State v. Mellody

318 A.3d 723

479 N.J.Super. 90

STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.Mary MELLODY, Defendant-Appellant.

DOCKET NO. A-1087-22

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued May 8, 2024

Decided July 5, 2024

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Sussex County, Municipal Appeal No, 04-03-22.

Nicole Leigh Atlak argued the cause for appellant (Caruso Smith Picini, PC, attorneys; Nicole Leigh Atlak, on the briefs).

Karen A. Lodeserto, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Carolyn Murray, Acting Sussex County Prosecutor, attorney; Karen A. Lodeserto, of counsel and on the brief).

Before Judges Currier, Firko and Susswein.

₁₀₁The opinion of the court was delivered by

SUSSWEIN, J.A.D.

[1] In this appeal we consider the circumstances in which a police officer may enter a suspect’s residence in connection with a drunk or careless driving investigation. Under the Fourth Amendment and its analogue, Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution, homes are accorded heightened protections. While police have the authority to perform various "community caretaking" functions—such as determining whether a suspected drunk driver needs medical attention—they may not make a warrantless entry into a suspect’s home, including the garage, to execute an investigative detention without consent or exigent circumstances.

Defendant Mary Mellody appeals from a November 18, 2022 Law Division order affirming, on de novo review, the denial of her motion to suppress evidence and her municipal court convictions for driving while intoxicated (DWI) and careless driving. Defendant contends there were insufficient grounds to initiate a DWI stop because the officer had not personally observed her alleged erratic driving. She also contends the results of the field sobriety tests should have been suppressed as fruits of the officer’s unlawful entry into her garage at her home.

After carefully reviewing the record in light of the governing legal principles, we conclude the officer had reasonable and articulable₁₀₂ suspicion to initiate a DWI stop based on a 9-1-1 call reporting defendant’s erratic driving. However, we also conclude the officer unlawfully entered defendant’s garage to detain her. Viewed un- der an objective standard, the record shows the officer did not render emergency aid justifying the warrantless entry under the exigent circumstances exception. Rather, the officer conducted what might be characterized as a routine investigation of the suspected DWI and careless driving offenses, approaching the vehicle in the garage as if it were stopped on the side of a public road, and administering standard field sobriety tests without ever inquiring whether defendant needed medical attention.

Because the State failed to establish exigent circumstances, entering the garage to detain defendant was unlawful, and the fruits of the ensuing investigation must be suppressed. Therefore, we reverse and vacate defendant’s DWI conviction, since the finding she was intoxicated depends on the field sobriety tests and observation of her demeanor made after the officer unlawfully entered the garage. We remand for the Law Division judge to determine whether the careless driving conviction—which is predicated on the way defendant drove into her garage—can be sustained based on information learned before the officer unlawfully crossed the threshold of defendant’s home.

I.

We discern the following facts and procedural history from the record. On November 1, 2019, defendant went to a tavern in Hardyston, where she saw her neighbor. Defendant and the neighbor left the tavern separately around 10:30 p.m. Around 10:44 p.m., Hardyston Police received a 9-1-1 call reporting an erratic driver in the Crystal Springs development area. The caller reported that the driver was swerving and going over curbs and described the car as a black Jeep SUV. The caller provided the Jeep’s license plate number.

An officer was dispatched to the Jeep’s registration address in an attempt to locate the erratic driver. Upon his arrival, the ₁₀₃officer observed a Jeep in the driveway matching the description from the 9-1-1 call. The Jeep’s brake lights were illuminated.

The officer activated his overhead lights to effectuate a stop. The Jeep moved forward into the attached garage and stopped after the officer heard a "bang." He surmised the Jeep struck a refrigerator located in the one-car garage, which he characterized as "tight."

The officer entered the garage and saw defendant sitting in the driver’s seat.¹ At the suppression hearing, the officer testified he asked defendant "what she was doing, why she didn’t stop when [he] activated [his] lights." He also "asked her something in relation to why she crashed into her fridge." He noticed defendant’s movements were "fumbled" and "slow" and that her eyes were "watery" and "bloodshot red." The officer smelled alcohol emanating from the vehicle.

The officer instructed defendant to turn off her engine and exit the vehicle so he could administer field sobriety tests. While performing the "walk and turn" test, defendant lost her balance and took an incorrect number of steps. She was also unable to perform the "one-leg stand" test.

Defendant was taken into custody and transported to the police station. She was charged with DWI, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, careless driving, N.J.S.A. 39:4-97, and failure to comply with the direction of a police officer, N.J.S.A. 39:4-57.

A. MUNICIPAL COURT PROCEEDINGS

On December 9, 2021, a municipal court judge convened a hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. The officer who initiated the stop and made the arrest was the only witness. ₁₀₄The State also introduced portions of the 9-1-1 call and dashcam recordings.

The municipal court judge determined: [I]t is significant that when [the officer] arrives and puts on his lights that [defendant] then, while her car is operational drives into the garage and drives into a refrigerator. At this point, he doesn’t—he’s not sure what he’s dealing [with] quite frankly, and I think he has an obligation, quite frankly, to investigate. Not only because there’s an indication that she’s driving erratically, but there may be a medical issue at stake. And I think there’s probably a community caretaker function that is invoked under these circumstances.

The judge continued:

If [defendant] was stopped in her vehicle, the vehicle’s turned off and she exited her vehicle and went into her home I think under those circumstances the argument with respect to getting a search warrant has great validity. I think under those circumstance[s] … the police are obligated to get a search warrant. But not here. She’s still in her car. The idea that she’s not going anywhere, because that was an issue that was raised by [defense counsel], assumes that she’s not going to back up, assumes she’s not going to leave, and assumes that [the officer can tell her to stop.] Well, obviously that didn’t work. When he put his lights on and she saw that [his] lights were on, and he activated some siren she then drove forward. I’m not going to say sped forward, but she drove forward and in such a way that she hit a … refrigerator.

The judge noted the dashcam video "speaks volumes" and "shows somebody who’s clearly intoxicated." The judge described defendant as "wobbling," "zigzagging," and "crying … upset … [and] emotional." He further stated, "her speech is slurred."

The judge found the officer credible. Although the judge acknowledged there were issues with respect to what the officer recalled, he noted "this is a ticket that’s now two years old." The judge denied defendant’s motion to suppress.

The municipal court trial was convened on March 10, 2022. The parties stipulated they would use the testimony from the suppression hearing. The State’s sole witness was the officer who administered the field sobriety tests and made the arrest. The defense called defendant’s neighbor as a witness.

The neighbor testified that defendant did not appear to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the tavern. Further, the neighbor picked up defendant’s towed car the next day and "didn’t ₁₀₅see a single scratch or a dent." She testified "[e]very-thing was intact."

Defendant testified on her own behalf. She claimed she was in the process of parking her car, and that the refrigerator is located directly in front of it. She maintained she did not hit the refrigerator or hear a "crash sound." She did not see any damage on the refrigerator when she looked at it after the incident.

Defendant testified, "I was putting my car in park, I noticed flashing lights behind me, but I honestly did not think that the [l]ights were at my house. I thought they were at my neighbor’s home." She continued, "[T]he first experience that I had was the officer came into my garage and was banging on my window. And startled me." As to her performance on the field sobriety tests, defendant testified she has health issues that impacted her balance and ability to perform the tests.

At the close of testimony, defendant moved to dismiss the case, arguing the State did not prove the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. The municipal judge denied the motion.

In rendering the verdict, the municipal judge found defendant’s testimony to be "[t]ruly incredulous." The judge nonetheless dismissed the failure to comply with directions of a police officer charge.

The judge found defendant guilty of DWI based on the observational evidence of defendant’s intoxication. The judge also found defendant guilty of careless driving "because the act of pulling that car forward under those circumstances, was done without due caution." With respect to the lack of refrigerator damage, the judge noted:

Now, you know, is there damage to her car, is there damage to the refrigerator? I credit [the neighbor’s] testimony that there was no damage. But that doesn’t mean [defendant

...