State v. Xiomara Gonzales(075911), 148 A.3d 407

Background

Police, monitoring a wiretap, observed codefendant Height place two blue bags into Gonzales’s rear seat; investigators suspected the bags contained heroin and decided to follow rather than arrest to protect the ongoing investigation.
Newark officers in uniform followed Gonzales; she committed traffic violations (speeding, left on red, unpaid Parkway toll) and was stopped on the Garden State Parkway shoulder.
As Officer Perez approached the car he observed contents spilled from the blue bags onto the rear floorboard and “immediately identified” the items as bricks of heroin; 270 bricks (13,500 decks) were later seized.
Trial court denied Gonzales’s motion to suppress, finding (1) the stop lawful, (2) the drugs were observed in plain view, (3) the discovery was inadvertent, and (4) the incriminating nature was immediately apparent due to officer training.
Appellate Division reversed, relying on State v. Bruzzese’s three-prong plain-view test (including inadvertence), concluding the stop was a pretext and discovery was not inadvertent; it also rejected exigent-circumstances justification.
New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification, held that the inadvertence requirement is incompatible with objective-reasonableness under the State Constitution, excised inadvertence prospectively, but upheld the trial court’s finding that discovery here was inadvertent and reinstated denial of suppression.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Gonzales)	Held
Whether the inadvertence prong remains required under Article I, ¶7	Inadvertence is unnecessary; courts should apply Horton and objective-reasonableness — officer’s subjective motive irrelevant	Bruzzese’s inadvertence requirement protects against planned pretextual seizures; warrants required when police expect contraband	Court abolished inadvertence as a predicate to plain view (adopting Horton principle), applying change prospectively
Whether the seizure met plain-view limits in this case	Even under Bruzzese, seizure lawful: officers were lawfully present, drugs were immediately apparent, and discovery was inadvertent	Discovery was not inadvertent; stop was pretextual given prior knowledge of drugs, so seizure invalid	Trial court’s factual finding of inadvertence was supported by credible evidence; seizure upheld and suppression reversed
Whether exigent circumstances or warrant necessity controlled here	Officers need not await securing a warrant while suspected drugs could be moved; circumstances supported immediate action	Police had time while surveilling to obtain a warrant; exigency not shown	Court rejected appellate panel’s exigency finding; noted limited time and lawful stop justified action but plain view was dispositive
Standard of review for suppression factual findings	Appellate deference required to trial judge’s credibility and factual findings	Same; urged reversal based on legal standard and motives	Appellate courts must defer to trial court factual findings if supported by credible evidence; here deference warranted

Key Cases Cited

Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (plurality establishing three-part plain-view formulation including inadvertence)
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (holding inadvertence is not a necessary predicate to plain-view seizures)
Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (addressing "immediately apparent" / probable-cause aspect of plain view)
State v. Bruzzese, 94 N.J. 210 (adopting Coolidge three-prong test under New Jersey Constitution)
State v. Mann, 203 N.J. 328 (applying plain-view doctrine to vehicle seizure)
State v. Earls, 214 N.J. 564 (applied Bruzzese plain-view test post-Horton)
State v. Witt, 223 N.J. 409 (prospective application of new rules on warrant exceptions)
State v. Edmonds, 211 N.J. 117 (rejecting inquiry into officer’s subjective motives for emergency-aid exception)