STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOSEPH MESZAROS, III(27-15, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3334-15T2

Background

On June 22, 2014 Officer Jessie Schwartz observed a pickup towing a trailer make a K‑turn near a dead‑end street, ran the plate, and learned the registered owner’s license was suspended. Officer Schwartz recognized defendant as the registered owner and stopped the vehicle.
At the stop officer observed bloodshot, droopy eyes and odor of alcohol; defendant admitted drinking, agreed to a portable breath test, failed/ refused field sobriety tests, and was arrested. An Alcotest at headquarters registered .22% BAC.
Defendant moved to suppress, testifying his trailer blocked the plate and the maneuver observed was impossible; the municipal court judge visited the scene and found the officer’s on‑camera statement immediately after the stop that he knew the vehicle and its suspended status corroborative of prior knowledge.
The municipal court denied suppression, convicted defendant of DWI (per se and circumstantial methods) and driving while suspended, and imposed license suspensions, ignition interlock, IDRC, community service, fines, and 45 days incarceration for driving while suspended.
De novo Law Division review affirmed guilt and imposed the same sentence; this appeal followed raising four principal challenges (suspicionless stop, denial of Rule 104 hearing on Alcotest/FST admissibility, jury‑trial/sentence exposure, cumulative error).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Lawfulness of the stop (reasonable suspicion)	Officer had articulable suspicion because he recognized the vehicle/driver and knew the owner’s license was suspended	Stop was suspicionless because defendant’s trailer obscured the plate and officer could not have seen plate or identified driver before stopping	Affirmed: officer’s contemporaneous statement that he knew the vehicle and its suspended status supported reasonable suspicion to stop (present sense impression corroboration)
Admission of Alcotest / Rule 104 hearing	State argued conviction could rest on observational evidence regardless of Alcotest admissibility	Defendant argued judge denied a separate Rule 104(a) hearing and thus was unfairly prevented from challenging Alcotest/FST admissibility	No reversible error: court need not resolve Alcotest admissibility because sufficient lay and officer observations independently support DWI conviction
Sufficiency of observational evidence for DWI (per se vs circumstantial)	State relied on BAC (.22) and observational evidence (odor, eyes, speech, failed FSTs)	Defendant contested facts and challenged procedures	Affirmed: totality of credible observational evidence sufficed to prove DWI beyond reasonable doubt independent of Alcotest
Right to jury trial based on potential jail exposure (>180 days)	State: prior uncounseled conviction was the subject of a Laurick order, preventing enhancement to third‑offender exposure	Defendant: facing enhanced exposure (third DWI) entitled to jury trial	Held for State: Laurick order prevented treating defendant as third‑time offender, so no >180 days exposure and no right to jury trial

Key Cases Cited

State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463 (deference to municipal court credibility findings)
State v. Mann, 203 N.J. 328 (reasonable‑suspicion standard for investigatory stops)
State v. Bealor, 187 N.J. 574 (lay and officer observations of intoxication admissible)
State v. Pitcher, 379 N.J. Super. 308 (stop based on reasonable suspicion license suspended is permissible)
State v. Laurick, 120 N.J. 1 (limits on enhanced sentencing when prior convictions were uncounseled)