STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. SCOTT P. THOMPSON

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2434-04T22434-04T2

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

SCOTT P. THOMPSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________

 

Submitted December 7, 2005 - Decided January 10, 2006

Before Judges Wefing and Fuentes.

On appeal from Superior Court of New

Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County,

Docket No. 4481.

Joseph S. Murphy, attorney for appellant.

James F. Avigliano, Passaic County Prosecutor,

attorney for respondent (Terry Bogorad, Senior

Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the

brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Scott P. Thompson was charged with simple assault, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1a, and possession of less than fifty grams of marijuana, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10a. Both charges are disorderly persons offenses. The charges were filed when the police responded to a complaint of domestic violence involving defendant and his girlfriend. The responding officers described defendant as being in a rage, and observed defendant throwing furniture and other personal items down a flight of stairs leading to the second floor apartment he and his girlfriend occupied. Defendant was arrested at the scene.

One of the responding officers entered the apartment to check on the status of the alleged victim. Once inside, the officer heard crying emanating from a bedroom. The officer entered the room and found the alleged victim sitting on the bed. Next to her, lying on the floor, the police found a small quantity of marijuana.

The assault charge was dismissed by the court at the request of the alleged victim. Defendant challenged the constitutionality of the actions of the police in discovering the marijuana. The court conducted an evidentiary hearing where the police officer testified for the State. The alleged victim, who testified on behalf of defendant, indicated that she was neither crying nor in the bedroom, when the police entered the apartment.

The municipal court denied defendant's motion. Defendant was thereafter admitted to a conditional discharge for the marijuana offense, subject to his right to seek appellate review of the denial of the suppression motion. The Law Division reviewed the matter de novo, and found no basis to suppress the marijuana.

Defendant now appeals from the judgment of the Law Division, raising the following argument:

THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ENTRY AND/OR THE SEARCH OF THE DEFENDANT'S APARTMENT GIVEN BY THE MUNICIPAL COURT HAS NO FOUNDATION UNDER THE LAW AND IS A VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION AS WELL AS A VIOLATION OF N.J. Const. (1947) Art. I, Section 7.

 
Defendant's argument lacks sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Subryan in his opinion delivered from the bench on November 5, 2004.

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-2434-04T2

January 10, 2006