Fruit of the Poison Tree

[believeinthesys]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? New Jersey

Hello. I am challenge a summons based on the grounds that the stop was illegal, and so anything found subsequently (such as the expired inspection sticker) is not admissible. I'm not a lawyer, and so I'm wondering if I am interpreting the law correctly and stand any chance of winning. Here's the story...

I was pulled over in NJ for having an expired NJ drivers license. During the stop, the officer issued me a summons for an expired NJ inspection sticker.

In fact, I've never had an NJ license. The way the system works in NJ, if you receive a parking ticket in NJ (as I did several years ago), you are somehow assigned a number in the NJ DMV system - which to the police appears to be a drivers license number. On the officer's computer, my "NJ license" appears to be expired and so he pulled me over (I have a valid NY license).

I can not be pulled over for having an expired NJ license, when I've never even had a NJ license to begin with. Thus the stop was illegal, and so the expired inspection sticker found subsequently is tainted. The expired license is anon issue because the officer realized the issue as soon as I explained to him (this has happened to me before) the situation.

I realize that the officer honestly believed he had reason to pull me over. At the same time, misinformation generated by the State and fed to officers on the street can not be used as justification for a traffic stop that would otherwise be invalid. If so, this would be a very dangerous road to go down.

Do I have a chance?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[CdwJava]

Whether your argument will succeed or not will depend on what the officer testifies to at trial. Is the inspection sticker visible? Could he just say that he saw the sticker and THAT was why he made the stop? (My state does not have these inspection stickers so I don't entirely understand how they work or where they are placed on the car.)

That other citation you got, did you take care of it? If not taken care of, your license (driving status) might have been suspended in NJ and that does not require you to have ever had a license there.

And what are you doing operating a car with NJ registration and not a NJ license? It might be that you could have gotten a citation for that, too.

So, have you sought anything in discovery that will give you some idea as to what the officer will testify to at trial? If he made any notes on the citation it might include what he saw that caused him to stop you. Otherwise, all you will have is what he claims at court, and whatever you might get home to admit to on cross-examination. If he admits that he pulled you over for an expired license and he cannot produce any evidence of that - and you can produce evidence that you do NOT have such a license (perhaps a printout from the NJ Motor Vehicle Bureau ... or whatever they call it there) - then you will likely prevail.

But, if that sticker is visible and obvious from the outside, he may just say that was why he stopped you.

 

[believeinthesys]

Thanks CDWJAVA

Hi.

The officer ststed that the reason he pulled me over is that my licesence came up as expired. My expectation is that he will be honest about this if it comes to a cross-examination.

I have not entered into the discovery process yet...and my first court date is scheduled for Jan 13th.

This issue of the expired NJ license has been resolved and I have paperwork from the courts and brain damage from DMV to prove it.

Why I have not yet switched over my licesnce is a long story. Whether or not this is a separate violation is another matter.

The inspection sticker measures approx. 3inches by 4 inches and is placed on lower corner of the driver's side front windshield.

My vehicile is large SUV and the sticker is not easily observable from another car and probably impossible to see when sitting in a lower car (such as apolice cruiser). Further, from what I could tell, the officer was behind me the entire time.

Are you aware of any particular cases dealing with illegal stops or secondary offenses observed as a result of an illegal stop?? - I'd like to have some precedent cases at the ready when I meet with the prosecutor. If I can present a credible case to him/her - This alone may enable me to avoid taking up the court's time.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Maybe you should post the statute(s) you were charged with. I mean what if the statute says the you were in violation of driving with an "invalid" driver's license as opposed to one which had "expired"?

 

[goddessoflubboc]

Maybe I'm just really tired, but I feel like I'm missing something here.

How could the primary stop be for an expired DL when in fact they don't actually know who's driving until *after* they stop you?

 

[dave33]

O.P., I think you might be under the wrong impression here. I do not know much at all about this, but do not think the same things apply in traffic court or tribunal as in criminal court. Maybe if you show you have a valid inspection sticker in court a dismissal is possible, but feel pretty sure you will be found guilty of the sticker otherwise. Best case scenario- Judge finds not guilty because of stop, but still establishes you have an invalid sticker and orders you to get one. This is a very informal procedure in my state. goodluck.

 

[outonbail]

The police could have run the plates on the vehicle and they could have come up with the OP's information that way. In fact, they now have camera systems mounted on cruisers which automatically scan thousands of plates an hour. When they get a hit on someone's vehicle who is not licensed or who has a suspended license, the computer signals that there is a possible violation with an audible tone. If the person driving matches the description of the subject who is not licensed, they pull the person over.

I don't see where the officer did anything wrong. He had reasonable suspicion that the person driving was not licensed. This is what came up in the computer, so the stop will not be considered unreasonable or illegal.
Any violations he discovers in the course of investigating the DL issue, is fair game.

I think you're going to have a hard time skating with your "illegal stop" defense. Because I see the stop as actually being legal. Although the information was incorrect (according to the OP) the officer didn't know the situation was taken care of until he made the stop and spoke with the OP. So I don't see how the officer relying on the information he was given to justify the stop, can equate to the officer illegally pulling the OP over. But maybe I'm missing something myself?

Please come back and tell us how it went,,,

 

[goddessoflubboc]

In addition, "fruit of the poison tree" does not apply here, because there was no "poison tree" to begin with. The original stop was completely legal.

After that, the sticker falls under the plain view doctrine.

 

[CdwJava]

The only "out" here might be if there was, indeed, no violation a court might be compelled to dismiss the reasonable suspicion for the stop and thus the discovery of the inspection sticker (if it could only be discovered by the stop). A judge would be left with that discretion even if the officer acted in good faith. As I am not familiar with the status of such law in NJ I can only opine that it could go either way. Though it depends on whether the NJ DMV actually had his license status listed as "expired" or that was simply a misinterpretation by a dispatcher.

 

[outonbail]

New Jersey inspection stickers are much like California's registration stickers except they stick them on the inside lower left hand corner of the windshield rather than on the rear license plate.
But they are a specific color to represent the year and have a large number on them which represents the month they are issued.
At least that is how they where back when I lived there.

But the sticker is intended to be visible. The OP is claiming that because his vehicle sits higher than the police cruiser, the officer couldn't have seen it from behind. This may be true but officers do look for them the same as officers look for the year registration stickers out here.

But the thing is that the OP knew his vehicle inspection sticker had expired and was driving it anyway, hoping it would not be noticed. I think he's reaching for straws with his defense in an attempt to get out of paying a fine even though he knew he was in violation when he drove the vehicle.

I'd say just go take care of the inspection when it's due and then he would avoid all this other nonsense.

 

[CdwJava]

Which is why it is important to know what the officer's articulated reasonable suspicion for the stop is going to be. If for an expired license, context will be very important and the end result could be uncertain. If for the inspection sticker, the stop will be good unless the OP can cast doubt on the officer's account of events.

I would recommend bringing the inspection up to date and clearing any problems so that all is good in the world. That way, the judge may decide that the matter has been corrected and might be more inclined to dismiss or apply a minimal fine.

 

[Joshuaace2]

OP, the poison fruit defense will not work here. Even if the information that lead to the officer pulling you over was incorrect, it was more than reasonable for him to believe it was correct. No poison tree, no poison fruit. Get your sticker before court and hope for leniency.

If you contest this with this defense, you will almost surely lose, and the penalty will almost certainly be more severe.

 

[believeinthesys]

Thanks for All the Advice - here's more detail...

Inspection sticker: It was expired and I remdied this situaion with a 3 days of the stop. I now have a valid sticker.

The stop: The officer stated "expired licesene" as the reason for the stop. My understanding is that this "drivers license number" that I have been assigned in the system is somehow associated with my vehicle plates. I don't know the specific statute he originally belived I violated (expired vs invalid vs whatever drivers license) becuase ultimalty I was not cited for that, and so I dont have that specific info, and my websearch turned up more than one DL statutes.

The Officer: I believe he did act in good faith. His information does make it appear that I have an expired NJ licesnce. After explaining, and the officer checking further, he realized that it was a situation where I had been assigned a number in the system that looks like a DL number, but in fa t it was becuase my vehicle received a parking ticket several years ago.

I'm fighting this becuase if the State system is flawed in that it makes it appear to officers that people are driving around with invalid licesense, when in fact they are not, then this should not be used as justification for a stop. What if the State began to feed additonal misinformation to officers to the point where anyone could be pulled over (illegally) becuase the officer himself was/is acting in good faith on bad information provided by the State? This is a problem.

 

[HappyWanderer]

I agree with Joshuaace2, I don't think the stop is invalid solely because of the error on the computer. If all we're talking about is an expired inspection sticker, the traffic court may let it go. If something else was found and the OP is going to grown up court, I think there is a much higher hurdle. Warrants found to be incorrect in the computer, but the officer acted reasonably in acting on the computer record, have been found to be within probable cause for making the arrest. I believe it to be the same here. If the computer records are as the OP say, the cop did not make a mistake of law as much of as a mistake of fact. That's what reasonable suspicion and probable cause are all about. What would a reasonable officer with like training and experience feel based on the totality of the circumstances?

 

[believeinthesys]

Refining the issue

Thanks again for all the advice. It seems to boil down to whther or not the officer acted reasonable and in good faith.

I believe he did (im the one that was pulled over).

The problem is that NJ's computer system has a peculiarity in which people without NJ CDL's who have received parking tickets in NJ appear (on the officer's computer) to have expired NJ DL's.

So to me, the State is feeding officers misinformation to justify what would otherwise be an invalid stop. Of course it's not as sisnister as I am making it out to be, but that still does not make it right.

So how do I make a case that the officer may have acted reasonably, but if the State is sysmtematiclly feeding misonformation to the officer(s), this can not be used to justify a stop.

What would happen if the State decided to expand the "misinfomation" or "computer glitch" so that essentially everyone could be pulled over becuase there's bad information on "everyone" in the officer's computer?

It doesnt seem right. Am I wrong?