Full Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-3907-24 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DARRYL HOWARD, a/k/a DARRYL R. HOWARD, Defendant-Appellant. ___________________________ Argued October 13, 2026 – Decided November 4, 2026 Before Judges Gilson and DeAngelis. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Indictment No. 24-07-0915. Margaret R. McLane, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney; Margaret R. McLane, of counsel and on the briefs). David M. Galemba, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General, attorney; David M. Galemba, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM Defendant, Darryl Howard, pleaded guilty to second-degree possession of a handgun as a certain person, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b)(1). Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence of the search and seizure of the gun. Having reviewed the record and law, we reject defendant's arguments and affirm. I. On April 9, 2024, an anonymous 9-1-1 caller reported that a black male with a beard, wearing a cream-colored jogging suit and white-and-blue sneakers, had placed a gun in a red bookbag near Orient and Ocean Avenues in Jersey City. Detective Gabriel Moreano, who was monitoring the city's closed circuit television (CCTV) system, received that information through dispatch. He did not hear or talk to the caller directly and did not know the caller's location. After receiving the dispatch, Moreano directed his attention to the camera covering the reported location and zoomed in on a group of men standing on the sidewalk in front of a house on Ocean Avenue. He saw one of the men matched the description relayed by dispatch. The footage showed that individual, later identified as defendant Darryl Howard, with a red bookbag. The video further showed defendant glance down the street, pick up the bookbag, and walk A-3907-24 2 through an open gate into a driveway, moving out of the camera's view. Several seconds later, he returned to the camera's frame without the bookbag. After returning, defendant remained briefly with the group, as marked police vehicles with emergency lights passed through the area. After the police vehicles passed the group, defendant walked away with another man. Moreano continued to monitor him on CCTV as he left the area. According to Moreano, the police vehicles were responding to an incident unrelated to Moreano's investigation. Moreano relayed his observations to the Street Crimes Unit, whose officers wore plain clothes and operated unmarked vehicles. Officers from that unit split their response, with some going to the location of the suspect and others going to the location where Moreano believed the bookbag had been left. Officer Keith Bassford and other officers went to 660 Ocean Avenue. Bassford testified that he was familiar with the area, which received heavy foot traffic and was one of Jersey City's main blocks. Body-worn camera footage showed Bassford entering through an open gate onto a short driveway enclosed by a metal fence. He walked around a parked vehicle and shined his flashlight into the narrow space between the house and the fence. There he located the bookbag on the ground in the alley area between the two houses, adjacent to the A-3907-24 3 home's garage and near utility meters. Bassford acknowledged the bookbag could not be seen from outside the fenced area. Neither Bassford nor the other officers attempted to speak with the resident before entering the property. They also did not speak to anyone living at or near the address before approaching or opening the bookbag. After locating the bookbag, Bassford touched and felt its exterior and stated that there was "something in here." He then continued to feel the outside of the bookbag. Bassford testified that, based on the contour and weight of the object inside, as well as his training and experience with firearms, he believed he felt the handle of a handgun. Another officer, Officer Philips, also felt the bookbag and stated, "[i]t's a hard object; that's it." The officers then opened the bookbag and searched its contents. The search revealed a handgun and documents bearing defendant's name, including identification and a social security card. Bassford stated that defendant's identification did not list a Jersey City address and that, to his knowledge, defendant did not live at 660 Ocean Avenue. Contemporaneous with locating the bookbag, defendant was stopped and detained near Clerk Street, about two blocks from where he left the bookbag. After the firearm was recovered, defendant was arrested. A-3907-24 4 The officers at 660 Ocean Avenue remained at the scene while waiting for the Bureau of Criminal Identification Unit to arrive and process the firearm. Only after the bookbag had been opened did a woman from the house come to the window and speak briefly with the officers. Officers asked the woman if the home's security camera worked, and she responded that it did not. The officers did not ask her any further questions. On June 27, 2024, a Hudson County Grand Jury returned Indictment No. 24-07-0915-I, charging defendant with: second-degree possession of a handgun for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a)(1); second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)(1); fourth-degree possession of a large capacity magazine, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(j); first-degree unlawful possession of a handgun with a prior No Early Release Act conviction, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(j); and second-degree possession of a handgun as a certain person, N.J.S.A. 2C:39- 7(b)(1). The trial court conducted hearings on defendant's motion to suppress on November 20, 2024, and January 9, 2025. At the suppression hearing, the State presented testimony from Moreano and Bassford. The State also introduced CCTV footage and Bassford's body-worn camera footage. A-3907-24 5 On February 27, 2025, the court denied the motion in a written order and opinion. The court initially found that the area where the bookbag was recovered fell within the curtilage of the home, and that the State had not established defendant lacked "a proprietary or possessory interest in the property." However, after applying the abandonment analysis set forth in State v. Johnson, 193 N.J. 528 (2008), the court determined that defendant had abandoned the bookbag and therefore lacked standing to challenge the search. On June 3, 2025, defendant plead guilty to the second-degree certain- persons offense, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b)(1), in exchange for a recommendation of a five-year custodial prison term with five years of parole ineligibility and dismissal of the remaining charges. On August 1, 2025, the court sentenced defendant in accordance with the plea agreement. This appeal followed. II. On appeal, defendant makes one main argument, with several sub- arguments, which he articulates as follows: POINT I – THE EVIDENCE MUST BE SUPPRESSED BECAUSE POLICE ENTERED PRIVATE CURTILAGE AND SEARCHED A BAG WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE OR AN EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT. A. The State failed to prove that the bag was abandoned. A-3907-24 6 B. Police conducted a warrantless and illegal search when they entered private curtilage. C. Police illegally searched the bag. In evaluating a trial judge's ruling on a suppression motion, our review of the judge's factual findings is "exceedingly narrow." State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 470 (1999). We must defer to those factual findings "so long as those findings are supported by sufficient evidence in the record." State v. Hubbard, 222 N.J. 249, 262 (2015). In particular, we defer to the trial judge's assessments of credibility, given the judge's ability to make "observations of the character and demeanor of witnesses and common human experience that are not transmitted by the record." Locurto, 157 N.J. at 474. Based on that standard, the trial judge's findings should be overturned "only if they are so clearly mistaken 'that the interests of justice demand intervention and correction.'" State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224, 244 (2007) (quoting State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 162 (1964)). By contrast, the trial judge's interpretation of the law and the legal "consequences that flow from established facts" are reviewed de novo. State v. Gamble, 218 N.J. 412, 425 (2014). Here, we are satisfied the judge's factual findings are supported by the record. As to the judge's legal conclusion, defendant claims the judge erred A-3907-24 7 when the judge concluded defendant had abandoned his bookbag and thus lacked standing to challenge the search. As a result, he contends the handgun confiscated from this unconstitutional seizure must be suppressed. We disagree. The United States and New Jersey Constitutions guarantee that individuals shall be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend. IV; N.J. Const. art. I, ¶ 7. "Generally, a warrantless search or seizure is invalid absent a showing that it 'falls within one of the few well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement.'" State v. Alessi, 240 N.J. 501, 517 (2020) (quoting State v. Mann, 203 N.J. 328, 337-38 (2010)). "Historically, federal and state courts have 'applied a more stringent standard of the Fourth Amendment to searches of a residential dwelling.'" State v. Edmonds, 211 N.J. 117, 129 (2012) (quoting State v. Bruzzese, 94 N.J. 210, 217 (1983)). "That is so because '[t]he sanctity of one's home is among our most cherished rights.'" Ibid. (alteration in original). Such enhanced protection also applies to the curtilage of a home. State v. Domicz, 188 N.J. 285, 302 (2006). "Curtilage is land adjacent to a home and may include walkways, driveways, and porches." Ibid. (citing State v. Johnson, 171 N.J. 192, 208-09 (2002)). The extent to which curtilage is protected against unreasonable A-3907-24 8 searches and seizures depends on the well-known factors set forth by the United States Supreme Court in U.S. v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 301 (1987): [T]he proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home, whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by. New Jersey courts have used these same factors in determining the propriety of a search of curtilage. See Domicz, 188 N.J. at 302; Johnson, 171 N.J. at 208–09. "When a law enforcement officer physically intrudes on the curtilage to gather evidence, a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment has occurred." Collins v. Virginia, 584 U.S. 586, 593 (2018) (citing Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 11 (2013)). Law enforcement's conduct is presumptively unreasonable absent a warrant or exception to the warrant requirement. Collins, 584 U.S. at 593; see also State v. Ingram, 474 N.J. Super. 522, 537 (App. Div. 2023) (holding that "when a government official steps onto curtilage of a home without permission, an implied license, or a warrant, the official has begun to conduct a search and the search will be lawful only if an exception to the warrant requirement applies"). Where property has been abandoned "a defendant will not have standing to object to the search or seizure of" that property. Johnson, 193 N.J. at 548-49. A-3907-24 9 Stated differently, "the abandonment of property strips a person of standing to challenge a search." Id. at 547. "To that extent, abandoned property falls within an exception to the warrant requirement[,]" and "the State bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence" that the property is abandoned. State v. Brown, 216 N.J. 508, 528-29 (2014). "For the purposes of standing, property is abandoned when a person, who has control or dominion over property, knowingly and voluntarily relinquishes any possessory or ownership interest in the property and when there are no other apparent or known owners of the property." Johnson, 193 N.J. at 549. "To act voluntarily is to act with a free and unconstrained will, a will that is not overborne by physical or psychological duress or coercion." State v. Carvajal, 202 N.J. 214, 226 (2010). "To act knowingly is to act with a conscious understanding of what one is doing." Ibid. (citing Black's Law Dictionary 950 (9th ed. 2009)). As our Supreme Court recently explained, "fleeing from police in a public place expresses an intention to create distance between the actor and the property left behind and—in the absence of evidence to the contrary— without an intention to reclaim the property." State v. Gartrell, 256 N.J. 241, 254 (2024). A-3907-24 10 Guided by these principles, we agree with the trial court's legal conclusions that the search took place within the home's curtilage but defendant had abandoned the bookbag. The evidence established during the two-day hearing likewise supports the court's determination that defendant knowingly and voluntarily relinquished any possessory or ownership interest he may have had in the bookbag. The CCTV footage supports the conclusion that, when defendant glanced down the street, he saw the approaching police vehicles. In an effort to distance himself from the handgun, he left the bookbag in the alley and then walked away from 660 Ocean Avenue. These actions support the trial court's findings that defendant abandoned the bookbag and its contents. The evidence also supported the court's determination that there were no other apparent or known owners of the bookbag. Moreano did not observe anyone speak with defendant about the bookbag or hand the bookbag to defendant. In addition, no one approached 660 Ocean Avenue after defendant walked away from the location. Notably, when the occupant of 660 Ocean Avenue asked what the officers were doing, she neither raised any concern about nor asked any questions regarding the bookbag in the officer's hands. Instead, she simply responded to the officer's question about whether the security camera A-3907-24 11 on the property was operational. Accordingly, based on this record, defendant 's conduct supports the trial court's finding that defendant had abandoned the bookbag. See State v. Tucker, 136 N.J. 158, 172 (1994). As a result, defendant had "no right to challenge the search and seizure of that property." Johnson, 193 N.J. at 548. Thus, we affirm the February 27, 2025 order denying defendant 's motion to suppress the evidence and his conviction. Affirmed. A-3907-24 12