Another Delayed Search Incident to Arrest Upheld
August 8, 2023 - Posted by Ed Esposito
In May, I wrote about a recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision that upheld a delayed warrantless search of a person incident to that person’s arrest in State v. Joao C. Torres (A-15-22). In that decision, the Court endorsed and applied the two-factor test of State v. Lentz, 463 N.J. Super. 54, 70 (App. Div. 2020), authorizing the delayed warrantless searches of a person incident to that person’s arrest so long as both (1) the delay itself and (2) the scope of the search were objectively reasonable. In early July, the Appellate Division issued a published decision in State v. Jason W. Vanderee (A-2329-21) where it applied the same “two-factor test” in their ruling.
This most recent case stemmed from a drug-induced tragedy. Just before 9:00 a.m., the defendant lost control of an SUV he was operating after injecting himself with fentanyl-laced heroin, and his vehicle crashed into a gas station killing three people and injuring others. The police located the defendant motionless and slumped over the steering wheel of the damaged SUV at the scene of the accident. An officer also observed in plain view an uncapped syringe on the driver's floor mat of the vehicle.
The police determined that the defendant should be arrested for driving while under the influence as medical personnel attended to the defendant. The defendant was ultimately placed in an ambulance and an officer followed the ambulance in his patrol car to the hospital. After arriving at the hospital, the defendant was taken to a trauma room while still being accompanied by the officer. In the trauma room, medical personnel removed the defendant’s clothes to assess his injuries and piled his clothes near the bed on which he was being treated.
“At that time, which was between 9:30 a.m. and 10:15 a.m., [the officer] searched [the] defendant's clothing.” The search of the clothes resulted in the discovery of nine glassine bags of heroin, seven used bags of heroin and a glass pipe. Consequently, the defendant was indicted for twelve offenses related to the deaths of the three victims and the injuries to two other victims. The defendant appealed and argued that the trial court improperly determined that the warrantless search of his clothing was a valid search incident to arrest and that the search was also a valid inventory search. The Appellate Division ruled that the search was lawful and rejected the defendant’s arguments on appeal.
In its ruling, the Court determined “the record established that there was ample probable cause to arrest defendant based on the observations made by police officers at the crash scene.” Id. The Court also agreed with the trial court that “the search was substantially contemporaneous with defendant’s arrest and was reasonable.” Id.
According to the Court, “[w]hen the police first arrived at the crash scene, [the] defendant was not fully conscious and required medical assessment and treatment. The police determined to arrest [the] defendant at the scene but could not reasonably search him until he was at the hospital. That search took place less than an hour and a half after police had responded to the crash scene, and there is no evidence suggesting that [the] delay was not objectively reasonable.” Id.
The Court also ruled that “[t]he scope of the search incident to the arrest was also objectively reasonable. The police had reasonable objective suspicion that [the] defendant was under the influence and that his clothing may contain syringes or drugs. It was, therefore, objectively reasonable to search [the] defendant’s clothes to see if they contained evidence and to preserve that evidence. That search was, therefore, tethered to one of the well-established justifications underlying the search-incident-to-arrest exception: “To search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee’s person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction.” Id. (Internal citations omitted.)
Notably, the Court also pointed out that “holding this search constitutional does not give police free reign to conduct warrantless searches without probable cause at any point after a lawful arrest. Instead, it strikes the appropriate balance of protecting privacy rights while also protecting the governmental interest in public safety and the gathering of evidence for the prosecution of crimes.” Id.
The Court agreed with the trial court’s decision that the search of the defendant’s clothes was also a lawful inventory search since the police “can search an arrestee without a warrant and inventory the property in the arrestee's possession before he or she is jailed. Inventory searches serve a three-fold purpose: protection of the inventoried property while in police custody, shielding the police and storage bailees from false property claims, and safeguarding the police from potential danger. An inventory search must be reasonable under the circumstances. Accordingly, the propriety of an inventory search involves a two-step inquiry: (1) whether the impoundment of the property is justified; and (2) whether the inventory procedure was legal." Id. (Internal citations omitted.)
In May, I wrote about a recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision that upheld a delayed warrantless search of a person incident to that person’s arrest in State v. Joao C. Torres (A-15-22). In that decision, the Court endorsed and applied the two-factor test of State v. Lentz, 463 N.J. Super. 54, 70 (App. Div. 2020), authorizing the delayed warrantless searches of a person incident to that person’s arrest so long as both (1) the delay itself and (2) the scope of the search were objectively reasonable. In early July, the Appellate Division issued a published decision in State v. Jason W. Vanderee (A-2329-21) where it applied the same “two-factor test” in their ruling.
This most recent case stemmed from a drug-induced tragedy. Just before 9:00 a.m., the defendant lost control of an SUV he was operating after injecting himself with fentanyl-laced heroin, and his vehicle crashed into a gas station killing three people and injuring others. The police located the defendant motionless and slumped over the steering wheel of the damaged SUV at the scene of the accident. An officer also observed in plain view an uncapped syringe on the driver's floor mat of the vehicle.
The police determined that the defendant should be arrested for driving while under the influence as medical personnel attended to the defendant. The defendant was ultimately placed in an ambulance and an officer followed the ambulance in his patrol car to the hospital. After arriving at the hospital, the defendant was taken to a trauma room while still being accompanied by the officer. In the trauma room, medical personnel removed the defendant’s clothes to assess his injuries and piled his clothes near the bed on which he was being treated.
“At that time, which was between 9:30 a.m. and 10:15 a.m., [the officer] searched [the] defendant's clothing.” The search of the clothes resulted in the discovery of nine glassine bags of heroin, seven used bags of heroin and a glass pipe. Consequently, the defendant was indicted for twelve offenses related to the deaths of the three victims and the injuries to two other victims. The defendant appealed and argued that the trial court improperly determined that the warrantless search of his clothing was a valid search incident to arrest and that the search was also a valid inventory search. The Appellate Division ruled that the search was lawful and rejected the defendant’s arguments on appeal.
In its ruling, the Court determined “the record established that there was ample probable cause to arrest defendant based on the observations made by police officers at the crash scene.” Id. The Court also agreed with the trial court that “the search was substantially contemporaneous with defendant’s arrest and was reasonable.” Id.
According to the Court, “[w]hen the police first arrived at the crash scene, [the] defendant was not fully conscious and required medical assessment and treatment. The police determined to arrest [the] defendant at the scene but could not reasonably search him until he was at the hospital. That search took place less than an hour and a half after police had responded to the crash scene, and there is no evidence suggesting that [the] delay was not objectively reasonable.” Id.
The Court also ruled that “[t]he scope of the search incident to the arrest was also objectively reasonable. The police had reasonable objective suspicion that [the] defendant was under the influence and that his clothing may contain syringes or drugs. It was, therefore, objectively reasonable to search [the] defendant’s clothes to see if they contained evidence and to preserve that evidence. That search was, therefore, tethered to one of the well-established justifications underlying the search-incident-to-arrest exception: “To search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee’s person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction.” Id. (Internal citations omitted.)
Notably, the Court also pointed out that “holding this search constitutional does not give police free reign to conduct warrantless searches without probable cause at any point after a lawful arrest. Instead, it strikes the appropriate balance of protecting privacy rights while also protecting the governmental interest in public safety and the gathering of evidence for the prosecution of crimes.” Id.
The Court agreed with the trial court’s decision that the search of the defendant’s clothes was also a lawful inventory search since the police “can search an arrestee without a warrant and inventory the property in the arrestee's possession before he or she is jailed. Inventory searches serve a three-fold purpose: protection of the inventoried property while in police custody, shielding the police and storage bailees from false property claims, and safeguarding the police from potential danger. An inventory search must be reasonable under the circumstances. Accordingly, the propriety of an inventory search involves a two-step inquiry: (1) whether the impoundment of the property is justified; and (2) whether the inventory procedure was legal." Id. (Internal citations omitted.)