State v. Carty

In State v. Carty, 332 N.J.Super. 200, 753 A.2d 149 (App.Div.2000), the Court, in reliance on Article 1, paragraph 7 of the State Constitution, held that during a routine motor vehicle stop, "in the absence of an articulable suspicion, the request to search to which the driver assented offended the State Constitution." State v. Carty, supra, 332 N.J.Super. at 202, 753 A.2d 149. The rationale underlying the Carty decision was based, in part, on a recognition that the New Jersey State Police had in effect a Standard Operating Procedure requiring reasonable, articulable suspicion of their members before requesting a consent to search. Id. at 206, 753 A.2d 149. This was acknowledged in the "Interim Report of the State Police Review Team Regarding Allegations of Racial Profiling," issued on April 20, 1999. A similar requirement was included in a Consent Decree entered on December 29, 1999 in a Federal action initiated by the United States of America against New Jersey regarding racial profiling, which provided: In order to help ensure that state troopers use their authority to conduct consensual motor vehicle searches in a nondiscriminatory manner, the State Police shall continue to require: that state troopers may request consent to search a motor vehicle only where a trooper can articulate a reasonable suspicion that a search would reveal evidence of a crime. . . . Ibid. The rationale was also based on a need to protect the traveling public from unwarranted "harassment, embarrassment and inconvenience." Id. at 207, 753 A.2d 149. The Court noted that the Interim Report makes reference to the State Police Standard Operating Procedures, which require that consent searches be "predicated upon a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the search would reveal evidence of a crime. . . ." The Court also noted that the Interim Report reaffirms "the existing policy that a State Police member may request permission to conduct a search only when facts are present that constitute a reasonable, articulable suspicion to believe that the search will uncover evidence of a crime." Ibid. The Court further noted that the United States of America v. State of New Jersey and Division of State Police of the New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety (Consent Decree), provides in part that: In order to help ensure that state troopers use their authority to conduct consensual motor vehicle searches in a nondiscriminatory manner, the State Police shall continue to require: that state troopers may request consent to search a motor vehicle only where troopers can articulate a reasonable suspicion that a search would reveal evidence of a crime. . . .Ibid.