When the Driver is Not the Owner Whose License is Suspended
June 15, 2023 - Posted by Larry E. Holtz Esq.
It took twenty-five years, but the New Jersey Supreme Court finally answered the question whether an officer, stopping a car based on a MDT report that the registered owner’s license is suspended, is permitted to ask for license, registration and proof of insurance when the driver, upon closer observation, does not resemble the owner.
In State v. Williams (N.J. 5-30-2023), the Court said NO! If “upon stopping the vehicle, it becomes reasonably apparent to the officer that the driver does not look like the owner whose license is suspended, the officer must cease the vehicle’s detention, and communicate that the motorist is free to drive away without further delay.”
It’s been twenty five years since the Court, in State v. Donis, 157 N.J. 44 (1998), ruled that an officer’s random check of a vehicle’s license plate using an MDT and ensuing stop of that vehicle was consistent with the New Jersey Constitution. In the intervening years since Donis, MDT technology has rapidly advanced and the use of ALPRs now enables hundreds of licenses to be checked almost instantaneously. Whether an officer is required to determine if the driver matches the registered owner’s description prior to the stop, however, the Donis Court was less than clear.
The Williams case arose out of a police officer’s motor vehicle stop based upon information from a random query performed on a mobile data terminal (MDT) that revealed the car’s registered owner had a suspended driver’s license. “Defendants, two males, had borrowed the car from its female owner. The police officer, who had been parked on the side of the road, was unable to tell whether its driver resembled the license photo and description of the suspended owner. It was not until the officer made the stop and arrived at the passenger-side window that he concluded the driver was not the female owner. The officer nonetheless requested a driver’s license, registration, and insurance. Believing that he might have smelled marijuana while standing there, despite a stuffy nose, he arranged with a backup officer to have a canine sniff the car. The dog uncovered the presence of marijuana. An on-the-spot search thereafter revealed a gun under the driver’s seat.”
Upon appeal, the Court addressed two questions:
(1) When a random MDT check of a vehicle’s license plate reveals that the driver’s license of the registered owner is suspended, does that information provide a reasonable suspicion authorizing the officer to stop the vehicle?
(2) If a motor vehicle stop is lawful, is the officer permitted to finish the stop by examining the driver’s license, registration and proof of insurance?
The Court answered yes to the first question. When a random check of a vehicle’s license plate using a MDT reveals that the driver’s license of the registered owner is suspended, “such information provides constitutionally valid reasonable suspicion authorizing the officer to stop the vehicle — unless the officer pursuing the vehicle has a sufficient objective basis to believe that the driver does not resemble the owner.”
Regarding the second question, the Court said no. “If, upon stopping the vehicle, it becomes reasonably apparent to the officer that the driver does not look like the owner whose license is suspended, the officer must cease the vehicle’s detention, and communicate that the motorist is free to drive away without further delay.”
In this case, the initial stop was lawful because it was based on reasonable suspicion that the registered owner had a suspended driver’s license. However, the Court further held that “the detention of defendants and the borrowed car was unconstitutionally prolonged after the officer recognized the driver was not the car’s owner. That is because the officer’s admittedly uncertain ability to tell if he smelled marijuana was inadequate evidence of ‘plain smell’ to justify a continuation of the stop and a search of the vehicle.” The Court ruled:
"[I]n the absence of information that reasonably indicates to a pursuing officer that the driver is not the vehicle’s owner, the MDT data furnishes reasonable suspicion to authorize the stop. … That said, there is a crucial limitation to that principle[:] once it becomes reasonably apparent to the officer that the observed driver does not resemble the owner — either by the photo displayed on the MDT or the age, gender, or description of the owner reported on the license or other visible characteristics — the pursuit or stop of that driver must cease."
The Court refused to hold that an officer must visually confirm that the driver matches the owner’s description before a vehicle is stopped. While the Court encouraged officers to “make reasonable efforts to attempt such verification if — and only if — it is feasible and safe to do so,” it did not, of course, "condone dangerous driving maneuvers by police officers to obtain a glimpse of a passing motorist, particularly on dark, hilly, or curving roads. [The] point is that if obtaining a visual confirmation is reasonably safe and practicable, the officer can avoid wasting time and creating unnecessary inconvenience for both the officer and the motorist."
Accordingly, if upon stopping a vehicle, “it becomes reasonably apparent to the officer that the driver does not look like the owner whose license is suspended, the officer must cease the vehicle’s detention, and communicate that the motorist is free to drive away without further delay.” The officer “may not, without further additional constitutional justification, linger by the vehicle and continue the roadside detention, even to collect or review the driver’s documentation. … [T]he stop must end. The officer in that situation may only attempt to briefly explain the vehicle was inadvertently stopped, and tell the driver that the driver is free to proceed. Such a very brief conversation might helpfully dispel possible confusion by the motorist. Indeed, none of the parties advocate that the officer should say nothing and simply drive away and leave motorists wondering what had occurred and whether they are free to leave.”
"If, however, during the brief time in which the officer is lawfully at the side of the car providing the motorist with an explanation and permission to leave, that officer observes in plain view a firearm, illegal narcotics, or other apparent contraband within the vehicle, the officer may pursue a further investigation. In that situation, the officer may detain the motorist for an additional reasonable period of time based on reasonable suspicion that another, separate crime is being or has been committed. Such further investigation may include a canine drug sniff, provided the sniff does not consume an unreasonable period of time."
It took twenty-five years, but the New Jersey Supreme Court finally answered the question whether an officer, stopping a car based on a MDT report that the registered owner’s license is suspended, is permitted to ask for license, registration and proof of insurance when the driver, upon closer observation, does not resemble the owner.
In State v. Williams (N.J. 5-30-2023), the Court said NO! If “upon stopping the vehicle, it becomes reasonably apparent to the officer that the driver does not look like the owner whose license is suspended, the officer must cease the vehicle’s detention, and communicate that the motorist is free to drive away without further delay.”
It’s been twenty five years since the Court, in State v. Donis, 157 N.J. 44 (1998), ruled that an officer’s random check of a vehicle’s license plate using an MDT and ensuing stop of that vehicle was consistent with the New Jersey Constitution. In the intervening years since Donis, MDT technology has rapidly advanced and the use of ALPRs now enables hundreds of licenses to be checked almost instantaneously. Whether an officer is required to determine if the driver matches the registered owner’s description prior to the stop, however, the Donis Court was less than clear.
The Williams case arose out of a police officer’s motor vehicle stop based upon information from a random query performed on a mobile data terminal (MDT) that revealed the car’s registered owner had a suspended driver’s license. “Defendants, two males, had borrowed the car from its female owner. The police officer, who had been parked on the side of the road, was unable to tell whether its driver resembled the license photo and description of the suspended owner. It was not until the officer made the stop and arrived at the passenger-side window that he concluded the driver was not the female owner. The officer nonetheless requested a driver’s license, registration, and insurance. Believing that he might have smelled marijuana while standing there, despite a stuffy nose, he arranged with a backup officer to have a canine sniff the car. The dog uncovered the presence of marijuana. An on-the-spot search thereafter revealed a gun under the driver’s seat.”
Upon appeal, the Court addressed two questions:
(1) When a random MDT check of a vehicle’s license plate reveals that the driver’s license of the registered owner is suspended, does that information provide a reasonable suspicion authorizing the officer to stop the vehicle?
(2) If a motor vehicle stop is lawful, is the officer permitted to finish the stop by examining the driver’s license, registration and proof of insurance?
The Court answered yes to the first question. When a random check of a vehicle’s license plate using a MDT reveals that the driver’s license of the registered owner is suspended, “such information provides constitutionally valid reasonable suspicion authorizing the officer to stop the vehicle — unless the officer pursuing the vehicle has a sufficient objective basis to believe that the driver does not resemble the owner.”
Regarding the second question, the Court said no. “If, upon stopping the vehicle, it becomes reasonably apparent to the officer that the driver does not look like the owner whose license is suspended, the officer must cease the vehicle’s detention, and communicate that the motorist is free to drive away without further delay.”
In this case, the initial stop was lawful because it was based on reasonable suspicion that the registered owner had a suspended driver’s license. However, the Court further held that “the detention of defendants and the borrowed car was unconstitutionally prolonged after the officer recognized the driver was not the car’s owner. That is because the officer’s admittedly uncertain ability to tell if he smelled marijuana was inadequate evidence of ‘plain smell’ to justify a continuation of the stop and a search of the vehicle.” The Court ruled:
"[I]n the absence of information that reasonably indicates to a pursuing officer that the driver is not the vehicle’s owner, the MDT data furnishes reasonable suspicion to authorize the stop. … That said, there is a crucial limitation to that principle[:] once it becomes reasonably apparent to the officer that the observed driver does not resemble the owner — either by the photo displayed on the MDT or the age, gender, or description of the owner reported on the license or other visible characteristics — the pursuit or stop of that driver must cease."
The Court refused to hold that an officer must visually confirm that the driver matches the owner’s description before a vehicle is stopped. While the Court encouraged officers to “make reasonable efforts to attempt such verification if — and only if — it is feasible and safe to do so,” it did not, of course, "condone dangerous driving maneuvers by police officers to obtain a glimpse of a passing motorist, particularly on dark, hilly, or curving roads. [The] point is that if obtaining a visual confirmation is reasonably safe and practicable, the officer can avoid wasting time and creating unnecessary inconvenience for both the officer and the motorist."
Accordingly, if upon stopping a vehicle, “it becomes reasonably apparent to the officer that the driver does not look like the owner whose license is suspended, the officer must cease the vehicle’s detention, and communicate that the motorist is free to drive away without further delay.” The officer “may not, without further additional constitutional justification, linger by the vehicle and continue the roadside detention, even to collect or review the driver’s documentation. … [T]he stop must end. The officer in that situation may only attempt to briefly explain the vehicle was inadvertently stopped, and tell the driver that the driver is free to proceed. Such a very brief conversation might helpfully dispel possible confusion by the motorist. Indeed, none of the parties advocate that the officer should say nothing and simply drive away and leave motorists wondering what had occurred and whether they are free to leave.”
"If, however, during the brief time in which the officer is lawfully at the side of the car providing the motorist with an explanation and permission to leave, that officer observes in plain view a firearm, illegal narcotics, or other apparent contraband within the vehicle, the officer may pursue a further investigation. In that situation, the officer may detain the motorist for an additional reasonable period of time based on reasonable suspicion that another, separate crime is being or has been committed. Such further investigation may include a canine drug sniff, provided the sniff does not consume an unreasonable period of time."