STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. AUBREY DORISME

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3470-04T43470-04T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

 
Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

AUBREY DORISME,

 

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________

 

Submitted July 12, 2006 - Decided August 10, 2006

Before Judges Fuentes and Graves.

On appeal from Superior Court of

New Jersey, Law Division, Union

County, Indictment No. 02-12-1438.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender,

attorney for appellant (Janet A.

Allegro, Designated Counsel, on the

brief).

Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General,

attorney for respondent (Maura K.

Tully, Deputy Attorney General,

of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Aubrey Dorisme pled guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement to one count of third-degree possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5a(1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5b(3). He was sentenced to three years probation, subject to serving 180 days in the Union County Jail. The court also imposed the mandatory fines and penalties.

Prior to pleading guilty, defendant moved to suppress the evidence seized by the State. The court denied defendant's motion after an evidentiary hearing. Defendant now appeals raising the following arguments.

POINT I

THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED ERROR IN DENYING MR. DORISME'S SUPPRESSION MOTION BECAUSE THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE, ARTICULABLE SUSPICION TO STOP AND DETAIN MR. DORISME.

POINT II

THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED ERROR IN DENYING MR. DORISME'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS BECAUSE THERE DID NOT EXIST PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST AND SEARCH MR. DORISME.

We reject these arguments and affirm. We summarize the following facts from the evidence presented at the suppression hearing. Tyrone Torner, a Lieutenant in the City of Elizabeth Police Department and the head of that Department's Narcotics Division, was the only witness to testify on behalf of the State at the hearing. On August 2, 2002, Torner was patrolling the area near the apartment building located at 1108 Anna Street, in response to complaints by citizens of illicit narcotics activities.

Torner drove by this location in an unmarked police car and noticed a group of five or six African American men standing in front of the building. He parked the vehicle nearby in a place that enabled him to survey the front of the building. From this vantage point, Torner observed the group disperse, with the exception of two of the men, subsequently identified as Dorisme and codefendant Frantz Rigaud.

Defendant and his cohort positioned themselves in front of 1108 Anna Street, from where they scrutinized everyone who walked or passed by. The two men paced up and down the street, occasionally talking with one another. Torner was approximately two hundred feet away when he observed these activities, had a clear view of the two men and enhanced his ability to observe by using binoculars.

At one point, Torner saw defendant walk a short distance into a nearby park. Two women approached defendant, one pushing a baby carriage. Immediately following a brief conversation with the woman with the carriage, defendant signaled Rigaud with his right arm, prompting Rigaud to turn around and proceed toward the front door of 1108 Anna Street. About twenty seconds later, Rigaud walked over to where defendant and the two women were standing, and handed something "small" to one of the women. According to Torner:

The female then handed money [paper currency] to [defendant] after receiving what she received from Mr. Rigaud. As soon as she gave the money to [defendant], she took whatever she had in her hand that she had received and put it in her purse and immediately left the area.

Based on his training and experience, Torner concluded that he had witnessed a street-level drug transaction. He decided to forego pursuing the female buyer and repositioned his vehicle to get a better view of the front entrance of 1108 Anna Street. Defendant and Rigaud resumed their prior activities, pacing and scrutinizing passing cars.

Torner then observed Rigaud run across the street to the entrance of 1108 Anna Street, where a young African American woman was standing. She was carrying a baby on her hip. After Rigaud and the woman spoke briefly, Rigaud walked closer to the stairs outside the building entrance. Torner gave the following account of what transpired next:

The female, rather than turn and look at Mr. Rigaud, turned and looked out towards the street almost like shielding him while facing towards the street area and sidewalk. Mr. Rigaud went over by a fence post by the steps that lead up the stairs into the entrance, reached down, grabbed something, stood back up, took money from the young female who had it in her right hand and at the same time placed the item into her hand. She only had one hand. She took that small item after the exchange and she placed it into the right side of her bra. Then she walked away, met up with another female near Anna and Madison and walked heading south on Madison Avenue.

Torner concluded that he had witnessed another illicit drug sale. He radioed for backup to respond to the scene. After an unsuccessful attempt at following the woman buyer, Torner decided to return to the area to meet up with the responding officers. Based on Torner's description of both defendant and Rigaud, the responding officers arrested the two men. A search of the location where Torner had seen Rigaud bend down to remove the object sold to the second woman revealed a surgical glove with a plastic bag inside. The bag contained eighteen vials of crack cocaine.

Based on this evidential record, we are satisfied that the trial court correctly denied defendant's motion to suppress. Lieutenant Torner's testimony clearly established the probable cause required. His observations, considered in the light of his training and experience, provided a well grounded suspicion that defendant had committed a crime. State v. Moore, 181 N.J. 40, 45 (2004); State v. Sullivan, 169 N.J. 204, 211 (2001).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-3470-04T4

 

August 10, 2006