IS DELEWARE v. PROUSE DEAD?

In Deleware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 99 S. Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed. 2d 660 (1979), the United States Supreme Court held that Police must have at least an articulable and reasonable suspicion that a violation of the traffic laws has occurred in order to stop a motorist.  In other words, the legal opinion in  Deleware v. Prouse made it illegal for the Police to randomly stop motorists. 
           Recently, New Jersey Courts have devised a way to get around the protections espoused in Deleware v. Prouse. New Jersey courts use a legal doctrine known as community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement to justify random police stops of motorist--even if that motorist has not committed any single motor vehicle infraction!

A brief overview of the community caretaking function and it's evolution in New Jersey

In New Jersey the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement first developed in State v. Goetaski, 209 N.J. Super. 362, 507 A. 2d 751 (App. Div. 1986). In Goetaski, the Court held that police officer who at 4 a.m. observed defendant slowly driving for one tenth of a mile on the shoulder (which the court defined as being “that portion of the highway, exclusive of and bordering the roadway, designed for emergency use but not ordinarily to be used for vehicular travel)of rural state highway in 50-mile per hour zone with his left turn indicator flashing could stop defendant's vehicle to inquire whether “something was wrong” without violating defendant's Fourth Amendment rights or rights under State Constitution, even though officer observed no traffic violation prior to stop.
    Relying on the community caretaking exception, the Appellate Division State v. Washington, held that police officer had objectively reasonable basis to stop defendant's automobile when defendant was unjustifiably driving under speed limit and vehicle was weaving within it’s lane. The Court noted, weaving within its own lane of travel may not technically commit a motor vehicle violation. Id.  Moreover, the Court pointed out that the defendant’s driving was unjustified. According to the Court’s opinion the defendant drove in a manner that would have likely resulted in him traveling into the other lane. The Court decision justified an officer stopping a motorist that was violationg no motorvehicle laws!! 
    The Appellate Division in State v. Cryan, 320 N.J.Super. 325, 727 A.2d 93 (N.J.Super.A.D. 1999), held that stopping defendant because he failed to proceed for five seconds after a red light turned green was not justified on a community caretaking basis.
    The Appellate Division in State v. Costa, 327 N.J.Super. 22 (App. Div. 1999), in dicta, provided an insightful review of the community caretaking exception and it’s application by New Jersey Courts,
    “The Supreme Court of the United States first addressed the community care taking function in Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 441, 93 S. Ct. 2523, 2528, 37 L.Ed.2d 706, 714-15 (1973). Community care taking relates directly to a local official's duty to investigate accidents or disabled vehicles on public roadways. Ibid. It was to be “totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.” Ibid.
        New Jersey first recognized the community care taking function in State v. Goetaski, 209 N.J. Super. 362, 507 A.2d 751 (App. Div.1986). In Goetaski, this court recognized that the police have the ability to make benign automobile stops for the purposes of rendering assistance. Id. at 365-66, 507 A.2d 751. Community care taking stops are differentiated from pre-textual and unconstitutional abuses of authority by the unique facts that give rise to such stops. Id. at 363, 507 A.2d 751 (stopping a car driving slowly on the shoulder of a rural road at 4:00 a.m. was a proper exercise of community care taking authority); see, e.g., State v. Martinez, 260 N.J. Super. 75, 615 A.2d 279 (App. Div.1992) (stopping a vehicle moving between five or ten miles per hour in a residential area at 2:00 a.m. was a proper exercise of authority); State v. Garbin, 325 N.J. Super. 521, 739 A.2d 1016 (App. Div.1999) (warrantless entry into defendant's garage to investigate smoke emanating therefrom was a proper **603  exercise of the community care taking function).”

As evident in the cited summary of the community caretaking exception applied by New Jersey courts, the protections afforded by Deleware v. Prouse to protect motorists from unjustified police intrusion is slowly being curtailed . If New Jersey Courts continue to rely on Community Caretaking doctrine to substantiate an unlawful stop based on mere subjective notions of wrongdoing, then this State would be relegated to the draconian policy it espoused prior to Deleware v. Prouse–namely there is a legal justification to all motor vehicle seizure by police.  Once again Police would enjoy unrestricted power over any motorist!

NJ DWI SUSPECTS ENTITLED TO ADDITONAL DISCOVERY MATERIAL

In a recent unpublished opinion the Appellate Division in State v. Maricic, A-5247-08, ruled that the state MUST make available repair logs and historical data concerning the Alcotest machine at issue. The significance of this opinion is that the Appellate Division added additional discovery items that a defendant may avail him/herself in defending his/her dwi/dui case. Moreover, the instant decision reversed a previous law division Judge's Order denying said discovery. ANOTHER VICTORY FOR ALL DEFENDANTS CHARGED WITH A DWI/DUI IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY (NJ).