Tow and Impound of Vehicle Does Not Alter NJ Automobile Exception
May 5, 2019 - Posted by Ed Esposito
In early May, the Appellate Division reversed a trial court ruling that ordered the suppression of evidence seized during a motor vehicle stop on the basis that a search conducted under the New Jersey Automobile Exception was improper because the police had sufficient grounds to tow and impound the vehicle. In a published decision, State of New Jersey v. Juan Rodriguez (A-0180-18T4), the court held that “the police officers were not required to impound [the] defendant's vehicle in order to search it under the circumstances presented. The officers had the discretion to proceed instead with a warrantless roadside search, because the two critical elements of Witt, i.e., probable cause and spontaneity, were satisfied.” This decision interprets the application of the “automobile exception” as set forth in State v. Witt, 223 N.J. 409 (2015), when the police will ultimately tow and impound a vehicle.
This ruling stems from a motor vehicle that was stopped by Warren Township police for violations in the early morning hours of January 2018. While speaking with the operator of the vehicle during the stop, an officer smelled raw marijuana and noticed small pieces of marijuana on the passenger seat. Ultimately, the defendant was asked out of the vehicle and searched, but no contraband was found in his possession. The defendant then denied a consent search of the vehicle. While seated in the in the back of a police vehicle, two officers searched the defendant’s vehicle.
The officers initially located over $10,000.00 in two locations in and around the center console and noticed that the smell of marijuana was stronger near the rear cargo area of the vehicle. While searching the cargo area, an officer observed and seized a large cardboard box that was “described as emanating an "overwhelming" odor of raw marijuana.” The defendant told the police that he had borrowed the vehicle from a friend and that the box was not his. An officer opened the box and discovered marijuana, which was later determined to weigh approximately 28 pounds. The defendant was then placed under arrest and less than a minute later a tow was dispatched for the defendant’s vehicle.
The trial court held a hearing on the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence seized during this incident and ruled to suppress the evidence in favor if the defendant. In reaching that decision, the court “construed Witt to disallow a warrantless on-the-spot roadside search where the police at the scene have sufficient grounds to have the vehicle towed away and impounded. The court ruled the police in such circumstances, absent valid consent, need to obtain a warrant in order to search the vehicle's interior.” The Appellate Division disagreed with the ruling and reversed the trial court’s suppression order in favor of the police.
In this appeal, the State relied on the "automobile exception" to the written warrant requirement. This recognized exception to the warrant requirement “derives from a longstanding judicial recognition of: (1) the inherent mobility of motor vehicles; (2) the generally diminished expectation of privacy in a vehicle as compared with a home; and (3) the practical reality that the "intrusion occasioned by a prompt search based on probable cause is not necessarily greater than a prolonged detention of the vehicle and its occupants while the police secure a warrant." Witt, 223 N.J. at 422-23. In New Jersey, officers can conduct “warrantless on-the-scene searches of motor vehicles in situations where: (1) the police have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of a criminal offense; and (2) the circumstances giving rise to probable cause are unforeseeable and spontaneous.” Witt, 223 N.J. at 447-48.
It is also important to note that this exception is not invalidated just because “the particular occupants of the vehicle may have been removed from the [vehicle], arrested, or otherwise restricted in their freedom of movement[.]” State v. Alston, 88 N.J. at 234. However, when the court revised the New Jersey automobile exception in Witt, the court stated that “if police do choose to have a vehicle towed away and impounded, they will need a warrant to search its interior at that later time, subject to possible routine inventory procedures that are not aimed at finding contraband.” Witt, 223 N.J. at 448-49.
In this case, the defense argued that that “once the basis to impound a vehicle becomes clear, police officers have no right to proceed with an on-the-spot roadside search, even if the officers have probable cause of criminality that arose spontaneously.” The ruling by the Appellate Division rejected that argument and clarified that the police can conduct a roadside search of a lawfully stopped motor vehicle under the automobile exception even if the vehicle is going to be towed or impounded.
According to the court, “[w]e respectfully do not construe Witt to convey such a limitation upon the automobile exception. Nothing in Witt states that a roadside search of a vehicle based upon probable cause cannot be performed if the vehicle is going to be impounded. We instead read Witt as affording police officers at the scene the discretion to choose between searching the vehicle immediately if they spontaneously have probable cause to do so, or to have the vehicle removed and impounded and seek a search warrant later.”
In early May, the Appellate Division reversed a trial court ruling that ordered the suppression of evidence seized during a motor vehicle stop on the basis that a search conducted under the New Jersey Automobile Exception was improper because the police had sufficient grounds to tow and impound the vehicle. In a published decision, State of New Jersey v. Juan Rodriguez (A-0180-18T4), the court held that “the police officers were not required to impound [the] defendant's vehicle in order to search it under the circumstances presented. The officers had the discretion to proceed instead with a warrantless roadside search, because the two critical elements of Witt, i.e., probable cause and spontaneity, were satisfied.” This decision interprets the application of the “automobile exception” as set forth in State v. Witt, 223 N.J. 409 (2015), when the police will ultimately tow and impound a vehicle.
This ruling stems from a motor vehicle that was stopped by Warren Township police for violations in the early morning hours of January 2018. While speaking with the operator of the vehicle during the stop, an officer smelled raw marijuana and noticed small pieces of marijuana on the passenger seat. Ultimately, the defendant was asked out of the vehicle and searched, but no contraband was found in his possession. The defendant then denied a consent search of the vehicle. While seated in the in the back of a police vehicle, two officers searched the defendant’s vehicle.
The officers initially located over $10,000.00 in two locations in and around the center console and noticed that the smell of marijuana was stronger near the rear cargo area of the vehicle. While searching the cargo area, an officer observed and seized a large cardboard box that was “described as emanating an "overwhelming" odor of raw marijuana.” The defendant told the police that he had borrowed the vehicle from a friend and that the box was not his. An officer opened the box and discovered marijuana, which was later determined to weigh approximately 28 pounds. The defendant was then placed under arrest and less than a minute later a tow was dispatched for the defendant’s vehicle.
The trial court held a hearing on the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence seized during this incident and ruled to suppress the evidence in favor if the defendant. In reaching that decision, the court “construed Witt to disallow a warrantless on-the-spot roadside search where the police at the scene have sufficient grounds to have the vehicle towed away and impounded. The court ruled the police in such circumstances, absent valid consent, need to obtain a warrant in order to search the vehicle's interior.” The Appellate Division disagreed with the ruling and reversed the trial court’s suppression order in favor of the police.
In this appeal, the State relied on the "automobile exception" to the written warrant requirement. This recognized exception to the warrant requirement “derives from a longstanding judicial recognition of: (1) the inherent mobility of motor vehicles; (2) the generally diminished expectation of privacy in a vehicle as compared with a home; and (3) the practical reality that the "intrusion occasioned by a prompt search based on probable cause is not necessarily greater than a prolonged detention of the vehicle and its occupants while the police secure a warrant." Witt, 223 N.J. at 422-23. In New Jersey, officers can conduct “warrantless on-the-scene searches of motor vehicles in situations where: (1) the police have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of a criminal offense; and (2) the circumstances giving rise to probable cause are unforeseeable and spontaneous.” Witt, 223 N.J. at 447-48.
It is also important to note that this exception is not invalidated just because “the particular occupants of the vehicle may have been removed from the [vehicle], arrested, or otherwise restricted in their freedom of movement[.]” State v. Alston, 88 N.J. at 234. However, when the court revised the New Jersey automobile exception in Witt, the court stated that “if police do choose to have a vehicle towed away and impounded, they will need a warrant to search its interior at that later time, subject to possible routine inventory procedures that are not aimed at finding contraband.” Witt, 223 N.J. at 448-49.
In this case, the defense argued that that “once the basis to impound a vehicle becomes clear, police officers have no right to proceed with an on-the-spot roadside search, even if the officers have probable cause of criminality that arose spontaneously.” The ruling by the Appellate Division rejected that argument and clarified that the police can conduct a roadside search of a lawfully stopped motor vehicle under the automobile exception even if the vehicle is going to be towed or impounded.
According to the court, “[w]e respectfully do not construe Witt to convey such a limitation upon the automobile exception. Nothing in Witt states that a roadside search of a vehicle based upon probable cause cannot be performed if the vehicle is going to be impounded. We instead read Witt as affording police officers at the scene the discretion to choose between searching the vehicle immediately if they spontaneously have probable cause to do so, or to have the vehicle removed and impounded and seek a search warrant later.”