NJ: A vacated warrant not yet removed from computer system could not be relied on in good faith (3-3)

Affirming the Appellate Division by an equally divided vote: the arresting officer’s good faith belief that a valid warrant for defendant’s arrest was outstanding cannot render an arrest made in the absence of a valid warrant or probable cause constitutionally compliant. The warrant had been judicially vacated but hadn’t been removed from the computer system. State v. Shannon (A-111-13) (N.J. August 19, 2015) (per curiam).

JUSTICE LaVECCHIA, CONCURRING, joined by CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and JUSTICE ALBIN, expresses the view that an officer’s subjective, good faith belief that a valid warrant was outstanding cannot render an arrest made without a valid warrant or probable cause constitutionally compliant. Justice LaVecchia states that, to hold otherwise, would be akin to adopting the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule that has been explicitly and consistently rejected by the Court in State v. Novembrino, 105 N.J. 95 (1987) and subsequent cases.

In Novembrino, the Court reasoned that the exclusionary rule functioned not only as a deterrent for police misconduct, but also as “the indispensable mechanism for vindicating the constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches.” Id. at 157. Justice LaVecchia states that in this matter, which involves an unconstitutional seizure from a man who had secured relief eighteen months earlier from his outstanding arrest warrant, defendant’s right to be free from unreasonable seizure trumps the subjective, good faith reliance by the police on the invalid warrant. Justice LaVecchia therefore would affirm the decision of the Appellate Division upholding application of the exclusionary rule, without any exception based on the officer’s good faith.

JUSTICE SOLOMON, DISSENTING, joined by JUSTICE PATTERSON and JUSTICE FERNANDEZ-VINA, would decline to apply the exclusionary rule to the evidence seized after defendant’s arrest. Justice Solomon states that the exclusionary rule should not be applied where, as here, law enforcement personnel share no responsibility for the error giving rise to the unlawful search or seizure, and the officer’s reliance on the warrant is found to be objectively reasonable. Justice Solomon concludes that application of the exclusionary rule under these circumstances divorces the rule from its primary purpose – to deter future police misconduct – and ignores the significant costs of suppressing competent evidence. Justice Solomon would therefore reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division.