New Jersey Appellate Division Decision – Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure Law
On July 24, 2024, the New Jersey Appellate Division decided State v. Kevin B. Boone, 479 N.J. Super. 193 (App. Div. 2024), which addressed the constitutionality of a pretextual motor vehicle stop and search. The Appellate Division held that the stop was unconstitutional because the State failed to put forth facts sufficient to establish the detective had reasonable articulable suspicion to stop Boone for a traffic lane violation.   

Facts and Procedural History: Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure in Traffic Stops
On an evening in November 2019, a canine officer of the Vineland Police Department observed defendant Boone briefly enter and exit a motel, which was known to be used by drug dealers. The officer believed Boone was involved in narcotics activity based solely on his brief visit to the motel and alerted a nearby detective to stop Boone’s vehicle. The detective testified that he followed Boone, who was driving a GMC Yukon, for about four tenths of a mile, and then stopped him after he witnessed Boone cross the center line in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-88(b), on that rainy night. A K-9 sniff alerted the officers to narcotics, and a search revealed drugs on Boone’s person and in the vehicle. Boone moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the stop was unconstitutional because there was no reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop. The trial court denied the motion. Boone appealed.  

Legal Issue: Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure in New Jersey
The Appellate Division first analyzed the validity of the traffic stop. The court found that Boone was stopped under N.J.S.A. 39:4-88(b), which requires that a vehicle be driven as nearly as practicable within a single lane. The Appellate Division set forth that crossing the center line is not a strict liability offense; it must be assessed under the surrounding circumstances, such as road conditions, weather, and vehicle size. At the suppression hearing, the detective testified that Boone’s vehicle crossed the center line more than once, but he could not recall specific details, such as how far into the other lane Boone’s car travelled or the condition of the road. 

Because N.J.S.A. 39:4-88(b), does not make every crossing of the center line a violation, the officer conducting a stop must have an articulable basis for concluding the driver failed to adhere to his single lane as nearly as practicable. The Appellate Division held that the detective’s testimony was insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion that a lane violation occurred, as there was no evidence that the lane deviation was unreasonable given the rainy conditions and late-night driving.  

Reasonable Suspicion in Traffic Stops: Fourth Amendment Standards
The Appellate Division further rejected the State’s argument that Boone’s tacit admission—acknowledging that he might not have been paying attention while driving—justified the stop. The appellate court noted that Boone’s admission did not support a violation of the lane change statute, and likewise, the detective’s own distracted attention while following the vehicle weakened the credibility of his observations. The Appellate Division found that the totality of the circumstances, including the conditions and Boone’s vehicle size, did not support a conclusion that the detective had reasonable suspicion to believe Boone violated N.J.S.A. 39:4-88(b). 

Court’s Conclusion on Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure
The Appellate Division held that the State failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the traffic stop was supported by reasonable and articulable suspicion. Because the stop was unconstitutional, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s denial of Boone’s motion to suppress and remanded the case for suppression of the evidence obtained from the search. The key takeaway is that generalized testimony without concrete details is insufficient to meet the constitutional standard required for a traffic stop under the Fourth Amendment. 

Key Takeaways on Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure in New Jersey
The State v. Boone decision is a significant ruling for Fourth Amendment search and seizure jurisprudence in New Jersey. It reinforces the need for law enforcement officers to provide detailed, objective facts to justify traffic stops, particularly under N.J.S.A. 39:4-88(b). The court made it clear that crossing the center line does not automatically constitute a violation, especially when factors like weather and vehicle size are involved. This decision highlights the importance of protecting individuals’ constitutional rights during traffic stops and will serve as a guideline for future cases involving reasonable suspicion. 

Criminal law is complicated and constantly changing. If you are facing criminal charges, you should immediately contact our team of experienced former prosecutors to schedule a free case review with one of our expert criminal defense attorneys. A complete understanding of criminal law by your attorney is crucial to your defense. Your rights and freedoms are in jeopardy, and you owe it to yourself to act. We are available to provide immediate assistance and further counsel on your case at 862-315-7929. 

No aspect of this attorney advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.