STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MALGOSIA PASEK

(NOTE: The status of this decision is published.)
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4474-04T14474-04T1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MALGOSIA PASEK,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________

 

Argued on January 10, 2006 - Decided

Before Judges Lisa and S.L. Reisner.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Municipal Appeal No. 5727.

Edward J. Kologi, Jr. argued the cause for appellant.

Akinyemi Akiwowo, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Theodore J. Romankow, Union County Prosecutor, attorney; Steven J. Kaflowitz, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant, Malgosia Pasek, appeals from her conviction in the Law Division, on a de novo appeal from the municipal court, for driving under the influence, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, and careless driving, N.J.S.A. 39:4-97. Defendant pled guilty in the municipal court after the municipal judge denied her motion to suppress premised on her contention that her arrest was the fruit of an unlawful stop. The Law Division judge likewise rejected her contention concerning the stop.

On this appeal, defendant raises the following issues:

POINT I: THE LAW DIVISION ERRED IN FINDING THE OFFICER'S TESTIMONY CREDIBLE.

POINT II: THE OPERATION OF DEFENDANT'S VEHICLE AT LINCOLN AVENUE DID NOT CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE STOP.

Having reviewed the record, we conclude that these arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We add the following comments.

These are the most pertinent facts presented at the hearing on the motion to suppress. The arresting officer testified that he was driving his patrol car on Centennial Avenue in Cranford, Union County. Shortly after he turned his car into a side street, he heard the sound of screeching tires coming from the direction of Centennial Avenue. When he turned his car around and headed back toward Centennial Avenue to investigate, he observed defendant's car traveling at "a pretty high rate of speed," which he judged to be above the 25 mile per hour limit. The officer then observed defendant making an abrupt and very sharp left turn, without signaling. He testified that defendant "slammed on the brakes and screeched the tires" and that the back of her car lifted slightly in the air as she made the turn. At this point, he decided to stop the car since he had reasonable grounds to suspect that she not only was speeding but that she was otherwise driving in a careless manner.

The municipal judge found the officer's testimony credible, even though he did not document the failure to signal in his police report. He also found that the officer had probable cause to stop defendant's car when he saw her make the left turn without signaling and in an otherwise careless manner. The Law Division judge deferred to the credibility determinations of the municipal judge and concluded that the officer had a reasonable articulable suspicion sufficient to justify the stop. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 99 S. Ct 1391, 59 L. Ed. 2d 660 (1979).

Our scope of review on this appeal is limited to determining whether the determination of the Law Division judge "could reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence present in the record," bearing in mind that the Law Division judge is to give due but not necessarily controlling weight to the credibility determinations of the municipal judge. State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 162 (1964). See also State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 472 (1999). Our review of the record reveals ample support for the decision of the Law Division, and we affirm substantially for the reasons stated in the oral opinion of Judge Wertheimer, placed on the record on March 24, 2005.

 
Affirmed.

The officer did not note the failure to signal in his police report. But defense counsel did not cross-examine him on the discrepancy between the report and his testimony.

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-4474-04T1

January 23, 2006