State v. Lowry
95 N.J. Super. 307, 230 A.2d 907 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures applies to juveniles in delinquency proceedings for acts that would be criminal if committed by an adult. However, items observed in plain view by a police officer who is lawfully in a position to see them are not the product of a 'search' and are therefore admissible as evidence.
Facts:
- On the evening of January 3, 1967, two Newark police officers on patrol observed a new Mustang automobile parked in a deserted area known as 'Lovers Lane' and as a drop-off point for stolen cars.
- Three males were in the car: Alan Lowry (driver), Benjamin Ferguson (front passenger), and a 17-year-old juvenile, B (rear passenger).
- The officers became suspicious and decided to investigate, parking their patrol car behind the Mustang and approaching it on foot.
- As Officer Janowski approached the passenger side, he observed through the closed car window that Ferguson was attempting to hide several cigarettes.
- The officer saw cigarettes on the floor, on Ferguson's lap, and an open handkerchief containing what appeared to be chopped tobacco leaves on the car's center console.
- When Ferguson rolled down the window at the officer's request, the officer detected the distinct sweet smell of marijuana.
- The officers then seized the visible marijuana cigarettes and the handkerchief filled with marijuana.
Procedural Posture:
- Alan Lowry and Benjamin Ferguson were charged in the Superior Court of New Jersey with unlawful possession of marijuana.
- A 17-year-old, B, was charged with juvenile delinquency in the Essex County Juvenile Court based on the same incident.
- All three individuals filed a motion to suppress the seized evidence in the Superior Court, Law Division (Criminal).
- They argued that the evidence was obtained through a warrantless search of the vehicle that was not incident to a valid arrest.
- The court consolidated the motions and agreed to hear the matter privately to protect the juvenile's confidentiality.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures apply to juveniles, and if so, is the observation of contraband in plain view inside a vehicle during a lawful investigatory stop an unreasonable search?
Opinions:
Majority - Schapira, J.C.C.
Yes, the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures applies to juveniles; however, no, the observation of contraband in plain view inside a lawfully stopped vehicle is not an unreasonable search. The court held that the Fourth Amendment is a fundamental right applicable to all 'persons,' regardless of age, and the rehabilitative philosophy of the juvenile justice system cannot override this constitutional guarantee. Denying a juvenile a right afforded to an adult would violate due process and fair treatment, especially when the juvenile faces a potential loss of liberty. However, in this specific case, no search occurred because the evidence was in plain view. The police had a right and a duty to investigate the suspicious vehicle. Upon approaching, they observed the contraband through the window from a lawful vantage point. Observing what is openly visible is not a 'search,' which implies prying into hidden places. Once the officers saw the evidence and smelled the marijuana, they had probable cause to seize the items and make an arrest.
Analysis:
This case is significant for being one of the first in New Jersey to explicitly extend Fourth Amendment protections and the exclusionary rule to juveniles, setting a precedent that the goals of the juvenile system do not trump fundamental constitutional rights. This reasoning foreshadowed the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in In re Gault. However, the court's ultimate denial of the motion to suppress demonstrates the practical limits of this protection by applying the 'plain view' doctrine. The decision clarifies that while juveniles possess the right against unreasonable searches, the facts of their case must still demonstrate a constitutional violation for evidence to be excluded.
