STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LEONARD CORBOSIERO

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2110-04T12110-04T1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

LEONARD CORBOSIERO,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________

 

Submitted October 3, 2005 - Decided

Before Judges Cuff and Gilroy.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Criminal Part, Essex County, Municipal Appeal No. 04-070.

Anthony Carbone, attorney for appellant (Mr. Carbone and Johanna D. Roccanova, on the brief).

Paula T. Dow, Essex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Mary Ellen Furlong, Special Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant, Leonard Corbosiero, appeals from his conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI), N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a)(1)(i), after a trial de novo in the Law Division. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial judge erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence of his intoxication because the police officer exceeded the scope of his community caretaking function when he approached defendant's motor vehicle. We affirm.

On April 9, 2004, at 2:30 a.m., defendant and a friend were sitting in defendant's parked motor vehicle, with its engine and lights on, in the Drug Fair parking lot adjacent to Cumberland Avenue, Township of Verona. Police officer Joel Martin, while on routine patrol "looking for anything that might be suspicious or out of the ordinary at that time of night," observed defendant's motor vehicle. He undertook to investigate why the vehicle was parked in the parking lot at such an hour because the Drug Fair store had closed 9:00 p.m. the previous evening, and "any activity in that lot at that hour is - - you know, is not normal."

Martin pulled his patrol car behind the defendant's vehicle, illuminated defendant's vehicle with the patrol vehicle's headlights, and observed defendant and another person in the vehicle. Martin ran a motor vehicle check on the license plate and ascertained that the vehicle was not stolen nor was the registered owner's driving privileges suspended. Martin "approached the vehicle . . . to check on the . . . occupants for their wellbeing. You know, a realm of things were going through my mind as to what could have been occurring or could not have been occurring at that time." Martin was concerned with both the well being and intentions of the occupants:

At that late hour, the - - obviously, the establishment, which the parking lot is there for - - is the Drug Fair, is closed. And anything . . . obviously, could be occurring from - - from a . . . simple girlfriend/boyfriend, you know, talking after hours to a - - you know, somebody might have left their vehicle and been out possibly burglarizing stores, you know, somebody that could have been sick or ill or something like that . . . was in need of medical aid or, you know, anything . . . just basic community policing is . . . to stop and check on the people for their welfare.

. . . .

At that time . . . I approached the driver to, you know, see if there was anything I could do to help them or if there was a problem or, you know, exactly what he was doing in the lot parked illegally after hours.

Upon approaching the driver's side window, the officer asked defendant for his credentials, and defendant was unable to produce a driver's license. During the inquiry, the officer made observations which caused him to undertake field sobriety tests which led to defendant's arrest.

Defendant was charged with motor vehicle violations of DWI and for failure to possess a driver's license, N.J.S.A. 39:3-29. Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence of his intoxication on the basis that Martin exceeded his "community caretaking function" when the officer approached defendant's vehicle parked in the Drug Fair parking lot. The motion was denied. After preserving his right to seek a trial de novo, including his right to raise anew the motion to suppress, defendant pled guilty to the DWI charge and was sentenced to a three-month suspension of driving privileges, directed to serve a period of twelve to forty-eight hours at an approved Intoxicated Driver Resource Center and assessed appropriate fines and penalties. That portion of the sentence suspending defendant's driving privileges was stayed by the court pending appeal. The second summons charging defendant with failure to possess a valid driver's license was dismissed.

On appeal de novo to the Law Division, defendant renewed his motion to suppress the evidence concerning his intoxication on the same grounds argued in the municipal court. On November 19, 2004, after making independent findings of fact and giving due regard to the municipal judge's opportunity "to judge the credibility of the witnesses," State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 157 (1964), Judge Carey rendered an oral decision denying the motion to suppress, concluding that the arresting officer was acting within the scope of his community caretaking function when he approached to investigate why defendant was sitting in his vehicle with another person at 2:30 a.m. when the Drug Fair store was closed. Defendant was convicted of DWI, and the court stayed sentence pending the disposition of this appeal.

Our scope of review is a limited one. "It is not our function . . . to weigh the evidence anew and to make independent findings of fact as if we were sitting in first judgment on the case." State v. Emery, 27 N.J. 348, 353 (1958). "The test is 'whether the findings made [by the trial court] could reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence present in the record.'" State v. Barone, 147 N.J 599, 615 (1997) (quoting Johnson, supra, 42 N.J. at 162) (alterations in the original). It is only when we are "thoroughly satisfied that the finding is clearly a mistaken one and so plainly unwarranted that the interests of justice demand intervention and correction . . . should [we] appraise the record as if [we are] deciding the matter at inception and make [our] own findings and conclusions." Johnson, supra, 42 N.J. 162. (internal citations omitted)). However, "a trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deference." Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Tp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 1995).

We have carefully reviewed the transcripts of the proceedings below and concur with Judge Carey's denial of the motion to suppress. We conclude that the officer was acting within the scope of his caretaking function when he approached defendant's vehicle to investigate why defendant and a second individual were in the motor vehicle at 2:30 a.m. in a commercial parking lot after store hours. State v. Drummond, 305 N.J. Super. 84, 88 (App. Div. 1997).

Affirmed.

 

The record is unclear as to the penalties imposed on conviction in the Law Division. We assume that the penalties were the same as imposed in the municipal court.

(continued)

(continued)

6

A-2110-04T1

October 18, 2005