|
E-Bulletin -
2008
|
NJ Appellate Division Rules Anonymous Tip Does Not Justify Pat-Down Search for Weapons
In what may be a step backwards for police officer safety, the New Jersey Appellate Division recently ruled in State v. Matthews that the stop and frisk of suspects and the search of their vehicle for weapons, when based solely upon an anonymous tip, violates the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.
At approximately 2:30 a.m. on February 19, 2005, patrol officers of the Linden Police Department were dispatched in response to an anonymous report that an individual in a burgundy Durango with a temporary tag had been flashing a gun.
Two officers responded to the scene, where they converged on a parked vehicle matching the given description, with three individuals sitting inside. The vehicle’s dark-tinted windows made it difficult to see inside, and the officers considered this to be a “high risk” traffic stop. The occupants were ordered to exit the vehicle. Pat-down searches revealed no weapons on the occupants; however, a search of the vehicle revealed a gun under the front passenger seat.
Meanwhile, Cadree Matthews approached the scene and made several attempts to enter the vehicle. Mr. Matthews refused to leave the scene, although the officers had told him that an investigation in progress and directed him to leave. After becoming combative and again trying to enter the vehicle, Mr. Matthews was placed under arrest. He then stated that the gun found in the vehicle was his.
During the criminal prosecution, Mr. Matthews sought to have the gun suppressed as evidence. The trial judge denied the motion to suppress, and Mr. Matthews plead guilty to various weapons offenses and resisting arrest.
On appeal, Mr. Matthews argued that the pat-down searches of the occupants and the search of the vehicle were improper.
The Appellate Division found that, under their community care-taking function, the police would have been justified, based on the circumstances and even absent the anonymous tip, in conducting an investigatory stop to determine if the occupants of the vehicle needed assistance. The anonymous tip, coupled with the late hour, and the fact that the vehicle matched the description reported in the tip, justified the police in conducting an investigatory stop to inquire what the occupants of the vehicle were doing.
However, the Appellate Division found that the officers were not justified in conducting the pat-down searches of the occupants or searching the vehicle because those searches were based solely upon an anonymous tip that someone had been seen flashing a gun.
The Matthews court found that the police had not demonstrated an objectively articulable and reasonable basis to believe that the occupants were armed and dangerous or that the officers had a well-grounded suspicion that a crime had been or was about to be committed. As such, the anonymous report, on its own, failed to establish the required indicia of reliability to justify the pat-down or vehicular searches. The Appellate Division therefore reversed Mr. Matthew’s convictions on the charges of unlawful possession of a weapon and possession of a weapon by a previously convicted person.
This decision may present a chilling effect of the ability of police officers to protect their own safety during investigatory stops. The ramifications of the Matthews opinion have yet to be fully seen.
If you are a law enforcement official or the risk manager for a police department or municipality, please do not hesitate to contact Golden, Rothschild, Spagnola, Lundell, Levitt & Boylan, P.C. We would be glad to further discuss this significant decision with you.
Andrew W. Li, Esq. is an associate of GRSLL&B in the firm’s CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGATION GROUP. He practices in the areas of Public Entity (Title 59) Litigation, Federal Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. 1983) Litigation, Law Against Discrimination - Public Accommodations Litigation, and NJ Civil Rights Act Litigation.
|
