Appellate Court Rejects Hoyle’s Arguments Of No Probable Cause, Judge’s Non-recusal

TRENTON – A state Appellate Court rejected Arthur L. Hoyle’s two arguments Jan. 18 that a search warrant for a global positioning device that tracked his vehicle did not provide enough probable cause and that the court failed to follow a set standard to have a judge recuse himself. 
Hoyle, whose residence was listed as Wildwood in a 2015 release, has been out of custody since Aug. 23, 2017.
He was paroled from Helping Offenders Parent Effectively for Men, (HOPE) a parenting program offered by state Department of Corrections (DOC).
According to the DOC website, “The goal of the program is to help participants become responsible parents, even while incarcerated, with the ultimate goal of reducing the rate of recidivism by offenders learning to positively influence their own children to live law-abiding lives.
“HOPE is designed to enable offenders to recognize the importance of accepting responsibility for their children and increasing their ability to be self-sufficient by beginning to take control of their lives.”
Hoyle was sentenced by Superior Court Judge John Porto July 10, 2015, to 14 years in prison as a result of a Feb. 13, 2008 drug investigation by the Cape May County Prosecutor’s Office, Drug Enforcement Administration and several local agencies, according to a July 16, 2015 release from the County Prosecutor’s Office.
That investigation targeted a cocaine distribution network that operated throughout the county.
The investigation revealed that Hoyle was also “affiliated with the Bloods street gang.” He was sentenced for first-degree distribution of controlled dangerous substances,” the release stated.
According to the decision:
“On Dec. 28, 2007, a Superior Court judge issued a warrant authorizing the installation of a GPS tracker in a Land Rover utilized by the defendant. Detective Robert P. Harkins, who was assigned to the Intelligence Unit of the Narcotics Task Force within the Cape May County Prosecutor’s Office, provided the affidavit supporting the warrant application.”
According to the affidavit, on Sept. 4, 2007, police in Henderson, N.C. stopped a black Chevrolet Caprice driven by Hoyle on Interstate Route 85. He produced a temporary registration that identified International Motorsports as the vehicle’s owner, but the document did not identify the specific make, model, or vehicle identification number of the car.
Hoyle failed to produce any valid paperwork for the car, and his New Jersey driver’s license was suspended. Police smelled marijuana and found rolled marijuana blunts and $8,442 in cash inside the car. Police arrested Hoyle and charged him with possession with the intent to distribute marijuana.
On Nov. 12, 2007, the New Jersey State Police arrested Hoyle on the Garden State Parkway, and charged him with eluding and possession of CDS. At the time, he was driving the Land Rover, which belonged to his mother.
Inside the car, police found a boarding pass from a Nov. 2, 2007, flight from Atlanta, Ga. to Philadelphia, a receipt for two checked bags, and a receipt for a box of “clothing” shipped from New Jersey to Georgia on July 19, 2007.
During the week of Dec. 3, 2007, Middle Township police received information from a “concerned citizen” that Hoyle was involved in distributing firearms to juveniles.
The informant stated defendant was known as a high-ranking member of the Bloods street gang, the decision continued.
On Feb. 14, 2012, Judge Raymond Batten heard oral argument regarding defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence resulting from the GPS device installed in the Land Rover.
Batten described the appropriate standard for probable cause and recognized the issuing judge’s finding of probable cause should receive substantial deference.
The Appellate Court wrote, “We agree with Judge Batten’s assessment that the issuing judge committed no error in finding probable cause.
“The affidavit contains multiple sources identifying defendant as a high-ranking member of the Bloods street gang, an extensive criminal history including three drug-possession convictions, and several police observations of drug-related activity. In the totality of the circumstances, these facts presented more than a ‘fair probability’ that criminal activity was taking place.”
Hoyle next argued that Judge Batten erred in failing to recuse himself. On April 14, 2010, Judge Kyran Conner recused himself from defendant’s case after defendant’s then counsel filed an unrelated federal case naming the judge as a defendant.
On June 8, 2010, Hoyle argued a motion to change venue from Cape May County to Atlantic County, and to disqualify Judge Batten “because of the situation with Judge Conner.”
Assignment Judge Valerie Armstrong denied this motion reasoning the conflict with Judge Conner did not extend to all of Cape May County or specifically to Judge Batten.
She further noted that Judge Batten retained the discretion to recuse himself if he should deem it necessary.
Two days later, after hearing oral argument, Judge Batten concluded no basis existed for him to recuse himself from defendant’s case, finding no conflict or appearance of conflict.
On Nov. 4, 2011, the Sheriff’s Department cleared the courtroom of anyone other than attorneys due to a security risk.
Judge Batten received information that defendant “has undertaken efforts to . . . contact individuals outside the jail to somehow jeopardize (Judge Batten’s) safety.”
Hoyle denied making any threat. Hoyle then filed a motion to disqualify Judge Batten and change venue because of this incident. On Jan. 13, 2012, Judge Batten denied the motion, reasoning he received similar communications in the past and the sheriff simply followed protocol in clearing the courtroom.
The judge found no circumstances that would “compel or even justify recusal,” and stated the incident would not affect his judgment in any way.
Batten eventually did recuse himself, in spring 2012, after Hoyle filed a federal lawsuit against him.
The timing and circumstances of the threats here suggest an intention to manipulate the proceedings. Defendant previously succeeded in having Judge Conner recused after defense counsel filed a federal case naming the judge as a defendant. Defendant then moved for Judge Batten’s recusal due to his alleged relationship with Judge Conner. When that effort failed, Judge Batten received a threat, arguably a second attempt to have him recused, although defendant denied making the threat. The threat came after Judge Batten had heard and denied three pretrial motions filed by Hoyle, with six more pretrial motions pending.
Finally, when that effort failed as well, defendant resorted to the initial method of filing a federal suit against the judge, which ultimately caused Judge Batten to recuse himself.
“In denying defendant’s motion for recusal, Judge Batten followed the DeNike standard (dealing with a judge recusing himself or herself after threats were made). Also, although the Supreme Court decided Dalal after Judge Batten denied the recusal motion, his reasoning foreshadowed many of the factors from Dalal (a Bergen County case that was decided that not all threats or efforts to intimidate a judge will require recusal.)
“First and foremost is the inference that defendant may have initiated the threat to force a recusal.
“In addition, Judge Batten noted it is not unusual as a criminal court judge to receive threats. Judge Batten emphasized that the threat and subsequent clearing of the courtroom had no impact on the motions he decided that day.
“He also reasoned granting recusal would only encourage other threats against judges in order to force recusal, stating that granting recusal here would affectively render (defendant) a self-fulling prophet in terms of his expression of discontent.”
“We conclude Judge Batten made a well-reasoned decision and did not abuse his discretion in denying defendant’s motion for recusal,” the Appellate Court concluded.