Articles Posted in Motor Vehicle Stop

The Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution protect people against misconduct by police and prosecutors. In cases of suspected driving while intoxicated (DWI), New Jersey police are bound by various decisions of the U.S. and New Jersey Supreme Courts that apply these constitutional rights. Police cannot stop a person’s vehicle, for example, unless they have reasonable suspicion of DWI or other unlawful activity, or as part of an established temporary DWI checkpoint. A decision issued by the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division in September 2019 addressed a different situation, which is less common in DWI cases. Police entered the defendant’s home, questioned him there, and then arrested him for DWI. The court considered whether this violated his rights under the Fourth or Fifth Amendments.

New Jersey’s DWI statute provides prosecutors with two ways to prove that a defendant was under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. If breath, blood, or urine testing shows blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08 percent or higher, state law presumes the person to be intoxicated. Even without BAC evidence, though, police and others can testify about their observations of a defendant’s appearance, odor, and behavior, to establish intoxication.

The Fourth Amendment requires police to obtain search warrants based on probable cause. Courts have identified numerous exceptions that allow police to enter private property and conduct searches without a warrant. They must be able to convince a judge that the search fits within an identified exception. The Fifth Amendment guarantees the right against self-incrimination. Police cannot coerce a person to confess to a crime, and prosecutors cannot compel a person to implicate themselves. A defendant can challenge the constitutionality of a search or arrest by filing a motion to suppress evidence. If a judge finds a violation of constitutional rights, any evidence obtained as a result is suppressed, meaning prosecutors cannot use it at trial.

Continue reading

In order to prove guilt in a case of alleged driving while intoxicated (DWI) in New Jersey, the state must be able to justify all of the police’s actions leading to the DWI charges. This includes the officer’s decision to stop the defendant’s vehicle, the basis for conducting an investigation, and the decision to place the defendant under arrest. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution generally prohibits warrantless searches and seizures, although numerous exceptions apply. Courts have held that evidence in a police officer’s “plain view” may justify a warrantless search. Similarly, odors that are within an officer’s “plain smell,” such as the smell of alcohol emanating from a vehicle, may serve as a basis for suspecting a driver of DWI.

The “plain view doctrine” holds that police may conduct a limited search without a warrant if contraband or other evidence of unlawful activity is plainly visible to them. For example, if an officer pulls a car over for speeding, and they can see a bag of drugs sitting in the passenger seat, they may be able to search part or all of the vehicle without a warrant. The “plain smell doctrine” gives police a limited right to conduct a warrantless search based on odors that suggest illegal conduct. This often involves the odor of alcohol or marijuana. A 2018 ruling by the New Jersey Appellate Division held that merely smelling something is not a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. “[A]n officer standing outside of an automobile who smells the odor of marijuana emanating from within it” the court held, “has not conducted a ‘search.’”

An officer’s testimony about smell might not be enough, by itself, to justify an investigation or arrest. Police rarely stop a vehicle because of an alleged odor of alcohol, if only because smelling a moving vehicle is exceedingly difficult. Police must be able to justify the traffic stop before odor-related evidence is even a factor. In a 2019 ruling, the Appellate Division considered a defendant’s challenge to the arresting officer’s request to conduct field sobriety tests. The court recounted the officer’s testimony about the defendant’s driving, which reportedly included weaving and a “California stop,” provided reasonable suspicion for the stop. At that point, the defendant’s appearance, along with the smell of alcohol, provided probable cause for a DWI investigation.

Continue reading

The Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution protects numerous rights against abuses and injustice in criminal cases. Most of these constitutional rights apply in New Jersey driving while intoxicated (DWI) cases, including the Fourth Amendment’s protection of people’s right to be free from “unreasonable searches and seizures.” Identifying violations of these rights is a major component of defending against DWI charges. Most DWI cases begin with a traffic stop, in which police pull a vehicle over on the road. Police must have a “reasonable suspicion” of some sort of wrongdoing for a traffic stop to be legal. Challenging the legality of a stop can lead to the exclusion of most or all of the state’s evidence and the dismissal of the case.

According to the Fourth Amendment, police must obtain a warrant before conducting a search or seizing a person or their property. That warrant must be supported by probable cause to believe that doing so will produce evidence of a crime or another offense. The U.S. Supreme Court has held, however, that police may briefly detain a person to investigate possible criminal activity when they do not have probable cause, if they have a “reasonable suspicion” of something unlawful. This type of stop is known as a “Terry stop,” after the Supreme Court’s decision in Terry v. Ohio in 1968.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that traffic stops are “seizures” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and they are therefore subject to the restrictions established by Terry. A 1984 Supreme Court decision, Berkemer v. McCarty, found that Terry applies to traffic stops for suspected traffic offenses, including DWI. It also held that people are entitled to the protections of the Fifth Amendment, including the rights described in Miranda v. Arizona, if they are taken into custody during a traffic stop.

Anyone who watches cop shows on television knows the warning police must read to a suspect when they place them under arrest. Known as the “Miranda warning,” after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1966 decision in Miranda v. Arizona, it is legally required before police may formally interrogate a suspect. The list of rights identified in the Miranda warning are commonly known as Miranda rights. Miranda is considered a landmark decision in criminal justice. Although New Jersey’s driving while intoxicated (DWI) statute classifies the offense as a motor vehicle offense, rather than a “crime,” Miranda still applies when police take a DWI suspect into custody.

The Miranda decision arose from a confession signed by a suspect after hours of police interrogation, during which time he was never advised of various constitutional rights. The Supreme Court held that the confession was inadmissible because the defendant did not give it voluntarily, but instead under duress from police officers. The court further stated that police must stop an interrogation once an individual has asserted certain rights. It directed police to advise people of their rights before or at the time they are arrested. From this, the Miranda warning was born. The court would later specifically rule that Miranda applies to DWI cases in Berkemer v. McCarty in 1984.

The first right identified in the Miranda warning—the right to remain silent—refers to the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination during “custodial interrogation.” The important question to consider regarding how Miranda applies in New Jersey DWI cases involves the definition of “custody,” as well as the meaning of “silence.” The two are closely related, as the caselaw shows, and DWI cases present at least one specific complication of the idea of the right to remain silent. In New Jersey and many other states, DWI suspects are required by law to provide breath samples for chemical testing. Courts have generally held that this does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s right against self-incrimination.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits police from detaining a person temporarily, or stopping a vehicle on the road, without reasonable suspicion of some sort of unlawful activity. Courts are obligated to throw out charges originating from a traffic stop, such as driving while intoxicated (DWI), if the stop violated the driver’s constitutional rights. The New Jersey Supreme Court recently considered whether this state’s high-beam statute can justify a traffic stop under the Fourth Amendment. It ruled in State v. Scriven that the stop was unconstitutional because the officer did not witness an actual violation of the high-beam statute.

The “exclusionary rule” requires courts to suppress evidence obtained by police in violation of a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. An officer who initiated a traffic stop must justify the stop based on a suspected traffic offense, such as erratic driving or running a stop sign. Without reasonable suspicion, the state cannot use any evidence obtained as a result of that stop. This might include the officer’s testimony about the driver’s appearance or behavior, field sobriety tests, and Alcotest results.

Although the exclusionary rule is a powerful tool for protecting a defendant’s civil rights when police overstep their authority, courts have identified some exceptions. One of these, the “community care exception,” allows police to search private property without a warrant, as well as possibly detain a person or stop a vehicle, in the course of protecting the public from a hazardous situation. A hypothetical scenario might involve a police officer stopping a vehicle to warn about a hazardous road condition and then arresting the driver based on observations that lead the officer to suspect DWI.

Continue reading