1514 NJ-138 Suite 3 Wall Township, NJ 07719

We offer free consultation. Call us Today at 732 303 7857

 

Motion To Suppress A Car Stop

 

Car Stops are Subject to the Fourth Amendment

The essential purpose of the proscriptions in the Fourth Amendment is to impose a standard of “reasonableness” upon the exercise of discretion by government officials, including law enforcement agents in order “to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions…” Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., 436 U.S. 307,312 (1978). In State v. Dickey, the New Jersey Supreme Court addressed the allowable scope of a police seizure pursuant to Terry v. OhioState v. Dickey, 152 N.J. 468, 476 (1998). (citing, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).  In determining whether an investigative stop is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, the Terry Court put forth a two-part test. Id.  The test considers (1) whether the officer’s actions were justified at their inception and (2) whether the actions were reasonably related in scope to which justified the interference in the first place. Id.

Stopping a motor vehicle on the road for reasons other than a legitimate roadblock is a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.  Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653 (1979).  In Prouse, the United States Supreme Court held that:

“Except in those situations in which there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining a driver in order to check the driver’s license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.  Id. at 663.

 

Officers Need Legal Justification to Order a Person From a Vehicle

In State v. Smith, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that if an officer is to order passengers out of a motor vehicle in the state of New Jersey, the officer must have specific and articulable facts that would warrant heightened caution. State v. Smith, 134 N.J. 599, 618 (1994).  Additionally, to justify a pat down, the officer must be able to point to specific, articulable facts which demonstrate that a reasonably prudent man in the circumstances, would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger.  Id. at 619. Citing Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1, 27 (1968).

 

If you or someone you know would like to speak to one of our attorneys about a motion to suppress a motor vehicle stop contact our firm day or night.  Our lawyers have successfully litigated motions to suppress throughout the state of New Jersey.  Contact us today for a free consultation.

Monmouth County Drug Crime Lawyer

  Monmouth County Drug Crime Lawyer If you have been charged with a drug offense in Monmouth County  you can protect your rights with the best defense by working with a Monmouth County drug charge attorney. No one ever wants to have a criminal conviction on his or her record, but this is especially true […]

read full article

What are my Defenses to a Wall Township DWI?

  Wall Township, New Jersey is a busy town in Monmouth County that handles many Wall DWI matters on a monthly basis. Wall borders Jersey shore towns Belmar, and Manasquan.  Those shore towns are home to many bars and nightclubs.   Challenging the Motor Vehicle Stop. If an individual is stopped and charged with DWI in […]

read full article

Can Police Officers Call the Dogs During a Traffic Stop?

In some circumstances, police officers may be able to summon police dogs to a traffic stop.  The reasonable and articulable suspicion that the officers possesses at the time will be the deciding factor.   Police officers are permitted to conduct a traffic stop based upon reasonable and articulable suspicion.  They are further permitted to issue […]

read full article

Clark, Clark & Noonan, LLC.
732-303-7857