State v. Nyema

249 N.J. 509

267 A.3d 449

STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.Peter NYEMA, a/k/a Pete Dinah, Kareem T. Jeffries, Hne Nyema, and Pete Nyme, Defendant-Respondent.

State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.Jamar J. Myers, Defendant-Appellant.

A-39 September Term 2020

A-40 September Term 2020

085146

082858

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued October 25, 2021

Decided January 25, 2022

Michael D. Grillo, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant in State v. Nyema (A-39-20) and respondent in State v. Myers (A-40-20) (Angelo J. Onofri, Mercer County Prosecutor, attorney; Randolph E. Mershon, III, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the briefs, and Laura Sunyak, Assistant Prosecutor, on the briefs).

Alyssa Aiello, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for respondent in State v. Nyema (A-39-20) (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Alyssa Aiello, of counsel and on the briefs).

Tamar Y. Lerer, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant in State v. Myers (A-40-20) (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Tamar Y. Lerer, of counsel and on the briefs).

Steven A. Yomtov, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae Attorney General of New Jersey in State v. Nyema (A-39-20) and in State v. Myers (A-40-20) (Andrew J. Bruck, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Carol M. Henderson, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel, and Steven A. Yomtov, of counsel and on the briefs).

Alexander Shalom, Newark, argued the case for amicus curiae 66 Black ministers and other clergy members in State v. Nyema (A-39-20) and in State v. Myers (A-40-20) (American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation, attorneys; Alexander Shalom, Jeanne LoCicero, and Karen Thompson, on the briefs).

Raymond Brown argued the cause for amici curiae Latino Leadership Alliance of New Jersey and National Coalition of Latino Officers in State v. Nyema (A-39-20) and State v. Myers (A-40-20) (Pashman Stein Walder Hayden, attorneys; CJ Griffin and Darcy Baboulis-Gyscek, on the briefs).

Robert J. DeGroot, Newark, argued the cause for amicus curiae Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey in State v. Nyema (A-39-20) and State v. Myers (A-40-20) (Oleg Nekritin, on the briefs).

Joseph M. Mazraani, North Brunswick, submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Kristin Henning of the Georgetown Law Juvenile Justice Clinic & Initiative in State v. Nyema (A-39-20) and State v. Myers (A-40-20) (Mazraani & Liguori, and Georgetown Juvenile Justice Clinic & Initiative, attorneys; Joseph M. Mazraani, and Kristin Henning, of the District of Columbia bar, admitted pro hac vice, on the briefs).

Jonathan Romberg submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Seton Hall University School of Law Center for Social Justice in State v. Myers (A-40-20) (Seton Hall University Scott of Law Center for Social Justice, attorneys; Jonathan Romberg, of counsel and on the brief).

JUSTICE PIERRE-LOUIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case, we must determine whether reasonable and articulable suspicion existed when a police officer conducted an investigatory stop of the vehicle in which defendants were riding. After the robbery of a 7-Eleven store in Hamilton, police dispatch alerted officers that the suspects were two Black males, one armed with a gun. Sergeant Mark Horan heard the radio transmission and made his way to the scene. While en route, Sergeant Horan used the mounted spotlight on his marked police car to illuminate the interior of passing vehicles in order to search for the robbery suspects. In the first vehicle Horan encountered, a man and a woman reacted with annoyance and alarm when Horan shone the spotlight into their car. When Horan came across a second vehicle, approximately three-quarters of a mile from the store, he illuminated the interior of the car with the spotlight and saw three Black males inside. According to Horan, the men did not react to the spotlight at all. Horan viewed that non-reaction as "odd" considering the reaction of the passengers in the first car. At that point, the only information Horan had about the robbery was that the suspects were two Black males, one with a gun, who fled the robbery on foot. Dispatch had not provided any additional identifiers.

Based on the race and sex of the occupants and their non-reaction to the spotlight, Sergeant Horan executed a motor vehicle stop of the car. After stopping the car, Horan learned that the vehicle had been reported stolen so defendants were placed under arrest. A search of the car revealed dark clothing -- clothes matching what the suspects were wearing during the robbery -- and a handgun hidden under the hood of the car.

Defendants Peter Nyema, Jamar Myers, and a third co-defendant were charged with a host of offenses related to the 7-Eleven robbery. Nyema and Myers jointly moved to suppress the items seized during the search of the vehicle, arguing that the stop was unlawful because it was not based on reasonable suspicion. The trial court denied the motion to suppress and both Myers and Nyema eventually pled guilty to first-degree robbery.

In separate appeals, both men challenged the denial of the motion to suppress, resulting in opposite Appellate Division outcomes. In Myers's appeal, an Appellate Division panel affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress, ruling that the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion. In Nyema's appeal, a different Appellate Division panel reversed the trial court and vacated Nyema's conviction and sentence, finding that Sergeant Horan did not have reasonable suspicion to conduct the stop of the car.

We granted both defendants’ petitions for certification on the question of whether reasonable and articulable suspicion existed to stop the car. We now reverse the Myers decision and affirm in Nyema. The only information the officer possessed at the time of the stop was the race and sex of the suspects, with no further descriptors. That information, which effectively placed every single Black male in the area under the veil of suspicion, was insufficient to justify the stop of the vehicle and therefore does not withstand constitutional scrutiny.

I.

We rely on the testimony developed at the evidentiary hearing on defendants’ motion to suppress for the following summary.

Around midnight on May 7, 2011, a 7-Eleven in Hamilton, New Jersey was robbed. At approximately 12:15 a.m., Sergeant Mark Horan of the Hamilton Township Police Department received a transmission about the armed robbery, which "had just occurred." Horan testified that the dispatch described the suspects "as two Black males, one with a handgun."

Horan activated the lights and sirens on his marked patrol car and drove towards the 7-Eleven at a "relatively high speed" for one to two minutes, shutting off the lights and sirens as he drew closer. According to Sergeant Horan, traffic was light because it was late at night. Approximately three-quarters of a mile from the 7-Eleven, Horan saw a car approaching in the oncoming traffic lane. Using the spotlight mounted to his police vehicle to illuminate the inside of the car,¹ he observed that the occupants were a man and a woman and let them pass. Sergeant Horan testified as follows:

I continued on. The second set of headlights approached me, I illuminated the inside of that vehicle and I observed three Black males, you know, that went past me.

The description of the suspects was two Black males so at that point I decided to issue a motor vehicle stop on the second vehicle.

He would later explain that the man and the woman in the first vehicle reacted to the spotlight with "alarm or annoyance," and that the "driver shielded his eyes a little bit." In contrast, the occupants of the second vehicle, including defendants, showed no reaction and kept looking straight ahead. Horan testified that the occupants of the second vehicle "were all males, Black males. And I received no response from any of them that I could observe, no one looked at me, no one turned towards the car. It was as if I wasn't there." He explained that this non-reaction "struck [him] as odd." He further testified that it was his "experience that sometimes people who prefer not to be noticed tend to ignore the spotlight."

Upon witnessing the non-reaction of the vehicle's occupants, Horan activated his lights and executed a stop of the second vehicle. Horan testified that at the time of the stop,

[t]he sex and race were consistent with that of the description. I had three occupants in the vehicle. The suspects were described at the time of the call as two. So I had, at least, that. I took into consideration the short distance from the scene, as well as the short amount of time from the call and all those things considered is what I took into consideration to effect the stop.

Upon stopping the vehicle, Sergeant Horan radioed headquarters with the license plate number and a description of the car -- a 2000 silver Toyota Corolla with Pennsylvania license plates.

Two more officers arrived just as Horan was exiting his patrol car. All three approached the vehicle with their weapons drawn. Horan ordered the driver to turn off the engine and told all occupants to place their hands on the roof. Before he approached the vehicle, Horan learned from one of the other officers that the robbery suspects had been wearing dark or black clothing or jackets. As he approached, Horan observed "some dark jackets" on the unoccupied rear passenger seat and on the floor of the vehicle.

Horan spoke with the driver, who was later identified as co-defendant Tyrone Miller, a/k/a Ajene Drew. Nyema was sitting in the passenger seat and Myers was in the rear passenger-side seat. The dispatcher asked Horan to confirm the license plate number and when he did, the dispatcher advised Horan that the vehicle had been reported stolen. All three occupants were then removed from the vehicle and placed under arrest.

More officers arrived on the scene, and...