State of New Jersey v. Wendell Mann

Supreme Court of New Jersey
2 A.3d 379 (2010)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The totality of the circumstances, including a brief meeting with a known drug dealer under active surveillance and a suspect's subsequent unprovoked flight upon the approach of police, can create a reasonable and articulable suspicion necessary to justify an investigatory stop.

Facts:

Police had obtained search warrants for the person, residence, and vehicle of Michael Futch, a known drug dealer.
While conducting surveillance on Futch's vehicle in a Wendy's parking lot, officers observed Wendell Mann drive a GMC Yukon and park next to Futch's car.
Futch walked over to Mann's vehicle and engaged in a conversation with Mann that lasted less than ten seconds.
The officers conducting surveillance did not observe any exchange of items between Futch and Mann.
As police officers began to converge on the two vehicles, Mann appeared visibly nervous, exited his Yukon, and began to run into the Wendy's restaurant.
Mann ignored repeated police commands to stop and continued running through the restaurant toward the restroom.
Inside a restroom stall, an officer observed Mann attempting to flush several plastic bags down the toilet.
After Mann's arrest, an officer looked through the open rear window of Mann's Yukon and observed several plastic bags containing suspected drugs on the back seat.

Procedural Posture:

A grand jury indicted Wendell Mann on multiple drug and hindering apprehension charges.
Mann filed a motion to suppress the evidence in the state trial court, arguing the stop and search were unconstitutional.
The trial court denied the motion to suppress.
Following a trial, a jury found Mann guilty of all charges.
Mann (appellant) appealed the conviction to the Appellate Division.
The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's ruling, concluding the police lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop and suppressing the evidence.
The State (appellant) petitioned the Supreme Court of New Jersey for certification, which was granted, with Mann as the respondent.

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 totality of the circumstances, including a brief meeting with a known drug dealer under surveillance, followed by nervousness and unprovoked flight upon the approach of police, give rise to a reasonable and articulable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Wallace, Jr.

Yes. The totality of the circumstances gave rise to a reasonable and articulable suspicion that defendant was engaged in criminal activity. The court reasoned that while individual factors, such as defendant's nervousness or the brief conversation with Futch, might not be sufficient on their own, their combination created the necessary suspicion. Key factors included that police were surveilling Futch, a known drug dealer who had active warrants for drug distribution from his car; defendant met with Futch in a manner consistent with a narcotics transaction; and defendant exhibited nervousness and then engaged in unprovoked flight upon noticing the police. The court held that as the circumstances compounded, they evidenced much more than a mere hunch, justifying the investigatory stop, the pursuit into the restroom, and the subsequent seizure of the drugs.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the 'totality of the circumstances' standard for determining reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop. It clarifies that a series of actions, each of which could be viewed as innocent in isolation, can collectively amount to reasonable suspicion when viewed through the lens of an experienced officer in a specific context. The case emphasizes the significant weight given to unprovoked flight from law enforcement, especially when combined with other suspicious factors like associating with a known criminal under surveillance. This holding provides lower courts with a clear framework for analyzing multi-factored scenarios and solidifies that seemingly innocent conduct does not preclude a finding of reasonable suspicion if it is also consistent with guilt.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State of New Jersey v. Wendell Mann (2010)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"