On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Docket Number A-16-02, whose opinion is reported at ____ N.J. Super. _____ (Law Div. _____).
Before Judges Parker and Coleman.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted January 6, 2004
Defendant was arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI) in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, on November 22, 2001, after being stopped at a DWI roadblock in Pennsauken. Defendant and five others who were stopped at the same roadblock moved in municipal court to consolidate their cases and to suppress the evidence on the ground that the roadblock was unconstitutional.
The municipal judge granted the consolidation motion and denied the suppression motion for all of the defendants. They then entered conditional pleas and appealed to the Law Division. On a de novo review, the Law Division judge rendered a written opinion on September 13, 2002, finding the roadblock constitutional and sustaining the municipal court ruling.
Defendant appeals and argues:
THE STATE DID NOT SET FORTH ANY EMPIRICAL DATA UTILIZED FOR SITE SELECTION OF THIS ROAD BLOCK, AND, AS SUCH, CANNOT DEMONSTRATE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ROADBLOCK IN PENNSAUKEN
ALLOWING 100 CARS, OR NINE PERCENT OF THE OVERALL TRAFFIC, THROUGH THE CHECKPOINT, DUE TO TRAFFIC BACKUP, DEMONSTRATES THAT THE CHECKPOINT WAS NON-RANDOM AND THAT THE SITE SELECTION WAS FLAWED
WHERE THE "SUPERVISING OFFICER" IS ALSO PARTICIPATING IN FIELD SOBRIETY TESTING AND OPERATION OF THE BREATHALYZER, HE IS NOT ACTING AS A DETACHED, OBJECTIVE ...