Articles Posted in Motor Vehicle Stop

by

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

by

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

by

Police in New Jersey have many ways to build a case for driving while intoxicated (DWI). They can establish probable cause for an arrest by instructing a suspect to perform field sobriety tests (FSTs). A “perfect” performance on FSTs is essentially impossible and is unlikely to help someone avoid arrest regardless. Defending against New Jersey DWI charges that include alleged failed FSTs means challenging whether police officers correctly administered the tests. A Pennsylvania town recently sought volunteers for an unusual form of police training. New Jersey police have not yet asked for volunteers to get drunk so officers can practice administering FSTs, but the outcome of the Pennsylvania training may change that.

State law allows prosecutors to make a case with evidence of impairment besides blood alcohol content (BAC). The DWI statute defines the offense, in part, as driving a motor vehicle “while under the influence” of alcohol or drugs. Eyewitness testimony from officers, including FST performance, is often the main evidence presented by the state.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has established a set of standardized FSTs that most states have adopted. The set of standardized FSTs consists of three tests:
1. One-Leg Stand: The suspect must raise one foot about six inches off the ground and hold it there.
2. Walk and Turn: The suspect must walk a straight line, keeping their heel to their toe with each step, for a total of nine steps. Then, they must turn 180 degrees and repeat the process until they return to the starting point.
3. Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus: The officer holds a pen or other object at a constant distance from the suspect’s face while moving it from side to side. The suspect must follow the object with their eyes without moving their head. The officer is looking for involuntary eye movement, known as nystagmus, supposedly associated with intoxication.

Continue reading

by

The holiday season means many great things for people in New Jersey, such as family, friends, and celebration. Since the “celebration” part of the holidays can sometimes lead to excess, police tend to step up efforts to enforce New Jersey driving while intoxicated (DWI) laws on roads during the holidays. This may include the use of roadside sobriety checkpoints. New Jersey police are allowed to stop drivers at temporary checkpoint locations to inquire about alcohol consumption and look for signs of intoxication. The ability of police to do this is strictly limited, however, by the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. New Jersey drivers should know their rights during sobriety checkpoint stops.

The New Jersey DWI statute defines the offense primarily as operating a motor vehicle “while under the influence” of alcohol or drugs, or with blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08 percent or more. The state may prove this by offering evidence of a defendant’s BAC obtained from a breath sample, which all drivers in New Jersey are required to provide under law, or through other evidence indicating that a defendant was impaired at the time they were operating a vehicle. Many DWI cases begin with a traffic stop based on a police officer’s suspicion that the driver is intoxicated. The Fourth Amendment requires that this be a “reasonable suspicion,” meaning that police officers cannot pull a driver over without some clear basis for suspecting DWI. To make an arrest, police must have “probable cause” to believe an offense has occurred.

Sobriety checkpoints, which allow police to stop some or all vehicles on a particular stretch of road, clearly do not involve “reasonable suspicion,” but the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed their constitutionality. In 1990, the court held in Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz that preventing DWI was a “substantial government interest,” that sobriety checkpoints “reasonably…advance that interest,” and that “the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists” is minimal. The New Jersey Appellate Division held that a sobriety checkpoint was constitutional in 1985 in State v. Kirk, and in 1989 in State v. Mazurek. The New Jersey Supreme Court reached a similar ruling in 2002’s State v. Carty.
Continue reading

by

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.

Continue reading

by

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.

Continue reading

by

When police detain and question a person on suspicion of driving while intoxicated (DWI), the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution protect that person’s rights. The Fourteenth Amendment officially extended most of the Bill of Rights to state-level law enforcement, meaning that local police are subject to the same constraints as the federal government. In the context of New Jersey DWI cases, the Fourth Amendment states that police cannot detain someone, such as by pulling over their vehicle, without reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. The Fifth Amendment states that a defendant cannot be forced to testify against themselves, and limits the state’s ability to use certain statements made by defendants against them in court. Exactly when this right against self-incrimination applies has been a matter of ongoing dispute in the courts. The U.S. Supreme Court has made several rulings specifically addressing incriminating statements in DWI cases.

The landmark U.S. Supreme Court case addressing the right against self-incrimination during police interrogation is Miranda v. Arizona, decided in 1966. Information obtained by police from a person, after they have invoked their “right to remain silent” during “custodial interrogation,” is inadmissible in court. While people can refuse to answer police questions at almost any time, Miranda obligates police to advise people of their rights in specific scenarios. Many subsequent court decisions have found that Miranda only applies once a person has been formally placed under arrest and read this list of rights. Whether a person is “under arrest” during a traffic stop is a complicated question.

Police do not typically give Miranda warnings to DWI suspects at the beginning of a traffic stop. Still, officers may ask questions of a driver, and ask the driver to perform field sobriety tests. With some exceptions, courts do not consider this to be a “custodial interrogation” within the meaning of Miranda. Police are therefore not obligated to advise people of their Miranda rights at this point, placing the burden of invoking the right against self-incrimination on the driver.
Continue reading

by

In 2014, the New Jersey Legislature passed a bill, A2280, mandating dashboard video cameras for all new police vehicles used in traffic enforcement. The Governor signed the bill into law in September of that year, but as of mid-2016, the widespread use of dashboard cameras is unlikely to become a reality anytime soon. Dashboard camera evidence can be crucial for defendants charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI) and other traffic offenses. The fate of the new law, however, comes down to money. A2280 provided funding for the mandate by increasing the $100 surcharge imposed in DWI cases by $25. After a New Jersey township complained that the additional surcharge was insufficient to cover the cost of the cameras, a governmental body known as the Council on Local Mandates (CLM) ruled that A2280 is an “unfunded mandate,” and therefore it is in violation of the New Jersey Constitution. The ruling also invalidated the increased surcharge imposed by A2280. The CLM left open the possibility of reviving the bill, most likely through new legislation.

Under New Jersey’s DWI statute, prosecutors can prove that a defendant was intoxicated or impaired in multiple ways. A blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.08 percent or higher creates a presumption of intoxication, but even without this kind of evidence, a police officer can testify about their observations of the defendant. They frequently testify about a defendant’s appearance, stating that they looked “glassy-eyed” or “flushed,” their behavior, and their performance on field sobriety tests. This type of evidence essentially asks municipal court judges to decide who is more credible between a police officer and a DWI suspect. Video evidence of a traffic stop, while not always helpful to the defense, can directly contradict an officer’s testimony about a defendant or even challenge the justification for the traffic stop itself.

The original sponsor of A2280 was motivated by his own experience with a traffic stop that led to charges of DWI and refusal to submit to breath testing. Video footage from a dashboard camera in the officer’s patrol car differed significantly from the officer’s description of what occurred during the stop. The charges were dismissed, and the officer eventually faced criminal charges, including perjury. A2280 requires municipal police departments to equip all newly acquired vehicles that are “primarily used for traffic stops” with dashboard cameras. It adds an additional $25 to the DWI surcharge to fund the acquisition of the cameras.

Continue reading

by

The holidays are a time of happiness and celebration for many people, but law enforcement officials are aware of the risks to public safety potentially posed by too much celebration. Police departments throughout New Jersey have announced increased enforcement of state laws regarding driving while intoxicated (DWI) during the holiday season. They have many means of doing this at their disposal, from traffic stops based on a reasonable suspicion that a person might be impaired by alcohol, to roadside checkpoints intended to check drivers for DWI. While the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution limits the ability of police to stop and search people, and those limits have just as much force during the holidays as at any other time of the year, courts have allowed police to operate DWI checkpoints subject to certain requirements. We encourage everyone to enjoy the holidays and be safe, and to know their rights under state and federal laws.

New Jersey’s DWI statute makes it a motor vehicle offense to operate a vehicle “while under the influence of intoxicating liquor,” or with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of at least 0.08 percent. This means that police can arrest someone on suspicion of DWI, and prosecutors can pursue charges, even without evidence of a BAC above the legal limit. To do so, they must present other types of evidence, such as testimony from an officer who observed a defendant at or near the time of their arrest and can describe behavior, appearance, or other conditions indicative of intoxication.

The holiday season often features parties in bars and other public venues and in people’s homes. Police across the state are participating in the two-week “Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over 2016 Year End Holiday Crackdown,” a program supported by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the New Jersey Division of Highway Traffic Safety (DHTS). Local law enforcement agencies may obtain grants from the DHTS to assist in implementing the campaign, which includes “saturation patrols” by police and increased use of roadside DWI checkpoints.

Continue reading

by

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