On May 30, 2023, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the Monmouth County case of State v. Jamire Williams. The principal issue concerned whether a license plate check revealing a registered owner with a suspended license provides a lawful basis for a motor vehicle stop.
Judge Sabatino wrote for a unanimous Court in relevant part: These appeals arise out of a police officer’s traffic stop and ensuing search of a passing automobile 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 Jamire Williams and Tyshon Kelly, two males, had borrowed the car from its female owner. When they passed Police Officer Jeffrey Kless, who had been parked on the side of the road, Kless ran an MDT query on the car. The results revealed a photo of and standard identifying information about the car’s registered owner, and that the registered owner had a suspended license. Kless pulled behind the car and activated his lights; the car pulled over without incident. Kless approached the passenger side of the vehicle on foot. It was not until he arrived at the passenger-side window that he concluded the driver was not the female owner. Kless nonetheless requested a driver’s license, registration, and insurance.
Believing that he might have smelled marijuana while standing there, despite a stuffy nose, Kless arranged with a backup officer, who had not smelled anything except air fresheners, to have a canine sniff the car. Prior to the sniff, Kless asked defendants to exit the vehicle. Williams stated that the officers would need consent from the vehicle’s owner to perform the sniff, but an officer on the scene responded, “We don’t need consent.” The dog uncovered the presence of marijuana. An on-the-spot search thereafter revealed a gun under the driver’s seat. Kless patted down defendants and placed them under arrest. Throughout the car search and pat down, Williams repeatedly protested to the officers about the search, including their lack of consent from the car owner. His words of protest were audible on the bodycam recording.
The officer was correct in noting that they do not need consent to conduct a dog sniff on the outside of the vehicle. I analyzed this issue in my New Jersey Law Journal article regarding another Monmouth County case that was decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court: State v. Dunbar. See Legalization of Suspicionless Canine Sniffs in NJ | New Jersey Law Journal
