STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. CHRISTOPH L. FRAZERÂ (14-09-1655, MONMOUTH 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4463-15T3
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
CHRISTOPH L. FRAZER, a/k/a
ENERGETIC, CHRISTOPHER OUSLEY,
CHRIS OUSLEY and CHRISTOPH FRAZER,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________
Submitted July 18, 2017 – Decided July 26, 2017
Before Judges Reisner and Suter.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County,
Indictment No. 14-09-1655.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant (Paul B. Halligan, Assistant
Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the
brief).
Christopher J. Gramiccioni, Monmouth County
Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Carey J.
Huff, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on
the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Christoph L. Frazer1 appeals from his conviction,
based on his guilty plea to second-degree possession of a
controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A.
2C:35-5(b)(2). Defendant does not appeal from the sentence imposed
- seven and one-half years in prison with a forty-five month parole
bar. His appeal focuses exclusively on the denial of his
suppression motion, and presents the following point of argument2:
THE AFFIDAVIT DID NOT PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE
TO SEARCH THE DEFENDANT'S HOME AND CAR BECAUSE
THE VERACITY AND BASIS OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT UPON WHICH THE
AFFIDAVIT RELIED WAS NOT ESTABLISHED. THUS,
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE MOTION
TO SUPPRESS.
The motion focused on a search warrant affidavit signed by
Sgt. Otlowski. He attested that he had received information from
a confidential informant (CI), who had previously been found
reliable, concerning defendant's drug dealing activities at two
specified addresses in Freehold. Otlowski also attested to his
own observations of defendant at the two locations, engaging in
1
Defendant's first name is spelled "Christopher" in some
portions of the record; we use the spelling reflected in the
judgment of conviction.
2
Defendant's plea agreement reserved his right to appeal on other
issues. However, he has not briefed those issues, and therefore
we will not address them.
2 A-4463-15T3
activity typical of drug dealing. Thereafter, according to
Otlowski, the CI successfully completed four purchases of drugs
(controlled buys) from defendant, which took place under police
surveillance. The court issued a search warrant based on that
affidavit.
In support of his motion for a Franks3 hearing, defendant
submitted an affidavit denying that he engaged in drug dealing.
He also attested that when Otlowski arrested him, the officer told
defendant that he knew defendant had a large amount of cocaine in
his house and Otlowski would shoot defendant "if his kids ever got
a hold of this stuff." Defendant claimed that Otlowski's affidavit
contained false information. He argued that Otlowski's version
of events was suspect because the officer did not create any police
reports concerning the investigation preceding the warrant
application. He also argued that the investigation concerned
cocaine, but the resulting search pursuant to the warrant "only"
turned up heroin and marijuana.
In a thorough written opinion, Judge John T. Mullaney, Jr.
rejected those arguments, finding that there was probable cause
for the issuance of the search warrant and defendant's
"uncorroborated factual assertions" did not entitle him to a Franks
3
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S. Ct. 2674, 57 L. Ed. 2d
667 (1978).
3 A-4463-15T3
hearing. After reviewing the record in light of the applicable
standard of review, we affirm for the reasons stated by Judge
Mullaney. Defendant's appellate arguments are without sufficient
merit to warrant discussion, beyond the following brief comments.
R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
On this appeal, defendant argues that Otlowski's affidavit
failed to detail the CI's prior activity which caused the police
to find him reliable. Defendant does not address the CI's
subsequent four successful controlled buys, which, together with
Otlowski's own observations of defendant's activity, provided a
more than adequate basis for a finding of probable cause to issue
the warrant. See State v. Jones, 179 N.J. 377, 390-92 (2004).
Affirmed.
4 A-4463-15T3