STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. BARRY DEVENS

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2956-04T52956-04T5

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

BARRY DEVENS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________

 

Argued November 9, 2005 - Decided March 1, 2006

Before Judges Collester and Lisa.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Bergen County, BMA-003-33-04.

Albert H. Wunsch, III argued the cause for

appellant.

Brandy B. Galler, Assistant Prosecutor, argued

the cause for respondent (John L. Molinelli,

Bergen County Prosecutor, attorney; Ms. Galler,

on the brief).

PER CURIAM

On October 26, 2004, defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to driving while intoxicated in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 while reserving his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion by the Midland Park Municipal Court judge. On appeal the Law Division judge heard the matter de novo and found reasonable and articulable suspicion on the part of the police officer to stop the defendant while he was operating his vehicle. All fines and penalties were stayed by the Law Division judge pending this appeal.

The salient facts are that at about 2:30 a.m. on June 25, 2004, Midland Park Police Officer Noah Van Vliet was in his marked patrol vehicle in the parking lot of a store on Goffle Road, a two-lane road separated by a double yellow line. Van Vliet testified that he saw a Mercedes headed north on Goffle Road cross the double yellow center line by several feet. The officer pulled out and followed the Mercedes and again observed the car cross the double yellow line with both the front and rear tires on the driver's side of the car. The officer testified there was no other traffic on the roadway and no debris or other condition which would necessitate the Mercedes crossing the center road line. As the Mercedes turned from Vreeland onto Glen Avenue, Officer Van Vliet activated his overhead lights and stopped the car.

The testimony of the officer was found credible by the municipal court judge and, with due deference, was found credible by the Law Division judge. Officer Van Vliet had a reasonable and articulable suspicion justifying the stop of defendant's vehicle based on his reasonable conclusion that the defendant committed a traffic violation, at the very least a failure to keep right in the proper lane. See State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 470 (1999); State v. Williamson, 138 N.J. 302, 304 (1994). Accordingly, defendant's motion to suppress was properly denied.

 
We affirm and remand to the Law Division for dissolution of the stay pending appeal.

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-2956-04T5

March 1, 2006