D.N.J.: State trial judge’s suppression of a search under the automobile exception is not binding on the federal government because of dual sovereignty

State trial judge’s suppression of a search under the automobile exception is not binding on the federal government because of dual sovereignty. This court does not suppress. State’s interpretation of exigency for an automobile search is different than required by the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Perry, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2923 (D. N.J. January 9, 2015):

This motion to suppress evidence presents the question whether this federal court is bound by the decision of a judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey granting the defendant’s motion to suppress a handgun found concealed in his vehicle after a warrantless search on December 22, 2012. The Superior Court found that the warrantless search and seizure of the vehicle was unlawful under the automobile exception under New Jersey law because exigent circumstances were not present, pursuant to State v. Pena-Flores, 198 N.J. 6, 28, 965 A.2d 114 (2009). The federal automobile exception, on the other hand, requires a lawful stop of the vehicle and probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime may be found in the vehicle, both as found by the Superior Court, but federal law does not require proof of exigent circumstances to permit a valid automobile search. For the reasons now discussed, the Court holds that the United States is not bound by the Superior Court’s suppression decision under the circumstances of this case, as it is a separate sovereign, not in privity with the state prosecutor in the Superior Court case, and thus not within the Bartkus exception to the dual sovereignty doctrine recognized in Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121, 79 S. Ct. 676, 3 L. Ed. 2d 684 (1959) and its progeny. On the merits, the Court holds that this warrantless search was within the federal automobile exception and that the motion to suppress evidence seized from the vehicle should be denied.

Again, reverse silver platter: Treatise § 11.17.