Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-5158-13T1
01-22-2016
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JILL MCGUINESS, Defendant-Appellant.
Zwerling & Deshpande, LLC, attorney for appellant (David J. Zwerling, on the brief). John J. Molinelli, Bergen County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Elizabeth R. Rebein, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Fuentes and Kennedy. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No. 004-09-14. Zwerling & Deshpande, LLC, attorney for appellant (David J. Zwerling, on the brief). John J. Molinelli, Bergen County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Elizabeth R. Rebein, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM
On January 22, 2014, defendant Jill McGuiness pled guilty to driving while under the influence of alcohol (DWI), pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a), in the Hillsdale Municipal Court, preserving her right to challenge the propriety of the initial motor vehicle stop in the Law Division. The municipal court suspended defendant's driving privileges for seven months, directed her to install an ignition interlock on her car, and imposed the mandatory fines and penalties. The municipal court stayed the execution of the sentence pending the outcome of defendant's appeal to the Law Division pursuant to Rule 3:23-2.
Although not germane to the discrete issue raised in this appeal, we note that at the time she was tested at the police station, defendant had a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .21. This is more than twice the .08 BAC reading necessary for a conviction of DWI under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a). --------
On appeal de novo to the Law Division, Judge Patrick J. Roma reviewed the record developed before the municipal court and found the arresting officer had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's car. Judge Roma imposed the same sentence previously imposed by the municipal court. Defendant now appeals to this court raising the same argument rejected by the Law Division. We affirm.
These are the salient facts. At approximately 11:23 p.m., on September 9, 2013, Hillsdale Police Officer Alex Kaplan was traveling westbound on Hillsdale Avenue in his marked police car when he noticed defendant's car, traveling approximately fifty feet in front of him, "was failing to maintain lane." When asked to elaborate, Kaplan testified he saw that the "left front and rear tire were touching and then went over the double yellow line."
Officer Kaplan's observations were recorded by the video camera mounted on his police car. The videotape recording of the stop was introduced into evidence by the State during the evidentiary hearing conducted in the municipal court to adjudicate defendant's motion challenging the propriety of the motor vehicle stop. Judge Roma viewed the videotape as part of his de novo review of the record developed before the municipal court.
Officer Kaplan continued to follow defendant's car as it crossed the intersection of Hillsdale Avenue and Pascack Road. From this point forward, the yellow lines that separate the east and westbound lanes were replaced by lane markers. Officer Kaplan testified he saw defendant's car's left front and rear tires run over the lane markers "multiple times."
Officer Kaplan activated the police car's overhead lights and directed defendant to pull over and stop her vehicle. Based on this evidence, Judge Patrick J. Roma found "the stop of defendant's vehicle was justified since there was reasonable suspicion that the defendant was operating a vehicle in an - - an unlawful manner."
Against this record defendant now raises the following argument.
POINT I
THE STOP OF DEFENDANT'S MOTOR VEHICLE WAS AN UNJUSTIFIED AND UNLAWFUL STOP, NOT BASED UPON ARTICULABLE AND REASONABLE SUSPICION OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY.
We reject this argument and affirm. Judge Roma's factual findings are well-supported by the evidence in the record. As such we are bound to defer to his assessment of Officer Kaplan's credibility. State v. Reece, 222 N.J. 154, 166 (2015), (citing State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 470-71 (1999). Officer Kaplan's observations are sufficient to constitute reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's car. Although the appellate record includes a copy of the video recording of the stop from Officer Kaplan's car-mounted video camera, we remain deferential to the trial court's factual findings. State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224, 243-44 (2007). A reasonable suspicion to stop a motorist must be based on specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, constitute valid grounds for a police officer to believe the driver has committed an infraction of the motor vehicle laws codified by the Legislature in Title 39. State v. Shaw, 213 N.J. 398, 410-411 (2012).
Here, Officer Kaplan observations were sufficient to form a reasonable suspicion that defendant had violated N.J.S.A. 39:4- 88, failure to operate a vehicle within the lanes of traffic. His subsequent observations of defendant's state of inebriation flow from this legally sustainable motor vehicle stop. We thus affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Roma.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION