STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MELISSA A. MERSMANNÂ (15-01-0152, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-5280-15T3

On Oct. 1, 2014 a 9-1-1 caller reported a white Ford Explorer driving erratically on Route 36, provided the plate, followed it to the Shore Café parking lot, and stayed on the line until police arrived.
Special Class II Officer Joseph Russo located and parked behind the Explorer; the vehicle was registered to defendant's husband.
As Russo approached, he heard the engine start; defendant (in the driver’s seat) told the passenger to "Get in the car, let's go," and brake lights illuminated; the vehicle never moved.
Russo ordered defendant to turn off the engine; she initially complied after about ten seconds, exited unsteadily, and smelled of alcohol.
Defendant denied driving when first questioned but later admitted she had no license; passenger identified defendant as the driver; field sobriety tests were poorly performed and defendant was arrested for DWI.
Defendant moved to suppress (challenging the stop and probable cause to arrest/operate); the motion court denied the motion, she pled guilty to driving while suspended, and appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the stop/investigative detention was supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion based on an anonymous 9‑1‑1 call	9‑1‑1 caller gave contemporaneous eyewitness report of dangerous driving with vehicle description and plate; under Golotta/Navarette such a call supplies reasonable suspicion for a stop	Caller was anonymous and Russo did not personally observe erratic driving; insufficient corroboration to justify the stop	Court: 9‑1‑1 call met Golotta factors (eyewitness, contemporaneous, vehicle ID) and Navarette supports reliability; stop was lawful
Whether there was probable cause to believe defendant operated or intended to operate the vehicle for DWI purposes	Officer observed defendant in driver’s seat with engine running, brake lights on, told passenger to get in and go, smelled of alcohol, and saw unsteady behavior — objective facts supporting intent to operate	Defendant never moved the vehicle; no direct observation of driving; insufficient proof of operation or intent	Court: Probable cause existed — operation may be inferred from being in driver’s seat with engine on, commands to passenger, odor of alcohol and unsteady conduct; conviction affirmed

State v. Golotta, 178 N.J. 205 (N.J. 2003) (anonymous 9‑1‑1 eyewitness report of dangerous driving can supply reasonable suspicion for a stop)
Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (U.S. 2014) (anonymous 9‑1‑1 tip alleging dangerous driving can have sufficient indicia of reliability without independent corroboration)
State v. Sweeney, 40 N.J. 359 (N.J. 1963) (definition of "operate" includes sitting in driver’s seat with engine running and intent to move vehicle)
State v. Tischio, 107 N.J. 504 (N.J. 1987) (broad interpretation of "operate" for DWI statutes)
State v. Gonzalez, 227 N.J. 77 (N.J. 2016) (appellate standard of review for suppression hearing factual findings)
State v. Hreha, 217 N.J. 368 (N.J. 2014) (legal conclusions on suppression reviewed de novo)
State v. George, 257 N.J. Super. 493 (App. Div. 1992) (probable cause based on driver behind wheel with engine running and strong odor of alcohol)