STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RICKKWAN A. COPPAGE

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
                      APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
     This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
      Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
        parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.




                                        SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                        APPELLATE DIVISION
                                        DOCKET NO. A-4356-16T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

        Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

RICKKWAN A. COPPAGE, a/k/a
RICKWAN COPPAGE,

     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________

              Submitted April 10, 2018 – Decided April 18, 2018

              Before Judges Fasciale and Moynihan.

              On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
              Law Division, Salem County, Indictment No.
              16-11-0540.

              Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
              for appellant (Stefan Van Jura, Deputy Public
              Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

              Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney
              for respondent (Sarah C. Hunt, Deputy Attorney
              General, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

        Defendant    appeals     from   his   conviction     for   second-degree

unlawful possession of a handgun, 
N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)(1).
      A police officer observed a Chevrolet Impala run through a

red traffic light.     The officer and his partner stopped the

vehicle, approached it, and observed defendant – whom the officer

recognized from previous encounters – in the front passenger seat.

The officer observed defendant looking down at his waist and

repeatedly touching his waistband, where the officer noticed a

"slight bulge."     The officer asked another officer to remove

defendant from the vehicle and escort him to the rear of the

vehicle, which he did.    The officer asked defendant if he had a

weapon in his possession, and he denied that he did.   The officer

informed defendant that he was not arresting defendant, but was

going to frisk him for weapons.   The officer frisked defendant and

found a handgun in his waistband.

      On appeal, defendant argues:

           THE HANDGUN MUST BE SUPPRESSED BECAUSE THE
           POLICE HAD ONLY A "HUNCH" THAT DEFENDANT WAS
           ARMED AND DANGEROUS, NOT THE REASONABLE AND
           ARTICULABLE SUSPICION REQUIRED TO JUSTIFY THE
           WARRANTLESS INTRUSION ON DEFENDANT'S PRIVACY.

      Defendant essentially maintains that the officer conducted

an illegal Terry1 frisk without a reasonable and articulable

suspicion that defendant was armed.     As a result, he argues the

judge erred by denying his motion to suppress.    We conclude that



1
    Terry v. Ohio, 
392 U.S. 1 (1968).

                                  2                         A-4356-16T4
defendant's   argument   is   without    sufficient   merit   to   warrant

discussion in a written opinion.        R. 2:11-3(e)(2).   We affirm for

the reasons set forth by Judge Benjamin C. Telsey in his thorough

and well-reasoned oral decision.

    Affirmed.




                                   3                               A-4356-16T4