NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0901-17T3
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ALLAN R. COOPER,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________
Submitted September 9, 2019 – Decided September 18, 2019
Before Judges Sabatino and Sumners.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Mercer County, Indictment No. 15-04-0554.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Jay L. Wilensky, Assistant Deputy Public
Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
Angelo J. Onofri, Mercer County Prosecutor, attorney
for respondent (Christopher Michael Malikschmitt,
Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
After pleading guilty to certain persons not to possess a firearm, N.J.S.A.
2C:39-7(b), defendant Allan R. Cooper appeals an order denying his motion to
suppress drugs and a gun, discarded while trying to avoid police apprehension,
in the course of a warrantless arrest and search. R. 3:5-7(d). Defendant's motion
to suppress hearing was heard together with the similar motion to suppress drugs
and a gun filed by co-defendant Darrell M. Hall. The State claimed defendant
and Hall were openly selling drugs together on a porch at a residence in a
Trenton neighborhood that was a known narcotics area.
Defendant raises the following argument:
THE MOTION COURT’S DENIAL OF
SUPPRESSION WAS NOT BASED ON SUFFICIENT
CREDIBLE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, AND
ACCORDINGLY MUST BE REVERSED. U.S.
CONST., AMENDS. IV, XIV; N.J. CONST. (1947),
ART. 1, PAR 7.
In his merits brief, defendant attacks the motion judge's credibility findings,
arguing the police could not have seen the alleged drug-selling activity given
their location and poor lighting conditions. Defendant also contends that if the
police were located where they claimed, their presence would have been obvious
to the individuals allegedly seen buying drugs and would have curtailed any
drug dealing.
A-0901-17T3
2
We incorporate by reference the facts and legal analysis set forth in State
v. Hall, No. A-1321-17 (App. Div. 2019), our companion opinion rendered
today, in which we rejected Hall's challenge to the judge's fact-finding and
reasoning and upheld the warrantless arrest and search that resulted in defendant
and Hall's guilty pleas. We affirm the judge's denial of defendant's motion to
suppress for the same reasons we articulated in Hall.
Affirmed.
A-0901-17T3
3
STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ALLAN R. COOPER (15-04-0554, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
Combined Opinion