Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 26, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State of New Jersey v. Iscon Moye

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: A-2090-23

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (18)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (14.9K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2090-23

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ISCON MOYE, a/k/a BIRTH
ISCON MOYE, JR., ISCON J.
MOYE, ISON MOYE, RICKY
I. MOYE, RICKY MOYE, and
DAVID WASHINGTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

---

Submitted December 18, 2025 – Decided March 26, 2026

Before Judges Marczyk and Puglisi.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Essex County, Indictment Nos. 22-03-0503
and 22-03-0514.

Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Colin Sheehan, Assistant Deputy Public
Defender, of counsel and on the briefs).
Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Ashlea D. Newman, Deputy Attorney
General, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Following an unsuccessful motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant

to a search warrant, defendant Iscon Moye entered a negotiated guilty plea to

fourth-degree possession of prohibited weapons and devices, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-

3(f)(1); and second-degree possession of a firearm while committing a

controlled dangerous substance (CDS) offense, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4.1(a). He was

sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement to an aggregate five-year

prison term, with a forty-two-month parole ineligibility term in accordance with

the Graves Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.

Defendant now appeals from the July 1, 2022 Law Division order denying

his suppression motion,1 raising the following point for our consideration:

THE EVIDENCE SEIZED FROM THE APARTMENT
MUST BE SUPPRESSED BECAUSE THE SEARCH
WARRANT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY
PROBABLE CAUSE SPECIFIC TO THE
APARTMENT.

1
Although defendant's notice of appeal also lists the November 30, 2022 order
denying his motion for reconsideration, his brief does not address this order.
"An issue not briefed on appeal is deemed waived." Woodlands Cmty. Ass'n,
Inc. v. Mitchell, 450 N.J. Super. 310, 319 (App. Div. 2017) (quoting
Sklodowsky v. Lushis, 417 N.J. Super. 648, 657 (App. Div. 2011)).
A-2090-23
2
Based on our review of the record and the applicable legal principles, we

affirm.

I.

As reflected in Judge Michael L. Ravin's opinion, the following facts are

taken from Irvington Police Department Patrolman Daditte Albert's certification

in support of the search warrant. In November 2021, Patrolman Albert received

information from a citizen, who wished to remain anonymous, regarding CDS

being sold from a Paine Avenue apartment. The citizen stated the seller, who

used the alias of "Ice," manufactured cocaine, heroin, and prescription legend

drugs from the apartment. The citizen said Ice delivered the CDS to customers

using a black Jeep SUV and blue Chrysler minivan, and pointed out the two

vehicles parked on Paine Avenue. The citizen also provided Ice's cell phone

number and Facebook account, and confirmed Ice's photograph in postings to

the account.

Patrolman Albert checked the vehicles' license plates, both of which were

registered in Pennsylvania, and discovered they were registered to defendant.

He also confirmed defendant's driver's license photograph was consistent with

the photographs of Ice posted on the Facebook account.

A-2090-23
3
Albert searched defendant's name in a police database and found he had

driven another vehicle, a Nissan, which was towed during a narcotics arrest in

April 2015. The Nissan was owned by Yvette Freeman who, according to the

motor vehicle database, resided in the same Paine Avenue apartment identified

by the citizen informant. Albert viewed Freeman's Facebook account, which

contained photographs of her and defendant in what appeared to be a dating

relationship.

Patrolman Albert and other officers then conducted surveillance both

inside and outside the Paine Avenue apartment building. The windows of

defendant's apartment were visible to the officers from the street. They observed

both defendant and Freeman exiting the apartment, and then defendant entering

the apartment later that day.

Law enforcement organized and conducted two controlled buys using a

confidential informant who had been reliable in past narcotics investigations.

During both controlled buys, Patrolman Albert observed defendant exit the

Paine Avenue apartment, drive to the meeting location, and conduct a CDS

transaction with the confidential informant. Defendant drove the Jeep SUV

during the first transaction and the Chrysler minivan during the second. After

both buys, the confidential informant reported handing Ice money in exchange

A-2090-23
4
for oxycodone pills, which Ice removed from the vehicle's center console and

handed to the confidential informant.

Albert certified that based on this information, along with his knowledge

and experience in criminal investigations, he had probable cause to believe CDS

and other evidence related to CDS distribution may be found in the Paine

Avenue apartment, the Jeep SUV, and the Chrysler minivan. On December 14,

2021, a judge issued the search warrant.

The search of the apartment yielded: 388 oxycodone hydrochloride pills;

thirteen Xanax pills; two nine-millimeter handguns; three extended handgun

magazines; forty-eight rounds of ammunition; two cell phones; $50,468 in paper

currency; a bag containing clear jugs; rubber bands; a stamp; and plastic bags. 2

An Essex County grand jury returned a ten-count indictment against

defendant, charging him with CDS and weapons offenses. In a separate two-

count indictment, defendant was charged with additional weapons offenses.

Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized from the

apartment, arguing the warrant was unsupported by probable cause because

there was no nexus between the controlled buys and the residence. In a

2
Detectives seized plastic bags with a residue and an empty bag from the Jeep
SUV and one oxycodone pill from the Chrysler minivan. Defendant did not seek
suppression of the items seized from the search of the vehicles.
A-2090-23
5
comprehensive opinion, Judge Ravin detailed the foregoing facts contained in

the certification in support of the search warrant, discussed governing case law,

and determined the totality of the circumstances supported a finding of probable

cause.

II.

Our federal and state constitutional jurisprudence favors searches

conducted pursuant to a search warrant, requiring the State to set forth detailed

information to a neutral magistrate establishing a showing of probable cause.

State v. Evers, 175 N.J. 355, 381 (2003); State v. Marshall, 123 N.J. 1, 71 (1991).

A search warrant not supported by probable cause is deemed unreasonable and

is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. Marshall, 123 N.J. at 71.

Our review of the legal propriety of the issuance of a search warrant

"accord[s] substantial deference to the discretionary determination resulting in

the issuance of the warrant." Id. at 72. Stated differently, reviewing courts grant

substantial deference to a judge's finding of probable cause to issue a search

warrant. Evers, 175 N.J. at 381.

If the court has any "[d]oubt as to the validity of the warrant," such doubt

"should ordinarily be resolved by sustaining the search." State v. Keyes, 184

N.J. 541, 554 (2005) (quoting State v. Jones, 179 N.J. 377, 389 (2004)). Courts

A-2090-23
6
have long held "a search executed pursuant to a warrant is presumed to be valid

and that a defendant challenging its validity has the burden to prove 'that there

was no probable cause supporting the issuance of the warrant or that the search

was otherwise unreasonable.'" Jones, 179 N.J. at 388 (quoting State v. Valencia,

93 N.J. 126, 133 (1983)).

"When reviewing a trial court's decision to grant or deny a suppression

motion, appellate courts '[ordinarily] defer to the factual findings of the trial

court so long as those findings are supported by sufficient evidence in the

record.'" State v. Smart, 253 N.J. 156, 164 (2023) (alteration in original)

(quoting State v. Dunbar, 229 N.J. 521, 538 (2017)); see also State v. Kasabucki,

52 N.J. 110, 116 (1968) ("[W]hen the adequacy of the facts offered to show

probable cause is challenged after a search made pursuant to a warrant, and their

adequacy appears to be marginal, the doubt should ordinarily be resolved by

sustaining the search."). "But when the facts are undisputed . . . and the judge

interprets the law on a non-testimonial motion to suppress, [an appellate court's]

review is de novo." Smart, 253 N.J. at 164.

"Both the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and

Article I, paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution provide in nearly identical

language that 'no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause, supported by

A-2090-23
7
oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the

papers and things to be seized.'" State v. Marshall, 199 N.J. 602, 610 (2009)

(quoting N.J. Const. art. I, ¶ 7). A valid warrant requires "probable cause to

believe that a crime has been committed, or is being committed, at a specific

location or that evidence of a crime is at the place sought to be searched." State

v. Sullivan, 169 N.J. 204, 210 (2001); see also State v. Chippero, 201 N.J. 14,

28 (2009) (explaining there must be "substantial evidence" supporting a court's

probable cause determination "the items sought are in fact seizable by virtue of

being connected with criminal activity, and . . . the items will be found in the

place to be searched") (quoting 2 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 3.1(b)

(4th ed. 2004)).

"Probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant requires 'a fair

probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular

place.'" Chippero, 201 N.J. at 28 (quoting United States v. Jones, 994 F.2d 1051,

1056 (3d Cir. 1993)). "[T]he probable cause determination must be . . . based

on the information contained within the four corners of the supporting affidavit,

as supplemented by sworn testimony before the issuing judge that is recorded

contemporaneously." Marshall, 199 N.J. at 611 (quoting Schneider v. Simonini,

163 N.J. 336, 363 (2000)). This is because "the scope of a lawful search is

A-2090-23
8
'defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable

cause to believe that it may be found.'" Ibid. (quoting Maryland v. Garrison,

480 U.S. 79, 84 (1987)).

With these governing standards in mind, we are satisfied Patrolman

Albert's certification provided sufficient facts supporting a finding of probable

cause to search the apartment. Acting on a citizen report of CDS distribution,

the officer verified defendant resided in the apartment and was the registered

owner of the vehicles identified by the citizen. He also confirmed defendant

appeared to be the individual on the Facebook account provided by the citizen.

After conducting surveillance to verify defendant resided in the apartment,

police utilized a reliable confidential informant to execute two controlled buys

of oxycodone from defendant. On both occasions, Patrolman Albert observed

defendant exit the apartment and drive one of the vehicles to conduct the

transaction.

We are unpersuaded by defendant's contention the information provided

by the citizen informant and the observations by law enforcement were

untethered to evidence of CDS in the apartment. Although the controlled buys

did not take place in defendant's residence, he was observed leaving the

apartment directly before going to the specified location for the CDS

A-2090-23
9
transaction. A reasonable inference is the CDS came from within the apartment.

Thus, Patrolman Albert's certification established a fair probability contraband

would be found there.

For the first time on appeal, defendant argues the search warrant should

not have issued because the certification provided stale information based on the

timing of the controlled buys. We ordinarily decline to consider an issue not

properly presented to the trial court unless the jurisdiction of the court is

implicated, or the matter concerns an issue of great public importance. Nieder

v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973); see also State v. Witt, 223

N.J. 409, 418-19 (2015). Neither circumstance is present in this matter.

Nevertheless, we note the citizen informant provided the information to

Patrolman Albert on November 21, 2021, the first controlled buy was conducted

the following week, and the second controlled buy was conducted the week after

that. Albert's certification is dated December 10, 2021, was authorized and

submitted by an assistant prosecutor on December 14, 2021, and the search

warrant was issued the same day. Given the nature of the criminal activity

alleged, we conclude the finding of probable cause was justified at the time the

warrant issued. See State v. Blaurock, 143 N.J. Super. 476, 479 (App. Div.

A-2090-23
10
1976) (upholding search warrant issued eighteen days after surveillance of

ongoing CDS distribution).

Affirmed.

A-2090-23
11