The New Jersey Supreme Court. Photo by Carmen Natale.

The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that the seizure of a firearm from a partygoer after police had completed an investigation of a noise complaint was unconstitutional.

In State v. Chisum, the justices reversed a lower court's ruling denying a motion to suppress evidence of a gun that was found in the waistband of a man who was part of a gathering at a crime-ridden motel.

Officers lacked a reasonable suspicion to justify detaining the 10 party guests after finishing their investigation of a complaint about loud music coming from a motel room, the justices said. Therefore, evidence of a handgun discovered on one of the guests, Deyvon Chisum, was unlawfully seized and subject to the so-called exclusionary rule. A firearm discovered in the possession of a second guest, Keshown Woodard, during a protective search after discovery of the first weapon, was also subject to the exclusionary rule, the justices said.

The justices found that the continued detention of the motel room's occupants, including Chisum and Woodward, after the investigation into the noise complaint was complete, was unconstitutional. Although the call originated from a high-crime area, people in that area did not have lesser constitutional protection from random stops, the court said.

Neptune officers arrived at the Crystal Inn Motel just before midnight on Feb. 7, 2014, after someone called to complain of loud music and loud voices coming from a second-floor room. Officers spoke to the person who had rented the room, Zykia Reevey, and they declined to issue a summons after she immediately agreed to turn the volume on the music down. But police continued to check identification and conduct pat-down searches on all 10 people in the room. The occupants were told they could not leave until individual warrant checks were completed.

No warrant had been found for Woodward as of 12:23 a.m., but he remained in the room. The warrant check for Chisum came back positive for warrants at 12:32 a.m., and he was placed under arrest. After handcuffing Chisum and escorting him into the hallway, an officer conducted a search, incident to arrest, and patted down Chisum for weapons, revealing a handgun tucked into his waistband. The officer retrieved the handgun and secured Chisum in the hallway, according to court filings. The officer then ordered the remaining occupants in Room 221 to place their hands above their heads, and informed them they would all be patted down for weapons. The pat-down of Woodard revealed that he also possessed a handgun. Officers seized the handgun, and placed Woodard under arrest.

Chisum was charged with second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun and fourth-degree possession of a prohibited weapon. He pleaded guilty to the handgun offense. Woodard, meanwhile, was charged with second-degree unlawful possession of a weapon and third-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance from a separate indictment. Each was sentenced to five years of imprisonment.

The Appellate Division upheld the denial of defendants' motions to suppress. At the Supreme Court, the attorney general and the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey were allowed to participate as amici curiae.

The ACLU submitted that, absent any objective basis to suspect criminal activity, the officers could not continue to detain the people in the motel room after completing the noise investigation. The attorney general argued that the investigative detention was lawful because the officers had reasonable suspicion that the occupants of the room were violating the noise ordinance. Further, the attorney general endorsed the police department's practice of requesting warrant checks during any call for service, and contended that police officers should not be criticized for taking reasonable safety-driven precautions like the officers did in Neptune.

Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina, writing for the court, said that a police stop, which exceeded the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made, violates the Constitution's shield against unreasonable seizures.

While officers knew that the Crystal Inn Motel was a place where criminal activity took place, its reputation was not connected to the noise complaint on the night in question, the court said. The officers' decision to continue to detain the room's occupants after the determination was made not to issue a noise summons was unconstitutional, the court said.

“[P]olice officers are required to use the least intrusive means necessary in effectuating the purpose of an investigative detention, and such a detention cannot last any longer than necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop,” Fernandez-Vina wrote. “The police officers in this instance clearly did not use the least intrusive means necessary to carry out their investigative detention.”

Although safety of police officers is paramount, it is “insufficient justification for police officers to detain ten occupants of a motel room and run warrant checks on each of them simply because citizens violated a noise ordinance and then promptly abated the noise upon police arrival,” Fernandez-Vina wrote.

The case was remanded to the trial court, where defendants will be allowed to withdraw their guilty pleas and for further proceedings.

Chisum was represented by Assistant Deputy Public Defender James Smith Jr., and Woodard was represented by First Assistant Deputy Public Defender Alison Perrone.

Perrone said the Public Defender's Office was pleased that the court affirmed that “constitutional rights survive wherever you are,” even in a high-crime location.

“We're gratified that the court applied pretty well-established principles to determine that the detention of hotel occupants for over 20 minutes, based on an already-resolved noise complaint, is unconstitutional,” Perrone said.

Assistant Monmouth County Prosecutor Monica do Outeiro represented the state. A spokesman for the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office, Charles Webster, said only, “We respect the decision of the court.”