![]() The essential facts that gave rise to the stop are as follows. We reject defendant's contentions and affirm. NO MOTOR VEHICLE VIOLATIONS TOOK PLACE IN THIS MATTER TO ESTABLISH ANY ARTICULABLE SUSPICION ALLOWING THE OFFICER IN THIS CASE TO CONDUCT A MOTOR VEHICLE STOP OF THE DEFENDANT. THE OFFICER MUST OBJECTIVELY POSSESS AN ARTICULABLE SUSPICION THAT MEADOWS HAD COMMITTED A MOTOR VEHICLE OFFENSE AND AS A RESULT HE WAS JUSTIFIED TO CONDUCT A MOTOR VEHICLE STOP.ī. IN ORDER FOR AN OFFICER TO CONDUCT A MOTOR VEHICLE STOP THE OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO HAVE AN ARTICULABLE AND REASONABLE SUSPICION THAT THERE HAS BEEN A MOTOR VEHICLE INFRACTION.Ī. THE COURT IMPROPERLY RELIED UPON THE “COMMUNITY CARE TAKING FUNCTION” OF AN OFFICER TO CONDUCT A MOTOR VEHICLE STOP BASED ON ARTICULABLE SUSPICION THAT ANY CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WAS AFOOT. The video was received in evidence in municipal court. FN1 On August 27, 2007, after viewing the DVD, Judge Marshall issued a letter opinion finding the stop“constitutionally permissible.” On appeal, defendant raises the following points:įN1. On August 17, 2007, Judge Marshall conducted a trial de novo, during which he heard argument of counsel, and was provided with a DVD video taken by the arresting officer. The license suspension was stayed pending appeal. ![]() Defendant's driving privileges were suspended for seven months and statutory penalties and costs were imposed totaling $664. The reckless driving and document offenses were dismissed. Defendant then entered a guilty plea to DWI, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion. After a hearing, the municipal court judge denied the motion. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, asserting the stop was improper. 39:4-97 and failure to exhibit on request, license, registration, and insurance information, N.J.S.A. *1 Defendant, Timothy Meadows, was charged in Franklin Township, Gloucester County, with driving while intoxicated ( DWI), N.J.S.A. ![]() Enos, Jr., Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief). Dalton, Gloucester County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent ( Joseph H. Hark and Hark, attorneys for appellant ( Jeffrey S. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Gloucester County, A-25-07. STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |