The state Supreme Court overturned an Atlantic County man's gun possession conviction Thursday, finding police do not have the right to follow a suspect who has not yet been arrested into their home and seize evidence.
In the 6-1 ruling, the state's top court overturned the 2015 decision of the Atlantic County judge and an appellate ruling.
James Legette, now 28, was stopped Jan. 17, 2012, by Officer Richard Dill, who was answering a noise complaint at a Somers Point apartment complex.
Smelling burnt marijuana, Dill asked Legette for his identification, and was told it was inside his apartment, according to the record. The officer then told Legette he would have to follow him inside to retrieve it.
Legette and the woman who lived there did not protest.
Dill became suspicious as Legette seemed to be trying to hide something in the sweatshirt he was wearing, and later took it off and handed it to the woman to put away.
When the officer asked to see the sweatshirt, Legette refused, but the officer picked it up anyway, and laid it on the ground with another sweatshirt and had a K-9 dog sniff it for drugs. The dog went right for the suspicious shirt, which was then found to have a gun inside, according to the charges.
In court, Legette's attorney unsuccessfully argued to have the evidence suppressed, and Legette eventually pleaded guilty to weapon possession and was sentenced to five years with no parole for two.
In 2015, an appellate panel agreed that the evidence was properly collected.
But six of the seven state Supreme Court justices disagreed, finding that — because Legette had not been arrested — the proof of probable cause was higher. Instead, a warrant was needed before going into the home to search for evidence.
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Lee Soloman said the the search was within the officer's rights and that he could have searched Legette before they entered the home due to the suspicious bulge in his sweatshirt, but instead gave the defendant the opportunity to get his identification.
"This decision, given the circumstances, does not invalidate the subsequent seizure of the weapon because probable cause that a criminal offense had been committed and that additional contraband might be present did not disappear," Soloman wrote.
Legette is now entitled to a new trial, with the gun seizure suppressed.
