State v. Derek J. Kaltner (A-8-11)(068778)
(NOTE: This Court wrote no full opinion in this
case. Rather, the Court’s affirmance of the judgment of the Appellate Division
is based substantially on the reasons expressed in the opinion below.)
Decided May 1, 2012
PER CURIAM
The Court considered whether the trial court correctly
suppressed drug evidence found in a bedroom during a warrantless search of a
residence by police officers who were responding to noise complaints.
The defense disputed the officers’ version of the
events, arguing that the party was small, and that the officers searched the
entire house and forcibly entered the bedrooms, including Kaltner’s, by kicking
down locked bedroom doors. The trial judge found credible Officer Camacho’s
testimony about the size and scope of the party and the volume of noise. The
trial judge also found that the unidentified adult male who answered the door
invited the officers at least into the common area of the home. However, the
trial judge suppressed the drug evidence after concluding that the officers
unlawfully extended their search beyond entry into the first floor main living
area. The trial judge explained that any number of methods could have been
employed by the officers to locate a resident of the premises that would not
have required invading the private areas of the home.
The Appellate Division affirmed. 420 N.J. Super. 524 (App.
Div. 2011). The Appellate Division rejected the State’s argument that by
hosting a large party defendant had no expectation of privacy in the home or,
in the alternative, that the officers acted reasonably in their community
caretaking function to abate the noise nuisance. The Appellate Division
explained that Kaltner had a reasonable expectation of privacy despite the
party, which was not open to the public, therefore a search warrant grounded in
probable cause was needed unless an exception to the warrant requirement
applied. The Appellate Division agreed with the motion judge that the police
officers’ initial entry into the premises in response to the noise complaint
was lawful. The question, however, was whether, after their legitimate entry,
the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement justified the
officers’ conduct in fanning out in search of those in control of the premises
in an attempt to abate the noise nuisance.
The Appellate Division explained that the community caretaking exception to the
warrant requirement requires a case-by-case, fact-sensitive analysis. The
relevant question focuses on the objective reasonableness of the police action
under the circumstances, and requires that the court balance the nature of the
intrusion necessary to handle the perceived threat to the community caretaking
concern, the seriousness of the underlying harm to be averted, and the relative
importance of the community caretaking concern. The Appellate Division concluded that the police action in
this case was not constitutionally permitted. Although the officers’ entry into
the dwelling was initially justified, their subsequent action in fanning out
and conducting, in essence, a full-blown search of the home was not reasonably
related in scope to the circumstances that justified the entry in the first
place, nor was it carried out in a manner consistent with the factors
supporting the entry’s initial legitimacy. As explained by the motion judge,
the objective of noise abatement could have been achieved well short of the
officers’ full-scale search. For example, given the number of officers present
and the fact that the offending noise emanated from the crowd itself, the
officers could easily have dispersed the partiers.
After balancing the competing interests, including the
important privacy interest in one’s home, the breadth and extent of the
invasion of the entire premises, the limited nature of the community caretaking
concern, and the relatively low threat posed in light of the available less-drastic
options, the Appellate Division
concluded that Officer Camacho was not lawfully in the hallway outside
Kaltner’s bedroom when he viewed the evidence, and the plain-view doctrine did
not excuse his entry into the bedroom and seizure of the drugs.
HELD: The
decision of the Appellate Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons
expressed in Judge Parrillo’s opinion. Because the police officers’ warrantless
search of the home after they were called to address a noise complaint was not
objectively reasonable, the evidence obtained during the search was properly
suppressed.
The judgment of the Appellate Division was AFFIRMED.
1.