In State v. Oliveri, 336 N.J. Super. 244, (App. Div.
2001), held that the police officer had reasonable and
articulable suspicion to stop defendant’s vehicle, after
observing the vehicle, a replica of a 1966 Cobra AC,
heavily accelerate from a traffic light with smoke
emanating from the tires.
In State v. Chapman, 332 N.J. Super. 452 (App. Div.
2000), a trooper stopped defendant’s vehicle after
observing it weaving between lanes and fluctuating in
speeds. The trooper believed the driver was either
intoxicated or fatigued. The ensuing investigation was
recorded by a “Video Incident Capture System.” The
occupants gave inconsistent statements about their trip,
and the driver admitted that his license was suspended.
Defendant consented to a search. The Appellate Division
concluded that the detention was not a defacto arrest, and
the consent to search was valid.
- Mobile Data Terminals
State v. Donis, 157 N.J. 44 (1998), ruled that the use
of mobile data terminals (MDTs) by police in patrol cars
was a search or a seizure under the State Constitution and
the police officer did not have to wait for a motorist to
commit a motor vehicle infraction in order to use the
MDT to process an inquiry based only on the registration
of the vehicle. Random registration checks using the
MDT was valid, but the Court requested that the
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV), as the originator of
the data obtained using the MDT, reprogram their
database to a two-step process in order to balance the
interest of the State in highway safety against the
motorist’s expectations of privacy. In order for a police
officer to advance to the second level of inquiry, using the
MDT, the officer would have to have ascertained, at the
first level, that the status of the registration was
questionable, the vehicle was reported as stolen or the
license status of the driver may be in question. The court
also found that information provided by an MDT that
defendant’s license was suspended was sufficient to
justify the stop.
State v. Parks, 288 N.J. Super. 407 (App. Div. 1996),
affirmed defendant’s motor vehicle convictions, holding
that when the police learn from a computer check that a
car owner’s license is suspended, and the car’s driver
generally matches the owner’s description, they have a
reasonable, particularized suspicion supporting an
investigatory stop of the vehicle. The Appellate Division
rejected the State’s claim that once an officer learns from
a computer check that the vehicle’s owner lacks a valid
license, he or she is authorized to stop the automobile and
check any person driving it to verify their identity.On appeal from a conditional guilty plea to driving
with a suspended license, the Appellate Division in State
v. Lewis, 288 N.J. Super. 160 (App. Div. 1996), affirmed
defendant’s sentence and the denial of his suppression
motion. The court held that a random computer check
of a motor vehicle’s license plate does not violate a driver’s
Fourth Amendment right to privacy. License plates are
exposed to the public, and visual inspection of them and
a subsequent computer check intrude upon no legitimate
privacy interest since drivers have no such interest in
information the DMV possesses concerning registration
status and the owner’s driving record.The New Jersey Supreme Court in State v.
Williamson, 138 N.J. 302 (1994), ruled that N.J.S.A.
39:4-126 does not require proof that a defendant’s failure
to signal a lane change actually affected other traffic. A
police officer is justified in stopping a motor vehicle
pursuant to this statute if he or she has reasonable and
articulable suspicion that the failure to signal may have
affected other traffic.II. AUTOMOBILE SEARCHES
(See also, SEARCH & SEIZURE, this Digest)
III. COMPULSORY INSURANCE
State v. David, 287 N.J. Super. 434 (App. Div. 1996),
reversing the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress
sobriety test results and for driving an unregistered
vehicle, held that production of the insurance certificate
which indicates coverage at the time when defendant is
alleged to have no coverage is sufficient to prevent the
State from proving that defendant knew or should have
known that the vehicle she was operating was not covered
by insurance. Even though she did not own the vehicle,
the appellate court found that this did not preclude
conviction, because ownership is not a required element
of driving an unregistered motor vehicle. The court
found, however, that based upon her production of a
formally valid registration at the time of trial, the State
failed to sustain its burden on this count as well.IV. DOUBLE JEOPARDY (See also, DOUBLE
JEOPARDY, this Digest)
State v. DeLuca, 108 N.J. 98 (1987), cert. denied 484
U.S. 944, 108 S.Ct. 331, 98 L.Ed.2d 358 (1987), held
that drunk driving and death by auto are not the same