In State v. Shawn M. Fenimore (A-18-24/089786) (Decided July 30, 2025), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that law enforcement’s warrantless search of a car was inconsistent with the New Jersey State Constitution.
According to the Court, New Jersey’s more limited automobile exception did not apply when the car was parked in a State Police barracks parking lot; police had arrested the driver, removed the passenger, and obtained the keys; and the car was subject to imminent, mandatory impoundment.
Facts of State v. Fenimore
In response to a request for a statement regarding a harassment claim against him, defendant Shawn M. Fenimore arrived at the Woodstown State Police barracks shortly before 8:30 p.m. on June 2, 2021. New Jersey State Police Trooper Daniel Radetich interviewed defendant and administered three sobriety tests. Defendant failed two of them, and Radetich arrested defendant for driving while intoxicated (DWI) at approximately 8:57 p.m. Radetich secured defendant to a holding cell bench and advised him that troopers would search his car. Radetich and four troopers found Nicholas Luzzo asleep in the passenger seat. One trooper escorted Luzzo into the police station. Troopers commenced a warrantless search of the car at 9:02 p.m. and found drugs, a loaded gun, and other evidence such as bolt cutters.
Defendant was charged with possession offenses and moved to suppress the evidence discovered during the warrantless search of the car. At the motion hearing, Radetich testified to the sequence of events described above. During cross-examination, Radetich agreed that under John’s Law, troopers were required to impound defendant’s car after his arrest for DWI, “[s]o, this car wasn’t going anywhere . . . for at least twelve hours.” When asked why he did not secure a warrant, Radetich stated that “that’s our . . . standard process. When you’re arrested for John’s Law, we have the right to a probable cause search of their vehicle . . . .” The trial court denied the motion. Defendant pled guilty and appealed.
The Appellate Division affirmed. Although the appellate court acknowledged that the New Jersey Supreme Court’s opinion in State v. Witt, 223 N.J. 409 (2015) limited automobile exception “to on-scene warrantless searches,” and that Witt “made several references to roadside stops,” it rejected “defendant’s argument [that] the search was illegal because his vehicle was in a police parking lot and awaiting impoundment.”
NJ Supreme Court’s Decision in State v. Fenimore
The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed. It held that the automobile exception to the warrant requirement did not apply and the police were required to obtain a warrant before searching the car.
“We hold that in this case, when the car was parked in a State Police barracks parking lot; police had arrested the driver, removed the passenger, and obtained the keys; and the car was subject to imminent, mandatory impoundment, the automobile exception to the warrant requirement did not apply,” Justice Wainer Apter wrote. “The police were therefore required to obtain a warrant before searching the vehicle.”
According to the New Jersey Supreme Court, its decision rested on Witt. As Justice Wainer Apter explained, its decision in Witt explicitly “part[ed] from federal jurisprudence that allows a police officer to conduct a warrantless search at headquarters merely because he could have done so on the side of the road.”
In Witt, the Court expressly noted that “[w]hatever inherent exigency justifies a warrantless search at the scene under the automobile exception certainly cannot justify the failure to secure a warrant after towing and impounding the car at headquarters when it is practicable to do so.” Additionally, it specifically concluded that, going forward, New Jersey’s “automobile exception” would be limited “to on-scene warrantless searches.”
The New Jersey Supreme Court determined that the Appellate Division misinterpreted its decision in Witt. It wrote:
The Appellate Division interpreted that language to mean that police must get a warrant to search if they tow a car to an impound lot but not if they search a car in a police station parking lot. But Witt does not say that. Instead, Witt uses the term “headquarters,” which could clearly encompass a State Police barracks parking lot. And the federal case that Witt was parting ways from did not involve a warrantless search at an impound lot; Chambers reviewed a warrantless search “at the [police] station.”
The New Jersey Supreme further emphasized that there was no “on-scene search,” as the car was searched in a police barracks parking lot, not on the scene of a motor vehicle stop or any other incident. Moreover, the facts make clear there was no other “inherent exigency” to “justif[y] a warrantless search . . . under the automobile exception.” Thus, police were required to obtain a warrant.
Based on its holding, the New Jersey Supreme Court remanded to the trial court for entry of an order granting defendant’s motion to suppress and any further proceedings consistent with its opinion.