Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-1627-13T4
04-07-2016
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CARL NOSTRAND, Defendant-Appellant.
Carl Nostrand, appellant pro se. Alexis R. Agre, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Robert D. Bernardi, Burlington County Prosecutor, attorney; Ms. Agre, of counsel and on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Alvarez, Ostrer and Haas. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Burlington County, Municipal Appeal No. 30-13. Carl Nostrand, appellant pro se. Alexis R. Agre, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Robert D. Bernardi, Burlington County Prosecutor, attorney; Ms. Agre, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant Carl Nostrand, pro se, appeals from his conviction, after a trial de novo, of two violations of N.J.S.A. 39:8-4, which required him to repair his automobile and have it reinspected. We affirm.
We discern the following facts from the record. Defendant's 2001 Volkswagen Passat inspection sticker expired in September 2012. Defendant had stored the vehicle in New Jersey while living and working in Tennessee. While back in New Jersey, defendant took the vehicle for inspection on April 3, 2013. The vehicle failed emissions testing and a red rejection sticker was placed on the vehicle's windshield, above the expired inspection sticker. The inspection report stated that the "vehicle must pass inspection by 10/31/2012" — notwithstanding that it was already 2013.
On April 21, 2013, Chesterfield Township Police Patrolman Jim Parent observed defendant drive by displaying a blue September 2012 inspection sticker and a red rejection sticker. Parent performed a motor vehicle stop, during which defendant told Parent that he had not repaired the vehicle because it was too costly. Parent issued a motor vehicle complaint-summons charging a violation of N.J.S.A. 39:8-4.
Defendant was also charged with failing to change his address. N.J.S.A. 39:3-36. That violation is not before us on appeal, as the defendant was found not guilty in the Law Division.
On May 15, 2012, Parent saw the same car in Chesterfield, displaying the same inspection stickers. Parent stopped defendant again and issued another motor vehicle complaint-summons charging a violation of N.J.S.A. 39:8-4.
Two days later, the Motor Vehicle Commission (MVC) issued a letter to defendant, in response to his inquiry, granting him permission "to extend the inspection" of his vehicle until June 16, 2013. Defendant's vehicle failed again on May 22, 2013, and he again received a report stating that the vehicle had to pass inspection by October 31, 2012.
Although the municipal court barred the admission of the document, the Law Division judge considered the document in the trial de novo.
The municipal court found defendant guilty of both violations and imposed a fine of $200 for each violation, plus costs. In the trial de novo, the Law Division also found defendant guilty. Judge Thomas P. Kelly rejected defendant's argument that the MVC letter provided a defense to the two charges, as it was issued after the two violations. However, Judge Kelly imposed fines of $100 in view of the costs defendant incurred for multiple inspections and repairs.
On appeal, defendant presents the following points for our consideration:
POINT I
THE STATUTE DESCRIBED IN THE OFFICER'S COMPLAINTS 39:8-4 "FAILURE TO MAKE REPAIRS" DOES NOT EXIST AS CURRENT NEW JERSEY STATE LAW; REDEFINED & RETITLED IN 2010 AS
"REINSPECTIONS" ONCE THE VEHICLE IS INSPECTED PURSUANT TO 38:8-1 THE OFFICER HAD NO AUTHORITY TO STOP AND DETAIN THE VEHICLE AS THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF LAW UNDER CURRENT STATUTE 39:8-4.
A. WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE MVC TO REINSPECT [INSPECTED APRIL 3, 2013] WAS SUPPRESSED AS HERESAY DURING JUNE 25, 2013 TRIAL ["PERMISSION IS GRANTED TO EXTEND THE REINSPECTION OF THE ABOVE REFERENCED VEHICLE UNTIL 6/16/2013" SIGNED BY RAYMOND P. MARTINEZ].
B. APPELLANT REQUESTS THIS MATTER BE REMANDED TO THE SUPERIOR COURT LAW DIVISION, TO ALLOW FOR A PROPER RECORD SUPERIOR COURT LAW DIVISION, TO ALLOW FOR A PROPER RECORD ON APPEAL AS THERE WAS NO RECORD MADE AND NO PROBABLE CAUSE OR SUSPICION TO STOP THE VEHICLE UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, THE VEHICLE WAS PROPERLY INSPECTED ON APRIL 3, 2013 WHICH IS NOT DISPUTED; THE CENTRAL ISSUE IS WHETHER THE OFFICER HAD THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE TIMING OF THE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE EMISSION SYSTEM.
POINT II
THE SUPPRESSED MVC PAPERS ARE PUBLIC RECORDS CENTRAL TO STATEMENTS OF PROBABLE CAUSE BUT ARE NOT FILED AS PUBLIC RECORDS WITH A DOCKET SHEET AND SEPARATE DOCKET ENTRIES BY CRIMINAL CASE MANAGEMENT WHICH MISSING RECORDS ARE ESSENTIAL TO ALL JUDICIAL DETERMINATIONS.
POINT III
SUPPRESSED MVC DOCUMENTS CENTRAL TO STATEMENT OF PROBABLE CAUSE.
POINT IV
FOURTH AMENDMENT ISSUES NECESSITATED SUPPRESSION OF DMV RECORDS.
POINT V
MISTAKES OF LAW — EVEN REASONABLE ONES — CAN RENDER A TRAFFIC STOP UNREASONABLE UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.
For brevity, we have deleted case citations from defendant's point headings. --------
Defendant argues that the motor vehicle stops were unlawful. We disagree. Based on defendant's display on his vehicle, in April and May 2013, of a September 2012 inspection sticker and a rejected sticker, Parent had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that defendant had violated N.J.S.A. 39:8-4. That is all that was required to effectuate the stop. See State v. Heisler, 422 N.J. Super. 399, 412-13 (App. Div. 2011) ("Police may conduct an investigatory stop if they have a reasonable suspicion, based on specific and articulable facts, that a person they encounter was involved in unlawful activity, including a motor vehicle violation."); see also United States v. Bonner, 363 F.3d 213, 215-18 (3d Cir. 2004) (holding traffic stop was lawful where defendant displayed expired inspection sticker and a blown headlight), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1058, 125 S. Ct. 868, 160 L. Ed. 2d 783 (2005).
As for the merits, we are satisfied that the Law Division correctly interpreted the governing law, and reached findings that were supported by sufficient credible evidence. See State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 162 (1964) (stating standard of review). Every registered motor vehicle must be inspected. N.J.S.A. 39:8-1(a). If an inspection discloses the need for a repair, a rejection sticker shall be issued, N.J.S.A. 39:8-4(a), and the owner shall obtain repairs and a reinspection within the period designated by the MVC. N.J.S.A. 39:8-4(c). MVC regulations establish that period as ending "the last day of the calendar month following the calendar month in which the motor vehicle was due for inspection . . . ." N.J.A.C. 13:20-7.5; see also N.J.A.C. 13:20-43.10, 43.11. Failure to have a vehicle inspected timely, or to otherwise comply with the requirements of N.J.S.A. 39:8 is punishable by a fine of $100 to $200, or imprisonment of up to thirty days, or both. N.J.S.A. 39:8-9.
Defendant's vehicle was "due for inspection" in September 2012. Thus, repairs and reinspection had to be accomplished by October 31, 2012. This interpretation is supported by the April and May 2013 inspection reports, which stated that reinspection was required by October 31, 2012 — notwithstanding that the date had passed. See Wnuck v. N.J. Div. of Motor Vehicles, 337 N.J. Super. 52, 56 (App. Div. 2001) (deferring to Division of Motor Vehicle interpretation of regulations within its implementing and enforcing responsibility). It is of no moment that defendant may have been out of the State in September and October 2012. An owner is strictly liable for non-compliance. Cf. State v. Hochman, 188 N.J. Super. 382, 387 (App. Div. 1982) (State need not show a culpable mental state to convict owner of vehicle for driving without insurance). The failed inspection in April 2013 did not create a new grace period for repairs and reinspection until the end of May 2013.
Defendant also renews the argument that the MVC letter provided a defense to the charges. The Chief Administrator is authorized to grant extensions where an owner is in ill health or other good cause prevents timely compliance, N.J.A.C. 13:20-4 3.12(c), or the repairs cannot be made in a timely manner. N.J.A.C. 13:20-43.12(d). However, nothing in the regulations or in the letter the Administrator issued indicates that the extension of time to pass inspection may be made retroactive, to nullify violations that have already become the subject of a motor vehicle complaint-summons. See N.J.A.C. 13:20-43.12(d) (stating extension is "valid from its effective date").
Defendant's remaining arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION