State of New Jersey v. Israel Padilla and Edward Feliciano
Annotate this Case(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized).
(NOTE: The Court wrote no full opinion in this case. Rather, the Court's opinion is based substantially on the written opinion in the Appellate Division.)
Argued February 14, 2000 -- Decided March 8, 2000
PER CURIAM
In this appeal, the Court considers the admissibility of evidence seized during an inventory search of overnight bags belonging to defendants, Padilla and Feliciano, and of evidence allegedly in plain view, which was seized at the scene of arrest.
On August 31, 1996, the dispatcher of the Green Brook Police Department received an anonymous telephone call advising him that two Hispanic males and one Hispanic female had been observed entering room 107 of the Ivory Tower Motel in Green Brook and that one of the males was carrying a handgun. Pursuant to that tip, two officers and a detective went to the motel to follow-up. As the three officers approached the motel room, one of them saw a Hispanic man, whom he later identified as Padilla, pull back the curtain and look out of the window from inside the room. Pursuant to established safety precautions for officers responding to information about the presence of a gun, each officer drew his service weapon and each held his weapon at his side. Officer Caramela then knocked on the door, which was opened by a female, later identified as seventeen-year-old A.D. The officer identified himself and asked if the officers could enter. According to two of the officers, A.D. answered affirmatively and opened the door wider. As she did so, Caramela leaned his head forward to observe the room and observed Padilla sitting on a chair. No one objected when the three officers entered the room.
Following the officers' entry into the room, Caramela asked if anyone had a gun, to which no one responded. While making visual observations to make sure there were no weapons within the immediate reach of the occupants, Detective Case directed the other officers' attention to various other items he had observed, including a marijuana cigarette, a razor, rolling papers on a dresser, and a bottle containing white powder on a table. In addition, when one of the officers picked up a clear plastic bag containing what he suspected to be counterfeit money, he found a bag of ammunition. Further, Caramela observed the handle of what appeared to be a gun protruding from a bag on the floor next to the dresser. He picked up the gun and unloaded it. All three were arrested.
According to Caramela, as they were leaving the motel room, Padilla asked what would happen to his belongings. Caramela and Case transported the three defendants to police headquarters. The third officer, Fisher, remained behind to await word on the search warrant the officers had decided to seek in order to search the various bags in the motel room. The search warrant ultimately was denied due to insufficient evidence. Thereafter, at police headquarters, Caramela asked all three defendants what they wanted to have done with their belongings, explaining that the motel would simply discard them. All three indicated that they wanted their belongings to be taken in.
When the bags were brought into headquarters, Fisher and another officer immediately began to go through each item. According to the officers, this was done to identify which items belonged to each arrestee because the County Jail to which defendants were to be transferred would accept only items that would fit into a small safe deposit box. Green Brook's policy was to inventory all items that would remain at headquarters to protect the department from claims of lost property. During the course of the inventory search, the officers found ten glassine packets containing what was later determined to be heroin in a bag belonging to Feliciano. The officers also found a dollar bill containing cocaine in a glassine packet containing heroin belonging to Padilla.
On appeal, Padilla and Feliciano contended that the officers had no lawful authority to enter the motel room because no consent was given for them to do so and because there were no exigent circumstances justifying their entry into the room. Thus, they contended that the evidence seized during the warrantless plain view inspection or search of the room should have been suppressed by the trial court. They further contended that the inventory search of their bags was a pretext and the police failed to provide them with an alternative means of protecting their property. Thus, the evidence seized during that search should have been suppressed by the trial court.
In a majority decision, which is reported at 321 N.J. Super. 96, the Appellate Division found that the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress those items seized during the plain view inspection of the motel room. In reaching that conclusion, the panel noted that the officers had the right and the duty to proceed to the motel to investigate the report of a handgun; that they had the right to knock on the door in furtherance of their investigation; and that they had the right to have their handguns drawn. The Court further determined that A.D. had consented to the officers' entry; that their discovery of the evidence in the motel room was inadvertent given the fact that they were unaware of the exact location of the gun; and that the officers had probable cause to associate the items seized in plain view with criminal activity. Therefore, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's denial of the motions to suppress the evidence seized under the plain view exception to the Fourth Amendment.
The Appellate Division, however, reversed the trial court's denial of the suppression motions in respect of the evidence seized during the inventory search of the various bags belonging to Padilla and Feliciano, describing that denial as clearly wrong . The panel found that the search was conducted as a pretext in order to search for evidence. In reaching that determination, the court noted that the officers first sought a warrant for the search of the bags and that the search immediately followed notification to the officers that the application for that search warrant had been denied. The panel further found that the police neither specifically requested permission of any of the arrestees to search the bags that had been brought to headquarters nor did they give them a reasonable opportunity to arrange for the disposition of their personal property prior to the inventory. Thus, the Appellate Division vacated those guilty pleas predicated on the possession of items seized from those bags and reversed the convictions relating to those pleas. Judge Steinberg dissented from the majority's decision insofar as it concluded that the evidence seized during the inventory search should have been suppressed.
Although the Supreme Court denied the Padilla's and Feliciano's petitions for certification, the matter is before the Court on the State's appeal as of right based on the partial dissent in the Appellate Division.
HELD: The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Kleiner in his reported decision. The trial court properly denied defendants' motion to suppress evidence seized in plain view of officers who, acting on an anonymous tip of the presence of a handgun, were rightfully on the premises occupied by the defendants; the trial court, however, erred when it refused to suppress evidence seized during an inventory search of the defendants' personal belongings because they neither consented to that search nor were they given the opportunity to make alternate arrangements for the disposition of their property prior to the inventory.
Judgment of the Appellate Division is AFFIRMED.
CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES O'HERN, STEIN, COLEMAN, LONG, VERNIERO, and LaVECCHIA join in the Court's opinion.
A- 32 September Term 1999
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ISRAEL PADILLA,
Defendant-Respondent.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
EDWARD FELICIANO, a/k/a JULIO VALEZ, JULIO VELEZ, EDDIE VEGA and EDWARD FLACO,
Defendant-Respondent.
Argued February 14, 2000-- Decided March 8, 2000
On appeal from the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 321 N.J. Super. 96 (1999).
James L. McConnell, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant (Wayne J. Forrest, Somerset County Prosecutor, attorney; Mr. McConnell and Marina S. Peck, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).
Linda Mehling, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for respondent Israel Padilla (Ivelisse Torres, Public Defender, attorney).
PER CURIAM
This matter has come to the Supreme Court through different procedural avenues. The Court denied defendants' petitions for certification, which related to the unanimous portion of the Appellate Division's judgment. 162 N.J. 198 (1999). Based on the partial dissent filed in the Appellate Division and reported at 321 N.J. Super. 112 (1999), the State filed an appeal as of right pursuant to Rule 2:2-1(a)(2). In respect of that appeal, the judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed, substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Kleiner's majority opinion, reported at 321 N.J. Super. 96 (1999).
Chief Justice Poritz and Associate Justices O'Hern, Stein, Coleman, Long, Verniero, and LaVecchia join in the Court's opinion.
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEYNO. A-32
SEPTEMBER TERM 1999ON APPEAL FROM Appellate Division, Superior Court
ON CERTIFICATION TO
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ISRAEL PADILLA,
Defendant-Respondent.
______________________________
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
EDWARD FELICIANO, etc., et al.,
Defendant-Respondent.
DECIDED March 8, 2000
Chief Justice Poritz
OPINION BY PER CURIAM
CONCURRING OPINION BY DISSENTING OPINION BY
CHECKLIST
AFFIRM CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ X JUSTICE O'HERN X JUSTICE STEIN X JUSTICE COLEMAN X JUSTICE LONG X JUSTICE VERNIERO X JUSTICE LaVECCHIA X TOTALS
7
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
