STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. WILLIAM KING (14-06-0382, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-5031-16T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
WILLIAM KING,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
Argued January 24, 2019 – Decided May 8, 2019
Before Judges Fuentes, Vernoia and Moynihan.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Somerset County, Indictment No. 14-06-
0382.
Cody T. Mason, Assistant Deputy Public Defender,
argued the cause for appellant (Joseph E. Krakora,
Public Defender, attorney; Cody T. Mason, of counsel
and on the briefs).
Paul H. Heinzel, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause
for respondent (Michael H. Robertson, Somerset
County Prosecutor, attorney; Paul H. Heinzel, of
counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant William King appeals from the denial of his motion to suppress
evidence seized from his putative part-time residence during execution of a
search warrant. Based on our review of the record in light of the applicable legal
principles, we affirm.
I.
As a result of a months' long investigation involving surveillance and
intercepted telephone and electronic communications, on April 2, 2014, law
enforcement officers executed a search warrant at a residence on St. Georges
Avenue in Linden that they claimed defendant shared with his girlfriend. During
the search, law enforcement officers recovered heroin and a defaced firearm.
Defendant was subsequently charged in an indictment with third-degree
conspiracy to distribute a controlled dangerous substance (CDS), N.J.S.A. 2C:5-
2 and 2C:35-5(a)(1), -5(b)(3), (b)(5) and/or (b)(13) (count one); third-degree
possession of heroin with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) and
-5(b)(3) (count two); second-degree possession of a firearm (.45 cal. Smith &
Wesson) during a drug offense, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4.1 (count three); fourth-degree
possession of a defaced firearm, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(d) (count four); and second-
degree endangering the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a) (count five).
A-5031-16T4
2
Defendant was charged in a separate indictment with one count of second-degree
persons not to have weapons, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b).
Defendant moved to suppress the evidence claiming the affidavit
supporting the issuance of the search warrant did not establish probable cause
to search the residence, the warrant was not sufficiently particular because it
incorrectly identified the St. Georges Avenue location as being in Edison and
the officers should have ceased the search after discovering the residence
contained two residential units, one of which was not defendant's. The court
granted defendant's request for a Franks1 hearing on the validity of the search
warrant.
The evidence presented during the hearing showed that a judge issued the
warrant for the St. Georges Avenue residence on March 28, 2014, based on the
joint affidavit of Somerset County Prosecutor's Office Detective Randy Sidorski
and Investigator Vincent Wilson. The affidavit explained that law enforcement
officers conducted an investigation of defendant and numerous other identified
individuals commencing on March 10, 2014, with the issuance of a warrant
authorizing interception of electronic and wire communications, and continuing
through the March 28, 2014 search warrant application.
1
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).
A-5031-16T4
3
The affidavit detailed numerous conversations between defendant and
various individuals related to the sale and distribution of CDS and the
surveillance of defendant engaging in asserted drug transactions with the
individuals with whom he communicated. The conversations and surveillance
described occurred on various dates between March 11 and March 26, 2014.
The affidavit further explained that in many instances, following defendant's
intercepted communications concerning drug transactions, he was observed
leaving a residence on Frank Street in Somerset and then meeting with the other
participant to the communications to complete the transactions either at or near
the Frank Street location.
The affidavit also described an intercepted text communication on March
16, 2014, between defendant and Hamza Namoya, during which they discussed
a drug transaction and defendant asked if Namoya would take him "home."
Namoya responded, "K u ready now[?]" Defendant replied, "Yea . . . ." Namoya
also texted defendant stating, "Am out side," and defendant said, "Comin now."
Defendant was observed leaving the Frank Street residence, entering a vehicle
and traveling to the St. Georges Avenue residence, where he exited the vehicle
and was observed entering the rear of the residence.
A-5031-16T4
4
The affidavit further detailed that, "[i]n addition to the instances" already
mentioned, surveillance officers observed defendant exit the St. Georges
Avenue residence "just prior to meeting people in order to conduct CDS
transactions." The affidavit also explained that following the interception of
"phone calls involving CDS distribution," surveillance officers "have observed
[defendant] exit[ing the St. Georges Avenue] residence and . . . meet[ing] people
for the purpose of a CDS transaction." At the hearing, Detective Sidorski
explained that on March 20, 2014, officers intercepted telephone calls and text
messages between defendant and an individual during which arrangements were
made for the individual to travel to the St. Georges Avenue address to purchase
two bricks2 of heroin from defendant. The individual was then observed arriving
at the address, at which time defendant exited the residence through its front
door and entered the individual's vehicle to conduct a CDS transaction.
The affidavit also asserted defendant's girlfriend resided at the St. Georges
Avenue address and described the girlfriend's active participation in defendant's
drug distribution network. The affidavit did not indicate how the officers knew
the girlfriend resided there, although a footnote indicated "[t]he individuals
named herein were identified through various means," the records of which the
2
Sidorski explained that a brick of heroin consists of fifty bags of the substance.
A-5031-16T4
5
affidavit "incorporate[s] by reference herein." At the initial proceeding on
defendant's suppression motion, however, defendant, through his counsel ,
acknowledged that his girlfriend resided at the St. Georges Avenue address.
The affidavit contained a description of the St. Georges Avenue residence
to be searched as follows:
The residence is described as a two story residence with
a dormer atop the second floor. The roof is tan in color.
The front is covered in a beige vinyl siding. Facing the
street, the dormer has a single window, the second floor
has two windows, and the first floor has two windows
and a front door, which is white in color. There is a
front porch on the first level. There are approximately
six steps leading up the front porch from the street
level, with a black railing on both sides of the steps.
In addition to the street address of the residence, the search warrant also
described the place to be searched as:
St. Georges Avenue, Edison, NJ is more specifically
described as a two story residence with a dormer atop
the second floor. The roof is tan in color. The front is
covered in beige vinyl siding. Facing the street, the
dormer has a single window, the second floor has two
windows, and the first floor has two windows, and a
front door, which is white in color. There is a front
porch on the first level. There are approximately six
steps leading up to [the] front porch from the street
level, with a black railing on both sides of the steps.
Investigator Wilson submitted an application to amend a wiretap order on
March 31, 2018, after intercepted communications led investigators to believe
A-5031-16T4
6
defendant "currently possesses firearms," stores them at his St. Georges Avenue
address, "and can and will provide firearms" to individuals likely to use them in
violent confrontations with others.
Detective Sidorski testified that during the surveillance of the residence
prior to the search, investigators observed defendant utilizing the front and back
entrances of the house. There were two mailboxes on the front porch, but they
were not apparent unless one stood on the porch, and investigators did not get
that near to the house, for fear of compromising the investigation, and never saw
the mailboxes. Sidorski testified neither he nor the team he supervised were
aware the residence had more than one water meter before the search, though he
acknowledged seeing two meters on the side of the house after execution of the
warrant, and they did not consider "getting tax records or utility records to
confirm that it was . . . a single . . . family residence" because "[t]here was no
indication . . . that it was a multi-family dwelling."
Sidorski was not present when the search warrant was executed, but was
on site following execution of the warrant. According to Sidorski, when the
officers entered the residence to execute the search warrant, they assumed it was
a single family home and searched the first floor, where defendant and his
A-5031-16T4
7
girlfriend resided. Officers went to the second floor, learned it was "a separate
home, separate dwelling" and did not search it.
The court determined the totality of the circumstances described in the
affidavit established probable cause to search the St. Georges Avenue residence.
The court found it "troubling" the warrant stated an incorrect town and police
did not discover the house was a multi-unit residential home before the search
commenced. However, the court found the errors did not negate the probable
cause for the search warrant and "the warrant provided police with enough facts
and specificity that the location could be reasonably ascertained to be the correct
location in order to execute the search."
Defendant pleaded guilty to third-degree conspiracy to distribute a
controlled substance; third-degree possession of heroin with intent to distribute;
fourth-degree possession of a defaced firearm; second-degree certain persons
not to have weapons; and a violation of probation.3 On June 30, 2017, the court
imposed an aggregate eight-year sentence with five years of parole ineligibility.
Defendant appealed from the court's denial of the suppression motion. R. 3:5-
7(d).
3
The charge for which defendant was resentenced on the violation of probation
is not identified, nor is the judgment of conviction on the violation of probation
included in the record on appeal.
A-5031-16T4
8
Defendant offers the following arguments for our consideration:
POINT I
THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE SHOULD
HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THE SEARCH
WARRANT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY
PROBABLE CAUSE SPECIFIC TO THE HOME
THAT WAS SEARCHED.
POINT II
THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE SHOULD
HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THE SEARCH
WARRANT VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PARTICULARLITY [sic] REQUIREMENT BY
FAILING TO INDICATE THE CORRECT ADDRESS
AND THAT THERE WERE MULTIPLE UNITS, AND
BECAUSE THE OFFICERS UNREASONABLY
FAILED TO DISCONTINUE THE SEARCH ONCE
THEY DISCOVERED THERE WERE MULTIPLE
UNITS.
A. The Warrant Was Invalid Because It Listed the
Wrong Town and There Were No Grounds to Cure that
Error.
B. The Warrant Was Invalid Because It Did Not
Identify Which of the Two Units in the Multi-Family
Home Was to Be Searched.
C. The Motion to Suppress Should Have Been Granted
Because the Officers Should Have Stopped the Search
Once They Discovered There Were Multiple Units.
A-5031-16T4
9
II.
"[A]n appellate court reviewing a motion to suppress must uphold the
factual findings underlying the trial court's decision so long as those findings
are 'supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record.'" State v. Elders,
192 N.J. 224, 243 (2007) (citation omitted). The "findings of the trial judge . . .
are substantially influenced by his [or her] opportunity to hear and see the
witnesses and to have the 'feel' of the case, which a reviewing court cannot
enjoy." State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 471 (1999) (quoting State v. Johnson,
42 N.J. 146, 161 (1964)). We should disturb the trial court's findings "only if
they are so clearly mistaken 'that the interests of justice demand intervention
and correction.'" Elders, 192 N.J. at 244 (quoting Johnson, 42 N.J. at 162).
However, we do not defer to the trial court's legal interpretations. State v.
Gamble, 218 N.J. 412, 425 (2014).
"It is well settled that a search executed pursuant to a warrant is presumed
to be valid and . . . a defendant challenging its validity has the burden to prove
'that there was no probable cause supporting the issuance of the warrant or that
the search was otherwise unreasonable.'" State v. Jones, 179 N.J. 377, 388
(2004) (citation omitted). "[S]ubstantial deference must be paid by a reviewing
court to the determination of the judge who has made a finding of probable cause
A-5031-16T4
10
to issue a search warrant." State v. Evers, 175 N.J. 355, 381 (2003). Any
"[d]oubt as to the validity of the warrant 'should ordinarily be resolved by
sustaining the search.'" State v. Keyes, 184 N.J. 541, 554 (2005) (quoting Jones,
179 N.J. at 389).
We "accord substantial deference to the discretionary determination
resulting in the issuance of the [search] warrant." State v. Boone, 232 N.J. 417,
427 (2017) (alteration in original) (quoting Jones, 179 N.J. at 388). Our role is
to determine whether the warrant application presented sufficient evidence for
a finding of probable cause to search the location for the items sought. State v.
Chippero, 201 N.J. 14, 32 (2009).
"The application for a warrant must satisfy the issuing authority 'that there
is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, or is being
committed, at a specific location or that evidence of a crime is at the place sought
to be searched.'" Boone, 232 N.J. at 426 (quoting Jones, 179 N.J. at 388). The
probable cause inquiry requires courts to "make a practical, common sense
determination whether, given all of the circumstances, there is a fair probability
that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place." State
v. Marshall, 199 N.J. 602, 610 (2009) (quoting State v. O'Neal, 190 N.J. 601,
612 (2007)); see also Jones, 179 N.J. 389 (noting that a court must consider the
A-5031-16T4
11
"the totality of the circumstances" in determining if there is probable cause for
a search). "[T]he probable cause determination must be . . . based on the
information contained within the four corners of the supporting affidavit, as
supplemented by sworn testimony before the issuing judge that is recorded
contemporaneously." Boone, 232 N.J. at 427 (alterations in original) (quoting
Marshall, 199 N.J. at 611).
A.
Defendant first argues the search warrant was not supported by probable
cause because the supporting affidavit contained only three pieces of
information regarding the St. Georges Avenue residence, none of which
sufficiently linked the residence to defendant's alleged commission of CDS
related offenses: (1) the assertion it was his girlfriend's residence and
defendant's part-time residence; (2) a drug distribution network participant
drove defendant "home" to the address on March 16, 2014; and (3) on one
occasion investigators saw defendant exit the residence and meet individuals for
a CDS transaction.
We agree with defendant's claim the court could not properly rely on the
affidavit's representation that defendant's girlfriend resided at the address to
A-5031-16T4
12
support probable cause to search the St. Georges Avenue residence.4 The
affidavit describes defendant's girlfriend's actions as a participant in the
distribution of the CDS, but does not include any evidence establishing where
defendant's girlfriend resides, that the St. Georges Avenue address was her
residence or how the police knew the residence was allegedly hers. See Boone,
232 N.J. at 429-31. The footnote in the affidavit, indicating that the various
participants in the alleged CDS distribution network were "identified" through
various sources, does not provide any information concerning defendant's
girlfriend's residence. The affidavit therefore did not support a finding of
probable cause based on the assertion that defendant's girlfriend resided at the
St. Georges Avenue residence. Ibid.
In any event, based on the totality of the other circumstances presented in
the supporting affidavit, there are facts supporting "a practical, common sense
determination" that "there [was] a fair probability that contraband or evidence
4
We appreciate that defendant did not raise the argument before the motion
court and that his counsel stated during the initial proceeding that defendant's
girlfriend resided at the St. Georges Avenue address. Although we generally do
not consider arguments that are not first presented before the trial court, State v.
Robinson, 200 N.J. 1, 20 (2009), we consider defendant's contention that the
affidavit did not establish his girlfriend resided at the address because the appeal
requires our assessment of the court's finding of probable cause based on the
totality of the circumstances presented in the supporting affidavit.
A-5031-16T4
13
of a crime" would be found at the St. Georges Avenue address. 5 Marshall, 199
N.J. at 610 (quoting O'Neal, 190 N.J. at 612). The affidavit revealed ongoing
distribution of CDS to numerous individuals on a daily basis commencing March
11, 2014 and continuing through March 26, 2014. The affidavit detailed the
involvement of defendant and twenty-three other individuals' involvement in the
sale, distribution, purchase and distribution of CDS.
The affidavit also reveals that the arrangements for the sales, the
distribution, and the delivery of the CDS occurred at numerous locations.
During a March 16, 2014 exchange of text messages between defendant and
Namoya concerning a suspected CDS transaction, defendant requested a ride to
his "home," made arrangements for Namoya to transport him there, was
transported by Namoya to the St. Georges Avenue residence and was observed
entering the residence. Thus, unlike in Boone, where there was no evidence
establishing that the place to be searched was the defendant's residence, Boone,
232 N.J. at 429-30, here there was direct evidence the St. Georges address was
5
The State argues for the first time on appeal that the search of the St. Georges
Avenue address was "also sustainable under the inevitable discovery doctrine"
because "police . . . developed probable cause of new gun crimes . . . within
hours of [the judge's] issuance of the search warrant." We generally decline to
consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal, see Robinson, 200 N.J. at
20, and note that it is otherwise unnecessary to consider the State's belated
contention because the affidavit otherwise established probable cause.
A-5031-16T4
14
defendant's residence: his declaration the residence was his "home." Moreover,
the affidavit explained defendant made arrangements for a CDS transaction
during an intercepted phone call, and was then observed leaving the St. Georges
Avenue residence and meeting with people for the purpose of a CDS transaction.
These circumstances detailed in the affidavit support the search warrant
judge's determination there was a fair probability defendant resided at the St.
Georges Avenue address and evidence of a crime would be found there. The
affidavit showed defendant was involved in an ongoing and large scale CDS
distribution network. See, e.g., United States v. Whitner, 219 F.3d 289, 297 (3d
Cir. 2000) ("In the case of drug dealers, a number of other courts of appeals have
held that evidence of involvement in the drug trade is likely to be found where
the dealers reside."). Moreover, defendant identified the residence as his home
and the affidavit showed he committed an offense while in the residence: he
made arrangements for a CDS transaction from the residence and left the home
to complete the CDS transaction. "We accord substantial deference to a trial
court's determination that there was probable cause to issue a warrant,"
Marshall, 199 N.J. at 612, and are satisfied the affidavit provided "specific
evidence" demonstrating probable cause that there was evidence related to the
commission of defendant's alleged crimes in the residence, Boone, 232 N.J. at
A-5031-16T4
15
431. Defendant failed to sustain his burden of demonstrating otherwise. Jones,
179 N.J. at 388.
We find no merit in defendant's contention the affidavit did not allege
sufficient facts concerning the dates of the criminal activity related to the St.
Georges Avenue address to permit a finding there was probable cause to believe
"the law was being violated at the time the warrant issued." State v. Blaurock,
143 N.J. Super. 476, 479 (App. Div. 1976). The affidavit describes defendant's
extensive daily criminal activity occurring over the eighteen-day period
immediately prior to the search warrant application, and explains defendant
arranged a CDS transaction from the residence as part of the ongoing CDS
distribution network and left the residence to complete the CDS transaction
during that time.6 Again, the totality of those circumstances supports the court's
"practical, common sense determination . . . given all of the circumstances,"
Marshall, 199 N.J. at 610 (quoting O'Neal, 190 N.J. at 612), that such activity
remained ongoing at the St. Georges Avenue residence, as well as the other
various locations at which defendant engaged in criminal activity, at the time
the warrant issued. See, e.g., Blaurock, 143 N.J. Super. at 479 (noting that
6
As noted, it was established during the Franks hearing that defendant arranged
the CDS transaction from the residence and left the residence to complete it on
March 20, 2014, eight days before the search warrant application.
A-5031-16T4
16
"[t]ogether with the element of time . . . the nature of the unlawful activity" must
be considered in determining if there is probable cause to believe there is
evidence of that activity at the time the search warrant is sought (quoting United
States v. Johnson, 461 F.2d 285, 287 (10th Cir. 1972))).
B.
Defendant next contends the search warrant's erroneous reference to
Edison as the town in which the St. Georges Avenue residence was located
violates the requirement that a warrant "particularly describ[e] the place to be
searched." U.S. Const. amend. IV. The particularity requirement "mandates
that 'the description is such that the officer with a search warrant can with
reasonable effort ascertain and identify the place intended.'" Marshall, 199 N.J.
at 611 (quoting Steele v. United States, 267 U.S. 498, 503 (1925)).
The purpose of the "particularity requirement [is] to prevent general
searches. By limiting the authorization to search to the specific areas and things
for which there is probable cause to search, the requirement ensures that the
search will be carefully tailored to its justifications . . . ." Ibid. (quoting
Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 84 (1987)). Although "a search warrant
must describe the premises to be searched with reasonable accuracy, pin-point
precision is not demanded." State v. Wright, 61 N.J. 146, 149 (1972).
A-5031-16T4
17
That a search warrant includes the wrong address of the premises to be
searched does not necessarily run afoul of the particularity requirement or render
the ensuing search of the premises at the correct address invalid. "The test is
not whether the description is completely accurate in every detail but rather
whether it furnishes a sufficient basis for identification of the property so that it
is recognizable from other adjoining and neighboring properties." State v.
Daniels, 46 N.J. 428, 437 (1966). Analysis of the search's validity "must be
approached on a common sense basis rather than upon a super technical basis
requiring elaborate specificity." Ibid.In State v. Daniels, the search warrant affidavit explained that a reliable
confidential informant reported, and surveillance confirmed, an illegal lottery
operation located on premises with an address of "31 Avon Place" in a large
municipality. Id. at 431-32. The affidavit further described the premises as "a
small candy and ice cream store." Id. at 431. The court found probable cause
to search the premises and issued a warrant for "a confectionery store known
and designated as No. 31 Avon Place" in the municipality. Id. at 432. The
premises were searched, but it was subsequently revealed that the store was
located at "35 Avon Place." Ibid.A-5031-16T4
18
The defendant filed a suppression motion arguing, as defendant does here,
that the search was unlawful because "neither the affidavit nor the search
warrant particularly describe[d] the place to be" searched. Id. at 435. The trial
court granted the motion, and the Supreme Court subsequently granted the
State's motion for leave to appeal. Id. at 433. The Supreme Court found there
was probable cause for the issuance of a warrant, no evidence the officers
"desired to obtain a general warrant under the guise of a specific warrant," id. at
437, the officers complied with the requirement of seeking a warrant from a
judge, and the error in the designation of the address "was rationally explained,"
id. at 438.
The Court further noted the affidavit and warrant included a description
of the premises (i.e., a "confectionery store") separate from the address, and
there was no evidence other properties fitting the description were "likely to be
confused with the intended premises." Ibid. The Court also relied on the
evidence showing that an officer could have, with reasonable effort, determined
the premises to be searched and that officers engaged in the search "had been
engaged in the surveillance and therefore knew the specific property for which
the warrant was issued." Ibid. The Court explained that it did:
not mean to be understood to say generally that the
personal knowledge of the officer executing the
A-5031-16T4
19
warrant, of the place intended to be searched, could
cure a vitally deficient description, but . . . where . . .
the error is at the worst innocent and technical, and
there is additional descriptive language which properly
identifies the place, such knowledge is an element to be
considered.
[Ibid.]
The Court reversed the suppression order, concluding that "[i]n the light of the
foregoing, the error [concerning the address] fades into comparative
insignificance." Id. at 439.
Similarly, in State v. Bisaccia, the search warrant affidavit contained a
detailed description of the building to be searched as "a one story frame building
with a store," "a large sign over the entrance saying Coca Cola Toys—Candy
Coca Cola" and a front porch featuring a "look-out" at the address of "371 10th
Street" in a designated municipality. 58 N.J. 586, 588 (1971). The court found
probable cause to search the building and issued a warrant authorizing the search
of "the premises located at 371 10th Street, a one story frame building" in the
municipality. Ibid. The officer who was the affiant for the affidavit and had
previously surveilled the premises described in the affidavit executed the
warrant. Ibid. However, it was later discovered that the correct number of the
building was 375, not 371. Ibid.A-5031-16T4
20
The defendant filed a suppression motion and argued the warrant was
defective because it listed the incorrect address of the building. Ibid. The
Supreme Court reversed the trial court's suppression order, finding the building
intended to be searched "was unmistakably described in the affidavit," and "[n]o
other structure in the vicinity matched that description." Ibid. The Court found
the warrant, combined with the affidavit's description of the property and the
executing officer's "prior knowledge as to the place intended in the warrant," id.
at 593, whereby he "knew the judge who issued the warrant intended the
building he had amply described in his affidavit," was sufficient to uphold the
search, id. at 592-93.
Measured against the principles relied on by the Court in Daniels and
Bisaccia, we are satisfied the court correctly determined the error in the
identification of the town in which the St. Georges Avenue address was located
did not violate the particularity requirement. The officers applied for a warrant
for the search and there is no evidence the officers sought a general search
warrant under the pretense of a specific warrant. To be sure, the officers were
inattentive by erroneously referencing the town in which the St. Georges Avenue
premises were located, but Sidorski explained the mistake was the result of
nothing more than a typographical error, and there is no evidence to the contrary.
A-5031-16T4
21
In addition, the affidavit and warrant included a detailed physical
description of the premises that matched the physical description of the
residence that was searched. And, the premises searched not only matched the
physical description included in the affidavit and warrant, the premises also had
the identical house number and St. Georges Avenue street address listed in the
affidavit and warrant. There is no evidence that any other property in a ny other
town or location shared the identical physical characteristics of the premises and
its street number and name. Thus, the premises searched could not be confused
with any other residence.
Because the error here was "at the worst innocent and technical," it is
appropriate to also consider the knowledge of the officers. Daniels, 46 N.J. at
438. The affidavit states that the search was to be conducted by the officers who
actually conducted the surveillance, who "knew the specific property for which
the warrant was issued." Ibid.; see also Wright, 61 N.J. at 149 (explaining that
an officer's "own knowledge is a very relevant factor" in determining whether
the particularity requirement's purpose—preventing entry into property that
officers have "no authority to invade"—is violated). Thus, we are convinced, as
the Court was in Bisaccia, that the State did not violate the particularity
requirement because "[t]he place searched was undeniably the place as to which
A-5031-16T4
22
probable cause had been made out," "was in fact the place the warrant was meant
to describe," and the "error" did not "taint the justice of the search." 58 N.J. at
592.
C.
Defendant also argues the search warrant violated the constitutional
particularity requirement because it did not identify which of the two units in
the residence the officers were authorized to search. Defendant contends the
officers should have known the residence contained two units prior to applying
for the search warrant and should have abandoned the search after determining
the residence contained two units when they executed the search warrant.
Application of the particularity requirement is problematic where criminal
activity is suspected in a multi-unit structure. In Marshall, the Court found a
search warrant violated the particularity requirement because it did not define
the particular apartment to be searched, but instead authorized the executing
officers to determine the defendant's residential unit while executing the
warrant. 199 N.J. at 613. The Court found that the thrust of the particularity
requirement is to avoid an apartment-building-wide search, and "when a multi-
unit building is involved, the affidavit in support of the search warrant must
exclude those units for which police do not have probable cause." Id. at 611.
A-5031-16T4
23
The court determined it was unconstitutional to leave the determination as to
which of the units would be searched to the executing officers. Id. at 616-17.
In Marshall, the Court also discussed its decision in Wright, where it did
not find a constitutional violation even though the affidavit did not indicate there
were three apartments on the top floor of the premises. Id. at 614-15. The Court
explained that in Wright the affidavit limited the request to search to the
apartment "that was in fact occupied by the defendant," and the evidence showed
the police were familiar with the defendant's apartment because they had
searched it several months before. Id. at 615 (quoting Wright, 61 N.J. at 149).
The Court further discussed our decision in State v. Ratushny, 82 N.J.
Super. 499 (App. Div. 1964). Marshall, 199 N.J. at 624. In Ratushny, we
affirmed the suppression of evidence seized during the search of an apartment
in a four-unit apartment building, "hold[ing] that where the premises reasonably
believed to house illegal activity are known or reasonably should have been
known by the police to be premises being utilized for the occupancy of more
than one family, the search warrant must contain as specific a description of the
particular area to be searched as the nature of the circumstances reasonably
permit." 82 N.J. Super. at 506. We further explained that a "general description"
of the premises without regard to a particular unit "will pass muster only when
A-5031-16T4
24
it appears that a more specific description could not be obtain ed without
endangering the secrecy of surveillance or the efficacy of an arrest, or there are
equivalent justifying circumstances." Id. at 507. The Court in Marshall,
however, explained that the general description referenced in Ratushny is not
acceptable where "the nature of the circumstances either permitted the police to
discover the specific apartment unit prior to obtaining the search warrant, or at
minimum, would have allowed the police to return to the court to amplify the
affidavit with the precise unit prior to executing the warrant." 199 N.J. at 617.
Here, the circumstances are factually different than those presented in
Marshall, Wright and Ratushny because the officers were unaware the residence
contained two units when the search warrant affidavit was submitted to the court
and prior to the execution of the warrant. A warrant violates the particularity
requirement when it "authorizes the search of an entire building when cause is
shown for searching only one apartment." State v. Sheehan, 217 N.J. Super. 20,
28 (App. Div. 1987). However, "[a]n exception to this rule exists where the
multiple-unit character of the premises is not known or is not reasonably
apparent to the officer applying for and executing the warrant." Id. at 28 n.1;
accord State v. Schumann, 156 N.J. Super. 563, 566-67 (App. Div. 1978); State
v. Hendricks, 145 N.J. Super. 27, 33 (App. Div. 1976).
A-5031-16T4
25
In Maryland v. Garrison, the United States Supreme Court considered
whether officers must particularize their requests to exclude apartments for
which they have no probable cause from the scope of the requested warrant
where they are unaware there are separate units in the area to be searched. 480
U.S. at 85. The Court explained that officers must make "a reasonable effort to
ascertain and identify the place intended to be searched" such that their
conclusions can be deemed reasonable. Id. at 88. However, "the discovery of
facts demonstrating that a valid warrant was unnecessarily broad does not
retroactively invalidate the warrant." Id. at 85. The court must assess the
warrant "on the basis of the information that the officers disclosed, or had a duty
to discover and to disclose, to the issuing magistrate." Ibid.Here, the trial court did not clearly state its findings regarding whether the
officers made reasonable efforts to determine if the residence contained more
than one unit, but the uncontroverted evidence established they were unaware
the residence contained more than one unit, there was no reason known to the
officers suggesting that it did, and the only indicia the residence might contain
more than one unit—the mailboxes and meters—were not discovered as a result
of concerns that gaining close proximity to the residence would compromise the
ongoing surveillance and investigation. Thus, we cannot conclude the officers
A-5031-16T4
26
acted unreasonably in failing to conduct any additional investigation to
determine if the residence included more than one unit; their surveillance and
observations did not suggest any reason to do so and, in fact, provided a
reasonable basis for the decision no further investigation was required.
That is not to say we endorse the officers' failure to undertake a more
thorough investigation to determine if the residence contained more than one
unit. Where law enforcement is not certain a residence contains only one unit,
the more diligent and suggested practice is to investigate easily accessible
utility, tax and other records to ensure a search warrant is limited to the
particular unit for which there is probable cause to search. Indeed, a judge
presented with a search warrant request for a residence is well -advised to
consider whether an investigation concerning the number of units has been
undertaken. For the reasons stated, however, we do not find the officers' failure
to conduct such an investigation under the circumstances presented here was
unreasonable.
In Garrison, the Court found officers legally entered a building's third-
floor living quarters, which contained two apartments, because they reasonably
believed the floor contained only one unit. Id. at 86. The same is true here.
Moreover, Sidorski explained the officers had no reason to suspect the house
A-5031-16T4
27
contained multiple units, the actual search was limited to the unit in which
defendant resided and, although the officers went to the second unit, they did
not search the unit because they discovered others resided there. Under similar
circumstances in Garrison, the Court found a search did not violate either the
particularity requirement or the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable
searches and seizures. Id. at 87-89. We make the same finding here.
Finally, defendant argues police should have ceased searching the St.
Georges Avenue residence upon discovering it contained multiple units. We
reject this argument for two reasons. First, defendant did not raise this argument
below, and it neither goes to the jurisdiction of the trial court nor is a matter of
great public interest, so we will not consider it. See Robinson, 200 N.J. at 20.
In addition, this argument fails because the United States Supreme Court
has already addressed this question in Garrison. The Court found "we must
judge the constitutionality of [the officers'] conduct in light of the information
available to them at the time they acted." Garrison, 480 U.S. at 85. The Court
had "no difficulty concluding that the officers' entry into the third-floor common
area," not knowing it contained two apartments, "was legal." Id. at 86. The
officers recognized "they were required to discontinue the search of [Garrison's]
apartment," because he and his home were not the target of the warrant, "as soon
A-5031-16T4
28
as they discovered that there were two separate units on the third floor and
therefore were put on notice of the risk that they might be in a unit erroneously
included within the terms of the warrant." Id. at 87. The Court found the officers
"properly responded to the command contained in a valid warrant even if the
warrant is interpreted as authorizing a search limited to [the target's] apartment
rather than the entire third floor." Id. at 88. The Court held "the officers'
conduct was consistent with a reasonable effort to ascertain and identify the
place intended to be searched within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment."
Ibid.We are presented with almost identical circumstances. Officers entered
the St. Georges Avenue residence with no knowledge of a second unit and
discontinued their search of the second floor "as soon as they discovered that
there were two separate units." Id. at 87. Thus, they "properly responded to the
command contained in a valid warrant" and conducted "a search limited to"
defendant's apartment, rather than the entire building. Id. at 88. The search of
defendant's unit was therefore valid.
We affirm the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress.
A-5031-16T4
29