Drug Search Consent Ruling Reversed on Appeal in New Jersey Case

State of New Jersey v. Odeanne Lawes

Docket No. A-0478-24

Decided April 2, 2025

Submitted by New Jersey Criminal Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark

In a recent unpublished opinion, the Appellate Court of New Jersey decided the State’s interlocutory appeal from an order suppressing evidence of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) seized by law enforcement pursuant to defendant’s consent to search his motor vehicle after a lawful traffic stop.

On November 28, 2021, detectives from the NJSP Drug Trafficking Unit (DTU) learned from a confidential informant (CI) that defendant had allegedly been selling CDS — “cocaine, heroin, and pills” in Ocean County because the CI claimed he previously purchased heroin from the defendant. The CI provided law enforcement with defendant’s phone number, employment information, and a description of his vehicle. The CI further advised officers about how defendant obtained the drugs. According to the CI, defendant drove to a source in New York City to pick up large quantities of drugs when he traveled and used his black Audi to make the trip. Officers corroborated the information provided by the CI and determined the CI was credible and reliable.

During the week of November 28, 2021, detectives surveilled defendant and his vehicle in the restaurant’s parking lot where he worked. They purportedly observed multiple drug transactions in the parking lot. Detectives applied for and obtained a thirty-day warrant to place a GPS tracking device on defendant’s car. That warrant was granted on December 9, 2021, and the tracker was installed on defendant’s vehicle. Detectives then had the CI set up a “controlled buy” of CDS with the defendant in the rear of the restaurant. Officers observed the defendant exit the restaurant, go to his vehicle, open the hood, retrieve a small item, and enter the passenger side of the CI’s vehicle. After interacting with the defendant for a few moments, the CI returned to the detectives, confirmed the transaction occurred, and handed over the suspected CDS.

On December 17, 2021, detectives saw the defendant’s vehicle leave the restaurant and tracked it as it traveled directly to and from the Bronx within two and a half hours. The detective notified all members of the DTU that defendant was travelling to New York. Unable to quickly get close to New York, the detectives were “staggered” along the Garden State Parkway in separate, unmarked vehicles after learning defendant had departed New York and crossed the George Washington Bridge at approximately 2:30 p.m. Officers were unable to see if defendant was the individual driving the vehicle due to the vehicle’s tinted windows. Defendant’s vehicle was allegedly driving erratically – speeding and slowing down. Defendant’s vehicle also changed lanes without signaling and drove over the solid white line. Defendant was eventually stopped. There were no dash cams or body worn cameras utilized, as it was not standard operating procedure at the time. According to officers, defendant was nervous and not making eye contact at all during the interaction. When asked where he was coming from, defendant stated he was coming from New York after going there to pick up beef patties. Defendant then offered to show the officer the beef patties in his vehicle. In response, the officer asked defendant for consent to search his vehicle before he looked inside. Defendant consented to the officer searching his vehicle and signed a standard NJSP consent form. The consent form permitted detectives to conduct a “complete search” of the Audi, which included “any bags, containers, trunk, and engine compartment.” The form noted the search began at 4:11 p.m. and ended at 4:45 p.m. Officers located cocaine in the engine compartment and defendant was subsequently placed under arrest. Defendant was charged with and subsequently indicted for first-degree possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(1), and third-degree possession of cocaine, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1).

Defendant eventually moved to suppress the cocaine seized from his vehicle. After hearing testimony from officers and arguments put forth by the parties, the trial court granted defendant’s suppression motion, finding that the defendant was detained due to the officers’ reasonable suspicion that the defendant had violated laws regarding the operation of a motor vehicle.” Relying on State v. Carty, 170 N.J. 632, 647 (2002, the court explained the first prong was not satisfied—a request for consent to search made during a motor vehicle stop be supported by “reasonable and articulable suspicion to believe that an errant motorist . . . has engaged in, or is about to engage in, criminal activity.” The trial court articulated further that given the totality of the circumstances, the detectives’ request to search the vehicle was not based on information obtained during the motor vehicle stop. The State appealed.

On appeal, the State contended that the trial court’s suppression order should be reversed because the trial court limited its factual analysis to only those facts following the motor vehicle infractions observed by the detectives and failed to conduct a totality of the circumstances analysis, thereby misapplying Carty. Since the parties did not dispute the lawfulness of the motor vehicle stop, the Appellate Court only focused its analysis on whether, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable and articulable suspicion existed at the time defendant provided the consent to search his vehicle. Ultimately, the appellate court concluded that under the totality of the circumstances, detectives had a reasonable suspicion defendant had committed a crime, possession of a CDS, to justify a request for consent to conduct a warrantless search his vehicle. The court further stated that both detectives provided a timeline and context for the investigation, surveillance, GPS tracking, and defendant’s consent to search request. Thus, the trial court mistakenly focused only on facts learned after the vehicle stop. The totality of the of the circumstances can include, and in this case should have included, facts already know to the police officers. As a result, the court reversed the September 20, 2024 trial court order granting defendant’s suppression motion, vacated the stay, and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

At Hark & Hark, we are experienced attorneys who represent clients in Superior Court for issues like the previously discussed case pertaining to motions for suppress evidence recovered as a result of an unlawful search. We work hard to ensure that our clients receive exceptional representation in order for them to receive the most favorable outcome in their case as a result.

We offer payment plan options to clients financially incapable of providing full payment upfront. If you are facing a similar situation to that of the defendant in this case, please call us to discuss the matter. At Hark & Hark, we represent clients for any case in any county in New Jersey including Atlantic County, Bergen County, Burlington County, Camden County, Cape May County, Cumberland County, Essex County, Gloucester County, Hudson County, Hunterdon County, Mercer County, Middlesex County, Monmouth County, Morris County, Ocean County, Passaic County, Salem County, Somerset County, Sussex County, Union County, and Warren County and any town including Audubon, Gloucester City, Oaklyn, Audubon Park, Gloucester Township, Pennsauken, Barrington, Haddon Heights, Pine Hill, Bellmawr, Haddon Township, Pine Valley, Berlin Borough, Haddonfield, Runnemede, Berlin Township, Hi-Nella, Somerdale, Brooklawn, Laurel Springs, Stratford, Camden, Lawnside, Voorhees, Cherry Hill, Lindenwold, Waterford, Chesilhurst, Magnolia, Winslow, Clementon, Merchantville, Woodlynne, Collingswood, Mt. Ephraim, and Gibbsboro.