NJ Court Upholds Vehicle Search After Traffic Stop – Evidence Stands
State of New Jersey v. John Kerkula
Docket No. A-1403-23
Decided August 19, 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In a recent unpublished opinion, the Appellate Court of New Jersey decided defendant’s appeal from the denial of his motion to suppress physical evidence recovered as the result of a traffic stop and subsequent search.
On August 23, 2020, at around 9:56 p.m., officers on patrol observed a dark colored car with out-of-state registration improperly parked, with several people inside and its lights on. Moments later, the officer saw the same vehicle, which, by then, had pulled into a parking lot. The officers observed the vehicle exit the parking lot and re-enter the roadway, then fail to come to a complete stop at an intersection. The officers began following the suspect vehicle, when they observed the vehicle commit another traffic violation by stopping in the middle of the crosswalk. Officers then initiated a motor vehicle stop in a lightly trafficked location which was close to headquarters and reasonably well it.
When the officer approached the vehicle, he observed four occupants. The defendant was the driver. When requested to produce his driving credentials, the officer noted that the defendant was confrontational. The defendant was wearing a backpack in front of his body close to his chest, which the officer believed, based on his training and experience, could be used to conceal narcotics or weapons. After being ordered multiple times to exit his vehicle, defendant eventually complied.
After returning to his patrol vehicle to investigate the stopped vehicle, the officer learned that the car defendant was driving was a rental vehicle and that the rental agreement had expired days prior. Further, the rental agreement did not match the description of the car defendant was operating. The other officer on scene observed marijuana shake/residue on the driver’s side floor of the vehicle when defendant exited the car. After both officers saw the marijuana shake, all of the occupants of the vehicle were ordered to exit so that officers could conduct a search of the vehicle. Officers ultimately located a handgun near the driver’s seat. Two of the occupants were immediately placed in custody, but the defendant and another passenger attempted to flee the scene on foot before being apprehended. After continuing their search, officers located a second handgun, multiple cellphones and cash totaling $700.00.
Eventually, defendant filed a motion to suppress the physical evidence seized from his vehicle, which was denied. The trial court judge found the officer credible, that the motor vehicle stop of defendant’s vehicle was permissible, and that the marijuana shake which was spotted on the driver’s seat, the smell of burnt marijuana, and the fact that this vehicle stop took place in a high crime area provided probable cause for the officers to direct the occupants to exit the vehicle and conduct a search. The court articulated that the search of the vehicle was valid and based on probable cause, which ultimately led to the discovery of the first gun, and the flight of defendant and one of the other occupants. Lastly, the trial court found that the defendant’s flight from the area after the first gun was located, “added to the totality of the circumstances.” The judge stated that when the two people who fled were apprehended, the exigent circumstances continued, which allowed the officers to re-enter the car and find the second gun. As a result of the motion, defendant plead guilty to second-degree unlawful possession of a weapon without a permit. He then subsequently appealed.
On appeal, defendant contended that: 1. The police did not have probable cause that the car contained contraband; 2. The police lacked probable cause that would permit them to search beyond the ordinary passenger compartment, let alone to dismantle the car; and 3. Police were not permitted to re-enter the car and conduct a second warrantless search.
After considering the arguments and submissions of counsel, the Appellate Court determined that probable cause existed to search the vehicle and affirmed the trial court’s decision. The court found that the location of the shake and the obviously tampered interior panel gave probable cause to believe that contraband might be located behind the panel. The court also found the search was reasonable in scope and was justified by the circumstances, and it applied the doctrine of inevitable discovery to uphold the seizure of the second gun.
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.
