STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. STEPHEN W. DYER

Annotate this Case
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
                     APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

                                                  SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                                  APPELLATE DIVISION
                                                  DOCKET NO. A-4282-08T4


STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

             Plaintiff-Respondent,

             v.

STEPHEN W. DYER,

          Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________

             Submitted:       April 21, 2010 - Decided: April 30, 2010

             Before Judges Stern and Sabatino.

             On appeal from the Superior Court of New
             Jersey, Law Division, Gloucester County,
             Municipal Appeal No. A-50-08.

             Levow & Associates, P.A., attorneys for
             appellant (Evan M. Levow, of counsel and on
             the brief; Sandra L. Battista, on the
             brief).

             Sean F. Dalton, Gloucester County Prosecutor,
             attorney for respondent (Joseph H. Enos,
             Jr., Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

       We   affirm    the    denial   of    defendant's     motion    to   suppress

substantially        for    the   reasons    expressed     by   Judge    Walter   L.

Marshall, Jr., in his oral opinion of April 17, 2009.                      We agree

that    Police       Officer      Seas      was     justified    in     approaching

defendant's car to make inquiries of the driver of the vehicle

which, in the words of defendant's brief, was "parked on the

shoulder of the road, with his hazard lights flashing" at about

2:43 in the morning, and to ask him to step out of the vehicle

because he smelled alcohol and observed bloodshot and watery

eyes.     Accordingly, we affirm defendant's conviction for driving

while intoxicated, in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, following

his conditional plea of guilty.

        Affirmed.




                                                           A-4282-08T4
                                  2



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.