State of New Jersey v. Ashraf D. Abedrabbo

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: January 23, 2026
• Docket: A-3634-23
• Status: Unpublished

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-3634-23

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ASHRAF D. ABEDRABBO,

Defendant-Appellant. ________________________

Submitted January 13, 2026 – Decided January 23, 2026

Before Judges Firko and Vinci.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Warren County, Indictment No. 23-07-0101.

Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Rachel Glanz, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the briefs).

Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Gabriella L. Korosec, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM Defendant Ashraf D. Abedrabbo appeals from a judgment of conviction

entered on June 24, 2024 after he pleaded guilty to second-degree certain

persons not to have weapons, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b)(1), and a January 3, 2024

order denying his motion to suppress ten handguns and other related contraband

seized following a search of his motor vehicle pursuant to a warrant. We affirm.

I.

We summarize the relevant procedural history and the evidence adduced

at the evidentiary hearing conducted on December 12, 2023. New Jersey State

Police (NJSP) Detective Roy Sanchez and Sergeant Scott Sanders testified for

the State. Defendant did not call any witnesses or offer any other evidence at

the hearing.

In March and April 2023, NJSP conducted a firearms trafficking

investigation involving defendant. The investigation began when Detective

Sanchez "received information from a confidential source regarding an

individual that was trafficking firearms into" Paterson. The source "described

the individual as an Arabic male in his twenties, approximately [five feet eight

inches], with . . . short hair" who drove "a white Mercedes sedan." Detective

Sanchez identified the individual as defendant based on his New Jersey driver's

A-3634-23 2 license, and determined the white Mercedes was registered to "an individual by

the name of Iman Abedrabbo with the same address as [defendant]."

Detective Sanchez received additional information from an independent

"second confidential source that also stated . . . there was an

individual . . . trafficking firearms from . . . out of state into" Paterson. "[T]he

second source provided a telephone number . . . and also stated that the

individual, [defendant], would drive a white Mercedes sedan."

After Detective Sanchez received the information from the second

confidential source, he "direct[ed] the confidential source to place a phone call

[to defendant] in [his] presence" and listened to the conversation. During the

conversation, Detective Sanchez "overheard . . . a male voice that the source

recognized to be [defendant]. And they were discussing firearms." Detective

Sanchez then applied for and obtained a dial number retriever (DNR), which

allowed him to "see numbers sent and received from . . . the phone, as well as

see the locations."

NJSP also established surveillance at defendant's residence. On April 8,

at approximately 7:30 p.m., defendant left his residence in a Volkswagen Atlas,

which NJSP identified as a rental vehicle. He was accompanied by a woman

later identified as co-defendant Martha Castillo-Medina. "[A] few hours after

A-3634-23 3 that, the DNR showed [defendant] exiting New Jersey and entering

Pennsylvania." He then "entered Maryland[,] then Virginia. And, on [August

9] . . . the DNR showed [defendant] in the area of Okoa,

Tennessee . . .[a]nd . . . the phone remained static in Tennessee . . . for a few

days."

Detective Sanchez "directed the second source to place a[nother] phone

call" to defendant. During the conversation, Detective Sanchez "once again

overheard a male voice that the source and [he] recognized to be [defendant].

And they were . . . discussing firearms that were recently acquired and pricing."

On April 11, Detective Sanchez saw defendant's "phone was

leaving . . . Tennessee," on the way back to New Jersey. Detective Sanchez,

accompanied by Sergeant Sanders, "established physical surveillance in

Pennsylvania, leading into New Jersey." Detective Sanchez and Sergeant

Sanders observed defendant's vehicle on Interstate 78 in Greenwich Township.

The vehicle was traveling at a high rate of speed, and they conducted a motor

vehicle stop. Detective Sanchez testified that as he approached the vehicle, he

observed defendant in the driver's seat and Castillo-Medina in the passenger's

seat.

A-3634-23 4 Detective Sanchez removed defendant from the vehicle, "escorted [him]

to the front of his car," and directed him to sit on the guardrail. The video from

Detective Sachez's body worn camera (BWC) was played at the hearing.

Defendant admitted he "was going [five] miles over" the speed limit. He stated

he was coming from his "uncle's house" in Allentown, Pennsylvania, "for

Easter" where he had been for "about . . . [three] days." He did not know his

uncle's "exact address." He identified the woman in the car as his

"girlfriend . . . Martha," whom he had been dating for "almost a year," but

denied knowing her last name.

Sergeant Sanders spoke with Castillo-Medina while she was inside the

vehicle. The video from his BWC was also played at the hearing. Sergeant

Sanders testified Castillo-Medina said she knew defendant "[f]or [three] years"

and they were "in a romantic relationship," but she "did[ not] know his last

name." She said she and defendant were "coming from Virginia" where they

went to visit defendant's "mom's aunt" for "about [three] days." She did not

know where they were in Virginia or where they stayed while they were there.

After Detective Sanchez advised defendant of his Miranda1 rights,

defendant denied the request for consent to search his vehicle. Detective

1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). A-3634-23 5 Sanchez then "asked the [canine] handler" present at the scene "to perform an

exterior sniff with his canine of the" vehicle. "The [canine] handler advised that

it was a positive alert on the vehicle." The canine sniff was conducted

approximately twenty-five minutes after the motor vehicle stop. Defendant and

Castillo-Medina were placed under arrest. Defendant had "a little over

[$]12,000" in cash "on [his] person."

Detective Sanchez applied for a search warrant for the vehicle, which was

granted by a Superior Court judge. "Ten firearms and . . . a variety of

magazines" some which "were high-capacity magazines capable of holding

more than [ten] rounds" were recovered from duffel bags in the trunk.

On July 21, 2023, a State grand jury returned Indictment No. 23-07-

00101-S, charging defendant with: fourth-degree conspiracy to transport

firearms, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-9(d) and N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2; ten counts of second-degree

unlawful possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b); fourth-degree

transporting firearms, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-9(d); fourth-degree possession of a large

capacity ammunition magazine, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(j); third-degree money

laundering, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-25(a); and second-degree certain persons not to

have weapons, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b)(1).

A-3634-23 6 II.

On August 8, 2023, defendant filed a notice of motion to suppress seeking

an

[o]rder suppressing any and all evidence seized from the person, environs and/or vehicle occupied by . . . [d]efendant on April 11, 2023, and a subsequent search of the contents of said vehicle that occurred on . . . April 12, 2023 (pursuant to a warrant that was premised on facts developed during an unconstitutional stop, prolonged detention[,] and utilization of unwarranted investigative methods), including . . . ten . . . firearms.

The motion stated, "any searches and seizures conducted on that date were

conducted by law enforcement without the benefit of a warrant, except that

evidence obtained thereby was utilized subsequently to obtain a search warrant

for said vehicle." The motion also stated defendant would "rely on a brief to be

submitted in response to an initial brief to be submitted by the State . . . in

accordance with the Rules of Court."

After the State filed its brief, defendant filed a brief in support of his

motion to suppress. Defendant "concede[d] that there was reasonable suspicion

to conduct an investigatory stop" of his vehicle and clarified that his "motion

[did] not seek suppression of any statements made by defendant to law

enforcement." He argued the stop was extended unreasonably by the canine

A-3634-23 7 sniff and "if it is established that the stop exceeded lawful parameters, the

warrant that was issued on the basis of information that was developed during

the stop must be invalidated."

Defendant did not argue the search warrant affidavit was insufficient to

support a finding of probable cause. Instead, he asserted he was

entitled to a testimonial hearing at which the underpinnings of the affidavit submitted in support of the request are tested by counsel. At the very least, counsel should be able to question the State's expert as to the ability of the canine generally and this canine specifically to detect an unknown explosive in the field.

He also requested "a testimonial hearing on the . . . motion."

On December 12, 2023, the court conducted an evidentiary hearing as

requested by defendant. Detective Sanchez and Sergeant Sanders testified for

the State as summarized previously. After the State rested, the court asked

defense counsel if there were any other witnesses. Counsel responded,

"[d]efense rests." Defendant did not introduce the search warrant affidavit or

the search warrant itself at any time prior to or during the hearing.

The court then heard oral argument. Defense counsel argued "[t]he search

warrant that [was] issued was based on information, in part, that [law

enforcement] received at the roadside stop . . . that should have been given after

A-3634-23 8 [defendant] was Mirandized." Counsel contended "the search warrant would not

have been granted, but for . . . these interrogations by the side of the road."

Counsel also asked the court to consider "[t]he search warrant . . . was

also based on the [canine]'s hit. And there is no conclusive evidence . . . that

the dog hit in the area where they ended up finding these weapons." She argued

the NJSP "reports indicate that the hit was made on the . . . driver's side rear

door or something like that. . . . So that information was inaccurate, as far as the

basis for the search warrant."

On January 3, 2024, the court entered an order denying defendant's motion

to suppress supported by a written opinion. The court noted defendant conceded

the motor vehicle stop was proper, and determined (1) the "detectives were

lawfully permitted to extend the stop for approximately [twenty-five] minutes

to execute a canine sniff on . . . defendant's vehicle"; (2) "based upon the totality

of the circumstances, there certainly existed probable cause for the [c]ourt to

issue a search warrant for defendant's vehicle"; and (3) "because . . . defendant

was not in custody while asked the initial itinerary questions regarding his

A-3634-23 9 travel, persons in the vehicle, and general biographical questions, these

statements are not subject to suppression." 2

On May 13, 2024, defendant pleaded guilty to second-degree certain

persons not to have weapons. On June 24, he was sentenced in accordance with

the plea agreement. This appeal followed.

III.

On appeal, defendant raises a single point for our consideration.

THE MATTER MUST BE REMANDED TO THE TRIAL COURT DUE TO THE COURT'S FAILURE TO ABIDE BY THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE AFFIDAVIT RULE WHEN ASSESSING THE LEGALITY OF THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT'S CAR.

Specifically, defendant argues the "court's decision to uphold the search

of [defendant's] car was constitutionally improper" because the court "analyzed

probable cause on the basis of the testimony presented at the suppression

hearing" and "it is unclear whether all the facts . . . were actually presented to

2 Defendant did not brief any arguments concerning the court's determinations relating to the motor vehicle stop, the canine sniff, his statements to law enforcement, or any other matters relating to his conviction. As a result, those arguments are deemed waived. State v. Huang, 461 N.J. Super. 119, 125 (App. Div. 2018); see also Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, cmt. 5 on R. 2:6-2 (2026) ("It is, of course, clear that an issue not briefed is deemed waived").

A-3634-23 10 the" judge who issued the warrant. "The court thus failed to undertake the

critical analysis of whether the warrant affidavit established probable cause to

search [defendant's] car."

Because defendant never argued the search warrant affidavit was

insufficient to establish probable cause, we decline to consider this argument on

appeal. We generally decline to consider questions or issues raised for the first

time on appeal. This is so because "the points of divergence developed in

proceedings before a trial court define the metes and bounds of appellate

review." State v. Witt, 223 N.J. 409, 419 (2015) (quoting State v. Robinson, 200

N.J. 1, 19 (2009)). "For sound jurisprudential reasons, with few exceptions, 'our

appellate courts will decline to consider questions or issues not properly

presented to the trial court when an opportunity for such a presentation is

available.'" Ibid. (quoting Robinson, 200 N.J. at 20 (quoting Nieder v. Royal

Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J 229, 234 (1973))).

Defendant contends his motion to suppress included a challenge to the

sufficiency of the search warrant affidavit. This argument lacks merit.

"[W]hen a search is based on a warrant, the search is presumptively valid."

State v. Bivens, 226 N.J. 1, 11 (2016) (citing State v. Valencia, 93 N.J. 126, 133

(1983)). "When contesting the search at a suppression hearing, the defendant

A-3634-23 11 must prove that the warrant was based on insufficient probable cause to justify

its issuance." Ibid. (citing Valencia, 93 N.J. at 133). That "probable cause

determination must be made based on the information contained within the four

corners of the supporting affidavit." Ibid. (citing Schneider v. Simonini, 163

N.J. 336, 363 (2000)).

In contrast, a "search conducted without a warrant is presumptively

invalid." Ibid. "Thus, the State has the burden of showing that one of the

'judicial cognizable exception[s] to the warrant requirement' applies to the

warrantless search." Ibid. (alteration in original) (quoting Valencia, 93 N.J. at

133). Owing to these shifting burdens, Rule 3:5-7(b) provides that when a

defendant files a motion to suppress evidence seized without a warrant, the State

must file its brief in opposition to the motion first, and then the defendant is

permitted to file a responsive brief. On the other hand, when a defendant

challenges a "search . . . made with a warrant, a brief . . . shall be submitted with

the notice of motion." Ibid.

Here, defendant's notice of motion expressly stated he was challenging

"searches and seizures . . . conducted by law enforcement without the benefit of

a warrant." His only challenge to the subsequent warranted search was that

A-3634-23 12 "evidence obtained [without a warrant] was utilized . . . to obtain a search

warrant."

In accordance with Rule 3:5-7(b), because his motion was one to suppress

evidence seized without a warrant, his notice of motion stated he would "rely on

a brief to be submitted in response to an initial brief to be submitted by the

State." Defendant's claim on appeal that he was challenging both the warrantless

search and the search with a warrant is directly contradicted by his notice of

motion, his brief in support of the motion, and defense counsel's argument at the

evidentiary hearing.

In addition, defendant was afforded an evidentiary hearing and had the

ability and opportunity to make any argument, including an argument that the

search warrant affidavit was insufficient. At the hearing, defendant failed to call

any witnesses or introduce any evidence, including the search warrant affidavit

or the search warrant itself. The only argument defendant did make was that the

NJSP reports regarding the canine sniff, not the search warrant affidavit, may

have been incorrect.

Defendant did not make any argument regarding the sufficiency of the

search warrant affidavit prior to or during the hearing. If defendant was

challenging the sufficiency of the search warrant affidavit, it was his obligation

A-3634-23 13 to "prove that the warrant was based on insufficient probable cause to justify its

issuance." Bivens, 226 N.J. at 11. As a result, defendant waived that argument

and cannot claim on appeal the court failed to consider the sufficiency of the

search warrant affidavit.

Defendant's contention that remand is required because the court

improperly found probable cause for the search warrant based on the testimony

at the evidentiary hearing is unpersuasive. As we discussed, defendant never

challenged the sufficiency of the search warrant affidavit and therefore that

argument is waived. The court's determination that the evidence produced at the

hearing established probable cause was, therefore, unnecessary to resolve the

issues presented. There is no reason for us to remand for a new suppression

hearing because the court included unnecessary legal analysis in its opinion.

Affirmed.

A-3634-23 14