NJ DWI Arrest Leads to Drug Discovery and Vehicle Search Review
Submitted by New Jersey DWI Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark.
COCOUNSEL
Skill: Review Documents
New Jersey Search and Seizure of drugs found in a vehicle after a MV stop for DWI traffic offense
In New Jersey, probable cause issues and the scope of vehicle searches after a DWI stop are addressed as follows:
- Probable Cause for Arrest:
- Probable cause is needed to arrest someone for driving while intoxicated (DWI). This means the police must have a reasonable belief, based on facts, that the person was driving under the influence. In the case of Lance C. Nix, Officer Diaz observed several indicators that led to probable cause: the defendant was slumped over the steering wheel, had slurred speech, and exhibited combative behavior. These observations, along with the failed field sobriety tests, provided the officer with probable cause to arrest Nix for DWI. [1] [2] [3]
- Field Sobriety Tests:
- Field sobriety tests are used to assess whether a person is under the influence. In this case, the defendant was asked to perform tests like the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, walk-and-turn, and one-leg stand. The results of these tests, along with the officer’s observations, contributed to the probable cause determination. [4]
- Search Incident to Arrest:
- Once there is probable cause for an arrest, the police can conduct a search of the person and the immediate area around them without a warrant. This is known as a “search incident to arrest.” In this case, after arresting Nix, the police searched him and found drugs in his possession. This search was deemed lawful because it was conducted after a lawful arrest. [5] [6]
- Vehicle Searches:
- The document does not explicitly detail the rules for searching a vehicle after a DWI stop, but it implies that searches can be conducted if there is probable cause or if the search is incident to a lawful arrest. The search of Nix’s person and the discovery of drugs were justified as they were incident to his arrest. [7]
In summary, probable cause for a DWI arrest in New Jersey is based on observable signs of intoxication and failed sobriety tests. Once arrested, a person and their immediate surroundings can be searched without a warrant.
[1] Following the Law Division’s denial of his motion to suppress, defendant pled guilty to third-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS), methamphetamine, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1), and was sentenced to a four-year non-custodial probationary term. Before us, defendant challenges the court’s order denying his suppression application, his resulting Judgment of Conviction and sentence, and raises the following argument:, pg. 2, state v. lance.pdf
[2] Further, Judge Paone found Officer Diaz’s credible testimony regarding: (1) defendant’s condition slumped over the steering wheel; (2) slurred responses about driving; (3) the presence of the key in the ignition; and (4) the location of the car in the no parking zone, supported the conclusion the “police officer had sufficient reasonable and articulable suspicion to temporarily detain defendant and to perform field sobriety tests.” Finally, the judge determined in light of defendant’s “untoward antagonistic [and] confrontational” demeanor, his failed field sobriety test, along with Officer Diaz’s initial observations, the police had probable cause to believe he “was operating a vehicle while under the influence,” and was therefore “lawfully arrested,” and the officers were “justified in searching him, because . . . [the] search [was] incident to his arrest.”, pg. 7, state v. lance.pdf
[3] Also, during this initial conversation, defendant repeatedly honked the horn despite clear instructions not to, argued about where he was parked, and yelled at the officer telling him to “get the f[ ** ]k out of here man” along with other profane epithets. “[L]oud and abrasive behavior,” such as was exhibited here, can validly be used to observationally prove impairment. State v. Zingis, 471 N.J. Super. 590, 602 (App. Div. 2022) (quoting State v. Cryan, 363 N.J. Super. 442, 455-56 (App. Div. 2003)). Accordingly, Officer Diaz properly requested defendant to exit the vehicle and perform field sobriety tests based on a reasonable and articulable suspicion of DWI., pg. 15, state v. lance.pdf
[4] Based on defendant’s slurred speech, combative behavior, and inability to follow directions, Officer Diaz requested defendant exit the car. He then conducted a pat-down search which revealed a large wrench in defendant’s pocket. Officer Diaz requested defendant perform three standard field sobriety tests, during which defendant was “argumentative” and again “tried to talk to the person in the building[].”, pg. 4, state v. lance.pdf
Officer Diaz first conducted the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test which did not reveal signs of defendant’s intoxication. Defendant next participated in the walk-and-turn test during which he repeatedly interrupted Officer Diaz’s, pg. 4, state v. lance.pdf
A-3985-22, pg. 4, state v. lance.pdf
instructions. Defendant incorrectly turned to the right despite being instructed to turn to the left which Officer Diaz interpreted as a sign of possible intoxication but determined that “clue” was insufficient to conclude defendant was intoxicated in light of defendant’s other positive responses., pg. 5, state v. lance.pdf
Officer Diaz next requested defendant perform the one-leg stand test which he unsuccessfully completed. During the test, defendant was unable to hold his foot up, swayed, and used his arms for balance, all of which was confirmed by the BWC footage. Defendant continued to be argumentative, curse, blame the wind and temperature for his inability to successfully complete certain tasks, and again attempted to talk to residents in an adjacent building. The BWC footage revealed defendant stumbling sideways after initially lifting his foot off the ground., pg. 5, state v. lance.pdf
[5] Further, Judge Paone found Officer Diaz’s credible testimony regarding: (1) defendant’s condition slumped over the steering wheel; (2) slurred responses about driving; (3) the presence of the key in the ignition; and (4) the location of the car in the no parking zone, supported the conclusion the “police officer had sufficient reasonable and articulable suspicion to temporarily detain defendant and to perform field sobriety tests.” Finally, the judge determined in light of defendant’s “untoward antagonistic [and] confrontational” demeanor, his failed field sobriety test, along with Officer Diaz’s initial observations, the police had probable cause to believe he “was operating a vehicle while under the influence,” and was therefore “lawfully arrested,” and the officers were “justified in searching him, because . . . [the] search [was] incident to his arrest.”, pg. 7, state v. lance.pdf
[6] Finally, because the police had probable cause to arrest defendant, Judge Paone properly denied his application to suppress the CDS because they were seized at the police station incident to defendant’s arrest. Roman-Rosado, 462 N.J. Super. at 201. To the extent we have not specifically addressed any of defendant’s remaining arguments, it is because we have concluded they lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). Affirmed., pg. 17, state v. lance.pdf
[7] Finally, because the police had probable cause to arrest defendant, Judge Paone properly denied his application to suppress the CDS because they were seized at the police station incident to defendant’s arrest. Roman-Rosado, 462 N.J. Super. at 201. To the extent we have not specifically addressed any of defendant’s remaining arguments, it is because we have concluded they lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). Affirmed., pg. 17, state v. lance.pdf
