State v. Smart: NJ Supreme Court Upholds Warrantless Car Search by Police Only in “Unforeseeable and Spontaneous Circumstances”

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently reviewed the vehicle exception to the search warrant requirement in State v. Smart. The Court had previously established this heightened standard of review for warrantless vehicle searches in State v. Witt, 223 N.J. 409, 447-48 (2015). In that case, the Court held that a warrantless vehicle search is permissible when “unforeseeable and spontaneous” circumstances give rise to probable cause to search the vehicle. As stated in Witt, New Jersey’s standard for a warrantless vehicle search is more stringent than the federal standard and the Fourth Amendment.

In Smart, Officer Taranto was surveilling a condominium complex known for frequent drug transactions and other criminal activity. Taranto had received information from a confidential informant that a drug dealer known as “Killer,” with a lengthy criminal history, was using a 2017 GMC Terrain and that the vehicle had been involved in several drug deals.

Taranto identified the GMC sitting outside the complex. Soon after, Smart, a woman, and a child entered the GMC. Taranto followed them to a residence where he observed activity consistent with a drug transaction. Another officer, Samantha Sutter, joined Taranto. Sutter knew that several drug dealers lived at that address and had received a tip from a concerned citizen that drug activity was occurring at the residence. Sutter observed Smart enter the residence’s backyard and return with another female. Smart returned to the GMC, and the female returned to the residence.

As a result, Taranto directed other officers to pull over the GMC for an investigative stop based on reasonable and articulable suspicion that Smart had engaged in a drug deal. The officers patted Smart down, finding no incriminating evidence. However, the female driver did not consent to a search of the GMC, so the officers called for a canine. The canine’s positive drug “hit” through an exterior sniff established probable cause for a search. The officers then searched the GMC, finding drugs, drug paraphernalia, weapons, and ammunition. Smart admitted the contraband was his, and the officers arrested him and charged him with various crimes.

Smart filed a motion to suppress the physical evidence from the search of the GMC, arguing that the warrantless search was illegal. The trial judge suppressed the evidence because the police failed to obtain a warrant. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial judge’s decision and granted leave to appeal.

The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Appellate Division suppressing the physical evidence from the warrantless search. The Court found that the circumstances giving rise to probable cause to search the vehicle, in this case, were not “unforeseeable and spontaneous,” as required by Witt. Those circumstances included the tips provided by the confidential informant and the concerned citizen, the officers’ surveillance of the GMC and Smart, the reasonable and articulable suspicion that Smart had engaged in a drug deal, and a positive sniff by the canine.

Call Us for Legal Representation in Your Criminal Case

You likely have many questions and concerns when you or a loved one face criminal charges. You can rely on the criminal defense attorneys at Rosenberg, Perry & Associates, LLC, to give you the necessary answers. We will evaluate your situation and present the options available in your case. Together, we can decide the best course of action in your case. You can reach us by phone at (609) 216-7400 or visit us online.