State v. Torres

1

State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Joao C. Torres, Defendant-Appellant.

No. A-15-22

Supreme Court of New Jersey

May 4, 2023

Argued February 28, 2023

On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division.

Margaret McLane, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender attorney; Margaret McLane, of counsel and on the briefs).

Steven A. Yomtov, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney Steven A. Yomtov, of counsel and on the briefs).

Alexander Shalom argued the cause for amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation, attorneys; Alexander Shalom and Jeanne LoCicero, on the brief).

Oleg Nekritin submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey (Law Offices of Robert J. De Groot and the Ziegler Law Group, attorneys; Oleg Nekritin and Jason LeBoeuf, on the brief).

SABATINO, P.J.A.D. (temporarily assigned), writing for a unanimous Court.

In this appeal, the Court considers whether the seizure of defendant Joao Torres's sweatshirt was justified under the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement in the circumstances presented.

Dispatched to a residence where an axe murder had taken place, Detective Marchak learned that the victim and his stepson, defendant, were the only two people believed to have been in the house the previous night. In the bedroom, the mattress was soaked in blood and there was a significant amount of blood on the wall and ceiling. Within a few hours, officers located defendant, placed him under arrest on an outstanding warrant, and, at 3:55 p.m., placed him in a squad car to be transported to the police station. At the station, detectives interviewed defendant until he invoked his right to counsel. Defendant made incriminating admissions during the interview that provided probable cause to arrest him for murder.

Detective Marchak observed during the interview that defendant "had something on his hands," and that he was "picking at his hands" and "rubbing his fingers." After the interview halted, Detective Marchak consulted other officers "about the preservation of biological evidence." Detective Marchak documented these observations and his concerns about the risks of dissipation within a written report, which specifically reflected that the detective had observed "possibly biological evidence located on Mr. Torres's sweatshirt" and stated that an assistant prosecutor advised him "to seize Mr. Torres's clothing and conduct swabs of his hands in anticipation of approval of a court authorized search warrant for same."

Sergeant James Napp began processing defendant at 6:42 p.m. He photographed defendant from multiple angles; collected his sweatshirt; took more photographs; had defendant remove all but his underwear; took more photographs; swabbed and inspected defendant's fingernails, ears, and beard; and then had him remove his underwear and put on a plastic suit. Once defendant had changed, he was informed he was being charged with "hindering and resisting" at that point.

Officers and the assistant prosecutor eventually reached the emergent duty Superior Court judge at 8:03 p.m. The warrant to take swabs from defendant and to seize his clothing was ultimately granted and signed by the judge at 8:30 p.m. The laboratory analysis of defendant's sweatshirt identified traces of the victim's blood. Defendant was charged in a twenty-count indictment with murder, disturbing human remains, and several other offenses.

Defendant moved to suppress the warrantless seizure of his clothing. After a hearing, the judge denied the motion. Defendant entered a guilty plea. He then appealed, arguing that "the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress the evidence seized as a result of the warrantless strip search." The Appellate Division held that the search was not a strip search but remanded "for more explicit findings of fact and conclusions of law" to justify the warrantless seizure.

On remand, the trial court issued an amplified written opinion holding that the seizure of defendant's clothing was valid as a search incident to arrest under the totality of the circumstances. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court granted defendant's petition for certification. 252 N.J. 156 (2022).

HELD: The Court endorses and applies the two-factor test of State v. Lentz, 463 N.J.Super. 54, 70 (App. Div. 2020), authorizing delayed warrantless searches of a person incident to that person's arrest so long as both (1) the delay itself and (2) the scope of the search were objectively reasonable. The totality of circumstances here establishes such reasonableness, particularly given the officers' observation and video footage showing that defendant appeared to be removing some substance from his fingers and rubbing his clothing while he was being interviewed, as well as the risk that biological evidence would dissipate during the delay while the warrant application was processed.

1. The Court reviews the Strip Search Act and the Attorney General's Guidelines related to that Act. The statute and the Guidelines do not cover the removal and seizure of defendant's sweatshirt for two reasons. First, defendant's zippered sweatshirt, like a coat or a belt, is an article of "outer clothing" expressly excluded from the scope of the statute. N.J.S.A. 2A:161A-3. The fact that the police continued to remove other articles of clothing after obtaining defendant's sweatshirt is irrelevant to the suppression of the sweatshirt as an item of evidence. The Court's analysis must consider each portion of a search on its own terms. Second, the restrictions of the statute apply only to someone "detained or arrested for commission of an offense other than a crime." N.J.S.A. 2A:161A-1 (emphasis added). Although initially arrested on an outstanding traffic warrant, defendant was plainly being detained for murder by the time his clothing was seized. (pp. 20-23) 2. It is well established that a Fourth Amendment exception authorizes the warrantless search of persons incident to their lawful arrest, justified by the need (1) to remove any weapons that the arrested person might possess and seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect an escape; and (2) to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee's person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction. In United States v. Edwards, the Supreme Court held that once an "accused is lawfully arrested and is in custody, the effects in his possession at the place of detention that were subject to search at the time and place of his arrest may lawfully be searched and seized without a warrant even though a substantial period of time has elapsed between the arrest and subsequent administrative processing, on the one hand, and the taking of the property for use as evidence, on the other." 415 U.S. 800, 807 (1974) (emphasis added). Recently, in Lentz, the Appellate Division applied the Edwards rationale, holding that a delayed search incident to a valid arrest will be constitutional so long as "the delay itself and the scope of the search are objectively reasonable." 463 N.J.Super. at 71-72, 76. The Court reviews Lentz in detail and notes the caveat in that decision -- that the court's holding did not "untether the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement from its justification nor give police free reign to conduct warrantless searches without probable cause at any point after a lawful arrest." Id. at 79. Subject to that important caveat, the Court concurs that Lentz's two-part standard of reasonableness for delayed searches incident to an arrest prescribes a proper constitutional balance, and the Court endorses the sound principles set forth in that opinion. (pp. 24-32)

3. The Court reviews case law recognizing the risk of dissipation of biological evidence. Applying Lentz factor one, the delay in performing the search of defendant's body and clothes was reasonable. There was an ongoing risk that defendant could have dissipated the evidence, either in the interview room or during a washroom break. The officers had a legitimate concern that it might take considerable time to obtain an after-hours warrant. The delay was not unreasonable and indeed far shorter than the ten-hour delay upheld in Edwards. Applying Lentz factor two, the scope of the search, which involved the swabbing of defendant's hands and the removal of his sweatshirt, was reasonable. The sweatshirt was specifically observed to possibly have biological material on it, and the warrant gave the police the express authority to take the next steps and have the sweatshirt tested. In the totality of circumstances presented, the seizure of defendant's sweatshirt was justified under the incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement and involved no unreasonable delay or excessive scope. (pp. 32-36)

AFFIRMED.

CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and JUSTICES PATTERSON, SOLOMON, PIERRE-LOUIS, and WAINER APTER join in JUDGE SABATINO's opinion. JUSTICE FASCIALE did not participate.

OPINION

SABATINO JUDGE (temporarily assigned)

While investigating an axe murder, police officers apprehended defendant and confiscated his clothing, including a sweatshirt, at the police station. The confiscation began about three hours after defendant was taken into custody following an interview during which he made incriminating statements connecting him to the homicide. During the interview, the officers noticed defendant picking at his fingers and rubbing his clothing. The lead detective also observed what his report described as possible biological evidence...