In arrest report, officer indicates, "Specifiaclly, the vehicles passenger side tires crossed the right shoulder line, then the drivers sidew tires weaved back toward the dotted white line, almost crossing them. I observed this several times in a quartre of a mile and then effected a traffic stop.
Here's the catch. . . there is no right shoulder line on the road for almost a full mile prior to the point of the stop. He literally could not have observed what he indicates he "specifically observed:
You have the right idea, and there is caselaw in New Jersey that addresses that specific fact pattern. The specifics of how far the car drifted, how many times, and other facts will determine the outcome. Filing such a motion is easy. Asking the right questions and winning the motion is a lot harder. Call me to discuss the case further.
You would have a right to file a motion and to get a hearing before a judge. This hearing would determine if the officer had the right to pull over your vehicle. The officer would be subject to cross examination by you or your attorney. This can be a very powerful tool to try to get your case dismissed. You would have the right but not the obligation to testify at the hearing. Clearly, you could attempt to introduce into evidence photos of the location to impeach (show to the judge that the officer is mistaken or less than truthful) in his testimony.
You are clearly on the right track.
In NY there is recent caselaw covering a lack of probable cause where the only allegation is crossing a fog line. I do NOT know what the state of the law is in NJ.
You might consider hiring a lawyer who knows how to phrase the motion; you may end up making unintended admissions.
Get free answers from experienced attorneys.
24,185 answers this week
2,447 attorneys answering
Don't speak legalese? We define thousands of terms in plain English.Browse our legal dictionary