[ Id. at 40-41, 493 A.2d 1271 at 1277] Accord State v. Flowers, 328 N.J.Super. 205, 207, 218, 745 A.2d 553[, 554, 560-61] (App.Div. 2000) (upholding roadblock designed to detect stolen cars in area with high rate of auto theft by stopping every vehicle); State v. Kadelak, 280 N.J.Super. 349, 377, 655 A.2d 461[, 475] (App.Div.), certif. denied, 141 N.J. 98, 660 A.2d 1197 (1995) (upholding roadblock designed to detect vehicle safety violations by stopping every fifth vehicle and vehicles with obvious safety violations); State v. Barcia, 235 N.J.Super. 311, 316, 318-19, 562 A.2d 246[, 248-49, 250] (App.Div. 1989) (invalidating roadblock designed to intercept inter-state drug trafficking as arbitrary and excessive where roadblock caused over one million vehicles to come to complete stop and wait in line for up to four hours). It follows that roadblock or checkpoint stops cannot be designed simply to check for criminal violations, Kirk, supra,202 N.J.Super. at 55, 493 A.2d 1271 [at 1286-87], and that any car detained for further investigation must be detained on the basis of a reasonable and particularized suspicion that the motorist or vehicle is associated with criminal wrongdoing.
The Legal Issues In light of the above facts, we are entirely satisfied that the roadblock was established in conformity with the guidelines set down in State v. Kirk, 202 N.J. Super. 28, 493 A.2d 1271 (App.Div. 198 5), and its progeny, State v. Moskal, 246 N.J. Super. 12, 586 A.2d 845 (App.Div. 1991); State v. DeCarnera, 237 N.J. Super. 380, 568 A.2d 86 (App.Div. 1989); State v. Mazurek, 237 N.J. Super. 231, 567 A.2d 277 (App.Div. 1989), certif. denied, 121 N.J. 623, 583 A.2d 320 (1990); State v. Barica, 235 N.J. Super. 311, 562 A.2d 246 (App.Div. 1989); State v. Egan, 213 N.J. Super. 133, 516 A.2d 1115 (App.Div. 1986). More specifically, we hold, that Lt. Andrews, the DWI coordinator for Cranford's Police Department, fulfilled the requirement that roadblocks be established by a command or supervisory authority ( State v. Kirk, supra, at 40-41, 493 A.2d 1271); that proper signs were posted, and due advance publication of the roadblock was given on local access television.
[Id. at 40-41, 493 A.2d 1271.] AccordState v. Flowers, 328 N.J. Super. 205, 207, 218 (App.Div. 200 0) (upholding roadblock designed to detect stolen cars in area with high rate of auto theft by stopping every vehicle); State v. Kadelak, 280 N.J. Super. 349, 377 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 141 N.J. 98 (1995) (upholding roadblock designed to detect vehicle safety violations by stopping every fifth vehicle and vehicles with obvious safety violations); State v. Barcia, 235 N.J. Super. 311, 316, 318-19 (App. Div. 198 9) (invalidating roadblock designed to intercept inter-state drug trafficking as arbitrary and excessive where roadblock caused over one million vehicles to come to complete stop and wait in line for up to four hours). It follows that roadblock or checkpoint stops cannot be designed simply to check for criminal violations, Kirk, supra, 202 N.J. Super. at 55, and that any car detained for further investigation must be detained on the basis of a reasonable and particularized suspicion that the motorist or vehicle is associated with criminal wrongdoing.
A motor vehicle may be stopped without reasonable suspicion, however, at a roadblock established by supervisory police officials, provided that the time, location, and operation of the roadblock is reasonable, and it "does not bear `arbitrarily or oppressively on motorists as a class.'" State v. Barcia, 235 N.J. Super. 311, 316 (App.Div. 198 9) (quoting United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 559, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 3083, 49 L.Ed. 2d 1116, 1129 (1976)). The validity of the roadblock is judged by balancing the government's need for seizure against the public's right to move freely on the highways.
However, where the officer has an articulable and reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot, the vehicle and the occupants are subject to an investigatory detention. Delaware v. Prouse, supra, 440 U.S. at 663, 99 S.Ct. at 1401, 59 L.Ed.2d at 673; State v. Barcia, 235 N.J. Super. 311, 316, 562 A.2d 246 (App.Div. 1989). A determination of whether an articulable and reasonable suspicion of criminal activity exists must be based on the totality of the circumstances.
When an automobile is involved, a valid stop can be effected if the police have a "`reasonable suspicion' that the occupants are engaged in unlawful activity." State v. Barcia, 235 N.J. Super. 311, 317, 562 A.2d 246 (App.Div. 1989) ( citing Delaware v. Prouse, supra, 440 U.S. at 663, 99 S.Ct. at 1401; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975); State v. Egan, 213 N.J. Super. 133, 135, 516 A.2d 1115 (App.Div. 1986)). A. The Profile: Circumstances
The procedure employed here was clearly constitutional and the arrest of defendant that followed legal. As we stated in State v. Barcia, 235 N.J. Super. 311, 316, 562 A.2d 246 (App.Div. 1989): [A] motor vehicle may be stopped without a reasonable suspicion, if a roadblock is established by supervisory police officials and the time, location and operation is reasonable and does not bear "arbitrarily or oppressively on motorists as a class."
Stopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 1395, 59 L.Ed.2d 660, 667 (1979); State v. Barcia, 235 N.J. Super. 311, 316 (App.Div. 1989); State v. Kirk, 202 N.J. Super. 28, 38 (App.Div. 1985). Although the police need not obtain a warrant to set up a roadblock, a defendant is free to challenge the validity of the decision as to when and where it should be operated.