STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DWAYNE D. BOSTON (15-09-2753, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-4752-17

Background:

Cherry Hill officer ran a random license-plate query on a Hyundai; registry showed the registered owner’s license was suspended and there was an active traffic warrant. Officer stopped the car, spoke with the driver (the registered owner) and noted a front-seat passenger (defendant Boston) and three children in the back.
At the suppression hearing the officer testified he arrested the driver on the warrant, then asked the passenger for identification so the vehicle and children could be left with a licensed adult; defense stipulated the dash-cam would not materially differ and the videos were not played for the court.
At trial the dash-cam was played: the officer asked Boston early in the encounter if he had a license; Boston said “No, I have a photo I.D.” The officer then said “Okay, let me see that,” and the passenger produced identification; a license/NCIC check revealed an outstanding warrant for Boston.
Officers handcuffed Boston after arranging alternative childcare, conducted a pat-down, and found a small quantity of crack cocaine in his jacket pocket; he was convicted of third-degree possession and sentenced to an extended term.
The Appellate Division held the trial court erred by failing to reassess the suppression ruling after the dash-cam contradicted the suppression-hearing testimony: once Boston said he had no driver’s license, demanding his State ID (and running his records) exceeded the scope of the lawful traffic stop, making the subsequent arrest and seizure unlawful.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers lawfully demanded a passenger’s ID after he said he had no driver’s license	Officer reasonably asked if passenger could drive; verifying ID was within scope to avoid towing and protect children	Demand for ID after passenger said he was unlicensed exceeded stop’s scope and required particularized suspicion	Ask whether passenger was a licensed driver was OK, but once passenger said he was unlicensed, demanding ID and running checks without suspicion was not lawful
Whether police may run NCIC/DMV checks on a passenger without reasonable suspicion	Sloane allows NCIC checks within scope of stop and no reasonable suspicion needed when check is within scope	Running databases on a seized passenger who is not seeking to drive exceeded the stop and cannot be justified without a basis to focus on the passenger	NCIC/license checks are permissible when focused on a passenger for a lawful reason (e.g., passenger requests keys); here no such basis existed after passenger said he was not a driver
Whether the trial court’s denial of the suppression motion should stand given defense’s stipulation at the suppression hearing	The judge could credit officer’s suppression-hearing testimony and deny suppression	The trial court should reconsider suppression when trial evidence (dash-cam) showed different timing/sequence than the testimony the court relied on	The denial was interlocutory and the court erred by not reassessing suppression once the video showed different facts; reversal required
Whether evidence seized after the identification/lookup should have been admitted	Evidence flowed from lawful arrest following valid warrant discovery	The arrest and search were fruit of an unlawful expansion of the stop (ID demand/database check)	Because the ID demand and lookup exceeded permissible scope, the subsequent arrest/search were unlawful and the drugs should have been suppressed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Donis, 157 N.J. 44 (N.J. 1998) (random plate queries via mobile data terminals for stop justification)
State v. Sloane, 193 N.J. 423 (N.J. 2008) (NCIC/database checks are not searches; may be done within scope of a stop without reasonable suspicion)
Hornberger v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc., 351 N.J. Super. 577 (App. Div. 2002) (requesting passenger ID after a routine stop without suspicion is improper)
State v. Smith, 134 N.J. 599 (N.J. 1994) (passengers have greater protections than drivers; additional intrusions require specific facts)
State v. Carty, 170 N.J. 632 (N.J. 2002) (consent/continued detention after stop requires reasonable suspicion beyond the stop)
State v. Rosario, 229 N.J. 263 (N.J. 2017) (distinguishing field inquiry from seizure; detained person must obey directives and may challenge later)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (two‑prong test: justified at inception and reasonable in scope)
Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (U.S. 2007) (passengers are seized during vehicle stops)
State v. Maryland, 167 N.J. 471 (N.J. 2001) (fruits of unlawful stop/search must be suppressed)
State v. Hickman, 335 N.J. Super. 623 (App. Div. 2000) (passenger questioning permissible when facts give rise to reasonable suspicion)