COUNSEL'S COLUMN

By Frank Gennaro
Deputy Attorney General
New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice

APPELLATE DIVISION DECLINES TO SUPPRESS CONFESSION
OF DEFENDANT WHO CLAIMED HE WAS UNLAWFULLY ARRESTED

           In November 2006, the Appellate Division decided the case of State v. Darnell Bell.  In that case, the defendant, who was convicted of murder and other offenses, sought to have the Court suppress his confession on the ground that his arrest had been unlawful.  Bell was suspected in the shooting death of the victim.  The police had obtained an Arrest Warrant for Bell and were searching for him.  The police responded to the home of Bell’s aunt, a location where Bell was known to stay on occasion, however, not Bell’s residence.  The police, armed only with the Arrest Warrant, entered the premises and found Bell hiding in the attic.  He was taken into custody, and confessed three hours later at the police station.
           In his appeal, Bell argued that his confession must be suppressed because the police unlawfully entered his aunt’s home without a search warrant.  It has been settled law for many years that police may enter a defendant’s residence to search for him with an Arrest Warrant, but that, in order to search for a defendant in the residence of a third party, police need a search warrant naming the body of the defendant as the thing to be seized.
           In denying Bell’s claim, the Appellate Division agreed that Bell’s aunt’s home should not have been entered without a search warrant, but disagreed that the breach required Bell’s confession to be suppressed.
           The Court noted that Bell’s arrest had not been unlawful.  The police had both probable cause for the arrest and an Arrest Warrant.  In reaching its decision, the Court explained that the purpose of the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule is to protect the physical integrity of the home, and not to grant rights to criminal suspects who make statements outside the home after being arrested with probable cause.  In this case, the statement made by Bell was not the product of an unlawful arrest.  Because the police had probable cause and an Arrest Warrant, the fact that the arrest occurred at his aunt’s house, rather than on the street had no bearing on the statement eventually made by Bell.
           Although Mr. Bell’s conviction was affirmed in this case, in order to avoid a potential lawsuit from an angry third party whose home is to be entered to search for a suspect, police officers should first obtain a search warrant for the body of the suspect.