STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ARMANDO RAMOSÂ (0027-15, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0548-16T3

Officer on traffic detail at night for Route 54 road construction monitored intersections A and B to prevent northbound traffic past a closure.
At ~2:00 a.m. defendant turned from Chew Road into Route 54 by driving around two DOT-approved barrels and a road-closed sign, entering the wrong (northbound) lane toward Intersection A.
Officer walked into the intersection, motioned for defendant to stop, approached the driver’s window, smelled alcohol, and observed defendant fumble with identification.
Defendant was charged with DWI and other motor-vehicle offenses; he moved to suppress evidence from the stop. Municipal judge denied suppression based on reasonable suspicion and the community-caretaker exception.
Law Division reversed suppression, finding the officer overstepped because the road-closed violation could not be sustained and the judge speculated a driver might not have noticed the sign.
Appellate Division reversed the Law Division: it held the officer reasonably perceived abnormal driving (maneuvering around barrels into the wrong lane) and permissibly stopped the vehicle under the community-caretaker exception.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the stop justified under the community-caretaker exception?	Officer observed abnormal driving around barricades and into the wrong lane, creating a safety risk; stop was valid.	Officer lacked objective basis; driver could reasonably have not known road was closed, so community-caretaker exception doesn't apply.	Yes. From the officer’s perspective the maneuver was abnormal and posed a safety hazard, justifying the stop.
Should suppression be evaluated from officer’s perspective or defendant’s?	Assessment should be from the officer’s on-scene perspective and totality of circumstances.	Law Division improperly evaluated from a hypothetical defendant perspective.	Officer’s perspective controls; Law Division misapplied the standard.
Did municipal judge’s factual findings merit deference?	Officer’s unrebutted testimony supports factual findings.	Law Division reinterpreted facts to favor defendant.	Credible, unrebutted facts support reversing Law Division; legal conclusions by trial court subject to review.
Does the inability to sustain a road-closed charge defeat the community-caretaker justification?	No; abnormal vehicle operation alone can justify a caretaker stop even if statutory closure cannot be proved.	Yes; absence of a provable moving violation undermines justification.	No. Abnormal operation that creates safety concerns suffices regardless of whether a specific statutory violation is proved.

State v. Bogan, 200 N.J. 61 (2009) (police perform both law-enforcement and community-caretaking functions)
State v. Diloreto, 180 N.J. 264 (2004) (distinguishing officer motive between law enforcement and community caretaking)
State v. Martinez, 260 N.J. Super. 75 (App. Div. 1992) (slow, abnormal vehicle operation at night can justify a caretaker stop)
State v. Washington, 296 N.J. Super. 569 (App. Div. 1997) (abnormal vehicle operation establishes objective basis for stop)
State v. Goetaski, 209 N.J. Super. 362 (App. Div. 1986) (driving slowly on shoulder with signals justified stop under caretaker rationale)