New Jersey Appellate Court Upholds Denial of Motion to Suppress Evidence Following Traffic Stop and K-9 Search

State of New Jersey v. Rashad Johnson

Docket No. A-0878-23

Decided July 15, 2025

Submitted by New Jersey Criminal Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark

In a recent unpublished opinion, the Appellate Court of New Jersey decided defendant’s appeal from the denial of his motion to suppress evidence recovered following a traffic stop.

On March 3, 2020, using a radar light detection and ranging device, a sergeant from the Vineland Police Department observed a silver BMW traveling eastbound on West Butler Avenue at a speed exceeding the posted 35 mile-per hour limit. The officer proceeded to follow the vehicle as it traveled onto Southwest Boulevard, where he observed the vehicle pass another car on the right to execute a turn. The officer then initiated a motor vehicle stop. The driver, later identified as defendant, lowered the passenger side window only partially and refused the officer’s repeated requests for identification and vehicle registration. Defendant questioned the officers reasons for the stop and refused to exit the vehicle when ordered to, and requested a supervisor be summoned to the scene.

The sergeant informed the defendant that he was the only traffic supervisor on duty at that time and moved to the driver’s side of the vehicle, where again defendant lowered the window only partway. The sergeant informed the defendant that he had been stopped for speeding, specifically for traveling 50 miles per hour in a 35 mile-per-hour zone. Defendant disputed the officer’s claim that he was speeding. When the defendant eventually reached into his wallet to retrieve his driving credentials, the officers observed a “stack of cash.” Defendant then exited his vehicle and the officer observed defendant immediately turn and lock the driver’s side door using a key. The sergeant testified that “through his training,” he grew suspicious defendant’s argumentative “demeanor, him locking the car, him pulling out this wad of money . . . shutting the door behind, locking the door,” was “indicative of drug transactions.” Officers eventually summoned a K-9 to the scene to conduct an exterior sniff of the vehicle. The K-9 subsequently positively alerted on the vehicle. Officers then searched the vehicle and discovered a loaded revolver in a gym bag located on the passenger side floorboard. Defendant was then placed under arrest.

Defendant eventually filed a motion to suppress evidence, arguing that the police lacked lawful grounds for a warrantless search of a duffle bag in his vehicle, which contained a handgun he did not have a permit to possess. The court held a hearing on September 27, 2021, where officers testified about the stop and search. The court found that the K-9 alert provided probable cause for the search, and the motion to suppress the firearm was denied. In January 2023, the State moved for a waiver of the mandatory minimum sentence, which was granted, and Johnson was sentenced to three years’ incarceration. Defendant appealed.

On appeal, defendant contended that the State’s warrantless detention and search of his vehicle was in violation of the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Paragraph 7 of the Constitution of the State of New Jersey.

Ultimately, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The court determined that police conducted a lawful stop of defendant’s vehicle to issue a traffic summons for speeding. The court further stated that the sergeant’s suspicion of narcotic activity arose during the stop, justifying the K-9 unit’s involvement. The court found no undue delay in the stop, and the K-9 alert provided probable cause for the search of the defendant’s vehicle.

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.