STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ADRIAN J. TAYLOR (17-12-3310, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2358-19
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ADRIAN J. TAYLOR,
a/k/a ADRIAN TAYLOR,
ADRIEN J. TAYLOR,
JAMAIN A. TAYLOR,
and LAMONT WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________
Submitted April 13, 2021 – Decided May 19, 2021
Before Judges Gilson and Moynihan.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Camden County, Indictment No. 17-12-3310.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Daniel S. Rockoff, Assistant Deputy Public
Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
Jill S. Mayer, Acting Camden County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Jason Magid, Special Deputy
Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of
counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Following the denial of his motion to suppress physical evidence seized
in accordance with a warrant, defendant Adrian Taylor pled guilty to third-
degree possession of cocaine with intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of a
school zone, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7(a). As called for in his plea agreement, defendant
was sentenced to four years in prison with two years of parole ineligibility. He
appeals from his conviction, arguing that his motion to suppress should have
been granted. We disagree and affirm.
I.
In May 2017, the Camden County Police Department applied for a warrant
to search a house located on Collins Road in Camden. The application was
supported by an affidavit from a detective assigned to the department's narcotics
and vice section. The detective certified that during the week of May 21, 2017,
she received information from a confidential informant (CI) who had previously
provided reliable information concerning other narcotics investigations. The CI
reported that "a black male" was selling heroin and cocaine from a residence
located on Collins Road. The detective also certified that during that same week,
the CI engaged in two controlled purchases of cocaine at the residence, and both
those purchases were supervised by detectives. The detective explained that
2 A-2358-19
prior to both purchases, she met with the CI, searched the CI to confirm that
there were no drugs or money already on the CI, and provided the CI with
money. Detectives watched the CI go to the front door of the house, enter, and
later exit the residence. Immediately thereafter, the CI met with detectives, told
the detectives he or she had purchased cocaine from a black male in the house,
and turned over substances that tested positive as cocaine.
Based on the detective's affidavit, a Superior Court judge issued a warrant
to search the home on Collins Road. Although the parties do not say so,
apparently cocaine and heroin were seized from the home and defendant was
determined to be in possession of those illegal drugs.
In June 2017, a grand jury indicted defendant for eight third-degree crimes
related to the possession and distribution of cocaine and heroin. Defendant
moved to suppress the evidence seized during the execution of the search
warrant and to compel the disclosure of the CI's identity. The trial court heard
oral arguments but did not conduct an evidentiary hearing. Instead, the court
reviewed the warrant application and briefs.
On May 24, 2018, the trial court issued two orders: one denying the
motion to suppress and a second denying the motion to reveal the CI's identity.
3 A-2358-19
II.
Defendant appeals, arguing:
POINT I – THE AFFIDAVIT DID NOT PROVIDE
PROBABLE CAUSE TO ISSUE THE SEARCH
WARRANT
POINT II – THIS COURT SHOULD ADOPT THE
PRINCIPLES OF STATE V. CASAL, 699 P.2D 1234
(WASH. 1985), WHICH ALLOW FOR IN CAMERA
HEARINGS THAT ALLOW DEFENDANTS TO
CHALLENGE THE TRUTHFULNESS AND
ACCURACY OF AFFIDAVITS THAT CONTAIN
THE HEARSAY RECITATION OF INFORMATION
SUPPOSEDLY PROVIDED BY A CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMANT
"[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) (quoting
State v. Valencia, 93 N.J. 126, 133 (1983)). "Accordingly, courts 'accord
substantial deference to the discretionary determination resulting in the issuance
of the [search] warrant.'" State v. Keyes, 184 N.J. 541, 554 (2005) (alteration
in original) (quoting Jones, 179 N.J. at 388).
"Probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant requires 'a fair
probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular
4 A-2358-19
place.'" State v. Chippero, 201 N.J. 14, 28 (2009) (citation omitted). To
determine whether there was probable cause, we look only at the information
within "the four corners of the supporting affidavit." Id. at 26 (quoting
Schneider v. Simonini, 163 N.J. 336, 363 (2000)).
"Information related by informants may constitute a basis for probable
cause, provided that a substantial basis for crediting that information is
presented." Jones, 179 N.J. at 389 (citing State v. Sullivan, 169 N.J. 204, 212
(2001)). The issuing court must consider the totality of the circumstances in
determining whether an informant's tip establishes probable cause, including the
informant's "veracity and basis of knowledge." Ibid. (citing State v.
Novembrino, 105 N.J. 95, 123 (1987)). "[R]elevant corroborating facts may
include a controlled drug buy performed on the basis of the tip, positive test
results of the drugs obtained, records confirming the informant's description of
the target location, the suspect's criminal history, and the experience of the
officer who submitted the supporting affidavit." Keyes, 184 N.J. at 556 (citing
Jones, 179 N.J. at 390-91). "[A] successful controlled [drug] buy 'typically will
be persuasive evidence in establishing probable cause.'" Ibid. (quoting Jones,
179 N.J. at 392) (internal quotation marks omitted).
5 A-2358-19
Defendant contends that the affidavit was deficient in three respects: (1)
it failed to provide facts establishing the reliability of the CI; (2) it provided no
factual basis for the CI's report that a black male was distributing drugs at the
residence; and (3) no one saw drugs being stored inside the residence, and thus
the drugs may have been on the person of the unidentified black male. We reject
these arguments because the affidavit provided probable cause for the issuance
of a warrant to search the residence on Collins Road.
The detective verified that the CI had provided reliable information in
other investigations that resulted in seizures and arrests related to illegal drugs.
The affidavit was also supported by surveillance of the controlled buys at the
residence. Accordingly, "the totality of the circumstances, including . . . all
relevant police corroboration," confirmed the CI's reliability and established
probable cause. Id. at 557. Consequently, we reject defendant's argument that
the motion court erred in denying his motion to suppress the physical evidence
seized in accordance with the warrant.
Defendant also argues that we should adopt a rule allowing for in camera
hearings to test the truthfulness of an affidavit containing information provided
by a confidential informant. We decline to consider this argument for two
reasons.
6 A-2358-19
First, defendant did not request an in camera hearing in the trial court.
Instead, defendant moved to compel the disclosure of the CI's identity. We
generally decline to consider issues not raised before the trial court unless the
issues relate to the trial court's jurisdiction or concern a matter of great public
interest. Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973); see also State
v. Witt, 223 N.J. 409, 418 (2015) (declining to consider a challenge to motor
vehicle stop's validity not raised to trial court).
Second, given that the affidavit did not solely rely on the CI, we discern
no reason to consider the adoption of a new procedure or modification of current
procedures concerning information obtained from confidential informants. See
State v. Hernandez, 225 N.J. 451, 467 (2016) (citing State v. Milligan, 71 N.J.
373, 384 (1976)) (reiterating factors to be balanced by trial courts when
considering motion for disclosure of a confidential informant's identity).
Affirmed.
7 A-2358-19