Full Opinion

FILED, Clerk of the Appellate Division, July 22, 2026, AM-000631-25, M-006247-25 ORDER ON EMERGENT MOTION --------------- SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO.: AM-000631-25T2 STATE OF NEW JERSEY MOTION NO.: M-006247-25 V BEFORE: PART I JOEY ALICEA, CINCERE HOLMES, JUDGE(S): MARITZA BERDOTE BYRNE NAZAIR NOKES ADAM E. JACOBS MOTION FILED: 06/18/2026 BY: STATE OF NEW JERSEY ANSWER(S) 06/24/2026 BY: JOEY ALICEA FILED: SUBMITTED TO COURT: June 25, 2026 ORDER ----- THIS MATTER HAVING BEEN DULY PRESENTED TO THE COURT, IT IS, ON THIS 22nd day of July, 2026, HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: MOTION BY APPELLANT MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL DENIED SUPPLEMENTAL: This matter involves a pending murder trial. Defendant Joey Alicea moved before the trial court to suppress video evidence that captured him and codefendant Nazair Nokes entering and exiting the common hallway of a building shortly after the homicide. The footage was obtained from a camera that police had placed in the hallway pursuant to a search warrant. Defendant argued for suppression on the 1 FILED, Clerk of the Appellate Division, July 22, 2026, AM-000631-25, M-006247-25 grounds that the search warrant permitting the placement of the camera had expired. Defendant also moved to suppress physical evidence seized, without a warrant, of a blue Aldi bag and its contents, which were found in a dumpster behind the building. In response to defendant's motion to suppress, the court conducted a preliminary hearing pursuant to N.J.R.E. 104(a) to determine the admissibility of the surveillance video and the blue Aldi bag containing clothing and sneakers. The State called two witnesses: Michael Katz, a detective with the New Jersey State Police, assigned to the Narcotics and Trafficking Unit, and Erica Diololle, a detective in the Homicide Unit of the Camden County Prosecutor's Office. The State also entered into evidence a map of Station Place Apartments, state police camera videos per a search warrant, a Real-Time Tactical Operations and Intelligence Center ("RTTOIC") captured-image of a white van involved in a shooting, a photograph taken of the interior of a recycling dumpster in which a blue Aldi bag appeared, an exterior photograph of a regular and recycling dumpster side by side, a photograph of the exterior of the recycling dumpster alone and its label detailing the type of waste permitted therein, Station Place Apartment videos placed outside of apartment building 2000, and a Station Place Apartment Complex 2026 lease. Defendant called one witness: Reynaldo Lafontant, a property manager at Station Place Apartments. Defendant entered into evidence two separate authorized search warrants for the Station Place Apartments recycling dumpsters, a GPS tracker's coordinate report, and a photograph of the 1000 building at Station Place Apartment Complex. In March of 2024, detectives from the New Jersey State Police were involved in a long- term narcotics investigation targeting Nazair Nokes and Juan Quiles, which later also involved defendant, Joey Alicea. The investigation included the use of controlled purchases, surveillance 2 FILED, Clerk of the Appellate Division, July 22, 2026, AM-000631-25, M-006247-25 tactics—including hidden cameras, GPS trackers, cell phone and cloud data dumps—and cooperation with the management of the Station Place Apartment Complex. Defendants Alicea and Nokes were not listed as tenants, but Nokes was associated with Building 2000, more specifically, apartment number 2205, which was his girlfriend's apartment. Detective Katz had observed Nokes entering and exiting apartment number 2205 regularly. Detective Katz obtained a warrant for the installation of a covert indoor camera on March 28, 2024. It was placed in the common hallway of Building 2000, outside of apartment number 2205. The warrant was set to expire after 30 days, on or about April 27, 2024. The camera was installed on April 2, 2024, and captured motion-activated clips of the hallway. Detective Katz also described placing a judicially approved GPS tracker on a Chevy Equinox. On May 17, 2024, Detective Katz learned from Camden County detectives that Marcus Corbitt was the victim of a shooting, and Alicea and others were possible suspects due to past conflicts. He further learned that a stolen white van used in the shooting was burned. The GPS tracking device affixed to the Equinox placed the vehicle around the location where the van was set on fire. Following the homicide, Detective Katz noted additional movements of the Equinox, including its entry into the Station Place Apartment Complex. However, he noticed the vehicle's location changed from Building 2000, the building in which Nokes consistently entered and exited, to Building 3000 by a dumpster on the opposite side of the apartment complex where it had never been tracked before. Detective Katz's prior surveillance showed Nokes throwing out trash only in dumpsters near the 2000 building. 3 FILED, Clerk of the Appellate Division, July 22, 2026, AM-000631-25, M-006247-25 Detective Katz also reviewed additional video from pole cameras located in the parking area of the Station Place Apartments. The detective observed Alicea exit the 2000 building with a blue Aldi bag. Alicea was accompanied by Nokes and Cincere Holmes. This bag, suspected to contain clothing, was immediately disposed of at the dumpsters near the 3000 building of the complex. Detective Dilolle testified regarding the investigation into the shooting of Marcus Corbitt on May 17, 2024, stating she reviewed video surveillance footage which captured a suspect exiting a white van, dressed in black with light sneakers, and shooting the victim. Approximately twenty-one minutes after the shooting, a white van was set on fire. The driver was wearing neon reflective clothing, a dark long-sleeve shirt, and blue latex gloves. Detective Dilolle was informed of Katz's surveillance of Alicea, Nokes, and Holmes shortly after the shooting. From surveillance videos it appeared Alicea had changed clothing. Detective Dilolle retrieved the blue Aldi bag in the complex's recycling dumpster, located near the 3000 building at Station Place Apartments and testified that at first glance of the blue Aldi bag in the recycling dumpster, she observed neon reflective clothing and black shoes hanging out from the bag. The trial court partially granted and partially denied the motion to suppress on June 1, 2026. It found the evidence in the Aldi bag admissible but suppressed the video footage. The State moved for emergent leave to appeal the part of the order granting defendant's motion to suppress evidence of the video camera footage. We granted the State permission to file an emergent motion for leave to appeal on June 15, 2026, and stayed the trial pending the emergent appeal. Defendant then cross-moved for emergent leave to appeal the part of the order denying 4 FILED, Clerk of the Appellate Division, July 22, 2026, AM-000631-25, M-006247-25 his motion to suppress the contents of the Aldi bag. We granted defendant permission to file an emergent motion for leave to appeal on June 24, 2026, in the interest of completeness. Having reviewed the briefs submitted by the parties, we conclude the video surveillance of the hallway was correctly suppressed. Although the State had been granted a search warrant, that warrant had expired. The State frames the issue before the court as one of Alicea's lack of expectation of privacy in a common hallway where he is not a tenant. However, detectives would not have been able to conduct 24/7 video surveillance of the hallway without a search warrant or express permission to conduct video surveillance from the owner of the building. The State had neither. The search warrant had expired thirty days after its installation, at the latest on May 2, well before the May 17th surveillance footage showed Alicea walking in the hallway wearing the reflective clothing. Cf. State v. Harris, 484 N.J. Super. 208, 218 (App. Div. 2026) ("Probable cause to search cannot be based on stale information."). Likewise, although police had obtained permission to enter the building, they did not have express permission to conduct 24/7 video surveillance. Police had obtained permission from the property manager to enter the building. Thus, their entry alone did not violate a reasonable expectation of privacy. See State v. Sencion, 454 N.J. Super. 25, 34 (App. Div. 2018) ("[T]he entry into a locked common hallway without permission is a violation of the occupants' reasonable expectation of privacy."). But the police did not have permission to conduct 24/7 video surveillance. The State Police had obtained a search warrant to install that camera for a limited time period for a reason: the law required a search warrant, and limited the warrant to a specific time period, supported by probable cause for that time period. If the police wanted an extension, they were required to 5 FILED, Clerk of the Appellate Division, July 22, 2026, AM-000631-25, M-006247-25 certify to the court that probable cause continued to exist and obtain an extension of that search warrant. See Harris, 484 N.J. Super. at 217-19. They failed to do that. We conclude the video surveillance footage of the hallway on May 17th was appropriately suppressed. Likewise, we agree with the trial court the Aldi bag and its contents are admissible. "A warrantless search is presumed invalid unless it falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement." State v. Cooke, 163 N.J. 657, 664 (2000). One such exception is the plain view doctrine. See State v. Johnson, 476 N.J. Super. 1, 20 (App. Div. 2023). To justify a warrantless search under this doctrine, "the State must prove: (1) 'the officer [was] lawfully . . . in the area where he observed and seized the incriminating item or contraband'; and (2) 'it must be immediately apparent that the seized item is evidence of a crime.'' Id. at 20-21 (quoting State v. Gonzales, 227 N.J. 77, 101 (2016)). We agree with the trial court the State has met both elements of the plain view doctrine. Detective Dilolle was lawfully in the area where she observed and seized the blue Aldi bag. Police are permitted to seize trash without a warrant and without cause. See State v. Hempele, 120 N.J. 182, 217 (1990). ("Because people have no interest in preventing the seizure of trash bags left on the curb for collection, the police do not need cause to seize the bags.") The second element of the plain view doctrine is also satisfied. Detective Dilolle testified when she opened the lid of the dumpster, she saw the Aldi bag, and it was not secure. From her vantage point, she could see neon reflective clothing protruding from the bag. The detective knew the driver of the van involved in the Marcus Corbitt shooting was wearing neon reflective clothing. 6 FILED, Clerk of the Appellate Division, July 22, 2026, AM-000631-25, M-006247-25 As did the trial court, we reject defendant's reliance on the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine to exclude the Aldi bag and its contents. See State v. Faucette, 439 N.J. Super. 241, 266 (App. Div. 2015) ("The fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine denies the prosecution the use of derivative evidence obtained as a result of a Fourth or Fifth Amendment violation." (quoting State v O'Neill, 193 N.J. 148, 171 n.13 (2007))). While the use of video surveillance from the common hallway of Building 2000 after the expiration of the warrant was constitutionally impermissible, the record demonstrates the search and seizure of the Aldi bag did not depend on that footage. The police were able to lawfully seize the bag based on independent observations, including GPS tracking data and exterior surveillance from poles which depicted the reflective clothing, as well as the plain view of the bag and its incriminating contents in the dumpster. The hallway video was not necessary for the discovery or seizure of the Aldi bag, and the evidence is not subject to exclusion as fruit of the poisonous tree. The stay of the trial in this matter is vacated as of July 24, 2026 at 4:00 p.m. However, if either party files an emergent application with the Supreme Court seeking further review by July 24, 2026, the stay shall continue until the Supreme Court disposes of that application, or until further order of the Court. FOR THE COURT: MARITZA BERDOTE BYRNE, J.A.D. 25-01-00087-I CAMDEN ORDER - REGULAR MOTION PD 7