Preview:

a3325-09.opn.html
Original Wordprocessor Version
(NOTE: The status of this decision is Unpublished.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3325-09T1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
STEVEN J. RUFFIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
October 9, 2012
Submitted December 21, 2011 - Decided
Before Judges Fuentes and Graves.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Ocean County, Indictment No.
08-12-1849.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a3325-09.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:55:50 PM]




a3325-09.opn.html
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant (Marcia Blum, Assistant Deputy
Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
Marlene Lynch Ford, Ocean County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Samuel Marzarella,
Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Steven Ruffin pleaded guilty to third degree conspiracy to possess cocaine with the intent to
distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1); disorderly person offense of possession of drug paraphernalia, N.J.S.A.
2C:36-2; and second degree possession of a weapon by a person convicted of committing one of the crimes
listed in N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b). The court sentenced defendant consistent with the plea agreement to a term
of seven years in prison, with a mandatory five-year period of parole ineligibility. Defendant reserved the
right to appeal the court's decision denying his motion to suppress. We affirm.
On March 20, 2008, Brick Township Detective Joseph Leskowski executed two no-knock search warrants for
rooms number nine and ten at the Route 88 Motel in Brick. The search warrants were predicated on two
affidavits executed by Leskowski, describing in detail the investigation that uncovered the sales of illicit
drugs by defendant from rooms nine and ten at the Route 88 Motel. Specifically, Leskowski averred that he
was first apprised of this situation by a confidential informant (CI), who indicated that a man identified as
"Justice" was distributing cocaine from room number ten at the Route 88 Motel. "Justice" was subsequently
identified as defendant.
The CI provided Leskowski with a cellular telephone number for "Justice," whom the CI described as
a dark-skin African American man, approximately five feet, nine inches tall, weighing approximately 220
pounds, with a beard. The CI also told Leskowski that "Justice" possessed two handguns that he kept on
top of the television at unit number ten at the Route 88 Motel.
As the investigation progressed, Leskowski and other officers arranged for a second CI to contact defendant
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a3325-09.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:55:50 PM]




a3325-09.opn.html
to arrange for the sale of a quantity of cocaine. Under carefully choreographed conditions, the second CI
purchased a quantity of crack cocaine from defendant. The transaction occurred at room number nine at
the Route 88 Motel. The second CI identified defendant as the man known as "Justice" from a motor
vehicle photograph of defendant obtained by Leskowski.
On the day the search warrants were executed, defendant was arrested in the parking lot of the Route 88
Motel as he entered a black Acura that had another individual inside. In room number ten, law enforcement
officers found a glass smoking-pipe with cocaine residue, a digital scale with cocaine residue, a .380 caliber
semiautomatic handgun, four .380 caliber rounds, a black holster, a plastic bag containing numerous
smaller plastic baggies, another scale, and pieces of mail addressed to Steven Ruffin listing the Route 88
Motel as his address.
Defendant moved to suppress the evidence seized in connection with the search warrants, arguing that
they were not based on probable cause. Defendant also challenged the basis for the no-knock provision.
After hearing the arguments of counsel, Judge Wendel E. Daniels denied the motion, articulating his
reasons in a memorandum of opinion dated June 26, 2009.
Defendant now appeals, raising the following arguments:
POINT I
THE ITEMS SEIZED FROM THE MOTEL ROOM MUST BE SUPPRESSED BECAUSE
THE AFFIDAVIT DID NOT CONTAIN PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH OR
SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR A NO-KNOCK ENTRY.
A. Lack of Probable Cause.
B. Inadequate Basis for No-Knock Entry.
Defendant's arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. See R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Daniels in his memorandum of opinion.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a3325-09.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:55:50 PM]




a3325-09.opn.html
Affirmed.
This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a3325-09.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:55:50 PM]

Download a3325-09.opn.pdf

New Jersey Law