In a decision issued today, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the conviction of Shawn M. Fenimore.
The reason: The court found the cops had zero basis for their warrantless search of the vehicle despite that it followed a routine arrest.
This marks yet another time our courts have overturned prosecutions due to procedural failures in obtaining proper legal authority for searches.
In response to a request for a statement regarding a harassment claim against him, Fenimore arrived at the Woodstown State Police barracks shortly before 8:30 p.m. on June 2, 2021. New Jersey State Police Trooper Daniel Radetich interviewed Fenimore and administered three sobriety tests. Fenimore failed two of them. Radetich arrested Fenimore for driving while intoxicated (DWI) at approximately 8:57 p.m. Radetich secured Fenimore to a holding cell bench and advised him that troopers would search his car. Troopers commenced a warrantless search of the car at 9:02 p.m. and found drugs, a loaded gun, and other evidence such as bolt cutters. Fenimore was charged with second-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, third-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS), and fourth-degree possession of a prohibited device.
Fenimore filed a motion to supress the evidence based on the warrantless search.
At the motion hearing, Radetich testified to the sequence of events described above. During cross-examination, Radetich agreed that under John’s Law, (which is when a person has been arrested for DWI), troopers were required to impound Fenimore's car after his arrest for DWI, “[s]o, this car wasn’t going anywhere . . . for at least twelve hours.”
When asked why he did not secure a warrant - despite that the car wasn’t going anywhere for at least twelve hours, Radetich stated that “that’s our . . . standard process. When you’re arrested for John’s Law, we have the right to a probable cause search of their vehicle.”
The trial court denied the motion, finding that despite the officers having plenty of time to obtain a search warrant, “under present case law, if there is probable cause that a person has operated a motor vehicle under the influence, police have the right to search that vehicle without a search warrant, whether it’s on the roadway or in a parking lot.” The State Troopers were therefore “justified in searching the vehicle without a search warrant.”
The Appellate Division affirmed this ruling.
In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court today reversed this decision.
In reaching its decision, the Court today expressly relied on and reaffirmed its 2023 ruling in State v. Smart, which, as previously reported here on FAA News, involved a Toms River man whose vehicle was searched without a warrant after a police stop. In Smart, the justices held that under the New Jersey Constitution, the automobile exception to the warrant requirement is only valid when probable cause arises in a manner that is both “unforeseeable and spontaneous.”
Citing the Smart ruling repeatedly, the Court today made clear that it is not enough for police to merely have probable cause - their suspicions must develop on the spot, not as part of a planned or extended investigation.
"The New Jersey Constitution offers stronger privacy protections than the federal Fourth Amendment, especially regarding searches of motor vehicles. Under New Jersey jurisprudence, the automobile exception allows a warrantless search only if probable cause arose spontaneously and unforeseeably - and the search took place at the scene - not at an impoundment location.
"We hold that in this case, when the car was parked in a State Police barracks parking lot; police had arrested the driver, removed the passenger, and obtained the keys; and the car was subject to imminent, mandatory impoundment... There was no “on-scene search” here: the car was searched in a police barracks parking lot, not on the scene of a motor vehicle stop or any other incident. And the facts make clear there was no other “inherent exigency” to “justif[y] a warrantless search . . . under the automobile exception.” The automobile exception to the warrant requirement did not apply. The police were therefore required to obtain a warrant before searching the vehicle," the Court found.
The Court concluded that the warrantless search violated constitutional protections and that the resulting evidence was inadmissible.
Fenimore’s conviction was vacated, and the case remanded for dismissal.
---
🔍 Why This Matters
New Jersey’s Supreme Court reaffirmed that the automobile exception is strictly confined to on‑the‑scene searches tied to unforeseeable, exigent circumstances. Consent must be lawful, exigency must truly exist, and officers cannot bypass warrant requirements lightly.
To join the FAA News WhatsApp Status, click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment