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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-0050-24 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. KEITH I. ALLEN, Defendant-Appellant. ______________________ Submitted September 30, 2026 – Decided October 20, 2026 Before Judges Mayer and Smith. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 23-01-0236. Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Stefan Van Jura, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief). Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Thomas M. Caroccia, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM After a guilty plea and entry of a July 17, 2024 judgment of conviction, defendant Keith I. Allen appeals a January 19, 2024 order denying his motion to suppress physical evidence. We affirm for the reasons expressed in the comprehensive January 19, 2024, written decision issued by Judge Harold W. Fullilove, Jr. The judge found the following facts were undisputed. Officers with the Irvington Police Department lawfully stopped defendant's car for failing to observe a traffic control device. Defendant's car "displayed a license plate that did not belong to it" and lacked insurance. Additionally, defendant did not have a valid driver's license. Dispatch advised the officers that defendant had an outstanding warrant. The officers arrested defendant pursuant to the warrant, and then arranged for MTS Towing Company (MTS) to tow defendant's car from the scene. While defendant was at police headquarters, MTS advised the Irvington Police Department "that a handgun was found inside the vehicle." An MTS employee found the handgun while checking the car before being secured at MTS's tow yard. The employee discovered a black fanny pack under the driver's seat and explained he opened the pack to check inside for any valuables. The employee found a black handgun inside the fanny pack. A-0050-24 2 Officers from the Irvington Police Department went to MTS to retrieve the handgun. The officers recovered the fanny pack, which contained a handgun, ammunition, a black ski mask, and an unemployment check with the defendant's name on it. The MTS employee subsequently gave a statement to the Irvington Police Department describing the events preceding his discovery of the handgun. After towing defendant's car to MTS's tow yard, the employee started the paperwork, which included an inventory of items inside the vehicle. When the employee went to park the car in the tow yard, he "felt a fanny pack touch his feet" and found the black handgun inside the fanny pack. Defendant moved to suppress evidence of the handgun. He argued the search of his car by an MTS employee circumvented his Fourth Amendment rights. Additionally, he argued the search of the car did not fall within any exceptions to the warrant requirements. He also claimed the inventory search was invalid under the state and federal constitutions. He further asserted the inevitable discovery doctrine did not justify the search of his car. The State opposed the suppression motion. It argued the inventory search of defendant's car and subsequent seizure of the gun was lawful. Alternatively, A-0050-24 3 the State contended the gun was lawfully seized under an exception to the warrant requirement. Citing well-established case law, Judge Fullilove ruled in favor of the State. Because the parties agreed there were no material disputed facts, the judge determined an evidentiary hearing was not required. Specifically, Judge Fullilove concluded the MTS employee acted in concert with the Irvington Police Department in towing defendant's vehicle and then conducting an inventory search. MTS had an obligation to tow defendant's car based on its contract with the Irvington Police Department. Therefore, the judge considered the actions of the MTS employee were "treated as [s]tate [a]ction for Fourth Amendment purposes." Moreover, Judge Fullilove found "there was a substantial police need" for defendant's car to be towed because N.J.S.A. 39:3-4 requires a vehicle lacking a valid registration and insurance cannot be parked or driven on a public roadway. Additionally, absent a valid license plate, the judge properly determined defendant's car could not have been driven away from the scene by someone else. Citing State v. Mangold, 82 N.J. 575, 584 (1980), Judge Fullilove correctly concluded the scope of the inventory search and procedure employed A-0050-24 4 in conducting that search was reasonable and there were no less intrusive alternatives available. Here, defendant was arrested and in police custody at the time of the inventory search. Therefore, defendant lacked the ability to physically access his personal items or plan for the safekeeping of those items. Based on the denial of his suppression motion, defendant pleaded guilty to second-degree possession of a weapon without a permit, N.J.S.A. 2C:39- 5(b)(1). He was sentenced to time served, two years' probation, and monetary fines and fees. On appeal, defendant argues: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING SUPPRESSION OF THE HANDGUN BECAUSE THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE PREREQUISITES TO A VALID INVENTORY SEARCH UNDER NEW JERSEY LAW; NAMELY, THAT DEFENDANT BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO ARRANGE FOR HIS OWN REMOVAL OF THE VEHICLE FROM THE SCENE OR TO SECURE ANY VALUABLES CONTAINED THEREIN. We reject defendant's argument for the cogent reasons stated by Judge Fullilove in his January 19, 2024 written decision denying the motion to suppress the gun. We add the following comments. Our scope of review of a motion to suppress is limited, and we "must uphold the factual findings underlying the trial court's decision so long as those A-0050-24 5 findings are supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record." State v. Ahmad, 246 N.J. 592, 609 (2021) (quoting State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224, 243 (2007)) (citing State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1, 15 (2009)). "The suppression motion judge's findings should be overturned 'only if they are so clearly mistaken that the interests of justice demand intervention and correction.'" State v. Boone, 232 N.J. 417, 426 (2017) (quoting Elders, 192 N.J. at 244). The legal conclusions and "'the consequences that flow from established facts'" receive no deference and are reviewed de novo. Ahmad, 246 N.J. at 609 (quoting State v. Hubbard, 222 N.J. 249, 263 (2015)). An inventory search is a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. See State v. Vanderee, 476 N.J. Super. 214, 234 (App. Div. 2023). Inventory searches "serve[ ] a threefold purpose: protection of the inventoried property while in police custody, shielding the police and storage bailees from false property claims, and safeguarding the police from potential danger. " State v. Hummel, 232 N.J. 196, 208 (2018) (alteration in original) (quoting Mangold, 82 N.J. at 581-582). An inventory search must be reasonable under the circumstances. Ibid.; see also Mangold, 82 N.J. at 583. Accordingly, "the propriety of an inventory search involves a two-step inquiry: (1) whether the impoundment of the A-0050-24 6 property is justified; and (2) whether the inventory procedure was legal." Hummel, 232 N.J. at 208 (citing Mangold, 82 N.J. at 583). Factors relevant to determining the reasonableness of an inventory search include "the scope of the search, the procedure used, and the availability of less intrusive alternatives. " Mangold, 82 N.J. at 584. No one factor is dispositive, and each factor should be balanced against the others. Hummel, 232 N.J. at 208-09. Assessing "whether law enforcement conducted the search pursuant to routine police procedures is essential" and "[s]earches conducted at variance with or in the absence of standardized practices are unlikely to satisfy the inventory-search warrant exception." Id. at 210. Having reviewed the record, we are satisfied Judge Fullilove properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the handgun based on a valid inventory search of the car. Here, defendant's car could not be driven away by a third- party because the vehicle lacked a valid license plate and proper insurance as required by statutory law. Additionally, defendant was in police custody and unable to contact anyone to make less intrusive alternative arrangements for someone to retrieve his personal belongings. Affirmed. A-0050-24 7