STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DARRYL K. DAVID

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DARRYL K. DAVID,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________

April 30, 2015

Argued April 21, 2015 Decided

Before Judges Fasciale and Hoffman.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Municipal Appeal No. 13-69.

Kevin G. Roe argued the cause for appellant.

Anthony C. Talarico, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (John L. Molinelli, Bergen County Prosecutor, attorney; Elizabeth R. Rebein, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from his de novo conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI), N.J.S.A. 39:4-50. We affirm.

Defendant conceded in Municipal Court that the police officer had a right to stop his vehicle at approximately 1:50 a.m. because of an inoperable headlight. The officer testified that he approached the passenger side window, asked defendant to produce his credentials, and smelled an odor of alcohol. Another officer arrived at the scene and detected the same odor. After first denying consumption of alcohol, defendant admitted that he drank two glasses of wine. Defendant was unable to perform a finger dexterity test and had difficulty producing his documentation.1 The police arrested defendant charging him with DWI.

Defendant contended that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him. He moved to suppress the evidence of DWI arguing that the police arrested him in violation of his constitutional rights. After the Municipal Court judge denied the motion, defendant pled guilty to DWI. Defendant received a three-month suspension of his driver's license and the appropriate fines and penalties. Defendant then appealed to the Law Division.

The Law Division judge conducted a trial de novo and rendered a ten-page written opinion. The judge considered the totality of the circumstances and denied defendant's motion to suppress. The judge stated that "[t]he officer smelled the odor of alcohol, defendant admitted to consuming alcohol, defendant had difficulty retrieving the requested paperwork, and he was unable to perform . . . the . . . field sobriety test." The judge suspended defendant's license for three months and imposed the appropriate fines and penalties.

On appeal, defendant raises the following points

[POINT] I

THE DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED IN THE ABSENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE IN VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE UNITED STATES AND NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTIONS.

[POINT] II

ALL EVIDENCE, WHICH RESULTED FROM THE ARREST OF THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, MUST BE SUPPRESSED PURSUANT TO THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE.

[POINT] III

THE CONDUCT OF THE TRIAL JUDGE CROSSED THE LINE THAT SEPARATES ADVOCACY FROM IMPARTIALITY AND LIMITED DEFENSE COUNSEL'S ABILITY TO PRESENT A PROPER DEFENSE.

After carefully considering the record and the briefs, we conclude that defendant's arguments are "without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion[.]" R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by the judge in his well-reasoned written opinion. We add the following brief remarks.

When a defendant appeals a decision made by a municipal court to the Law Division, the court is required to conduct a de novo review of the record, giving "due regard to the municipal judge's opportunity to view the witnesses and assess credibility." State v. Golin, 363 N.J. Super. 474, 481 (App. Div. 2003) (citing State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 157 (1964)). On appeal from the Law Division's decision, we must determine whether the Law Division judge's findings "'could reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence present in the record.'" State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 471 (1999) (quoting Johnson, supra, 42 N.J. at 162).

In reviewing a motion to suppress, we "uphold the factual findings underlying the trial court's decision so long as those findings are supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record." State v. Gamble, 218 N.J. 412, 424 (2014). We only reverse if the decision was "so clearly mistaken that the interests of justice demand intervention and correction." Id. at 425 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The "trial court's interpretation of the law, however, and the consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deference[,]" and are therefore "reviewed de novo." Ibid.

Warrantless arrests are presumptively invalid, and the State bears the burden of proving the validity of the arrest by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Walker, 213 N.J. 281, 290 (2013). The State must show that the arresting officer had probable cause. State v. Gibson, 218 N.J. 277, 293 (2014). "Probable cause has been defined as 'a well[-]grounded suspicion that a crime has been or is being committed[.]'" Id. at 292 (quoting State v. Sullivan, 169 N.J. 204, 211 (2001)). For a non-indictable offense, the police can effectuate a warrantless arrest if the offense occurs in the presence of the arresting officer. State v. Dangerfield, 171 N.J. 446, 460 (2002).

Here, the judge carefully conducted a de novo review of the record. He fully considered the testimony from the arresting officer and made independent findings of fact and conclusions of law. We have no reason to disturb those findings.

On defendant's motion to suppress, the judge focused on whether there existed probable cause to arrest defendant for DWI. We agree that, under a totality of the circumstances, the officer had probable cause to arrest defendant based on the officer's observations at the scene of the motor vehicle stop. The officer smelled an odor of alcohol emanating from the vehicle and defendant; defendant was unable to retrieve the requested paperwork without difficulty; defendant denied drinking alcohol and then later admitted to the police at the scene that he consumed wine; and he was unable to perform the field sobriety test. As a result, the officer had a well-grounded suspicion that defendant operated his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.

Affirmed.

1 Defendant refused to perform three other field sobriety tests: the walk-and-turn test because he said the ground was uneven; the alphabet test because he indicated that he had trouble with the alphabet; and the one-legged stand test because he stated that he had a leg and hip problem.