TRENTON – Luis Gonzalez was stopped in Wildwood in 2017. The reasons for the stop are at issue. What is at risk is the conviction of Gonzalez for second-degree heroin possession with intent to distribute.
In 2018, Gonzalez pleaded guilty to a second-degree intent to distribute charge. He entered his plea following a court hearing in which his motion to suppress the evidence found in his car after the vehicle stop was denied.
Accepting a plea arrangement, Gonzalez entered his guilty plea and received a sentence of 10 years, with five years of eligibility for parole.
In January 2022, Gonzalez, represented by a public defender, challenged the denial of his motion to suppress on the grounds that the trial judge acted improperly when he did not complete a full evidentiary hearing on the motion.
At issue are the reasons for the traffic stop, which then led to the discovery of almost 2,000 bags of heroin and the presence of crystal methamphetamine.
The Appellate Court found in favor of Gonzalez and remanded the case back to the Superior Court for a full evidentiary hearing on the original motion to suppress.
State’s Contention
The state contended that Gonzalez was the subject of a narcotics investigation in May and June 2017. An officer in the Wildwood Street Crimes Unit observed Gonzalez and another man June 20, 2017, leave the Boardwalk area, and return to Gonzalez’s parked vehicle with heavily tinted windows rolled up. The unidentified man left the vehicle soon after and Gonzalez drove away.
The officer at the Boardwalk felt he had reasonable belief that he had witnessed a drug transaction. He radioed to another officer who stopped Gonzalez several blocks away. K-9 unit dogs exhibited behavior consistent with the presence of drugs. The car was impounded, and Gonzalez was issued a summons for the tinted windows and released.
Subsequently, the police applied for and received a search warrant for the automobile. The search turned up the heroin and crystal methamphetamine. Gonzalez was arrested and charged with several second and third-degree offenses.
At a hearing in 2018, Gonzalez challenged the stop, and in doing so, moved that the evidence found in the vehicle be suppressed. Gonzalez contended that he had not participated in a drug transaction, rather he said he met the man at the Boardwalk in the hopes of obtaining a discounted bracelet for rides which he intended as a birthday gift for his daughter.
He also maintained that when stopped, the windows on his vehicle were rolled down, giving the officer stopping the car minimal opportunity to identify tinted windows.
The Appellate Court’s focus in the decision was on the two reasons provided by the state as justification for the stop. These were the suspected drug transaction and the tinted windows.
Appeal
In his appeal, Gonzalez claimed that the trial judge should have conducted a full evidentiary hearing to resolve matters of disputed fact. The Appeals Court agreed.
According to the decision issued April 4, 2022, the state bears the burden of proving that the investigative stop is valid. The proper mechanism for proving the stop was legal, according to the appeals decision, is an evidentiary hearing.
At the time of Gonzalez’s 2018 hearing, the trial court relied on a written police report and affidavit instead of having the state produce the officers for testimony.
The court said that a later search warrant and evidence uncovered from it do not retroactively validate preceding warrantless conduct. By relying on the written documents instead of firsthand testimony, the appeals court said the trial judge had denied the defendant the opportunity to challenge the legitimacy of the stop through cross-examination of the state’s witnesses.
The disputed facts that should have led to the evidentiary hearing were the defendant’s contention that he had not been part of a drug transaction and the ability of the officer making the stop to determine that there were tinted windows given that the windows were rolled down by the time of the stop.
What It Means
The Appellate Court is not vacating the conviction. The case moves back to Superior Court for a full evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress. If that hearing results in a suppression of the evidence from the search, Gonzalez can then move to withdraw his guilty plea. If the hearing results in the evidence not being suppressed, the defendant can then decide if he wants to appeal from the ruling following the remand.
To contact Vince Conti, email vconti@cmcherald.com.
