NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2363-18T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
VINCENT L. PATRICK,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________
Submitted May 27, 2020 – Decided July 14, 2020
Before Judges Yannotti and Currier.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Salem County, Indictment No. 18-06-0204.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Alison Gifford, Assistant Deputy Public
Defender, of counsel and on the briefs).
John T. Lenahan, Salem County Prosecutor, attorney
for respondent (David M. Galemba, Assistant
Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Vincent Patrick appeals from the July 30, 2018 order denying
his motion to suppress evidence seized following a stop of his vehicle. After a
review of the contentions in light of the record and applicable principles of law,
we affirm.
We derive the facts from testimony presented at the suppression hearing.
While on patrol, Pennsville police officer Zachary Inman ran a Division of
Motor Vehicles inquiry on a vehicle that revealed outstanding warrants for
defendant, the car's registered owner. The officer conducted a motor vehicle
stop and identified defendant as the driver after seeing his driver's license.
When Inman approached the vehicle, he observed "greenish vegetation"
on the back seat and floor. The officer suspected it was marijuana. As he spoke
with defendant, Inman "detected the odor of raw marijuana coming from inside
the vehicle." He advised defendant of the outstanding warrants and asked him
to step out of the car.
Inman's search of defendant disclosed "a large sum of U.S. currency." 1 He
also noted some loose flakes of marijuana on defendant's shirt. After arresting
defendant for the warrants, Inman began to search the car.
1
Inman told another officer at the scene that defendant was carrying
approximately $3000.
A-2363-18T4
2
As he was searching, Inman stated he continued to perceive a strong odor
of marijuana in the car. In searching the back seats, the officer folded down the
center console and released the latch that permitted access to the trunk. As he
did so, Inman "detected a strong odor of marijuana coming from the trunk of the
vehicle." During defendant's testimony, he stated there was no entrance to the
trunk from the back seat.
Inman opened the trunk and found a black duffle bag. The officer
described a "significant" smell of marijuana emanating from the bag. When he
opened it, he saw materials used for packaging narcotics as well as some bags
containing marijuana and oxycodone pills.
Defendant was charged with third-degree possession of a controlled
dangerous substance (CDS), N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1); fourth-degree CDS
possession, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(3); and third-degree CDS possession with
intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(11). He later moved to suppress the
evidence found during the search of his car.
Following a hearing, the trial judge found the stop of the motor vehicle
was reasonable after the officer discovered its registered owner had outstanding
warrants for his arrest. In addressing the search of the car, the judge found
A-2363-18T4
3
Inman's testimony credible and the scope of the search was appropriate. The
motion to suppress was denied.
Defendant pled guilty to an amended charge of fourth-degree distribution
of a prescription legend drug without a valid prescription, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-
10.5(a)(2). The remaining charges were dismissed. He was sentenced to 180
days of jail time.
Defendant raises the following issue on appeal:
THE SEARCH OF THE TRUNK WAS UNLAWFUL
BECAUSE THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE
PROBABLE CAUSE THAT THE SMELL OF
MARIJUANA WAS COMING FROM THE TRUNK.
A trial court's factual findings in a suppression hearing are afforded great
deference. State v. Gonzales, 227 N.J. 77, 101 (2016) (citing State v. Hubbard,
222 N.J. 249, 262 (2015)). In reviewing a decision on a motion to suppress, we
defer to the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial judge,
recognizing that he or she has had an "opportunity to hear and see the witnesses
and to have the 'feel' of the case, which a reviewing court cannot enjoy." State
v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224, 244 (2007) (quoting State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 161
(1964)). We will uphold the trial judge's decision so long as it is "supported by
sufficient credible evidence" and not "so clearly mistaken 'that the interests of
A-2363-18T4
4
justice demand intervention and correction.'" State v. Scriven, 226 N.J. 20, 32-
33 (2016) (quoting Elders, 192 N.J. at 243-44).
Defendant asserts the State did not establish probable cause for the search
of the trunk of his car and, therefore, the trial court erred in denying the motion
to suppress the evidence found in the trunk. We disagree.
As the United States and New Jersey Constitutions guarantee an
individual's right to be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures," U.S.
Const. amend. IV; N.J. Const. art. I, ¶ 7, a "warrantless search is presumed
invalid unless it falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant
requirement." State v. Wilson, 178 N.J. 7, 12 (2003) (quoting State v. Cooke,
163 N.J. 657, 664 (2000)).
Here, the State asserts the search was permissible within the well-
established automobile exception to a warrantless search. That doctrine permits
the warrantless search of a vehicle when the police have "probable cause to
believe that the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of an offense and the
circumstances giving rise to probable cause are unforeseeable and spontaneous."
State v. Witt, 223 N.J. 409, 447 (2015) (citing State v. Alston, 88 N.J. 211, 233
(1981)).
A-2363-18T4
5
It is well-established that "the smell of marijuana itself constitutes
probable cause 'that a criminal offense ha[s] been committed and that additional
contraband might be present.'" State v. Walker, 213 N.J. 281, 290 (2013)
(alteration in original) (quoting State v. Nishina, 175 N.J. 502, 516-17 (2003)).
In State v. Guerra, 93 N.J. 146, 150 (1983), our Supreme Court found police had
probable cause to search a vehicle's trunk after determining the strong odor of
raw marijuana was not emanating from within the car's interior.
Here, Inman noted flakes of marijuana on defendant's shirt and on the back
seat of the car. He described a strong odor of raw marijuana coming from the
car. When he put down the center console in the back seat, he stated the odor
of marijuana was even stronger. The trial judge found the officer's testimony
credible.
Therefore, there was probable cause to establish a criminal offense had
been committed and that additional contraband might be present. The officer
was permitted to expand his search for contraband to the trunk. See State v.
Sarto, 195 N.J. Super. 565, 574 (App. Div. 1984) (finding that "the strong odor
of unburned marijuana gave police probable cause to search [a] trunk for
evidence of contraband"); State v. Kahlon, 172 N.J. Super. 331, 338 (App. Div.
1980) (holding the smell of "unburned marijuana" while in the vicinity of a
A-2363-18T4
6
vehicle's trunk where marijuana had already been found elsewhere in the car
gave police probable cause to search the trunk).
We are therefore satisfied the trial judge's denial of defendant's motion
to suppress is supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record. See
Scriven, 226 N.J. at 32-33.
Affirmed.
A-2363-18T4
7