State v. Lewis
| Citation | 288 N.J.Super. 160,671 A.2d 1126 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. John LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 14 March 1996 |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division |
Glenn C. Slavin, Woodbridge, for appellant (Ciuffreda & Slavin, attorneys; Mr. Slavin and Leonard J. Ciuffreda, on the brief).
Simon Louis Rosenbach, Assistant Prosecutor, for respondent (Robert W. Gluck, Middlesex County Prosecutor, attorney).
Before Judges PRESSLER and KEEFE.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
KEEFE, J.A.D.
The issue presented on appeal is whether a random computer check of a motor vehicle license plate number is a violation of the motor vehicle operator's constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution or Article I, p 7, of the New Jersey Constitution. The issue is presented as a result of the issuance of a motor vehicle summons to the defendant for operating a motor vehicle while his privilege to do so was suspended, in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:3-40.
The essential facts are undisputed. On September 12, 1994, a Woodbridge Township police officer was on duty using a radar device to monitor the speed of passing cars. Because the traffic was light, the officer was occupying his time by randomly checking license plate numbers of passing vehicles with the use of a mobile computer. The device permitted the officer to obtain information from the Division of Motor Vehicles concerning the vehicle's registration and the status of the owner's license.
As defendant's vehicle passed the officer's station, the officer entered the license plate number into the computer. The information received from the Division of Motor Vehicles informed the officer that the vehicle was currently registered but that the registered owner's driving privileges were suspended. The computer information also contained a general description of the registered owner. The officer followed defendant's vehicle long enough to ascertain that the operator fit the description of the registered owner, whereupon he stopped the vehicle. After a check of the defendant's credentials, the officer learned that the registered owner and the operator were the same person and that defendant's operating privileges had been suspended. Defendant was then issued the summons in question.
Defendant moved in the Woodbridge Township Municipal Court to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the computer inquiry. He contended that the random use of the mobile computer violated his federal and state constitutional rights. Essentially defendant argued that he had an expectation of privacy in the information contained in the Division of Motor Vehicle records, and that such information cannot be accessed without either probable cause or, at a minimum, articulable suspicion that a motor vehicle offense has been committed.
After defendant's motion was denied, he pled guilty to the charge, preserving his right to renew the motion on de novo appeal to the Law Division. The Municipal Court judge imposed a ten day jail term, a fine of $500, and a fifteen month license suspension. On de novo appeal to the Law Division, defendant's suppression motion was again denied. The Law Division judge thereafter imposed the same sentence, with the exception of the jail term which was reduced from ten to three days. The sentence was stayed pending this appeal.
The question of whether a person has a privacy interest in the information contained in Division of Motor Vehicle records pertaining to the status of the registration and the owner's driving record has not been specifically addressed by an appellate court in this state. However, the question has been thoroughly discussed in a reported Law Division opinion decided shortly before the Law Division decision in this case.
In State v. Myrick, 282 N.J.Super. 285, 659 A.2d 976 (Law Div.1995), defendant Lawrence Myrick was a passenger in a motor vehicle that was stopped after a random computer check revealed that the license plate of the vehicle in which Myrick was a passenger was registered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gadsden
...check on a license plate number observed in public view, as did the officers in the present case. See State v. Lewis, 288 N.J.Super. 160, 163-64, 671 A.2d 1126 (App.Div.1996); see State v. Parks, 288 N.J.Super. 407, 410, 672 A.2d 742 (App.Div.1996). Finally, the State submits that the judge......
-
State v. Harlow
...check of vehicle license reveals owner has revoked license; creates reasonable suspicion and stop is not random); State v. Lewis, 288 N.J.Super. 160, 671 A.2d 1126 (1996) (random license plate checks of passing vehicles; no expectation of privacy in vehicle license (which is exposed to publ......
-
Gentry v. Commonwealth
...plate through dispatch" did not require any justification); State v. Richter, 765 A.2d 687, 688 (N.H. 2000); State v. Lewis, 671 A.2d 1126, 1126-27 (N.J. Super. 1996); State v. Owens, 599 N.E.2d 859, 860 (Ohio App. 1991); State v. Bjerke, 697 A.2d 1069, 1073 (R.I. 1997) (concluding neither ......
-
State v. Martin, No. 45964-3-I
...at 564,933 P.2d 1076. Courts in other jurisdictions that have considered this issue have concluded similarly. In State v. Lewis, 288 N.J.Super. 160, 671 A.2d 1126 (1996), the court was asked to decide whether a police officer's random computer check of a license plate number violated the dr......
-
Mobile data terminals and random license plate checks: the need for uniform guidelines and a reasonable suspicion requirement.
...See Hunt, 450 A.2d at 952. (148.) See Hempele, 576 A.2d at 797. (149.) See, e.g., Hempele, 576 A.2d 801; Myrick, 659 A.2d at 979. (150.) 671 A.2d 1126 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. (151.) See Lewis, 671 A.2d at 1126; Myrick, 659 A.2d at 978. (152.) See Lewis, 671 A.2d at 1127. (153.) See id. (......