APPELLATE DIVISION REJECTS THE BELTON RULE

In 1981, the United States Supreme Court created a bright-line test for police by ruling in New York v. Belton that, after a lawful arrest of an occupant of a motor vehicle, police may search the passenger compartment of the vehicle, including any containers. In December 2004, a panel of the New Jersey Appellate Division rejected the Belton rule.

In State v. Eckel, police were investigating a car theft complaint. The owners of the vehicle alleged that their daughter had stolen the car. Eckel was the boyfriend of the daughter, and police knew that Eckel had an outstanding bench warrant for failure to appear in court. Officers located the vehicle, which was being driven by the owners’ daughter. Eckel and a juvenile were passengers in the vehicle. Police ordered Eckel from the vehicle, arrested him on the outstanding warrant, and secured him in a police car. The driver asked permission to give Eckel some clothing which was in the alleged stolen vehicle. A police officer agreed to retrieve the clothing.

Eckel’s jacket was on the floor of the vehicle. Under the jacket was vegetation suspected to be marijuana. A search of the passenger compartment turned up a bag of cocaine, glassine envelopes and a scale in the pocket of a pair of shorts. A bag of marijuana was discovered in the rear of the vehicle. The three occupants of the vehicle were charged with CDS offenses.

The trial court denied defendants’ motion to suppress the evidence seized, ruling that the search of the car was a proper search incident to a lawful arrest. The Appellate Division was called upon to review that decision.

The Appellate Division reversed the decision of the trial court. In so doing, the Appellate Division relied upon State v. Pierce, a case involving a search incident to the arrest of a driver for driving while on the suspended list. In Pierce, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the Belton rule does not apply when the underlying arrest is for a motor vehicle violation. The Court in Pierce specifically stated that it was not reaching the issue of the applicability of Belton under the greater protections provided by the New Jersey Constitution.

In the Eckel case, the Appellate Division has decided to reach that issue. The Court decided that “ the Belton rule does not represent the law in New Jersey under the greater protections provided by our State Constitution.” The Court ruled that, since Eckel was already under arrest and secured in a police car before the search of the alleged stolen car took place, the passenger compartment of teat vehicle was no longer under his control, thus the search was improper.

This case undoubtedly is headed for the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Keep in mind that under the peculiar facts of Eckel, the only warrantless search exception available was search incident to a lawful arrest. Given an alternative exception, a search such as that in Eckel could be upheld.