New Rule for Searching Vehicles for Registration
July 15, 2023 - Posted by Ed Esposito
The New Jersey Appellate Division recently published a decision that further restricts when officers may lawfully enter a stopped vehicle to conduct a pinpointed search for a paper registration certificate if the motorist is unable or unwilling to produce that document after having been provided a meaningful opportunity to comply with the police request for it. The New Jersey Supreme Court’s most recent decisions on this limited and very narrow exception to the warrant requirement were decided in State v. Keaton in 2015 and in State v. Terry in 2018, which both require this type of search to be confined to areas where registration documents might normally be kept (glove compartment, center console, sun visor and similar areas).
The issue raised in this appeal is whether police may initiate a search under this limited exception when (1) the detained motorist is outside the vehicle at the time of request for the registration certificate, and (2) the officer determines it would be unsafe to allow the motorist to reenter the vehicle to retrieve it.
The facts of the Appellate Division’s recent case (State v. Terrance L. Johnson, A-2035-21) unfolded when two plain-clothes detectives driving an unmarked vehicle observed a vehicle pass them in the opposite direction at a high rate of speed with the driver, later identified as the defendant, being the only occupant in the vehicle. The detectives made a U-turn and attempted to catch up to the vehicle, intending to stop it for speeding and careless driving. Before the detectives could catch up, the vehicle made a right turn onto another street without signaling. Although the detectives briefly lost sight of the vehicle after it turned, they located it parked in a church parking lot while driving slowly down the road it turned onto.
As the detectives pulled into the parking lot, they saw the defendant exit the vehicle and walk past their unmarked car heading toward the parking lot exit. The defendant was walking at a "fast pace" and "nervously" looking at the detectives. The detectives knew the parked car was the same vehicle they had been following based on the license plate number. The detectives exited their patrol vehicle, displayed their badges and ordered the defendant to stop. The defendant was told that he was being stopped for traffic violations and was asked for his "credentials." The defendant told the detectives that he did not have a driver's license. The defendant could not produce a driver's license or other form of personal identification.
The defendant was then “patted down” and placed in the back of the police car without handcuffs where he was questioned by one of the detectives for his pedigree information. The other detective went to the parked vehicle and opened the unlocked driver-side door to look for "paperwork, and to see if there was any ignition damage, [and to] see if there was any door lock damage” before they “started running plates” and continued to investigate. Ibid. The detective then walked back to the police vehicle where the defendant was detained and asked him where the vehicle's "paperwork" or "credentials" were to which the defendant responded that they were in the glove compartment.
The detective went back to the parked vehicle, closed the driver's door, and opened the unlocked front passenger door to retrieve the credentials from the glove compartment. When he opened the passenger door, the detective saw a woman's nylon pants with knotted legs and an open top lying on the floor. Inside the top portion of the pants, the detective saw glassine envelopes containing suspected heroin. The detective retrieved the nylon pants and also found a plastic bag containing vials of suspected cocaine. The defendant was then placed under arrest.
In determining if the driver of the vehicle was presented with a “meaningful opportunity” to present the vehicle’s ownership information, the Court said, “The assessment of whether the opportunity was meaningful must be made on a case-by-case basis considering the totality of the relevant circumstances, including when during a motor vehicle stop the request for driving credentials is made, when in the unfolding sequence of events the motorist's opportunity to retrieve them is either afforded or denied, and what alternative options are available to police to obtain the sought-after information.” Ibid. Since the detectives in this case had detained the defendant in their police vehicle, the Court held that “the detectives in this case foreclosed their ability to conduct a registration search by exercising their discretion to deny defendant a meaningful opportunity to retrieve the registration certificate himself.” Ibid. The Court further stated that “a motorist is unwilling to produce the documents when [they] refuse to comply with—or willfully ignore—an explicit police request.” Ibid.
The Court held that “[w]hile the police decision in this case to keep the defendant from reentering the vehicle foreclosed a warrantless search under the registration search exception, the detectives were by no means deprived of other readily available methods to investigate whether the parked vehicle was stolen.” Ibid. The Court explained that the “detectives, for example, might have asked the defendant for consent to search the vehicle for the registration, or, even more simply, might have queried the MVC database to electronically access all the information that is contained in the paper registration certificate.” According to the Court, “the State failed to provide any reason for why the detectives could not have used the less intrusive means of an MVC lookup to acquire the information contained in the registration certificate.” Ibid.
Finally, the Court announced a new rule in its decision based on the revision to N.J.S. 39:3-29 which allows for the use of a cell phone or other electronic device to display proof of registration as of May 1, 2023. Going forward, “before entering a vehicle to conduct a physical search for a paper form of the registration certificate, an officer must first ask the detained driver—or passenger when there is reason to believe the passenger owns the vehicle—if the registration information is stored in paper form. Of course, police need not fulfill this new prerequisite if the motorist is unconscious or otherwise incapacitated.” Ibid.
The New Jersey Appellate Division recently published a decision that further restricts when officers may lawfully enter a stopped vehicle to conduct a pinpointed search for a paper registration certificate if the motorist is unable or unwilling to produce that document after having been provided a meaningful opportunity to comply with the police request for it. The New Jersey Supreme Court’s most recent decisions on this limited and very narrow exception to the warrant requirement were decided in State v. Keaton in 2015 and in State v. Terry in 2018, which both require this type of search to be confined to areas where registration documents might normally be kept (glove compartment, center console, sun visor and similar areas).
The issue raised in this appeal is whether police may initiate a search under this limited exception when (1) the detained motorist is outside the vehicle at the time of request for the registration certificate, and (2) the officer determines it would be unsafe to allow the motorist to reenter the vehicle to retrieve it.
The facts of the Appellate Division’s recent case (State v. Terrance L. Johnson, A-2035-21) unfolded when two plain-clothes detectives driving an unmarked vehicle observed a vehicle pass them in the opposite direction at a high rate of speed with the driver, later identified as the defendant, being the only occupant in the vehicle. The detectives made a U-turn and attempted to catch up to the vehicle, intending to stop it for speeding and careless driving. Before the detectives could catch up, the vehicle made a right turn onto another street without signaling. Although the detectives briefly lost sight of the vehicle after it turned, they located it parked in a church parking lot while driving slowly down the road it turned onto.
As the detectives pulled into the parking lot, they saw the defendant exit the vehicle and walk past their unmarked car heading toward the parking lot exit. The defendant was walking at a "fast pace" and "nervously" looking at the detectives. The detectives knew the parked car was the same vehicle they had been following based on the license plate number. The detectives exited their patrol vehicle, displayed their badges and ordered the defendant to stop. The defendant was told that he was being stopped for traffic violations and was asked for his "credentials." The defendant told the detectives that he did not have a driver's license. The defendant could not produce a driver's license or other form of personal identification.
The defendant was then “patted down” and placed in the back of the police car without handcuffs where he was questioned by one of the detectives for his pedigree information. The other detective went to the parked vehicle and opened the unlocked driver-side door to look for "paperwork, and to see if there was any ignition damage, [and to] see if there was any door lock damage” before they “started running plates” and continued to investigate. Ibid. The detective then walked back to the police vehicle where the defendant was detained and asked him where the vehicle's "paperwork" or "credentials" were to which the defendant responded that they were in the glove compartment.
The detective went back to the parked vehicle, closed the driver's door, and opened the unlocked front passenger door to retrieve the credentials from the glove compartment. When he opened the passenger door, the detective saw a woman's nylon pants with knotted legs and an open top lying on the floor. Inside the top portion of the pants, the detective saw glassine envelopes containing suspected heroin. The detective retrieved the nylon pants and also found a plastic bag containing vials of suspected cocaine. The defendant was then placed under arrest.
In determining if the driver of the vehicle was presented with a “meaningful opportunity” to present the vehicle’s ownership information, the Court said, “The assessment of whether the opportunity was meaningful must be made on a case-by-case basis considering the totality of the relevant circumstances, including when during a motor vehicle stop the request for driving credentials is made, when in the unfolding sequence of events the motorist's opportunity to retrieve them is either afforded or denied, and what alternative options are available to police to obtain the sought-after information.” Ibid. Since the detectives in this case had detained the defendant in their police vehicle, the Court held that “the detectives in this case foreclosed their ability to conduct a registration search by exercising their discretion to deny defendant a meaningful opportunity to retrieve the registration certificate himself.” Ibid. The Court further stated that “a motorist is unwilling to produce the documents when [they] refuse to comply with—or willfully ignore—an explicit police request.” Ibid.
The Court held that “[w]hile the police decision in this case to keep the defendant from reentering the vehicle foreclosed a warrantless search under the registration search exception, the detectives were by no means deprived of other readily available methods to investigate whether the parked vehicle was stolen.” Ibid. The Court explained that the “detectives, for example, might have asked the defendant for consent to search the vehicle for the registration, or, even more simply, might have queried the MVC database to electronically access all the information that is contained in the paper registration certificate.” According to the Court, “the State failed to provide any reason for why the detectives could not have used the less intrusive means of an MVC lookup to acquire the information contained in the registration certificate.” Ibid.
Finally, the Court announced a new rule in its decision based on the revision to N.J.S. 39:3-29 which allows for the use of a cell phone or other electronic device to display proof of registration as of May 1, 2023. Going forward, “before entering a vehicle to conduct a physical search for a paper form of the registration certificate, an officer must first ask the detained driver—or passenger when there is reason to believe the passenger owns the vehicle—if the registration information is stored in paper form. Of course, police need not fulfill this new prerequisite if the motorist is unconscious or otherwise incapacitated.” Ibid.