NJ Supreme Court Clarifies the Malfunctioning Taillight Issue
January 31, 2018 - Posted by Larry E. Holtz
In State v. Sutherland (NJ 2018), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that Title 39 requires a motor vehicle to have two working rear lamps, with at least one working lamp on each side.
The facts in Sutherland unfolded at about 9:00 p.m., when an officer stopped Ryan Sutherland’s (defendant’s) Camry because it appeared to have a malfunctioning taillight. “Although the vehicle had four taillights in total, two on each side, and although only one light on the rear passenger side was not illuminated,” the officer “believed that the vehicle was in violation of the motor vehicle code.” During the stop, the officer learned that defendant’s driver’s license was suspended. As a result, he issued him two summonses: driving with a suspended license in violation of N.J.S.39:3-40, and failure to maintain the vehicle’s “lamps” in violation of N.J.S.39:3-66. Subsequently, defendant was indicted for violating N.J.S.2C:40-26b., fourth-degree operating a motor vehicle during a period of license suspension for a second or subsequent driving-while-intoxicated conviction.
The trial court found the stop unlawful, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding that the relevant motor vehicle statutes were ambiguous and, based on Heien v. North Carolina, the officer’s stop of Sutherland’s car was based on a reasonable mistake of law, and therefore did not require suppression.
The New Jersey Supreme Court disagreed and reversed. According to the Court, the holding of Heien, is not applicable here because N.J.S. 39:3-61(a) and 39:3-66 “are not ambiguous.” Here, the officer’s stop of defendant’s vehicle “was not an objectively reasonable mistake of law that gave rise to constitutional reasonable suspicion.” Therefore, the Court held that the stop was unlawful.
This State’s case law provides that “a police officer’s objectively reasonable mistake of fact does not render a search or arrest unconstitutional.” Consistent with federal law, the New Jersey Supreme Court has held that “Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution provides room . . . for some mistakes [by police].”
Until the Appellate Division decision in this case, our appellate courts have not held that reasonable mistakes of law would pass constitutional muster. In fact, courts had reached the opposite conclusion.
Here, defendant’s traffic stop was premised on perceived violations of two statutes. N.J.S.39:3-61(a), relating to the types of “lamps and reflectors” required on certain motor vehicles, provides in pertinent part:
Every motor vehicle other than a motor cycle and other than a motor-drawn vehicle shall be equipped on the front with at least two headlamps, an equal number at each side, and with two turn signals, one on each side; and on the rear with two tail lamps, two or more stop lamps, as prescribed by [39:3-66.3], two turn signals, and two reflectors, one of each at each side . . . . [Emphasis added.]
N.J.S.39:3-66, which specifies the proper maintenance of such lamps and reflectors, provides:
All lamps, reflectors and other illuminating devices required by this article shall be kept clean and in good working order and, as far as practicable, shall be mounted in such a manner as to reduce the likelihood of their being obscured by mud or dust thrown up by the wheels. [Emphasis added.]
According to the Court, when read together, the statutes “require that a motor vehicle only have two working rear lamps, with at least one working lamp on each side. . . . Additionally, N.J.S.39:3-66 mandates that the lamps ‘required by this article’ must be kept in good working order. Thus, if there is only the minimum one taillight on each side of a vehicle and either of those taillights is not working, an officer can lawfully stop the vehicle and issue a citation for failure to maintain lamps. When a vehicle has more than the minimum of two rear taillights, for example the vehicle has two taillights on each side, an officer can lawfully stop the vehicle when one side’s taillights are both out, even though the vehicle has two or more taillights illuminated on the other side. In other words, the statutes require one working taillight on each side of a vehicle. Thus, if a vehicle has two taillights on each side of the vehicle—more than the law requires—and one of those multiple taillights on one side is not working, a violation of N.J.S.39:3-61(a) and -66, as was assumed and charged here, has not occurred.”
Thus, the statutory language here is “unambiguous” and, as a result, the Court held that the officer’s “erroneous application of the functioning taillight requirement” was not objectively reasonable.
In State v. Sutherland (NJ 2018), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that Title 39 requires a motor vehicle to have two working rear lamps, with at least one working lamp on each side.
The facts in Sutherland unfolded at about 9:00 p.m., when an officer stopped Ryan Sutherland’s (defendant’s) Camry because it appeared to have a malfunctioning taillight. “Although the vehicle had four taillights in total, two on each side, and although only one light on the rear passenger side was not illuminated,” the officer “believed that the vehicle was in violation of the motor vehicle code.” During the stop, the officer learned that defendant’s driver’s license was suspended. As a result, he issued him two summonses: driving with a suspended license in violation of N.J.S.39:3-40, and failure to maintain the vehicle’s “lamps” in violation of N.J.S.39:3-66. Subsequently, defendant was indicted for violating N.J.S.2C:40-26b., fourth-degree operating a motor vehicle during a period of license suspension for a second or subsequent driving-while-intoxicated conviction.
The trial court found the stop unlawful, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding that the relevant motor vehicle statutes were ambiguous and, based on Heien v. North Carolina, the officer’s stop of Sutherland’s car was based on a reasonable mistake of law, and therefore did not require suppression.
The New Jersey Supreme Court disagreed and reversed. According to the Court, the holding of Heien, is not applicable here because N.J.S. 39:3-61(a) and 39:3-66 “are not ambiguous.” Here, the officer’s stop of defendant’s vehicle “was not an objectively reasonable mistake of law that gave rise to constitutional reasonable suspicion.” Therefore, the Court held that the stop was unlawful.
This State’s case law provides that “a police officer’s objectively reasonable mistake of fact does not render a search or arrest unconstitutional.” Consistent with federal law, the New Jersey Supreme Court has held that “Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution provides room . . . for some mistakes [by police].”
Until the Appellate Division decision in this case, our appellate courts have not held that reasonable mistakes of law would pass constitutional muster. In fact, courts had reached the opposite conclusion.
Here, defendant’s traffic stop was premised on perceived violations of two statutes. N.J.S.39:3-61(a), relating to the types of “lamps and reflectors” required on certain motor vehicles, provides in pertinent part:
Every motor vehicle other than a motor cycle and other than a motor-drawn vehicle shall be equipped on the front with at least two headlamps, an equal number at each side, and with two turn signals, one on each side; and on the rear with two tail lamps, two or more stop lamps, as prescribed by [39:3-66.3], two turn signals, and two reflectors, one of each at each side . . . . [Emphasis added.]
N.J.S.39:3-66, which specifies the proper maintenance of such lamps and reflectors, provides:
All lamps, reflectors and other illuminating devices required by this article shall be kept clean and in good working order and, as far as practicable, shall be mounted in such a manner as to reduce the likelihood of their being obscured by mud or dust thrown up by the wheels. [Emphasis added.]
According to the Court, when read together, the statutes “require that a motor vehicle only have two working rear lamps, with at least one working lamp on each side. . . . Additionally, N.J.S.39:3-66 mandates that the lamps ‘required by this article’ must be kept in good working order. Thus, if there is only the minimum one taillight on each side of a vehicle and either of those taillights is not working, an officer can lawfully stop the vehicle and issue a citation for failure to maintain lamps. When a vehicle has more than the minimum of two rear taillights, for example the vehicle has two taillights on each side, an officer can lawfully stop the vehicle when one side’s taillights are both out, even though the vehicle has two or more taillights illuminated on the other side. In other words, the statutes require one working taillight on each side of a vehicle. Thus, if a vehicle has two taillights on each side of the vehicle—more than the law requires—and one of those multiple taillights on one side is not working, a violation of N.J.S.39:3-61(a) and -66, as was assumed and charged here, has not occurred.”
Thus, the statutory language here is “unambiguous” and, as a result, the Court held that the officer’s “erroneous application of the functioning taillight requirement” was not objectively reasonable.