STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ELDER LEMUS-ROQUE
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2705-18T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ELDER LEMUS-ROQUE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Argued March 4, 2020 – Decided April 22, 2020
Before Judges Gooden Brown and Mawla.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Morris County, Municipal Appeal No. 18-
026.
Jeffrey S. Katz argued the cause for appellant.
Tiffany M. Russo, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the
cause for respondent (Fredric M. Knapp, Morris County
Prosecutor, attorney; Tiffany M. Russo, of counsel and
on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Following the denial of his suppression motion, defendant entered a
conditional guilty plea to driving while intoxicated, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, in the
Mount Olive municipal court, preserving his right to appeal the denial in the
Law Division. R. 7:6-2(c); R. 7:5-2(c)(2). Defendant now appeals from the
January 17, 2019 Law Division order affirming the municipal court judge's
denial of his suppression motion on de novo review. We affirm.
We glean the following facts from the municipal court suppression
hearing, during which Sergeant Paul Ottavinia was the sole witness for the State,
and Herbert Leckie, qualified as an expert in the administration of the horizontal
gaze nystagmus (HGN) test, 1 testified for the defense. Ottavinia, a ten-year
veteran of the Mount Olive Police Department, testified that on July 19, 2015,
at approximately 3:29 a.m., he observed a vehicle make an illegal left turn
despite clear markings and pull into the parking lot of a CVS. Ottavinia
1
An HGN test is a field test performed to discern sobriety. See State v.
Doriguzzi, 334 N.J. Super. 530, 534-35 (App. Div. 2000). "[N]ystagmus is
defined as the involuntary jerking of the eye," and "it is generally understood
that alcohol use, among other things, will cause nystagmus." Id. at 534. During
an HGN test, an officer will hold his or her "finger about twelve to fifteen inches
in front of a [test subject]'s eyes and move[] his [or her] finger side-to-side[,]"
and the test subject must "follow the finger with his [or her] eyes without moving
his [or her] head." Ibid. Each eye is individually evaluated for "lack of smooth
pursuit," or "jerking," to assess whether the test subject may be "under the
influence of alcohol." Id. at 534-35.
A-2705-18T4
2
promptly activated his overhead lights, engaging the motor vehicle recorder
(MVR) in his patrol vehicle, 2 and conducted a motor vehicle stop.
When Ottavinia approached the vehicle, he "detected the odor of an
alcoholic beverage" emanating from inside the vehicle. However, Ottavinia
could not tell whether the odor "was coming from [the driver]," who was later
identified as defendant, "or . . . one of [the] passengers" in the car. Ottavinia
asked defendant if he had been drinking and defendant responded "that he had
not." Additionally, when a back-seat passenger was directed by a back-up
officer to exit the vehicle, an odor of alcohol was detected on the passenger.
Nonetheless, Ottavinia was still concerned that defendant may have been under
the influence. As a result, Ottavinia performed an abbreviated HGN test on
defendant while he was seated in his car and "immediately . . . noticed a lack of
smooth pursuit" on the part of defendant.
Based on his training and experience, Ottavinia concluded from the HGN
test result that there was "[a]t least some alcohol consumption." As a result, to
further his investigation, Ottavinia ordered defendant to exit the vehicle. Once
defendant exited the vehicle, Ottavinia performed the standard field sobriety
2
The MVR video depicting the encounter was admitted into evidence and
played during the hearing.
A-2705-18T4
3
tests, including the complete HGN, from which Ottavinia concluded there was
probable cause to arrest defendant on suspicion of DWI. After defendant exited
his vehicle to perform the tests, Ottavinia was also able to confirm that the odor
of alcohol was coming from defendant's "[b]reath." Additionally, contrary to
his earlier denial, defendant admitted to Ottavinia that he had "been drinking."
After being placed under arrest for DWI, defendant was transported back to
police headquarters.
The defense expert testified that based on his review of the MVR and
Ottavinia's testimony, the partial HGN performed while defendant was still
seated in his vehicle was not "a proper administration of the [HGN] test."
According to the expert, Ottavinia failed to conduct a medical assessment of
defendant prior to administering the test and failed to complete each phase of
the test in its entirety. As a result, the expert opined that, although Ottavinia
"administered [the HGN test] appropriately" once defendant was removed from
his vehicle, the partial test administered inside the vehicle was not a reliable
indicator of "impairment."
Based on the testimony, defendant argued there was no basis to order him
out of the vehicle following the motor vehicle stop. The municipal court judge
rejected the argument and denied defendant's suppression motion. Judge
A-2705-18T4
4
Thomas J. Critchley, Jr., held a de novo hearing based on the record developed
in the municipal court, during which defendant renewed his argument that the
officer lacked reasonable articulable suspicion to order him to exit the vehicle .
In a bench opinion issued on January 17, 2019, Judge Critchley rejected
defendant's argument. The judge deferred to the municipal judge's finding that
"the officer's testimony [was] credible and reliable" but made his "own judgment
regarding the sufficiency of the evidence under the totality of the
circumstances." Based on defendant's "driving conduct," the officer's detection
of "the odor of alcohol . . . from the car generally," and the officer's
administration of "a partial [HGN] test," which indicated "a lack of smooth
pursuit," the judge concluded there was "a sufficient basis" to order defendant
to exit the vehicle.
The judge explained:
Almost all of the elements that would tend to be
properly part of the totality of the circumstances to
justify the police action are tempered by certain
counter[vailing] considerations. Although there was a
traffic violation, . . . the left-hand turn, it wasn't the type
of motor vehicle action that necessarily goes along with
driving while intoxicated. It could be someone who just
hasn't been paying attention to how the road is laid out
and where you're supposed to make turns or is
unfamiliar with the area. It is also possible that
intoxication can amplify that tendency to not . . . be
cognizant of what the rules of the road are . . . .
A-2705-18T4
5
Secondly, . . . there was an odor of alcohol, but
the officer took pains to say it wasn't necessarily
coming from the driver, . . . it was coming more from
the car.
Finally, there was a . . . partial [HGN] test that
was administered, that consisted essentially of just one
part of it, in which the officer testified . . . that there
was not smooth following of the movement of the
finger.
My conclusion is that under all these
circumstances, although I find it to be a close case, that
the action of the officer was justified.
I can't completely discount any of the elements
that were presented: the improper driving, the odor of
alcohol, and even the partial administration of the
[HGN] test. . . .
In addressing defendant's challenge to the officer's use of a partial HGN
test in assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, the judge noted:
To the extent that the HGN test was performed
not consistent with a variety of standards that were laid
out on the record, I think that undercuts the weight to
be given it, but not necessarily its place in the overall
totality of the circumstances.
....
Assuming arguendo that it is improper to give
any weight to the [HGN] test, I . . . find . . . that . . . the
remaining balance of the record would also be
sufficient to justify the actions of the officer. But it is
a closer case . . . because you are pulling out one
A-2705-18T4
6
element of the equation that the officer testified he
relied on[. Y]ou would still have a situation where
there was some improper driving and the presentation
of an odor of alcohol in the vehicle[.] . . . [L]eaving
aside any HGN at that point, it would probably be
improper of the officer to not continue the investigation
by removing the subject out of the car. One of the
things that can then happen is he can find out if the odor
of alcohol is associated with just the car and not the
driver, or the driver himself. . . .
I think that is a reasonable sequence of events. It
would have been in a sense improper for the officer . . .
to have noticed some driving that was not perfect . . .
and then pick up an odor of alcohol, but just send him
on his way. I don't think that is a sensible way to
administer his duties, in terms of making sure there is a
reasonable level of safety in the community.
So . . . the driving conduct and the odor of alcohol
coming from the vehicle generally in combination
could justify the very limited Fourth Amendment
intrusion of removing the subject from the vehicle.
On appeal, defendant raises the following arguments for our
consideration.
POINT ONE – DEFENDANT['S] . . . CONVICTION
SHOULD BE REVERSED AS THE MOTION
JUDGE'S DENIAL OF THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS
WAS EMINENTLY INCORRECT AND
CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR.
A. THE POLICE OFFICER DID NOT
HAVE SUFFICIENT BASIS TO ORDER
THE DEFENDANT OUT OF THE
VEHICLE.
A-2705-18T4
7
B. THE POLICE OFFICER SHOULD
NOT BE PERMITTED TO RELY ON AN
INCOMPLETE SCIENTIFIC TEST, A
TRUNCATED [HGN] TEST, IN
DEVELOPING REASONABLE
SUSPICION TO FURTHER A DRUNK
DRIVING INVESTIGATION.
Following a de novo appeal to the Law Division, conducted on the record
developed in the municipal court, our standard of review is limited. State v.
Clarksburg Inn, 375 N.J. Super. 624, 639 (App. Div. 2005); see also R. 3:23-
8(a)(2). We "consider only the action of the Law Division and not that of the
municipal court." State v. Oliveri, 336 N.J. Super. 244, 251 (App. Div. 2001).
The Law Division judge must make independent findings of fact and conclusions
of law based on the evidentiary record of the municipal court with deference to
the municipal court judge's ability to assess the witnesses' credibility. State v.
Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 157 (1964). In turn, we focus our review on "whether
there is 'sufficient credible evidence . . . in the record' to support the trial court's
findings." State v. Robertson, 228 N.J. 138, 148 (2017) (alteration in original)
(quoting Johnson, 42 N.J. at 162). However, on legal determinations, our review
is plenary. See State v. Kuropchak, 221 N.J. 368, 383 (2015).
When the only issue on appeal is the trial court's decision on a motion to
suppress, our review is similarly circumscribed. State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1,
A-2705-18T4
8
15 (2009). "An appellate court reviewing a motion to suppress evidence . . .
must uphold the factual findings underlying the trial court's decision, provided
that those findings are 'supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record.'"
State v. Boone, 232 N.J. 417, 425-26 (2017) (quoting State v. Scriven, 226 N.J.
20, 40 (2016)). We owe no deference, however, to conclusions of law made by
trial court in suppression decisions, which we instead review de novo. State v.
Watts, 223 N.J. 503, 516 (2015).
Our analysis begins with the foundational principle that a police stop of a
motor vehicle is a seizure of the vehicle's occupants and therefore falls within
the purview of the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New
Jersey Constitution. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809-10 (1996); State
v. Baum, 199 N.J. 407, 423 (2009). To justify a stop, "a police officer must
have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the driver of a vehicle, or its
occupants, is committing a motor-vehicle violation or a criminal or disorderly
persons offense . . . ." Scriven, 226 N.J. at 33-34. See also Delaware v. Prouse,
440 U.S. 648, 663 (1979). "To establish reasonable suspicion, 'the officer must
be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with
rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant' the suspicion." State
A-2705-18T4
9
v. Pitcher, 379 N.J. Super. 308, 315 (App. Div. 2005) (quoting State v. Pineiro,
181 N.J. 13, 21 (2004)).
Following a stop, "the resultant request of a motorist to exit the vehicle is
constitutionally permissible." State v. Bernokeits, 423 N.J. Super. 365, 370-71
(App. Div. 2011). "This is because once a vehicle is lawfully stopped, a law
enforcement officer may conduct an investigation reasonably related in scope to
the circumstances that justified the traffic stop." Id. at 371. "Where the police
have already lawfully decided that the driver shall be briefly detained, the
additional intrusion of requesting him to step out of his vehicle has been
described as 'de minimis.'" Ibid. (quoting Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 111 (1977)). See also State v. Smith, 134 N.J. 599, 610 (1994).
Even though the initial stop was for a motor vehicle
violation, a police officer is not precluded from
broadening the inquiry of his stop [i]f, during the course
of the stop or as a result of the reasonable inquiries
initiated by the officer, the circumstances give rise to
suspicions unrelated to the traffic offense. Thus, in
order to continue to detain a motorist once he is asked
to exit the vehicle, a police officer must have a
reasonable, articulable suspicion that the person is
involved in criminal or unlawful activity beyond that
which initially justified the stop.
[Bernokeits, 423 N.J. Super. at 371-72 (alteration in
original) (citations and quotation marks omitted).]
A-2705-18T4
10
"In evaluating the sufficiency of the basis for a stop or arrest, courts
consider the totality of the information available to the officer at the time of the
conduct." Pitcher, 379 N.J. Super. at 315. "[C]ourts give weight to 'the officer's
knowledge and experience' as well as 'rational inferences that could be drawn
from the facts objectively and reasonably viewed in light of the officer's
expertise.'" Bernokeits, 423 N.J. Super. at 372 (quoting State v. Citarella, 154 N.J. 272, 279 (1998)). "It is well-settled that the touchstone of the Fourth
Amendment is reasonableness," and "[i]n any given case, the reasonableness of
the investigatory detention is a function of the degree and kind of intrusion upon
the individual's privacy balanced against the need to promote governmental
interests." Ibid. (first citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1968)), then citing
State v. Davis, 104 N.J. 490, 504 (1986)).
Here, as a threshold matter, defendant does not dispute the legitimacy of
the initial motor vehicle stop based on Ottavinia's observation of a motor vehicle
violation, or the subsequent DWI arrest based on the evidence developed after
defendant exited the vehicle. Defendant only challenges the basis for ordering
him to exit the vehicle to undergo field sobriety tests. However, we agree with
Judge Critchley that based on the totality of the circumstances, Ottavinia had a
reasonable articulable suspicion that defendant was driving while intoxicated in
A-2705-18T4
11
order to expand the scope of the initial traffic stop and order him to exit his
vehicle to perform field sobriety tests. Indeed, defendant was stopped at 3:29
a.m. after making an illegal left turn with the odor of an alcoholic beverage
emanating from his vehicle and the administration of a partial HGN test
indicating "[a]t least some alcohol consumption."
Relying on State v. Jones, 326 N.J. Super. 234 (App. Div. 1999),
defendant argues "the mere odor of an alcoholic beverage even if coming from
the operator's breath does not in and of itself provide sufficient reasonable
suspicion to require a motorist to exit a vehicle for the performance of field
sobriety tests." Defendant's reliance on Jones is misplaced. In Jones, we ruled
that "the odor of alcohol [on a driver's breath], combined with [his] admission
of consumption of one bottle of beer," was not "sufficient to establish probable
cause to search the vehicle for open containers of alcohol" without a warrant.
Id. at 237, 244-45. Here, we are not concerned with a warrantless vehicle search.
Moreover, there was more evidence in this case than "the mere odor of an
alcoholic beverage."
Defendant also argues that the officer's reliance on an "adulterated version
of an already questionably reliable [HGN] test" was improper because "the
administration of a partial test . . . was not designed to permit . . . any opinion
A-2705-18T4
12
about a subject's ingestion of alcohol." However, while we have held that HGN
testing is not admissible to "prove[] defendant's guilt of driving under the
influence of alcohol," we noted "[t]his is qualitatively different from use of the
HGN test only to establish probable cause to arrest or only in conjunction with
breathalyzer results." State v. Doriguzzi, 334 N.J. Super. 530, 546 (App. Div.
2000). Here, the partial HGN test was used in conjunction with other evidence
to establish a reasonable and articulable suspicion to extend the stop to conduct
field sobriety tests. As the judge noted, the fact that it was a partial HGN test
"undercuts the weight to be given it, but not necessarily its place in the overall
totality of the circumstances."
Further, we agree with Judge Critchley that even without the partial HGN
test, the totality of the remaining circumstances justified the officer's limited
intrusion. As the judge noted, it would have been improper for the officer to
"send [defendant] on his way" after observing the illegal left turn and detecting
the odor of alcohol emanating from the vehicle. "The reality of dangers on our
highways imposes a duty on law enforcement officers to take appropriate steps
within constitutional and statutory boundaries to maintain the safety of New
Jersey's roads." Pitcher, 379 N.J. Super. at 315. Here, Ottavinia performed his
duty in a constitutionally permissible fashion.
A-2705-18T4
13
Affirmed.
A-2705-18T4
14
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.
