STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MARK HUERTAS(6087, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-4543-15T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Nov 14, 2017Background
- Defendant was stopped by Wanaque Borough Sgt. Spillane after a radio transmission from a dispatcher relayed an off-duty police officer's report of a possibly intoxicated driver, including vehicle description and plate number.
- The off‑duty officer reported erratic driving and failure to maintain lane; that information was transmitted to Spillane via dispatch.
- Spillane observed the vehicle for ~20–25 seconds and saw it touch the double yellow line with left tires; MVR confirmed tires on the line for ~4 seconds.
- As Spillane pulled the car over into a QuickChek parking lot, the vehicle appeared to run over the left curb while turning (observed after lights were activated).
- Municipal court denied defendant's suppression motion; defendant pled guilty to DWI. The Law Division affirmed the denial after de novo review and imposed the same sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an anonymous/third‑party call reporting a "might be a drunk driver" justified a stop | Information from off‑duty officer (via dispatch) plus vehicle description and plate created reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop | Anonymous tip and dispatcher relay insufficient; not enough to establish reasonable suspicion | Held: Stop justified; caller was an off‑duty officer whose observations (and description) provided reliable information sufficient for reasonable suspicion |
| Whether dispatcher/off‑duty officer information can be imputed to responding officer | Yes; officers may rely on transmitted information and impute dispatch/officer knowledge to justify stops | Argued Spillane did not receive full foundational details and thus lacked individualized suspicion | Held: Transmitted information may be relied upon; reliability presumed for fellow‑officer reports |
| Whether Spillane's own observations corroborated the tip | Spillane observed lane deviation corroborating the report, strengthening reasonable suspicion | Contended observations were minor or occurred after stop began | Held: MVR corroborated lane crossing prior to activation of lights; observations supported suspicion |
| Whether public‑safety urgency justifies stop on this record | Erratic/intoxicated driving poses imminent risk, supporting prompt investigative stop | Argued need for greater proof before infringing liberty via stop | Held: Public‑safety risk from suspected intoxicated driving contributed to justification for the stop |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Golotta, 178 N.J. 205 (stop justified on reasonable suspicion of motor vehicle offense)
- State v. Amelio, 197 N.J. 207 (State must prove, by preponderance, sufficient information for reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Crawley, 187 N.J. 440 (collective police knowledge and reliance on fellow officers' information)
- State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463 (articulable and reasonable suspicion standard for stops)
- State v. Gamble, 218 N.J. 412 (appellate review standards for suppression rulings)
- Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560 (police may rely on radio bulletins and fellow officers' representations)
- United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221 (information via police channels may justify stops by other officers)
- United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (presumption of reliability for certain police‑provided information)