Moreover, this matter is not analogous to the few cases in this state addressing an officer's less dramatically begun, more casual and conversational interactions with a person in a parked car, which have generally been viewed as field inquiries involving a lesser degree of intrusiveness than a motor vehicle stop. See, e.g. , State v. Adubato , 420 N.J.Super. 167, 180–81, 19 A. 3d 1023 (App. Div. 2011), certif. denied , 209 N.J. 430, 37 A. 3d 1141 (2012) ; State v. Stampone , 341 N.J.Super. 247, 252–53, 775 A. 2d 193 (App. Div. 2001).

"[W]here issues on appeal turn on purely legal determinations, our review is plenary." State v. Monaco, 444 N.J.Super. 539, 549 (App. Div. 2016) (citing State v. Adubato, 420 N.J.Super. 167, 176 (App. Div. 2011)).

[Ibid. (citations omitted).] Although there was no evidence that the police initially approached the defendants in Sirianni or Stampone with a show of authority, the facts differed in State v. Adubato, 420 N.J. Super. 167 (App. Div. 2011), certif. denied, 209 N.J. 430 (2012). In that case, a patrol officer activated his emergency flashers as he approached a parked car that had its lights on and engine running.

State v. Adubato, 420 N.J.Super. 167, 176 (App. Div. 2011) (citing R. 3:23-8(a)). We review "the action of the Law Division and not that of the municipal court," Adubato, 420 N.J.Super. at 175-176, to decide whether the factual findings were supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record, State v. Stas, 212 N.J. 37, 49 (2012) (quoting Locurto, 157 N.J. at 470-71).

"[T]he Law Division judge must give 'due, although not necessarily controlling, regard to the opportunity of the magistrate to judge the credibility of the witnesses.'" State v. Adubato, 420 N.J.Super. 167, 176 (App. Div. 2011) (quoting State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 157 (1964)). We determine "whether the findings made could reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence present in the record."

On an appeal of a municipal conviction to the Law Division, the Law Division judge must decide the matter de novo on the record. State v. Adubato, 420 N.J. Super. 167, 176 (App. Div. 2011). This means that the Law Division judge must independently make his or her own factual findings, rather than determine whether the findings of the municipal judge were supported by sufficient credible evidence.

On an appeal of a municipal conviction to the Law Division, the Law Division judge must decide the matter de novo on the record. State v. Adubato, 420 N.J. Super. 167, 176 (App. Div. 2011). This means that the Law Division judge must independently make his or her own factual findings, rather than determining whether the findings of the municipal judge were supported by sufficient credible evidence.

On an appeal of a municipal conviction to the Law Division, the Law Division judge must decide the matter de novo on the record. State v. Adubato, 420 N.J. Super. 167, 176 (App. Div. 2011). This means that the Law Division judge must independently make his or her own factual findings, rather than determining whether the findings of the municipal judge were supported by sufficient credible evidence.

The Law Division judge then conducted a trial de novo on the municipal court record pursuant to Rule 3:23-8(a). See, e.g., State v. Adubato, 420 N.J. Super. 167, 176 (App. Div. 2011), certif. denied, 209 N.J. 430 (2012). In conducting that trial, the Law Division judge was required to give "due, although not necessarily controlling, regard to the opportunity of the [municipal court judge] to judge the credibility of the witnesses."

The Law Division judge then conducted a trial de novo on the municipal court record pursuant to Rule 3:23-8(a). See, e.g., State v. Adubato, 420 N.J. Super. 167, 176 (App. Div. 2011), certif. denied, 209 N.J. 430 (2012). In conducting that trial, the Law Division judge was required to give "due, although not necessarily controlling, regard to the opportunity of the [municipal court judge] to judge the credibility of the witnesses."