Why a NJ court ruled police action violated woman's constitutional rights

A New Jersey police officer's entry into a Sussex County woman's garage to detain her after suspecting her of drunk driving was a violation of her constitutional rights, an appeals court decided last week in a move firmly enforcing an ancient adage that "every man's house is his castle."

While the Supreme Court would later carve out exceptions to the Fourth Amendment, a New Jersey court's July 5 ruling to overturn a Hardyston woman's conviction has set legal precedent for future court cases about what protections are afforded to residents, and where to draw the line when it comes to law enforcement officers serving as community caretakers.

The three sitting judges in the state's Appellate Court, with Judge Ronald Susswein delivering the opinion, concluded that a Hardyston Township police officer had "reasonable suspicion" to initiate a stop of the woman's motor vehicle in 2019 after 911 calls reported her "erratic driving," but unlawfully detained her after he went into her open garage after she had pulled her vehicle into it.

The decision reverses a Hardyston Municipal Court judge's guilty verdict against the woman and a decision by a state Superior Court judge who upheld the municipal court conviction after she appealed. Both judges believed the officer had good cause to enter the garage — but the state's appeals court last week slammed the findings, noting that neither the officer nor prosecutors proved that any "exigent circumstances" lawfully allowed the officer to breach the woman's home, including her garage.

Was this a circumstance that merited a warrantless entry?

The "very core" of the Fourth Amendment is the right of a person to retreat into their own home and "there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion," the United States Supreme Court affirmed in a 2012 decision.

Put another way, police officers cannot enter a home to detain a resident without consent or without a warrant, but there are exceptions often classified as "exigent circumstances" in the eyes of the courts.

The Supreme Court has consistently recognized the "emergency aid" exception to the warrantless entry of private property. In a 2013 New Jersey Supreme Court decision , the court explained that law enforcement may enter a home if they have an "objectively reasonable basis to believe that an emergency requires that [police] provide immediate assistance to protect or preserve life, or to prevent serious injury."

In this case, Mary Mellody was convicted in March 2022 before a Hardyston Township Municipal Court judge on charges of driving while intoxicated and careless driving following an incident that occurred in the Crystal Springs Development in 2019, according to court records.

NJ news These North Jersey colleges give you the best bang for your buck, survey says

Hardyston police received a 911 call around 10:45 p.m. on Nov. 1, 2019 reporting a black Jeep swerving and going over curbs, Susswein wrote. The caller provided the license plate number, and an officer was dispatched to the address registered to the Jeep owner, according to the decision.

The officer found the Jeep in the home's driveway with its brake lights on. The officer activated the patrol vehicle's overhead lights to effectuate a stop and saw the Jeep move forward into the house's attached garage before it stopped and the officer heard a "bang," the decision states. He believed the Jeep had struck a refrigerator and he entered the garage and saw Mellody sitting in the driver's seat, he testified in court.

The officer, who did not have his dashcam activated at the time, testified during a May 2024 hearing before the Appellate Court judges that he asked Mellody what she was doing, why she didn't stop when he activated his lights and why she crashed into the fridge. He also testified Mellody's movements were fumbled and slow and her eyes were bloodshot and watery, Susswein said.

The officer's dashcam was activated when Mellody failed subsequent field sobriety tests, and she was taken to the police station where she was charged with driving while intoxicated, careless driving and failing to comply with directions of a police officer.

Municipal judge found officer credible, defendant 'incredulous'

A Hardyston municipal court judge, who was not named in the decision, denied Mellody's motion to suppress evidence in 2021, finding the officer had an obligation to investigate "not only because there's an indication that she was driving erratically, but there may be a medical issue at stake," the judge said at the time, according to the decision. The municipal judge also noted that the officer was not obligated to get a search warrant because Mellody was "still in her car" and she "drove forward" when the officer activated his lights, further stating that had she turned off her vehicle and gone inside, a warrant would have been required.

During a March 2022 trial, Mellody testified she did not hit the refrigerator or hear a crash and noticed flashing lights while she was putting her car in park in her garage, but believed it was at her neighbor's home. She also testified health issues impacted her balance and abilities to perform field sobriety tests.

The judge denied a motion to dismiss the case at the conclusion of the trial and found the officer's testimony credible and Mellody's "truly incredulous." Since it was her second DWI conviction, she was sentenced to a two-year suspension of her driver's license, a two-year installation of an interlock device, 48 hours of intoxicated driving classes and community service. He dismissed the failure to comply with directions of a police officer charge.

A state Superior Court judge hearing her appeal concluded the officer lawfully entered the garage, reasoning that the patrolman's testimony raised serious concerns for the woman's welfare and safety.

Is a 911 call enough to pull someone over?

When it comes to a police investigation, the constitutional rules of engagement are particularly strict, as evidenced by several decisions by the state and nation's highest courts, the Supreme Courts.

The appeals court found a 911 call alone was enough to merit suspicion to justify the officer making a stop and were not persuaded by Mellody's argument that the officer had not even seen her alleged "erratic driving."

However, the appeals court sided with Mellody when she argued the state Superior Court judge's reliance on a 2016 state Supreme Court decision to come to his conclusion was misplaced, since the case he cited did not address police entry into a private residence and rather just a roadside stop.

An officer's conduct vs. his beliefs

While both a municipal and state Superior Court judge believed the officer had acted in "good faith" when he entered the garage, perhaps believing the woman may have been suffering a medical episode or her health was at risk, the appeals court disagreed.

Instead, the court focused on the officer's conduct and not his subjective beliefs, noting that the officer did not suggest he acted with any urgency to render medical aid.

"At no time during the encounter was defendant asked if she was all right," the decision states.

The decision effectively vacates Mellody's DWI conviction. Her careless driving violation will be remanded to a state Superior Court judge, who will determine if there is enough evidence to establish a careless driving conviction without considering any evidence after the officer's unlawful entry into the garage, the court said.

Email: lcomstock@njherald.com ; Twitter: @LoriComstockNJH or on Facebook .

This article originally appeared on New Jersey Herald: Why a NJ court ruled police action violated woman's constitutional rights