Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Bay

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

November 13, 2013

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ROBERT BAY, Defendant-Appellant.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Argued June 25, 2013

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Municipal Appeal No. 4962.

Anthony J. Randazzo argued the cause for appellant (Miles Feinstein, attorney; Mr. Feinstein, on the brief).

Keith E. Hoffman, Senior Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Camelia M. Valdes, Passaic County Prosecutor, attorney; Mr. Hoffman, on the brief).

Before Judges Sapp-Peterson and Sabatino.

PER CURIAM

Defendant Robert Bay appeals the February 16, 2012 Law Division order finding him guilty of driving while intoxicated (DWI), N.J.S.A. 39:4-50. This was defendant's third conviction for DWI. Therefore, the judge imposed a ten-year suspension of his driving privileges, six months in the Passaic County Jail, a three-year period of ignition interlock, and imposed fines, penalties, and surcharges totaling $1358. Only the custodial portion of defendant's sentence was stayed pending appeal.

On appeal, defendant raises the following points for our consideration:

POINT I
THE DEFENDANT'S SUMMONSES (FOR DWI AND CARELESS DRIVING) MUST BE DISMISSED SINCE THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THE MOTOR VEHICLE STOP WAS BASED ON AN ARTICULABLE AND REASONABLE SUSPICION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE INFRACTION IN VIOLATION OF DEFENDANT'S FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
POINT II
THE LAW DIVISION FINDING OF GUILT DE NOVO SHOULD BE REVERSED AS TO THE DRUNK DRIVING CONVICTION AND A FINDING OF "NOT GUILTY" SHOULD BE ENTERED; THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE DEMAND INTERVENTION AND CORRECTION AS REASONABLE DOUBT EXISTS BASED ON THE OBSERVATIONAL (NON-PER SE) EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT TRIAL.

We reject each of the points raised and are satisfied the record amply supports the Law Division judge's conclusion that defendant operated his motor vehicle in an erratic manner and failed to safely stop behind the arresting officer's vehicle, thereby establishing reasonable suspicion on the officer's part that defendant committed a motor vehicle offense. In addition, we are equally satisfied defendant's erratic driving and poor performance on field sobriety tests provided substantial ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.