## Facts

- Newark narcotics officers received a tip from a previously reliable confidential informant that an individual was selling marijuana, cocaine, and heroin from a specified apartment in a Newark public-housing complex.
- Around 11:00 p.m., four plainclothes officers went to the apartment to attempt a controlled buy to corroborate the tip.
- When an officer knocked, Rashad Walker opened the door while smoking a hand-rolled cigarette; an experienced detective at the threshold immediately detected the odor of burning marijuana.
- Walker noticed an officer’s police badge, threw the cigarette into the apartment, retreated inside, and attempted to slam the door.
- An officer prevented the door from closing, entered to arrest Walker, and other officers followed; officers cited concerns about flight, destruction of evidence, and safety.
- Inside the apartment, officers observed and seized marijuana, cocaine, and heroin in plain view.
- Walker was charged with drug-distribution offenses, entered a plea agreement, and preserved his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion.

## Issues

1. Whether officers had probable cause to arrest Walker based on observations and odor of marijuana at the doorway, together with the informant tip.
2. Whether warrantless entry into Walker’s apartment was justified by exigent circumstances, particularly the risk of imminent destruction of easily disposable drug evidence, and whether any exigency was improperly police-created.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the trial court’s denial of Walker’s motion to suppress.
- The Court held officers had probable cause to arrest Walker for marijuana possession before entering the apartment.
- The Court held exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry because Walker’s actions created an objectively reasonable, imminent risk that drugs could be destroyed before a warrant could be obtained.
- Because officers were lawfully present, the seizure of drugs in plain view was lawful and the evidence was admissible.

## Legal Principles

- Warrantless home entries are presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution; the State bears the burden to show a recognized exception.
- Exigent circumstances permit warrantless entry when officers have probable cause and reasonably believe evidence is at imminent risk of destruction before a warrant can be secured.
- The exigent-circumstances analysis is fact-specific and may consider the destructibility of the evidence and the suspect’s contemporaneous conduct.
- Exigency is not invalid merely because lawful police investigation contributes to it; the focus is whether officers acted lawfully and reasonably rather than manufacturing an emergency through improper conduct.
- When officers are lawfully inside a residence, they may seize contraband in plain view if its incriminating character is immediately apparent.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a warrantless entry into a residence where officers had probable cause at the threshold and the suspect’s attempt to retreat and shut the door created an objectively reasonable risk that readily disposable drug evidence would be destroyed; drugs observed in plain view after lawful entry were admissible.


State v. Walker, 62 A.3d 897 (N.J. 2013)