At issue in this appeal is whether a warrant is required to seize a vehicle pursuant to the plain-view exception. The court granted the State leave to appeal from a Law Division order, which suppressed evidence seized from a motor vehicle that police believed defendant used during the commission of a fatal shooting. The motion judge essentially reasoned police improperly impounded the car because probable cause did not arise spontaneously prior to the warrantless seizure. The judge suppressed the evidence seized, following issuance of a warrant to search the car, as fruit of the poisonous tree.
The State argued police were permitted to seize the vehicle pursuant to the plain-view exception to the warrant requirement while they awaited issuance of the search warrant. The State further contended the "unforeseeability and spontaneity" requirement espoused in State v. Witt, 223 N.J. 409 (2015), applies to the automobile – not the plain-view – exception to the warrant requirement.
The court concludes the motion judge mistakenly conflated the discrete rules for the warrantless search and seizure of an automobile, and erroneously reintroduced the inadvertence prong of the plain-view exception to the warrant requirement, eliminated by our Supreme Court in State v. Gonzales, 227 N.J. 77 (2016). The court therefore reverses the Law Division order and remands for further proceedings.