State v. Fenimore: A New Rule Requiring Warrants for Vehicle Searches Conducted at Police Facilities

Introduction

On 30 July 2025 the New Jersey Supreme Court delivered a unanimous opinion in State v. Shawn M. Fenimore, decisively constricting the scope of New Jersey’s automobile-search exception. The case arose when troopers, having already arrested Shawn M. Fenimore for DWI at a State Police barracks, searched his vehicle—parked in the barracks lot—without a warrant and discovered drugs, a firearm, and other items. The Court was asked to decide whether that warrantless search violated Article I, ¶ 7 of the New Jersey Constitution. The central issues were:

Does the “automobile exception” permit warrantless searches of vehicles once police possess complete control over the car at a police facility?
How does John’s Law (mandatory 12-hour impound of DWI vehicles) interact with search doctrines?
How far does State v. Witt (2015) reach after the Court’s explicit limitation of on-scene searches?

Answering these, Justice Wainer Apter—writing for a unanimous Court—held that where the vehicle is parked at a police station, the driver is in custody, the keys are seized, and statutory impoundment is imminent, the automobile exception does not apply. Troopers must secure a warrant before searching. The ruling reverses the Appellate Division, suppresses the evidence, and remands.

Summary of the Judgment

1. The car was not at an “on-scene” roadside location; it was already within the police’s secure domain.
2. The rationales supporting New Jersey’s narrowed automobile exception (risk of evidence loss, traffic-stop dangers, coercive consent, logistical burdens) were absent.
3. Because the vehicle was subject to mandatory impound under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.23 (“John’s Law”) and would remain immobile for at least 12 hours, exigency dissipated.
4. Consequently, the warrant requirement remained in force; the search was unconstitutional and the motion to suppress should have been granted.
5. The Court did not reach alternative theories (probable cause sufficiency, spontaneity, search-incident-to-arrest).

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

a. State v. Witt, 223 N.J. 409 (2015)

Witt overturned Pena-Flores and re-anchored the automobile exception on traditional exigency but confined it to on-scene searches.
Fenimore applies Witt’s language literally: once a vehicle leaves the “scene,” courts must insist on a warrant.

b. Federal Cases Rejected or Distinguished

Chambers v. Maroney (U.S. 1970): allowed warrantless station-house search; rejected under NJ Constitution since Witt.
Pennsylvania v. Labron (U.S. 1996) and California v. Carney (U.S. 1985): mobility + probable cause suffice federally; NJ continues to demand more.

c. State Cases Supporting Limited Exception

State v. Alston (1981): recognized evidence-destruction risk as a rationale—deemed inapplicable here.
State v. Colvin (1991): emphasized impracticability of guarding cars roadside; no such issue where the car is in a barracks lot.
State v. Eckel (2006): limited search-incident-to-arrest in vehicle context; State urged reconsideration but Court declined.

2. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

The opinion proceeds in four logical steps:

Restates NJ’s stringent automobile exception. Unlike federal doctrine, New Jersey requires (i) probable cause, (ii) unforeseeable and spontaneous circumstances, and (iii) an on-scene search.
Applies Witt Literally. “Headquarters” means any police facility, not merely an impound lot; once there, inherent exigency is gone.
Dissects Each Rationale for the Exception and shows none exist in a police-lot scenario: no roadside danger, no risk of flight, car immobilised, keys held, occupants secured, easy car surveillance.
Refuses to Dilute the Warrant Requirement. Privacy interests in vehicles, though reduced, are not extinguished once the car is controlled by police. The judicial warrant remains the constitutional default.

3. Impact on Future Litigation and Police Practice

Bright-line rule established: When police have dominion over a vehicle at any police facility (station, barracks, municipal lot) and exigency is neutralised, a warrant is mandatory.
Search protocols will change. Troopers must now pause and seek telephonic/electronic warrants before searching DWI-impounded cars or any vehicle parked at a precinct.
Suppression motions likely to increase in cases relying on evidence from station-lot searches conducted without warrants prior to Fenimore.
Narrows the “foreseeable-unforeseeable” debate. Fenimore indicates that once officers intentionally relocate or invite the driver to a station, the spontaneity element evaporates.
Reinforces state constitutional independence. Even if federal authorities permit broader automobile searches, New Jersey courts will not follow absent parallel exigency.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Automobile Exception: A rule letting police search a car without a warrant when there’s probable cause and pressing circumstances (exigency). New Jersey’s version is narrower than the federal rule.
Exigency: An emergency or urgent situation making it impracticable to get a warrant (risk evidence will disappear, threat to safety, etc.). If exigency fades, a warrant is required.
John’s Law: Statute mandating 12-hour impound of vehicles after a DWI arrest. It handles custody of the car but says nothing about search authority.
On-scene vs. Headquarters Search: “On-scene” refers to roadside or immediate location of stop. “Headquarters” involves police-controlled property (station, barracks, lot). Fenimore disallows automobile-exception searches at headquarters absent exigency.
Probable Cause: Reasonable belief, based on facts, that evidence of crime is in the vehicle. Having probable cause alone does not nullify the warrant requirement in NJ.

Conclusion

State v. Fenimore cements a critical boundary: police authority to conduct warrantless automobile searches ends where their complete control over the vehicle begins. By requiring warrants for searches executed at police facilities—even when probable cause exists—the Court reaffirms New Jersey’s constitutional commitment to privacy and judicial oversight. The decision clarifies Witt, underscores the independence of the State Constitution, and prompts immediate procedural adjustments across law-enforcement agencies. Future litigants can expect courts to scrutinise carefully any claim of exigency once a vehicle is secure and immobile, and practitioners should advise clients accordingly: station-house convenience does not trump the Fourth Amendment nor Article I, Paragraph 7. Fenimore thus stands as a significant precedent guarding against “fake exigency” and fortifying the warrant preference doctrine in New Jersey criminal jurisprudence.