocaine and paraphernalia.
Bacome moved to suppress; the trial court denied suppression and Bacome pleaded guilty. The Appellate Division reversed in a split decision; the New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification and reinstated conviction.

Issue	State's Argument	Bacome's Argument	Held
Was the traffic stop lawful?	Stop valid: S.R. violated seatbelt law; officers’ subjective intent irrelevant.	Stop lawful only as to seatbelt but not basis for further intrusion.	Stop lawful: objective observation of seatbelt violation justified stop.
May officers order a passenger out of a stopped car?	Sloane/Wilson support broader authority; passenger seizure de minimis during stop.	Smith requires heightened caution before removing non-culpable passengers.	Smith’s heightened-caution standard remains controlling for passenger removal.
Did officers have ‘‘heightened caution’’ to remove S.R.?	Prior knowledge of drug activity + stop in narcotics area justified removal.	Seatbelt violation alone did not warrant removal; officers only had a hunch.	Yes: Bacome’s furtive reaching under the seat constituted specific, articulable facts warranting heightened caution.
Was the subsequent seizure/search lawful?	Plain-view and voluntary consent to search validated seizure of contraband.	Removal and observation tainted the search as fruit of unlawful seizure.	Evidence admissible: removal justified, plain-view discovery lawful, and consented search valid; conviction reinstated.

State v. Smith, 134 N.J. 599 (1994) (passengers may be ordered out only when specific and articulable facts warrant heightened caution)
Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997) (Supreme Court: officers may order passengers out of stopped vehicle)
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) (officers may order drivers out of stopped vehicles as a minor intrusion)
State v. Sloane, 193 N.J. 423 (2008) (passengers are seized during traffic stops under federal and state constitutions)
State v. Mai, 202 N.J. 12 (2010) (reaffirmed Smith’s heightened-caution standard)
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (objective reasonableness, not officer’s subjective intent, governs Fourth Amendment stops)
Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (passengers are seized during traffic stops)
State v. Gonzales, 227 N.J. 77 (2016) (plain-view exception discussed in seizure/search context)
State v. Carty, 170 N.J. 632 (2002) (traffic stop requires reasonable and articulable suspicion of an offense)