NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3944-16T2
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
August 29, 2019
v.
APPELLATE DIVISION
TEOSHIE WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________
Argued October 29, 2018 – Decided August 29, 2019
Before Judges Messano, Gooden Brown, and Rose.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Middlesex County, Indictment No. 14-
09-0992.
Molly O'Donnell Meng, Assistant Deputy Public
Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Joseph E.
Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Molly O'Donnell
Meng, of counsel and on the briefs).
Sarah D. Brigham, Deputy Attorney General, argued
the cause for respondent (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney
General, attorney; Jenny M. Hsu, Deputy Attorney
General, of counsel and on the brief).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
GOODEN BROWN, J.A.D.
Following the denial of her motion to suppress evidence seized from her
apartment without a search warrant, defendant Teoshie Williams entered a
negotiated guilty plea to third-degree hindering apprehension, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-
3(a)(1), and was sentenced to fines only. Under the terms of the plea
agreement, the remaining eight counts charged in a forty-six count indictment, 1
consisting of three counts of drug possession-related charges, four counts of
child endangerment, and one count of hindering apprehension, were dis missed.
The sole issue before us in this appeal is whether police lawfully entered
and searched defendant's apartment. More particularly, defendant argues:
THE INITIAL ENTRY INTO THE APARTMENT,
THE PROTECTIVE SWEEP, AND THE
SUBSEQUENT SEARCH WERE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THEREFORE, THE
COCAINE SEIZED MUST BE SUPPRESSED AS
THE FRUIT OF THOSE UNLAWFUL SEARCHES.
We reject these contentions and affirm.
I.
At the suppression hearing, six police witnesses testified, namely, New
Brunswick Police Officers Miguel Chang, John Yurkovic, William Contreras,
and Edward Bobadilla, as well as Detective Brandon Epstein and Sergeant
1
Co-defendants Shavonda Stokes, Musset Celestin, Jr., Shakil Brinson, Ivery
Brinson, and Lurine Brinson were also charged in various counts of the
indictment. Although they each filed a suppression motion, they are not part
of this appeal.
A-3944-16T2
2
Michael Yurkovic.2 Lurine Brinson testified for the defense. The motion
record revealed that at approximately 6:30 p.m. on July 9, 2013, Chang
responded to a call from Commercial Avenue in New Brunswick and spoke to
the caller, Shanae Alston. Alston advised Chang that she had obtained custody
of her niece, A.W., a minor, who was inside a third-floor apartment with her
(A.W.'s) mother, Lurine Brinson. After showing Chang a copy of the court
order, Alston explained that Lurine Brinson was "wanted for questioning"
because her two brothers, Shakil and Ivery Brinson, were suspects in a
homicide in Irvington. Alston sought police assistance in obtaining custody of
A.W., and believed that Shakil and Ivery Brinson were both "most likely"
inside the apartment, along with Lurine Brinson and A.W.
Although Chang was accustomed to handling custody disputes, given the
information about homicide suspects, he called his supervisor, Sergeant M.
Yurkovic (the Sergeant), and "asked him to come . . . to the scene" because he
was concerned about officer safety. The Sergeant promptly responded, along
with Contreras, Bobadilla, and J. Yurkovic (Yurkovic). Once they arrived,
Chang relayed the information Alston had provided and the Sergeant read the
child custody order. The Sergeant contacted a supervisor in the Irvington
2
The State presented the testimony of Chang, Epstein, and John Yurkovic.
The remaining police witnesses were presented by the defense.
A-3944-16T2
3
Police Department as well as his own dispatch and confirmed that Shakil and
Ivery Brinson had active warrants for a murder charge involving the use of a
firearm. Upon receiving the confirmation, the officers proceeded to the
apartment identified by Alston.
As they approached the third-floor apartment, Yurkovic had "a long
arm"3 slung over his shoulder, while the other officers' guns were holstered.
Upon arrival, Chang knocked on the door several times and announced
"police." Although the officers heard "movement inside" and "people talking,"
they waited approximately "two to three minutes" before someone eventually
opened the door. The delay in opening the door and the sounds emanating
from inside the apartment "heightened" Yurkovic's "suspicions" that the two
suspects were "possibly" in the apartment.
An individual later identified as Shavonda Stokes opened the door. 4
Mistaking Stokes for a minor, Chang asked whether her "mom [was] home."
At that point, an individual later identified as defendant came to the door.
Chang advised defendant that police were there "for a custody issue," and
3
Yurkovic testified he was carrying the "long arm" or rifle "at a low ready
position[,]" which "would be the equivalent to carrying [a] pistol in [a]
holster."
4
The Sergeant testified after the door was opened, "[t]here was a smell of
burnt marijuana" emanating from the apartment.
A-3944-16T2
4
asked if they could "come in[.]" Defendant responded, "[s]ure," and allowed
the officers to enter the apartment. Once inside, the officers observed four
minors and three female adults in the living room area. Chang then informed
defendant that they were called "for a custody issue concerning [A.W.]," but
also received "information" that there were possibly "two homicide fugitives
inside the apartment[.]" Defendant advised the officers that "they[] [were] not
here." After defendant confirmed she was the lawful resident of the apartment,
Chang asked defendant if they could conduct a "protective sweep," to which
defendant responded, "[s]ure, go ahead."
After defendant consented, Chang "went straight down the hallway[,]"
"quickly checked the bathroom . . . on the right side of the hallway," and then
proceeded to a small "bedroom . . . at the end of the hallway." Inside the
bedroom, he observed "feet hanging out between . . . two air mattresses." He
"flipped over the top air mattress" and found an individual later identified as
Shakil Brinson "hiding between the air mattresses." Chang placed Shakil
Brinson in handcuffs, "[led] him down the hallway," and "pass[ed] him off to
the other officers." Meanwhile, Yurkovic also went "down the hallway" to the
master bedroom on "the left." Inside the master bedroom, Yurkovic found an
individual later identified as Musset Celestin, Jr. seated on the bed, and
escorted him to the living room with the other officers. Upon resuming the
A-3944-16T2
5
sweep, Yurkovic "check[ed] the [hallway] closet," and found another
individual, later identified as Ivery Brinson, "hiding under a pile of clothing."
Yurkovic promptly placed him in handcuffs and led him to the living room.
According to Chang and Yurkovic, the sweep lasted "[a]pproximately one to
two minutes" and was confined to areas where "a person could hide." They
testified no "drawers" or "cabinets" were "open[ed]" during the sweep.
Thereafter, while awaiting further instructions, the officers secured the
scene by ensuring that nobody entered the apartment. The Brinson brothers
were separated from the other occupants and placed under arrest. Upon
learning that an investigator from the Essex County Prosecutor's Office
(ECPO) wanted to search the apartment for evidence related to the Irvington
homicide, the officers remained at the scene. Later, Detective Brandon
Epstein, who was trained in consensual searches, responded to "assist" with the
search of the apartment. At approximately 9:00 p.m., accompanied by an
ECPO detective, Epstein requested defendant's consent to search the apartment
by reading defendant the consent to search form. Initially, defendant "had a
question" and was permitted to "consult[] with another male [who] was" at the
scene. Thereafter, defendant told the detectives that "she needed to make a
phone call to her [l]awyer," which she was also permitted to do.
A-3944-16T2
6
When defendant returned, Epstein again read the consent to search form
to defendant and requested her consent. Defendant then consented to the
search and signed the consent to search form, indicating on the form that she
was not waiving her right to be present during the search. The entire process
of securing defendant's consent to search, which lasted approximately fifteen
minutes, was recorded on a mobile video recorder (MVR). The videotaped
recording was played during the hearing. After obtaining defendant's consent,
Yurkovic and Contreras performed a search of the apartment in defendant's
presence. In the master bedroom, Yurkovic recovered "a large bag of cocaine
under the mattress." As a result, defendant was arrested and charged, along
with the three other adult occupants, Celestin, Stokes, and Lurine Brinson.
The defense version of what transpired during the police encounter
conflicted with the State's. According to Lurine Brinson, Stokes opened the
door as soon as she heard the knock and had "a gun [pointed] in her face" by
Yurkovic. Defendant immediately "jumped up" and went to the door, at which
point the officers went around her, and, with guns drawn, "started searching
the [apartment]." Lurine testified the officers did not advise defendant that she
did not have to consent or permit a protective sweep. Further, according to
Lurine, none of the officers asked her for her name or who her child was until
much later.
A-3944-16T2
7
Following the hearing, the judge denied the motion. In a written
decision issued on November 3, 2014, 5 the judge found the officers' testimony
credible and made detailed factual findings consistent with their version.
Next, the judge recounted at length the governing principles and applicable
case law. Applying State v. Gamble, 218 N.J. 412 (2014), the judge rejected
the defense contention that Alston's information was comparable to an
uncorroborated anonymous tip that did not provide the requisite reasonable
suspicion to justify the subsequent protective sweep. The judge explained:
[T]he [p]olice were able to verify all the information
that . . . Alston told them. Testimony reveals that . . .
Alston was a person who appeared to be worthy of
belief. She had not only requested assistance with a
child custody order, but enhanced her credibility by
actually producing a copy of that order. She also told
police that Ivery and Shakil Brinson had a murder
warrant out for their arrest – information that was
confirmed by Sergeant Yurkovic and verified with
dispatch and with the Irvington Police Department.
She was not merely an "unverified" person making a
claim. She was a person[,] who in a short period of
time, had provided two pieces of information that
were verified as true by outside sources.
Thus, considering the "verified information," the judge concluded that
"the police . . . had credible evidence giving rise to a reasonable articulable
suspicion that the area to be swept harbored individuals posing a danger."
5
The judge also read her decision into the record on the same date.
A-3944-16T2
8
Further, "considering all the facts leading up to the search," the judge
determined that the police had "a legitimate purpose to be present at the scene
and subsequently perform a cursory search of the premises upon entry, with or
without consent." Additionally, the judge found that the protective sweep
complied with Davila's6 requirements that "the sweep" be "cursory and limited
in scope to locations in which an individual could be concealed."
In that regard, the judge described the defense argument "that the search
was a pretext to search without a warrant" as "unsubstantiated and without
merit." On the contrary, the judge found "no indication that the police
exceeded the permissible scope of a protective sweep" because the "[o]fficers
moved through the two[-]bedroom apartment relatively quickly and only
looked in places where individuals could be concealed." In fact, according to
the judge, "[a]ll the individuals were found . . . in areas . . . conducive to
hiding." Thus, the judge concluded that "based upon the totality of all the
circumstance[s] existing at the time," "all requirements to conduct a
[p]rotective [s]weep" were "adhered to without deviation" and "the s earch"
was therefore "valid."
Turning to the consent search of the apartment, the judge rejected
defendant's assertion that she "did not consent to the full search of her
6
State v. Davila, 203 N.J. 97 (2010).
A-3944-16T2
9
apartment freely and voluntar[il]y." The judge noted that "[t]he entire
encounter" between defendant and the police "regarding her consent was
recorded on a police [MVR,]" which the judge viewed. The judge recounted
that "[p]olice explain[ed] to [defendant] her rights," and "allowed [her] to
speak to an individual at the scene and . . . make a phone call that [defendant]
said was to her lawyer[,]" before defendant "executed the [c]onsent to [s]earch
form."
The judge determined that defendant "was aware of her right to refuse to
sign the [c]onsent form," and found, "as an aside," that defendant "questioned
the officer" about her right to "be present during the search and was told that
she could." The judge concluded that defendant "voluntarily waived her right
to refuse to consent and granted police consent to search her apartment in
accordance with the law." As a result, the police conducted, in defendant's
presence, "a more extensive and intrusive search of the apartment[,]" which
revealed a large quantity of cocaine. According to the judge, because "the
[c]onsent to [s]earch was obtained legally," "the fruits of that search w[ould]
not be suppressed." The judge entered a memorializing order and this appe al
followed.
A-3944-16T2
10
II.
On appeal, defendant argues that, contrary to the judge's ruling, "every
stage of th[e] search was unconstitutional[.]" Specifically, defendant asserts
"[p]olice unlawfully entered the apartment without informing [defendant] that
she had the right to refuse their entry [7] or the sweep;" and "unlawfully
conducted a protective sweep without any reasonable, articulable suspicion
that the apartment harbored an individual posing a danger[.]" Defendant
continues that her "consent to search was tainted by the prior unlawful entry,
sweep, and seizure of the apartment." Therefore, according to defendant, "the
evidence seized must be suppressed as fruit of the unlawful searches and
seizures." We disagree.
Our review of the trial court's decision on a motion to suppress is
limited. State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1, 15 (2009). "An appellate court
7
The State asserts that defendant failed to challenge the validity of
defendant's consent to enter the apartment at the suppression hearing, and, as a
result, has not preserved the issue for appellate review. According to
defendant, in its supporting briefs, the State, in fact, presented arguments to
the judge specifically asserting that police were not required "to inform the
resident that he or she ha[d] the right to refuse" when only requesting "to enter
a residence." When the parties fail to "make known their positions at the
suppression hearing so that the trial court can rule on the issues before it[,]" or
a "record is barren of facts that would shed light on [the] issue[,]" appellate
courts should "decline[] to entertain [a] belatedly raised issue." State v. Witt,
223 N.J. 409, 418-19 (2015). However, such is not the case here. See State v.
Scott, 229 N.J. 469, 480 (2017) (deciding to consider the argument because the
existing factual record is sufficient to rule on the legal issue).
A-3944-16T2
11
reviewing a motion to suppress evidence in a criminal case must uphold the
factual findings underlying the trial court's decision, provided that those
findings are 'supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record.'" State v.
Boone, 232 N.J. 417, 425-26 (2017) (quoting State v. Scriven, 226 N.J. 20, 40
(2016)). We do so "because those findings 'are substantially influenced by
[an] opportunity to hear and see the witnesses and to have the "feel" of the
case, which a reviewing court cannot enjoy.'" Gamble, 218 N.J. at 424-25
(alteration in original) (quoting State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 161 (1964)).
"The governing principle, then, is that '[a] trial court's findings should be
disturbed only if they are so clearly mistaken that the interests of justice
demand intervention and correction.'" Robinson, 200 N.J. at 15 (alteration in
original) (quoting State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224, 244 (2007)). "We owe no
deference, however, to conclusions of law made by trial courts in deciding
suppression motions, which we instead review de novo." State v. Brown, 456
N.J. Super. 352, 358-59 (App. Div. 2018) (citing State v. Watts, 223 N.J. 503,
516 (2015)).
Applying that de novo standard of review, "[w]e review this appeal in
accordance with familiar principles of constitutional law." State v. Robinson,
228 N.J. 529, 543 (2017). "Both the United States Constitution and the New
Jersey Constitution guarantee an individual's right to be secure against
A-3944-16T2
12
unreasonable searches or seizures." State v. Minitee, 210 N.J. 307, 318
(2012). Searches and seizures conducted without a warrant, "particularly in a
home, are presumptively unreasonable" and "must be subjected to particularly
careful scrutiny." State v. Edmonds, 211 N.J. 117, 129 (2012) (quoting State
v. Bolte, 115 N.J. 579, 583, 585 (1989)). As such, "[t]he State bears the
burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence," id. at 128, that such
searches and seizures are "justified by one of the '"well-delineated exceptions"
to the warrant requirement.'" State v. Shaw, 213 N.J. 398, 409 (2012) (quoting
State v. Frankel, 179 N.J. 586, 598 (2004), overruled in part by State v.
Edmonds, 211 N.J. 117 (2012)).
The exceptions invoked in this case to justify the warrantless search of
defendant's apartment are a protective sweep and a consent search. "[A]
'protective sweep' is a quick and limited search of premises, incident to an
arrest[,] and conducted to protect the safety of police officers or others. It is
narrowly confined to a cursory visual inspection of those places in which a
person might be hiding." Davila, 203 N.J. at 113 (quoting Maryland v. Buie,
494 U.S. 325, 327 (1990)). In Robinson, our Supreme Court
limited the protective sweep of a home to settings in
which "(1) police officers are lawfully within private
premises for a legitimate purpose, which may include
consent to enter; and (2) the officers on the scene have
a reasonable articulable suspicion that the area to be
swept harbors an individual posing a danger."
A-3944-16T2
13
[Davila, 203 N.J. at 102]. This Court has also
imposed strict constraints on the duration and scope of
the protective sweep in the residential setting. Ibid.;
accord State v. Cope, 224 N.J. 530, [548 (2016)].
[Robinson, 228 N.J. at 545.]
As to the first element, relying on State v. Jefferson, 413 N.J. Super. 344
(App. Div. 2010), defendant argues the "police were . . . not lawfully inside the
home" because they were required to "inform [her] that she had the right to
refuse" consent for the officers to enter her apartment and "concededly" failed
to do so. It is well-established in New Jersey case law that officers seeking to
search a residence by consent must inform the occupant that he or she has a
right to refuse the search. State v. Johnson, 68 N.J. 349, 353-54 (1975). This
State's case law is not as clear, however, on whether officers must inform
occupants they have a right to refuse the officers' request to simply enter a
residence.
In Jefferson, we reversed the denial of the defendant's motion to
suppress evidence seized from his apartment without a warrant. 413 N.J.
Super. at 362. There, the police were investigating a citizen's tip of shots fired
and located the suspected car of the alleged shooter in front of the defendant's
residence, which was a multi-family dwelling. Id. at 349-50. An officer
forcibly entered the dwelling by wedging herself into a slightly open door as
the defendant attempted to keep her out by closing the door. Id. at 350-51.
A-3944-16T2
14
During the course of the struggle, the door struck the officer. Id. at 351. As a
result, "[a]fter a brief but loud and violent struggle," the other officers
"subdued and arrested" the defendant for the alleged assault. Ibid.
When questioned about the registered owner of the car police were
investigating, the defendant identified the owner as his wife, Tiffanie
Morrison, and told police she was in the second-floor apartment. Ibid. After
the defendant was taken to police headquarters, the officers banged on the door
of the second-floor apartment and the defendant's wife "opened the door with a
child clinging to her leg." Ibid. "She and the child appeared to be afraid and
upset." Ibid. In response to their inquiry, she told the police no one "else was
in the apartment[,]" but "her eyes darted away from the police into the
apartment, causing [one of the officers] to become concerned." Ibid. "The
police asked if they could enter, and [she] gave permission." Ibid. Then,
"[t]he police conducted a protective sweep of the apartment[,]" and "saw
narcotics packaging materials and other possible evidence of narcotics" in
plain view. Ibid.
Several hours later, Morrison consented to a search of the apartment, and
the search "uncovered quantities of crack cocaine," id. at 352, which formed
the evidential basis for the second-degree drug charge to which defendant
subsequently "entered a conditional plea of guilty." Id. at 348. However,
A-3944-16T2
15
[w]hen Morrison finally signed consent forms at 12:39
p.m., the police had already entered her apartment and
conducted an unlawful sweep and plain view search.
They had removed her and her child from her home.
During the next two and a half hours, police officers
remained inside her apartment while she was
prohibited from re-entering. The police gave no
indication of when their seizure of the home would
end and when Morrison and her family might be
permitted to return.
[Id. at 362.]
Beginning with the forced entry into the multi-family dwelling, we
determined the police were not authorized to enter in the absence of "either a
warrant or an exception from the Fourth Amendment's warrant require ment[,]"
neither of which were present. Id. at 356. "Nor were the police authorized to
enter [the] defendant's apartment to conduct a sweep for the presence of other
persons," because "[a]lthough the police witnesses testified that Morrison
granted permission for them to enter, they did not testify that she was advised
of a right to refuse consent before the initial entry into her apartment." Id. at
360-61.
We explained:
Under the protections recognized in our State
constitution against unreasonable search and seizure,
N.J. Const., art. I, ¶ 7, Morrison's initial oral consent
is not considered voluntary without proof that she
knew she had a right to refuse. See State v. Domicz,
188 N.J. 285, 307 (2006); [Johnson, 68 N.J. at 353-
54]; State v. Todd, 355 N.J. Super. 132, 138-39 (App.
A-3944-16T2
16
Div. 2002). The State bears the burden of proving her
consent was voluntary, State v. Koedatich, 112 N.J.
225, 262 (1988) . . . ; State v. Chapman, 332 N.J.
Super. 452, 466 (App. Div. 2000), and it did not
satisfy that burden with respect to the first police entry
into the apartment.
[Jefferson, 413 N.J. Super. at 361.]
We concluded that "the search of the apartment some three hours after [the]
defendant had been arrested was a violation of his constitutional right against
unlawful search and seizure[,]" and "was the fruit of the unconstitutional
entries into the hallway and the initial sweep of the apartment[.]" Id. at 362.
On the other hand, in State v. Padilla, 321 N.J. Super. 96, 108 (App. Div.
1999), aff'd o.b., 163 N.J. 3 (2000), we held that police officers did not have to
advise the occupant that she had a right to refuse consent to enter the premises.
In Padilla, officers received an anonymous phone call that three people had
entered a motel room with a gun. Id. at 102-03. Three investigating officers
knocked on the motel room door. Id. at 103. When a woman answered, one of
the officers "identified himself and asked if the officers could enter." Ibid.
The woman "said, 'okay' or 'yes[,]' and opened the door wider[.]" Ibid. The
three officers entered and observed a gun, drugs, and drug paraphernalia in
plain view, ultimately leading to the occupants' arrests. Id. at 103-04.
There, we held that "the police had the right, if not the obligation, . . . to
investigate the report that a person with a gun was in the motel room[,]" and
A-3944-16T2
17
that, as part of that investigation, "had the right to knock on the door and
identify themselves for the purpose of continuing their investigation and
making reasonable inquiries." Id. at 107. We saw "nothing unreasonable
about [the officers'] request for permission to enter the room," and rejected the
defendants' arguments that the woman's consent to enter the room was invalid
because "the officers did not advise her of a right to refuse to consent." Id. at
108. We reasoned that unlike Johnson, 68 N.J. at 346, "the officers did not
seek consent to search[,]" but "merely sought permission to enter to continue
their investigation." Padilla, 321 N.J. Super. at 108.
Similarly, in State v. Pineiro, 369 N.J. Super. 65 (App. Div. 2004), we
held that because a defendant "voluntarily admitted" investigators from the
county prosecutor's office and the sheriff's office into his apartment, "the
investigators' entry . . . was the same as that of any other social guest or
business visitor, and did not constitute a Fourth Amendment search." Id. at 73.
There, the defendant was a sheriff's officer who was observed on videotape
removing a laptop computer from the trial court administrator's office. Id. at
68. Investigators from the sheriff's and prosecutor's offices obtained warrants
for the defendant's arrest and to search his "apartment, motor vehicles[,] and
locker[.]" Ibid.
A-3944-16T2
18
However, when the investigators went to the defendant's apartment, they
did not notify him of the warrants but simply said they were there "because
there was a problem at work." Ibid. The "defendant admitted [the
investigators] into the apartment" and was only informed of the warrants after
the investigators observed a laptop computer and other possible stolen items
inside the apartment. Id. at 68-69. We held that "[a]lthough the investigators
had warrants to arrest defendant and search his apartment," they did not rely
on the warrants to "gain entry to the apartment" but were "voluntarily
admitted" by the defendant. Id. at 73. We explained that "because all the
items were found in areas to which they had been voluntarily admitted by
defendant[,]" the "seizure of these items would have been valid even if the
investigators did not have a lawfully issued search warrant." Id. at 74.
Based on these divergent approaches, Jefferson on one hand and Padilla
and Pineiro on the other, it is apparent that the occupant's knowledge of the
right to refuse has not been required every time law enforcement officers seek
consent to enter a residence. Notably, although Jefferson was decided after
both Padilla and Pineiro, Jefferson did not address either case's holding. 8
Moreover, the cases cited in Jefferson to support the proposition that consent
8
We also point out that while Jefferson was never appealed, the Court denied
certification in Pineiro, State v. Pineiro, 181 N.J. 285 (2004), and affirmed
Padilla on the record below. See 163 N.J. 3 (2000).
A-3944-16T2
19
to enter the premises required the police informing the occupant of the right to
refuse dealt with consents to search, rather than consents to enter. See
Johnson, 68 N.J. at 353-54 (holding that if "the State seeks to justify a search
on the basis of consent it has the burden of showing that the consent was
voluntary, an essential element of which is knowledge of the right to refuse
consent"); Domicz, 188 N.J. at 309-10 (declining to extend a requirement "that
the police have a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity in a
home to justify requesting consent to conduct a search of the premises"); Todd,
355 N.J. Super. at 139 (invalidating "the search of [a] fanny pack and seizure
of its contents . . . on consent grounds" because the defendant's "assent . . . was
not legally effective," inasmuch as there was "no evidence that [the] defendant
had been informed that he had the right to withhold consent").
Similar to Padilla and Pineiro, other state courts in Washington and
Mississippi—jurisdictions where the state constitutions afford protections
comparable to New Jersey—have held, that an occupant's knowledge of the
right to refuse entry is not required.9 For example, in a case where a citizen
informed officers that a defendant who had an outstanding arrest warrant could
9
"Indeed, New Jersey is one of a small minority of jurisdictions in the country
requiring the State to prove, as a precondition to the validity of a consent
search, that a person have knowledge of his [or her] right to refuse to give
consent." Domicz, 188 N.J. at 307.
A-3944-16T2
20
be found at a local apartment, the Washington Supreme Court held that it was
not "prudent or necessary" to extend the requirement that police advise
occupants of their right to refuse entry every time an officer enters a home to
investigate. State v. Williams, 11 P.3d 714, 719-20 (Wash. 2000).
Instead, the Court recognized that "officers need to enter people's homes
in order to provide their valuable services for the community on a da ily
basis[,]" and to require "that police advise citizens of their right to refuse entry
every time a police officer enters their home[,]" would "unnecessarily hamper
a police officer's ability to investigate complaints and assist the citizenry." Id.
at 720. See also State v. Khounvichai, 69 P.3d 862, 864-67 (Wash. 2003)
(holding that consent to enter was valid where the officers did not inform the
occupant of his right to refuse entry because the sole purpose of entry was to
question the occupant about a crime under investigation, as opposed to
searching for contraband or evidence of a crime); State v. Dancer, 300 P.3d
475, 479-80 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013) (finding that officers were not required to
inform occupants of their right to refuse entry when searching for a crime
suspect whom the police reasonably suspected was on the premises).
Although knowledge of the right to refuse consent to enter was not
explicitly addressed in Kleckner v. State, 109 So. 3d 1072, 1085 (Miss. Ct.
App. 2012), the Mississippi Court of Appeals rejected a defendant's arguments
A-3944-16T2
21
that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when he was seized from his
girlfriend's home without a search warrant. The court determined that, while
armed with an arrest warrant for the defendant, the officers entered the
girlfriend's home with her consent and found the defendant sleeping. Ibid.
The court did not discuss or consider whether the girlfriend knew she had a
right to refuse entry into her home, seemingly indicating that her informed
consent was not a factor. Ibid. But cf. Carson v. State, 211 S.W.3d 527, 529-
31 (Ark. 2005) (suppressing evidence of drug manufacturing that a plain-
clothes officer found inside the defendant's residence because the officer did
not advise the defendant that he had the right to refuse entry or refuse
permission to search when the officer knocked on the defendant's door,
identified himself with his badge, and asked if he could step inside to speak
with the defendant).10
We are persuaded that in the circumstances presented here, there was no
requirement that defendant be advised of her right to refuse entry to the police.
Like Padilla, based on the information they received regarding the custody
dispute and the possible presence of murder suspects in the apartment, the
10
Like Washington and Mississippi, Arkansas' state constitution affords
protections comparable to New Jersey's. See State v. Brown, 356 Ark. 460,
156 S.W.3d 722, 724 (Ark. 2004) (holding that "a home dweller must be
advised of his or her right to refuse consent in order to validate a consensual
search under the Arkansas Constitution").
A-3944-16T2
22
officers were obligated to investigate. Thus, Chang's decision to knock,
request permission to enter, and thereafter enter the apartment for further
investigation was entirely reasonable and lawful. Further, like Pineiro, we are
satisfied that defendant giving the officers permission to enter "was the same
as that of any other social guest or business visitor, and did not constitute a
Fourth Amendment search." 369 N.J. Super. at 73. Thus, we agree with the
judge that the officers "did have a legitimate purpose to be present at the
scene[,]" and are satisfied that those findings are supported by sufficient,
credible evidence in the record. Because the officers obtained consent to enter
the apartment and were "lawfully within private premises for a legitimate
purpose," specifically, investigating a child custody dispute and ensuring the
safety of the child, their presence in the apartment was constitutionally
permissible, and satisfied the first element of a protective sweep. Davila, 203
N.J. at 102.
As to the second element, requiring "a reasonable articulable suspicion
that the area to be swept harbor[ed] an individual posing a danger[,]" ibid., a
reasonable suspicion must be "based on specific and articulable facts which,
taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the
officer in believing that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain
immediate control of weapons." Gamble, 218 N.J. at 428 (quoting Michigan v.
A-3944-16T2
23
Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1049 (1983)). "[T]he issue is whether a reasonably
prudent man in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his
safety or that of others was in danger." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27 (1968).
"[I]n determining whether the officer acted reasonably in such
circumstances, due weight must be given, not to his inchoate and
unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch,' but to the specific reasonable inferences
which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience." Ibid.
"That determination is fact-sensitive and requires consideration of whether the
totality of the circumstances provided the officer with an articulable and
particularized suspicion" warranting the intrusion "within the context of the
officer's relative experience and knowledge." Gamble, 218 N.J. at 432 (citing
State v. Arthur, 149 N.J. 1, 7-8 (1997)).
Here, the judge concluded that, based on the totality of the
circumstances, "the police . . . had credible evidence giving rise to a
reasonable articulable suspicion that the area to be swept harbored individuals
posing a danger." In support, the judge found that Alston provided two pieces
of information that were verified as true by outside sources, namely, the court
order confirming her residential custody of her niece, and police confirmation
that the Brinson brothers had warrants for their arrest in connection with a
murder in Irvington. Thus, the judge determined that Alston was "worthy of
A-3944-16T2
24
belief" when she informed police of the possible presence of her niece and the
Brinson brothers inside defendant's apartment. These findings are supported
by sufficient, credible evidence in the record and should not be disturbed.
Equally well supported by the record is the judge's determination that the
sweep was brief, cursory, and limited in scope to locations where an individual
could hide. Thus, we agree with the judge's legal conclusion that the
protective sweep was constitutionally permissible and discern no basis to
intervene.
Turning to the consent search, to satisfy our Constitution, "any consent
given by an individual to a police officer to conduct a warrantless search must
be given knowingly and voluntarily." State v. Carty, 170 N.J. 632, 639 (citing
Johnson, 68 N.J. at 354), modified, 174 N.J. 351 (2002). The State bears the
burden of proving "that the individual giving consent knew that he or she 'had
a choice in the matter[,]'" State v. Hagans, 233 N.J. 30, 39 (2018) (quoting
Carty, 170 N.J. at 639), and "the scope of a consent search is limited by the
terms of its authorization." State v. Santana, 215 N.J. Super. 63, 72 (App. Div.
1987). Notably, "one required element of proof is that the consenting party
must know that he [or she] has the right to decline consent." State v.
Birkenmeier, 185 N.J. 552, 563-64 (2006) (citing Johnson, 68 N.J. at 353-54).
A-3944-16T2
25
"Consent is . . . a factual question to be determined from the relevant
circumstances." Koedatich, 112 N.J. at 264. In State v. King, 44 N.J. 346
(1965), our Supreme Court set forth various non-exhaustive factors to guide
the analytical framework, and concluded that in order for a search "[t]o be
voluntary[,] the consent must be 'unequivocal and specific' and 'freely and
intelligently given.'" Id. at 352 (quoting Judd v. United States, 190 F. 2d 649,
651 (D.C. Cir. 1951)). Because determining "whether consent was voluntarily
given is a factual issue," it is "to be decided by the trial judge; and the
appellate court should reverse only when it finds that determination to be
clearly erroneous." King, 44 N.J. at 354 (emphasis omitted).
Here, in concluding that defendant's consent to search the apartment was
knowing, voluntary, and legally obtained, the judge credited Epstein's
testimony, which was supported by the videotape of the entire consent process.
See State v. S.S., 229 N.J. 360, 381 (2017) (extending the deferential standard
of appellate review of the trial court's factual findings to "factual findings
based on a video recording"). As a result, the judge found that defendant
signed the consent form after it was read to her, that she was advised of her
right to refuse consent, that she was allowed to speak to an individual at the
scene and make a phone call to her attorney before consenting, and that she
A-3944-16T2
26
was allowed to be present during the search. We discern no basis to disturb
these specific findings, which are amply supported by the record.
Although not expressly articulated by the judge, absent from the record
are any of the factors identified in King "as tending to show that the consent
was coerced." 44 N.J. at 352. Specifically, when defendant gave her consent,
she was not "an individual already arrested," or "handcuffed," she was not
accused of anything, and had not "refused initial requests for consent to
search[.]" Id. at 352-53. Moreover, there was no indication that "the
subsequent search resulted in a seizure of contraband which [defendant] must
have known would be discovered[.]" Id. at 352.
However, defendant does not argue that the judge erred in finding her
consent voluntary. 11 Instead, defendant posits that because the "officers
unlawfully entered the apartment, unlawfully conducted a protective sweep,
11
In a footnote, defendant asserts the judge "did not cite to or analyze any of
the [King] factors . . . to assess whether consent to search was voluntarily
given." We do not consider an argument raised in a footnote. Almog v. Israel
Travel Advisory Serv., Inc., 298 N.J. Super. 145, 155 (App. Div. 1997)
(refusing to address arguments made in footnotes because a party's "legal
argument[s] [must] be made under 'appropriate point headings'" pursuant to
Rule 2:4-2(a)(5)). As a consequence, defendant has effectively waived this
argument on appeal. See N.J. Dep't of Envtl. Prot. v. Alloway Twp., 438 N.J.
Super. 501, 505-06 n.2 (App. Div. 2015); El-Sioufi v. St. Peter's Univ. Hosp.,
382 N.J. Super. 145, 155 n.2 (App. Div. 2005) (citing In re Certification of
Need of Bloomingdale Convalescent Ctr., 233 N.J. Super. 46, 48 n.1 (App.
Div. 1989)).
A-3944-16T2
27
and unlawfully seized the apartment and detained [defendant] outside for more
than two hours[,]" the consent was tainted and "the evidence seized was 'the
fruit of the unconstitutional [entry] and initial sweep of the apartment.'"
Defendant continues that "[t]he connection between the consent and the
unlawful search was not 'so attenuated as to dissipate the taint.'" Having
determined that the initial entry and protective sweep of the apartment were
both lawful and constitutionally permissible, we reject defendant's contention
out of hand.
We do point out, however, that even if the initial entry and protective
sweep were unlawful, the cocaine seized was not located as a result of either.
Instead, the cocaine was found as a result of defendant's consent to search,
which was obtained independent of the initial entry or protective sweep.
Therefore, even assuming the initial entry and sweep were unlawful, the
seizure did not arise, either directly or indirectly, from any unlawful police
activity proscribed under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. The fruit of
the poisonous tree doctrine "excludes evidence seized as a direct consequence
of unlawful police activity, as well as evidence subsequently discovered as a
result of the illegality." Byrnes, New Jersey Arrest, Search & Seizure, 33.1-1
(2018-2019). Exceptions are "applied narrowly." Byrnes, 33:3.
A-3944-16T2
28
When deciding whether or not to exclude evidence as fruit of the
poisonous tree, "[t]he critical determination is whether the authorities . . .
obtained the evidence by means that are sufficiently independent to dissipate
the taint of their illegal conduct." State v. Pante, 325 N.J. Super. 336, 347
(App. Div. 1999) (citing State v. Johnson, 118 N.J. 639, 653 (1990)). In
making that determination, a court should consider three factors: "(1) the
flagrancy and purpose of the police misconduct; (2) the presence of
intervening circumstances; and (3) the temporal proximity between the illegal
conduct and the challenged evidence[.]" Ibid. (citations omitted). Of these
three factors, "temporal proximity 'is the least determinative' factor," while
"intervening events[] 'can be the most important factor in determining whether
[evidence] is tainted.'" State v. Williams, 192 N.J. 1, 16 (2007) (second
alteration in original) (first quoting State v. Worlock, 117 N.J. 596, 622-23
(1990); then quoting Johnson, 118 N.J. at 656).
Obtaining knowing and voluntary consent to search, as occurred here,
can "constitute[] independent intervening circumstances sufficient to dissipate
the taint of the primary illegality." See Pante, 325 N.J. Super. at 348. Thus,
under these circumstances, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine would not
bar the evidence found in the subsequent consent search. See United States v.
Oguns, 921 F.2d 442, 447-48 (2nd Cir. 1990) (finding illegality of sweep did
A-3944-16T2
29
not taint consent to search because no evidence was seized until after co nsent
granted); United States v. Wellins, 654 F.2d 550, 555 (9th Cir. 1981) (finding
prior illegal "protective sweep" of hotel suite did not taint defendant's consent
to search because defendant "had been permitted to consult with his attorney
immediately prior to consenting to the search").
Affirmed.
A-3944-16T2
30