STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SIRHEEN WALKER

On January 8, 2013, a Hudson County Grand Jury returned

Indictment No. 13-01-0003, charging defendant Sirheen Walker

with one count of fourth degree entering or surreptitiously

remaining in a structure, knowing he was not licensed to do so,

N.J.S.A. 2C:18-3a.

On July 10, 2013, a second Hudson County Grand Jury

returned Indictment No. 13-07-1438, charging defendant with

third degree possession of phencyclidine (PCP), N.J.S.A. 2C:35

10a(1); second degree possession of PCP with intent to dispense

or distribute in a quantity of less than ten grams, N.J.S.A.

2C:35-5a(1), b(7); third degree possession of PCP with intent to

distribute within 1000 feet of school property, N.J.S.A. 2C:35

7; and second degree possession of PCP with intent to distribute

within 500 feet of real property comprising a public housing

facility, a public park, or a public building, N.J.S.A. 2C:35

7.1a.

On January 8, 2014, a third Hudson County Grand Jury

returned Indictment No. 14-01-0038, charging defendant2 with

third degree possession of heroin, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10a(1); third

degree possession of heroin with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A.

2C:35-5a(1), b(3); third degree possession of heroin with intent

to distribute within 1000 feet of school property, N.J.S.A.

Defendant moved before Judge John A. Young, Jr. to suppress

the heroin seized by the Jersey City Police Department that led

to his arrest on the charges reflected in Indictment No. 14-01

0038. Judge Young denied defendant's motion after considering

the testimony presented at an evidentiary hearing by Sergeant

Steven Trowbridge and Officer Ivan Rosario, both veterans of the

Jersey City Police Department Narcotics Unit.

Sergeant Trowbridge was the first witness called by the

State. He had been a Jersey City Police Officer for twenty-one

years, and was a sergeant of the Narcotics Unit since 2007.

Trowbridge testified that at approximately 10:30 a.m. on

September 20, 2013, he was conducting surveillance on Orient

Avenue in an unmarked police car. He described this area of

Jersey City as "a very high narcotic area" and "an open-air drug

market [that has] been a source of numerous citizen complaints

and countless arrests for narcotics violations."

Trowbridge noticed a man on a bicycle stop in front of a

particular address on Orient Avenue, call someone using his

cellphone, count out currency until he reached a particular

amount, and "just remain[] there waiting." Trowbridge remained

in his car and continued to watch this individual for

A-1087-14T2 4

approximately six minutes until two men "pulled up" in a car and

joined him. The man with the bicycle approached the passenger

side of the car, which Trowbridge described as a "silver

Mitsubishi." According to Trowbridge:

A. The male [with the bicycle] walked over to the car, handed the front passenger the currency. In exchange, it looked like he received small items. The car pulled out, the male walked away examining whatever he - the items in his right hand.

Q. Okay. And what did you do? What did you believe that you had just witnessed, if anything?

A. I believed I witnessed a narcotics transaction.

Trowbridge decided to follow the silver Mitsubishi and

radioed his location and direction of travel to other police

units. Officer Rosario and his partner found the Mitsubishi and

placed their police car in front of it to stop it, while

Trowbridge blocked the Mitsubishi from behind. At this point,

both unmarked police cars had activated their emergency lights.

Rosario approached the occupants of the Mitsubishi from the

passenger side, while Rosario's partner approached from the

driver side. Rosario identified defendant as the man seated in

the passenger side of the Mitsubishi.

Rosario gave the following description of what occurred

when he approached the Mitsubishi:

A-1087-14T2 5

A. As I approached Mr. Walker, who was a passenger in the vehicle, I observed approximately two bundles on his lap.

Q. What exactly is a bundle?

A. A bundle is a -- it's a set of 10 glassine bags containing suspected heroin.

Q. And you saw two of those on his lap?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And in response to the observation, what did you do?

A. I immediately placed him -- oh, I recovered the CDS, and I immediately placed him under arrest.

Rosario also testified that he noticed two more bundles of

heroin located in the console of the Mitsubishi between the

front seats. The police also found two fifty-bag "bricks" of

heroin in the right front pocket of the sweatpants defendant was

wearing. This contraband was discovered during the search of

defendant's person incident to his arrest. One of the "bricks"

of heroin was labelled "World Wars"; the other was labelled "Hit

Man." The police did not find the man on the bicycle.3

Against this record, Judge Young found the motor vehicle

stop by the police was constitutionally justifiable. Relying on

Trowbridge's testimony describing how "he observed the drug

transaction between a male on a bicycle and the occupants of a

silver Mitsubishi and then radioed this information to parameter

units, specifically Rosario, for a stop to be effected."

Although he acknowledged defendant's argument that the police

did not recover any money or a cellphone from defendant or the

driver of the Mitsubishi, Judge Young found Sergeant

Trowbridge's testimony credible.

Defendant thereafter entered into a negotiated agreement

with the State through which he pled guilty to third degree

distribution of heroin within 1000 feet of school property under

Count Three of Indictment No. 14-01-00038; second degree

distribution of PCP under Count Two of Indictment No. 13-07

1438; and fourth degree entering or surreptitiously remaining in

a structure, knowing he was not licensed to do so under

Indictment No. 13-01-0003.

Under the terms of the plea agreement, the State

recommended defendant be sentenced to a term of seven years,

with forty-two months of parole ineligibility on the charges

related to the possession and distribution of illicit narcotics,

and to a concurrent term of eighteen months on the fourth degree

A-1087-14T2 7

offense of knowingly entering a structure without license to do

so. On September 5, 2014, Judge Young sentenced defendant in

accordance with the plea agreement.

Defendant now appeals raising the following argument:

POINT ONE

THE TRIAL COURT ERRONEOUSLY DENIED WALKER'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS.

Our standard of review is well-settled.

An appellate court "should give deference to those findings of the trial judge which are substantially influenced by his opportunity to hear and see the witnesses and to have the 'feel' of the case, which a reviewing court cannot enjoy." An appellate court should not disturb the trial court's findings merely because "it might have reached a different conclusion were it the trial tribunal" or because "the trial court decided all evidence or inference conflicts in favor of one side" in a close case. A trial court's findings should be disturbed only if they are so clearly mistaken "that the interests of justice demand intervention and correction." In those circumstances solely should an appellate court "appraise the record as if it were deciding the matter at inception and make its own findings and conclusions."

[State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224, 244 (2007) (citations omitted).

Mindful of these guiding principles of appellate

jurisprudence, we reject defendant's argument and affirm

substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Young in his

well-reasoned oral opinion delivered from the bench on June 9,

2014. Affirmed.