Motion to Suppress Evidence – New Jersey Criminal Procedure The Burden of Proof

 Police Oath and Constitutional Duties

You're correct that law enforcement officers in New Jersey swear an oath to support and defend both the U.S. Constitution and the New Jersey Constitution. For instance, the New Jersey Revised Statutes specify an oath for military officers, emphasizing allegiance to constitutional principles . While this specific statute pertains to military officers, similar oaths are administered to other public officials, including police officers.

2017 New Jersey Revised Statutes
TITLE 38A - MILITARY AND VETERANS LAW
Section 38A:5-2 - Oath of office

Universal Citation:

NJ Rev Stat § 38A:5-2 (2017)

Learn moreThis media-neutral citation is based on the American Association of Law Libraries Universal Citation Guide and is not necessarily the official citation.

PreviousNext

38A:5-2. Oath of office

Except when a comparable oath is subscribed to under Federal laws or regulations, every officer shall take and subscribe to the following oath of office:

"I , do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and of the Governor of the State of New Jersey; that I make this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office of in the upon which I am about to enter, so help me God."

Key Case Law:

• Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386 (1798) – Defined the scope of ex post facto laws, limiting them to criminal laws that punish past actions.

• Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) – Clarified that civil regulations (such as administrative or regulatory laws) do not typically fall under ex post facto prohibitions.

. Is Traffic Law Unconstitutional Because It Falls Under Administrative Law?

Traffic laws are primarily enforced under state statutes and local ordinances, but they do intersect with administrative law (e.g., DMV regulations). However, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) governs federal agencies' rulemaking and enforcement procedures.

While administrative laws regulate licenses (such as driver’s licenses) and procedural matters, traffic citations fall under the state's statutory law, which is enacted by a legislature, not an administrative agency.

Key Case Law:

• Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204 (1988) – Ruled that agencies cannot create retroactive regulations, reinforcing that laws must be enacted before enforcement.

• Londoner v. City and County of Denver, 210 U.S. 373 (1908) – Distinguished between legislative and administrative actions, showing that due process applies differently depending on the nature of the law.

Even though traffic enforcement procedures are sometimes administered through agencies, the laws themselves are enacted through the legislative process, not unilaterally imposed by administrative agencies.

Due Process and Traffic Violations

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee due process, meaning that laws must be fair, clear, and allow for a defense before punishment. While you argue that traffic citations violate due process, courts have generally ruled that they meet constitutional requirements because:

• Drivers receive notice (a ticket),

• They have an opportunity to contest the ticket in court,

• There is a burden of proof on the government to establish the violation.

Key Case Law:

• Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (1971) – Ruled that driver’s licenses cannot be revoked without due process.

• Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1 (1979) – Upheld license suspensions for DUI arrests, stating that public safety outweighs immediate procedural delays.

Separation of Powers & Traffic Citations

The separation of powers means that legislative, executive, and judicial functions must remain distinct. However, courts have ruled that traffic laws do not violate separation of powers because:

• The legislature makes the laws (statutes on traffic violations),

• The executive (police) enforces them,

• The judiciary adjudicates disputes (traffic court).

Key Case Law:

• J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928) – Explained that Congress can delegate authority to agencies, but the courts maintain review power.

• Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) – Ruled that the executive branch cannot create or modify laws without legislative approval.

Because traffic laws are created by legislatures, enforced by police, and reviewed by courts, they do not inherently violate separation of powers.

Your concerns about traffic enforcement being utilized primarily as a revenue-generating mechanism rather than focusing on public safety are echoed in various legal and policy discussions. While courts have generally upheld the constitutionality of traffic laws, numerous studies and cases highlight the potential misuse of these laws for financial gain, leading to adverse societal impacts.​

1. Revenue Generation Through Traffic Enforcement

Research indicates that some municipalities disproportionately rely on traffic fines and fees as significant revenue sources. This practice can erode public trust and divert law enforcement priorities away from genuine public safety concerns. For instance, a study published in the North Carolina Law Review discusses how the financial incentives tied to traffic enforcement can lead to practices that prioritize revenue over safety, potentially resulting in unjust outcomes and strained community relations.

Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities

The emphasis on revenue generation through traffic enforcement has been shown to disproportionately affect marginalized communities. An article from the Brennan Center for Justice highlights how financial incentives within the criminal justice system can lead to practices that undermine public safety and exacerbate racial disparities.

How Criminal Justice’s Need to Generate Revenue Interferes with Public Safety

Legal and Policy Critiques

Legal scholars have critiqued the practice of "policing for profit," arguing that it distorts law enforcement objectives and undermines the legitimacy of the justice system. An article in the Iowa Law Review examines the implications of police quota laws, suggesting that such practices can lead to coercive behavior and misallocation of policing resources.

The Effect of Police Quota Laws

. Case Studies and Legislative Responses

Specific cases have brought attention to these issues. For example, the city of Ferguson, Missouri, faced national scrutiny after investigations revealed that a significant portion of its municipal revenue was derived from fines and fees, leading to calls for reform. In response, some jurisdictions have enacted legislation to cap the percentage of revenue that municipalities can collect from traffic violations. Missouri's "Macks Creek Law" is one such example, limiting the proportion of municipal revenue that can come from traffic fines to prevent exploitative practices.

Exploitative Revenues,Law Enforcement,and the Quality ofGovernment Service

Macks Creek Law

Conclusion

While traffic laws themselves have been upheld as constitutional, the manner in which they are enforced and the underlying motivations can raise significant policy concerns. The potential for revenue-driven enforcement to undermine public trust, exacerbate social inequalities, and divert law enforcement from public safety objectives warrants careful examination and, where necessary, policy reforms to ensure that traffic enforcement serves the public good rather than primarily functioning as a financial instrument.

 Legislative Authority of Traffic Laws in New Jersey

Traffic laws in New Jersey are established through legislative processes. The New Jersey Legislature enacts statutes related to motor vehicles and traffic regulations, primarily codified in Title 39 of the New Jersey Revised Statutes.

 New Jersey's traffic

Authority of Police Officers in Enforcing Traffic Laws

Law enforcement officers derive their authority to enforce traffic laws directly from the statutes enacted by the New Jersey Legislature. When an individual commits a traffic violation, such as failing to stop at a stop sign, officers are empowered to initiate a traffic stop and issue citations. While many traffic offenses are considered civil infractions, certain violations can escalate to criminal offenses, especially when they involve reckless behavior or result in harm.

Reasonable Suspicion: More Than Just a Hunch

Navigating interactions with law enforcement can be stressful, especially if you don’t understand your rights. In New Jersey, the legal concepts of “reasonable suspicion” and “probable cause” play a crucial role in determining when a police officer can stop, detain, or search you or your vehicle. This page provides a detailed explanation of these concepts, along with practical guidance on how to protect your rights.

Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard that gives police officers the authority to temporarily detain someone if they have a reasonable belief, supported by articulable facts, that the individual may be involved in criminal activity. It’s important to remember that this suspicion must be based on more than just a gut feeling or a hunch. The officer must be able to point to specific observations or information that led them to suspect criminal activity.

Examples of Situations That Might Give Rise to Reasonable Suspicion:

• Traffic Violations: Observing a driver exceeding the speed limit, running a red light, making an illegal turn, or driving erratically.
• Suspicious Behavior: Witnessing someone acting nervously, making furtive movements, attempting to hide something, or trying to evade police.
• Matching a Description: Encountering someone who matches the description of a suspect in a recent crime, such as a robbery or assault.
• Presence in a High-Crime Area: Observing someone in an area known for drug activity, gang activity, or other crimes, especially if combined with other suspicious factors.
• Tip from a Reliable Informant: Receiving information from a reliable source who provides specific details about potential criminal activity.

Can a Police Officer Search My Car Based on Reasonable Suspicion Alone?

In most cases, the answer is no. Reasonable suspicion, by itself, does not automatically give a police officer the right to search your vehicle. However, there are some important exceptions to this rule:

• Plain View Doctrine: If the officer sees illegal items, such as drugs or weapons, in plain view inside your car, they have the right to seize those items and may conduct a further search related to those items.
• Protective Sweep: If the officer has a reasonable belief that you may be armed and dangerous, they can conduct a limited “protective sweep” of your car to ensure their safety. This sweep is limited to areas where a weapon could be hidden.
• Consent: If you voluntarily give the officer permission to search your car, they can proceed with the search. It’s important to understand that you have the right to refuse a search, and it’s often advisable to do so unless you have nothing to hide.
• Probable Cause: If, during the initial stop, the officer develops probable cause to believe that your car contains evidence of a crime, they can then search your car without your consent. We’ll discuss probable cause in more detail below.

Probable Cause: A Higher Standard

Probable cause is a higher legal standard than reasonable suspicion. It requires the officer to have enough evidence to reasonably believe that:

• A crime has been committed, and
• You are the person who committed it, or that evidence of the crime is located in a specific place, such as your car, home, or on your person.

This belief must be based on objective facts and circumstances, not just mere suspicion or a hunch.

Examples of Situations That Might Establish Probable Cause:

• Witness Testimony: A witness identifies you as the perpetrator of a crime.
• Physical Evidence: The officer finds evidence of a crime on your person or in your car, such as drugs, stolen property, or a weapon used in a crime.
• Confession: You admit to committing a crime.
• Suspicious Odor: The officer smells a strong odor of an illegal substance coming from your car.

Key Differences Between Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause

Feature	Reasonable Suspicion	Probable Cause
Standard	Lower	Higher
Basis	Specific, articulable facts suggesting possible criminal activity	Objective facts and circumstances indicating a crime has been committed
Allows	Brief detention, limited investigation	Arrest, search, seizure

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

• Do I have to answer an officer’s questions during a stop based on reasonable suspicion?
  • You have the right to remain silent and are not required to answer an officer’s questions. However, you must provide your driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance if requested during a traffic stop.
• Can I refuse a search of my car?
  • Yes, you have the right to refuse consent to a search of your car. However, if the officer has probable cause, they can search your car even without your consent.
• What should I do if I believe an officer illegally searched my car?
  • If you believe your rights were violated during a police encounter, it’s crucial to contact an experienced criminal defense attorney as soon as possible. They can help you understand your rights and explore potential legal options.
• What if I’m a passenger in a car that gets stopped?
  • Passengers also have rights. You generally have the right to remain silent and refuse to consent to a search of your person or belongings.
• Can an officer stop me just because I’m in a high-crime area?
  • Being in a high-crime area alone is not enough for a legal stop. The officer must have other specific and articulable facts that create reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

New Jersey Traffic Stop Laws: What Drivers Need to Know

Reasonable Suspicion: This standard allows an officer to stop a vehicle if there is a reasonable belief that the driver has committed a traffic violation or other offense. 

Probable Cause: A higher standard than reasonable suspicion, probable cause exists when an officer has sufficient evidence to believe that a person has committed a crime. In the context of traffic stops, probable cause may justify a search of the vehicle or an arrest if evidence of a crime is apparent.

Definitions of Roadway, Street, and Highway

The NJ MVC uses specific terminology to define various types of thoroughfares:​

• Highway: Generally refers to any public road or street.​

• Roadway/Street: Often used interchangeably with highway, encompassing all public ways intended for vehicular travel.

These definitions are consistent with those found in Title 39 of the New Jersey Revised Statutes, which governs motor vehicles and traffic regulation. ​nj.gotpermits.com+1Justia Law+1

5. Authority to Ticket or Impound Vehicles

Under Title 39, law enforcement officers have the authority to issue citations for various offenses, including:​

• Parking Violations: Illegal parking can result in tickets and, in certain circumstances, vehicle impoundment.​

• Standing Violations: Refers to stopping a vehicle in prohibited areas, which can also lead to citations.​

• Driving Violations: Moving violations such as speeding 

2024 New Jersey Revised Statutes
Title 39 - Motor Vehicles and Traffic Regulation
Section 39:1-1 - Words and phrases defined.'

"Automobile" includes all motor vehicles except motorcycles.

"Roadway" means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the berm or shoulder. In the event a highway includes two or more separate roadways, the term "roadway" as used herein shall refer to any such roadway separately, but not to all such roadways, collectively.

"Standard" means, when used to describe any license to operate a motor vehicle or any identification card issued by the commission under the provisions of this Title, that the issuance of the license or identification card does not require proof of lawful presence in the United States.

"Street" means the same as highway.

"Street car" means a car other than a railroad train, for transporting persons or property and operated upon rails principally within a municipality.

"Traffic" means pedestrians, ridden or herded animals, vehicles, street cars, and other conveyances either singly, or together, while using any highway for purposes of travel.

"Motor vehicle" includes all vehicles propelled otherwise than by muscular power, excepting such vehicles as run only upon rails or tracks, low-speed electric bicycles, low-speed electric scooters, and motorized bicycles.

"Intersection" means the area embraced within the prolongation of the lateral curb lines or, if none, the lateral boundary lines of two or more highways which join one another at an angle, whether or not one such highway crosses another.

"Highway" means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel.

"Driver" means the rider or driver of a horse, bicycle or motorcycle or the driver or operator of a motor vehicle, unless otherwise specified.

"Commercial motor vehicle" includes every type of motor-driven vehicle used for commercial purposes on the highways, such as the transportation of goods, wares and merchandise, excepting such vehicles as are run only upon rails or tracks and vehicles of the passenger car type used for touring purposes or the carrying of farm products and milk, as the case may be.

Motion to Suppress Evidence – New Jersey Criminal Procedure The Burden of Proof

Reevaluating the Purpose of Parking Violations

Parking violations, by their very nature, do not address public safety because they occur when a vehicle is stationary—not in operation, and therefore not directly posing a danger to people or property. When a car is parked, the driver’s behavior is not at issue in the same way as when a vehicle is in motion. This creates a critical disconnect: enforcing parking regulations as if they serve a safety purpose is questionable.

Administrative Overreach Versus Public Safety

The rules set forth by the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission, which govern how streets, highways, and roadways are defined (as detailed in N.J. Rev. Stat. § 39:1-1), focus on the regulation of travel and vehicular movement rather than the mere act of parking. In this context, parking violations are administrative and civil matters—not crimes designed to protect public safety.

When law enforcement issues citations for parked vehicles, it is operating within an administrative framework that, in many cases, appears to function as a revenue-generating tool rather than a means of enhancing public safety. This use of administrative authority raises serious constitutional concerns, particularly when such actions are detached from the direct prevention of injury or harm.

Constitutional and Legal Considerations

This argument draws on several foundational principles:

• Constitutional Maxim: The preamble of the Constitution emphasizes that governmental power originates from the people. Any law or administrative action that strays from this mandate by prioritizing revenue over the welfare of citizens may be considered repugnant to constitutional principles.

• Due Process and Equity: Fundamental rights, as guaranteed by both federal law and human rights principles, require that any enforcement mechanism must be both fair and directly related to protecting individual safety. The imposition of fines for non-safety-related violations can be seen as an overreach that lacks the requisite due process.

• Separation of Powers: When administrative rules and enforcement practices—such as parking citations—operate without a clear link to the public safety mission envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, they risk upsetting the balance between the legislative intent and administrative execution. These practices could be interpreted as a misappropriation of power not truly delegated by the people.

Conclusion

In essence, parking violations serve as an example of administrative law that has been stretched to function in areas where it may not belong. When a vehicle is parked, there is no active risk to public safety, yet the enforcement of these violations continues as a matter of revenue rather than safety. This discrepancy raises significant constitutional questions regarding due process, the delegation of governmental authority, and the foundational principle that power is derived from the people. Any law or rule that is fundamentally at odds with these principles should be scrutinized and, if found repugnant, declared null.