NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3503-21

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

KEVIN B. BOONE, a/k/a

KEVIN BOONE, KEVIN

BELAL and KEVIN B. 

BELAL,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________

Argued February 7, 2024 – Decided July 24, 2024

Before Judges Accurso, Vernoia and WalcottHenderson.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Law Division, Cumberland County, Indictment No. 

20-12-0521.

Alyssa Aiello, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, 

argued the cause for appellant (Jennifer Nicole Sellitti, 

Public Defender, attorney; Alyssa Aiello, of counsel 

and on the brief).

Jeffrey Krachun, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the 

cause for respondent (Jennifer Webb-McRae, 

Cumberland County Prosecutor, attorney; Jeffrey 

Krachun, of counsel and on the brief).

APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION

July 24, 2024

APPELLATE DIVISION
2 A-3503-21

The opinion of the court was delivered by

ACCURSO, P.J.A.D.

Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized in a 

warrantless search after a car stop, defendant Kevin B. Boone entered a 

negotiated guilty plea to third-degree possession of a controlled dangerous 

substance, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1), and was sentenced to recovery court 

probation with an alternate sentence of five years in State prison. He appeals, 

raising, in essence, a single issue:

POINT I 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING 

SUPPRESSION BECAUSE THE STATE FAILED 

TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PRETEXTUAL 

MOTOR VEHICLE STOP WAS 

CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE AND THE 

CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO PROBABLE 

CAUSE FOR THE VEHICLE SEARCH WERE 

UNFORESEEABLE AND SPONTANEOUS.

A. Pretextual Motor Vehicle Stops Should No Longer 

Be Permitted In New Jersey.

B. The State Failed To Carry Its Burden Of 

Establishing That Police Had A Reasonable And 

Articulable Basis To Stop Defendant's Vehicle For 

Failing To Maintain A Lane, In Violation Of 

N.J.S.A. 39:4-88b. 

C. [The detective's] testimony did not establish a 

reasonable and articulable basis to believe that a 

violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-88(b) occurred.
3 A-3503-21

D. In The Absence Of A Corroborative Mobile Video 

Recording, The State Should Be Precluded From 

Relying On A Minor Traffic Infraction As A Valid 

Pretext For A Motor Vehicle Stop, Where The 

Alleged Infraction "Fortuitously" Occurred While 

Police Were Already Following The Vehicle With 

The Express Intention Of Stopping It.1

E. The Automobile Exception Did Not Apply Because 

The Circumstances Giving Rise To Probable Cause 

Were Not Spontaneous and Unforeseeable. 

We reverse. We agree the detective's testimony was not sufficient to 

establish he possessed a reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop 

defendant's vehicle for failing to maintain a lane, in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-

88(b). Accordingly, we do not reach defendant's argument that the automobile 

exception did not apply because the circumstances giving rise to probable 

cause were not spontaneous and unforeseeable as required under State v. Witt, 

223 N.J. 409, 447-48 (2015). See State v. Smart, 253 N.J. 156, 171 (2023).

As the State concedes, this case arose out of a pretext stop, which, 

generally speaking, does not render it illegal in New Jersey. See State v. 

Kennedy, 247 N.J. Super. 21, 28-29 (App. Div. 1991) (explaining "courts will 

not inquire into the motivation of a police officer whose stop of an automobile 

is based upon a traffic violation committed in his presence"; "that the 

1

 The rebuttable presumption of N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118.5 did not take effect 

until after this stop, making it inapplicable at the suppression hearing. See

State v. Jones, N.J. Super. 520, 530-31 (App. Div. 2023). 
4 A-3503-21

justification for the stop was pretextual . . . [is] irrelevant"); State v. Bacome, 

228 N.J. 94, 103 (2017) ("The objective reasonableness of police officers' 

actions — not their subjective intentions — is the central focus of federal and 

New Jersey search-and-seizure jurisprudence."); see also Whren v. United 

States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996) (holding "[s]ubjective intentions play no role 

in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis"). Here are the facts 

adduced at the suppression hearing. 

On a November evening in 2019, a canine officer was sitting in the 

Vineland police station watching the video feed from private surveillance 

cameras positioned around the building and parking lots of a nearby motel. 2 

2

 In the appendix is a single page form of the Vineland Police Department 

purporting to be a "Power of Attorney." The form has a blank for the name 

and address of the motel and is signed by the manager. It states:

I hereby give the Vineland Police Department 

authority to enter onto the property indicated above, 

for the purpose of enforcing all criminal laws, 

disorderly persons offenses, city ordinance violations, 

etc., and to effect arrests and lodge complaints as 

deemed necessary. 

The form states the Power will remain in effect for one year from execution, 

"or until such time as it is denounced in writing to the Chief of Police or his 

designee, whichever comes first." The form makes it the owner/manager's 

"responsibility to reapply for this Power-of-Attorney, prior to its expiration 

date." 
5 A-3503-21

The officer testified the motel was "a known spot for, you know . . . drug 

dealing, overdoses, prostitution out of there, fights, shots fired calls, that type 

of stuff."

A few minutes before midnight, the officer saw a GMC Yukon pull into 

the parking lot and watched while the driver, later identified as defendant 

Boone, got out and went up one of the outdoor staircases to a room on the 

second floor. According to the officer, Boone "was in the room maybe two 

minutes and then came right out and left again." The officer didn't see 

anything in Boone's hands going in or out of the room, didn't know Boone, 

wasn't surveilling the room Boone entered, and didn't recall sending a patrol 

unit over to investigate anything that might have been going on in the room 

Boone visited. Instead, believing Boone "was there to either purchase . . . or 

sell narcotics" based on his "training and experience," the officer radioed a 

Nothing in the form, which is obviously not a power-of-attorney as the term is 

ordinarily understood, D.D.B. Interior Contracting, Inc. v. Trends Urban 

Renewal Ass'n. Ltd., 176 N.J. 164, 168 (2003), speaks to the police 

department's ability to monitor the motel's security cameras from the police 

station. There is nothing in the record as to whether patrons and their guests 

are advised they are under surveillance by the police. We were advised at oral 

argument that counsel were not aware of any Attorney General guidelines or 

other standards that govern the program.
6 A-3503-21

detective stationed nearby to "[s]top the motor vehicle." 3 The officer then 

collected his dog and left the building to attend the stop.

The detective testified he was in a parking lot near the intersection of 

Landis Avenue and Delsea Drive when the canine officer alerted him to the 

Yukon. The detective spotted the vehicle and saw it go through the 

intersection traveling east on Landis. In response to questioning by the 

prosecutor, the detective testified the canine officer "alerted me to some 

observations he made. I followed the vehicle, observed a Title 39 violation, 

which was the reason I conducted the stop." 

Under further questioning, the detective testified the canine officer 

"informed me that he had reasonable suspicion to believe [the Yukon driver]

was engaged in narcotic activity." The detective admitted he and the canine 

officer "were looking for people involved in narcotic activity," and the canine 

officer had provided the detective with a description of the Yukon so he could 

"go make the stop." According to the detective, after receiving the radio 

transmission from the officer, it "was my intention to stop the vehicle." Asked 

3

 Defense counsel asked the officer on cross-examination if he "would have 

told [the detective] to stop the vehicle regardless of whether or not Mr. Boone 

committed a traffic offense." The officer replied: "I did not say that. I would 

have told him that, you know, try and stop the vehicle. We — I know, 

generally we will see if there's any vehicle violations, but it's not a guarantee 

that you have to have a motor vehicle violation to stop it."
7 A-3503-21

by the prosecutor whether he formed that intention before or after he saw the 

Title 39 violation, which was the Yukon crossing the yellow line on a two-lane 

road, the detective replied: "[I]t was a combination of both."

The detective testified he followed the Yukon for about four tenths of a 

mile on Landis before it turned left onto North West Avenue, a two-lane road 

with a twenty-five miles per hour speed limit. According to the detective, he 

saw the Yukon "crossing the yellow line" as it traveled on North West. There 

was very little traffic owing to the hour and the "inclement weather." As the 

vehicle approached West Park Avenue, which is about another four tenths of a 

mile from where the Yukon turned off Landis, the detective called in the stop, 

activated his emergency lights to signal the driver to pull over and turned on 

his body worn camera. According to the detective, the traffic was very light, 

and it was dark and raining.

The detective got out of his car a minute after he called in the stop. The 

canine officer arrived at nearly the same time. The detective stood by the 

passenger window and advised Boone that "one reason" he stopped him was 

because the Yukon was "crossing the yellow this side of the road," to which 

Boone responded: "Oh!" When the detective asked Boone whether he

"realize[d] that," Boone replied "Uh-uh-huh." The transcript thereafter notes 

"simultaneous speech" and Boone saying, over an indiscernible interruption, "I 
8 A-3503-21

might have been in . . . here sitting here talking and. . . ." The detective 

followed up by asking: "You were talking? Weren't really paying attention 

too much?" Boone responded "Probably," to which the detective replied 

"Okay. No problem." 

While the detective spoke to Boone and his passenger, the canine officer 

stood at the driver's door looking into the car, and he obtained Boone's license 

and registration. Boone told the detective the couple was headed home with 

groceries from the nearby Walmart, and the detective observed groceries in the 

back of the Yukon. When asked if he'd been anywhere else, defendant told the 

detective he'd stopped at the motel "for a split second" to talk with a friend 

there. 

Boone was cooperative, and neither officer noticed any impairment on 

his part or any indication of drugs in the Yukon. Notwithstanding, the 

detective asked both Boone and his passenger to step out of the vehicle. 4 The 

detective read Boone his Miranda5rights. He also told Boone the officers had 

4

 Charges against the passenger were ultimately dismissed, and she did not 

raise an issue about being asked for her identification or to step out of the car. 

See State v. Boston, 469 N.J. Super. 223, 265 (App. Div. 2021) (holding an 

officer's demand for identification from an unlicensed passenger in the absence 

of particularized suspicion is an unreasonable interference with the passenger's 

privacy).

5

 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
9 A-3503-21

watched him at the motel, a high crime area with "a lot of drug and narcotic 

activity," and thus the canine officer was going to run the dog "around the 

car." The detective did not conduct a pat-down search of Boone after 

removing him from the Yukon. The detective testified he had no basis to 

believe Boone was "armed and dangerous" and thus "no reasonable articulation 

to pat him down."

While the canine officer was conducting the car sniff, the detective 

checked Boone and his passenger for any open warrants, finding none. When 

the dog alerted to the smell of narcotics in the Yukon, Boone was arrested and 

handcuffed. A thorough search of his person revealed plastic bags of 

suspected cocaine and heroin in his waistband. A further search of the Yukon 

revealed a black bag in the back of the SUV. Inside, in addition to papers 

belonging to Boone, was a can of brake fluid. The can, which the officers 

testified had a false bottom, contained additional drugs. 

Boone and his passenger were transported to the police station. The 

detective wrote out the traffic ticket for "unsafe lane change," N.J.S.A. 39:4-

88(b), and Boone was detained on a complaint/warrant on various drug 

charges. His passenger was released on a summons and provided the keys to 

the Yukon, which had been parked, with Boone's permission, in a lot close to 

where he had been stopped. 
10 A-3503-21

Defense counsel's cross-examination of the detective centered on the 

motor vehicle violation. In his report of the incident, the detective wrote he 

saw the Yukon "swerving in the roadway" and noted it "crossed over the 

yellow line multiple times as it was traveling northbound on North West 

Avenue." At the suppression hearing, however, the detective did not testify 

the Yukon was swerving or moving erratically, and he could recall very little 

about the violation as evident in the following exchange with defense counsel.

Q. You stated that — in your report at least, that Mr. 

Boone crossed the yellow line multiple times. 

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Which occasioned you to effectuate a motor 

vehicle stop? 

A. Well, that wasn't the sole reason, but it's 

something I observed.

Q. Okay. And, the — the erratic driving, which you 

observed, would have occurred entirely on the West 

Avenue? 

A. I wouldn't necessarily call it erratic driving; but, 

the violation . . . that I observed, yes, was on West 

Avenue. 

Q. Okay. And, I believe that in your report, and if you 

need your report to refresh your recollection we can 

certainly provide it to you, that Mr. Boone crossed 

over the line multiple times. 

A. Yes. 
11 A-3503-21

Q. How many times is multiple? 

A. I don't know off the top of my head. More than 

once.

Q. Twice? 

A. For me to say never would be guessing at this 

point. I don't recall; I know it was multiple times. 

There was more than once. 

Q. Well, multiple times could be as few as two? 

A. It could be; yes, it could. 

Q. And, how far over the line did he go? 

A. I don't remember how far over the line he went. 

Q. It was raining that night? 

A. Yes.

Q. It was obviously dark? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Are you able from looking at your pictures taken 

of West Avenue to determine where Mr. Boone 

crossed the yellow line? 

A. At this point it would be guessing. If I didn't note 

it in my report specifically where it occurred, which is 

very hard to do. As a police officer when you're 

traveling behind somebody there's a lot going through 

your head. Not only are you focusing on the vehicle 

that you're going to stop, you're also listening to the 

police radio. You're paying attention to all your 

surroundings, other traffic, the weather conditions. 

What am I going to do. Is this guy going to try to 
12 A-3503-21

harm me? Is he going to be polite? Is he going to be 

cooperative? A lot going on. So, for me to say, 

specifically, this spot or that spot would be a complete 

guess. I observed the crossing, but again, I'm not 

looking to see what's the next intersection, what's the 

address of this road? So, you know, it's round about 

somewhere between Landis and Park I observed the 

crossing.

Q. So, it's your testimony that you have to guess in 

order to inform the court where the unlawful driving 

occurred? And, it's also your testimony that the time 

of the stop listed on the ticket was more of an 

approximation or guess than an accurate recording?6

A. I wouldn't say it was a guess. I would say that I 

can't specifically state where he crossed the line. I 

would — I would — as far as the time, I wasn't 

looking at the clock. So, I couldn't specifically state 

it's exactly this time.

The judge, in a very thorough and thoughtful written statement of 

reasons, denied Boone's motion to suppress. Noting "[t]he entire encounter" 

between the testifying officers and Boone was captured on their body worn 

cameras, although "[t]he alleged motor vehicle infraction was not," the judge 

developed a timeline of the events as the stop unfolded.

The judge found the detective "called in the stop at counter time 

5:03:20" and got out of his car to speak with Boone exactly one minute later. 

6

 The prosecutor had already established with the witness that 12:27 a.m., the 

time of the violation listed on the ticket, was not the time of the Title 39 

violation but the time the detective arrested Boone after the canine alerted to 

the odor of narcotics in the Yukon.
13 A-3503-21

The detective asked Boone to step out of the Yukon at counter time 5:07:28 

and stepped to the side of the road at 5:07:50. At 5:10:50, the canine officer 

asked Boone's passenger to step out of the car. The detective called dispatch 

for a warrant check at 5:11:40, a little over seven minutes after first speaking 

with Boone. The canine sniff began at 5:12:16, within eight minutes of the 

stop and ended two minutes later at 5:14:15, before dispatch advised at 5:14:29 

that there were no warrants for either Boone or his passenger. Immediately 

thereafter, the detective advised Boone the dog had "hit on the car," and that 

the officers would search him, his car and his passenger. On discovering the 

plastic bag in Boone's waistband, the detective placed Boone in handcuffs at 

5:19:30 and concluded his search of Boone's person six minutes later at 

5:25:24.

Although having no doubt based on the testimony of the officers that the 

subjective reason for the car stop was a narcotics investigation, the judge 

found the detective credibly testified he'd pulled Boone over after witnessing a 

traffic offense. Acknowledging the violation was "not captured on a motor 

vehicle recording or . . . on the body worn cameras," the judge found the 

detective "testified to the same." The judge found the detective "polite and 

respectful during the course of his testimony," that he "answered the questions 
14 A-3503-21

posed directly," and "[h]is body language and demeanor were appropriate to 

the proceedings." 

The judge also noted the video from the detective's body worn camera, 

although not capturing the violation, revealed the detective stated he'd pulled 

the Yukon over because it crossed the center line, and Boone tacitly admitted 

"that it could have occurred." Finding "[t]he objective reason behind the 

motor vehicle stop was for the violation of our motor vehicle laws," the judge 

concluded the stop was "constitutionally permissible." 

And although finding the officers were without reasonable suspicion to 

prolong the stop for the dog sniff, noting Boone was "polite and cooperative," 

was not known to the officers, did not appear to be under the influence, that 

neither he nor his passenger made any furtive movements, and that the officers 

didn't see or smell contraband or witness a drug transaction or anything in 

Boone's hands at the motel, the judge found the law was clear the officers 

didn't need reasonable suspicion here because the sniff did not extend the stop. 

See State v. Dunbar, 229 N.J. 521, 538-39 (2017). 

The judge also found the detective didn't need to call or wait for a canine 

unit to arrive because the canine officer was on the scene before the detective 
15 A-3503-21

had even finished speaking to Boone and obtaining his credentials. 7 The sniff 

commenced within eight minutes of the stop and took only two minutes to 

complete. The judge found it immaterial that the detective hadn't written the 

ticket until he'd returned to the stationhouse, as the sniff did not extend the 

time "that would have reasonably been required to effectuate the purposes of 

the stop."

The judge was also satisfied the positive indication from the dog 

provided probable cause for defendant's arrest, see State v. Cancel, 256 N.J. 

Super. 430, 433-34 (App. Div. 1992), and his ensuing search was thus a lawful 

incident thereto, see State v. Dangerfield, 171 N.J. 446, 461 (2002). Finally, 

the judge found the dog's indication of the odor of narcotics gave the officers 

probable cause to search the Yukon pursuant to State v. Alston, 88 N.J. 211, 

230-31 (1981). The judge did not consider whether the actions of the officers 

"giving rise to probable cause were prompted by circumstances that were 

'unforeseeable and spontaneous,' as required under Witt, 223 N.J. at 447-48." 

Smart, 253 N.J. at 159.

7

 The counters on the officers' body worn cameras would suggest the canine 

officer arrived at the place where Boone was stopped seventeen seconds before 

the detective. The detective denied that but could not say when the canine 

officer arrived. 
16 A-3503-21

Our standard of review on a motion to suppress evidence is well 

established. State v. Nyema, 249 N.J. 509, 526 (2022). We defer to the trial 

court's factual findings on the motion unless they were "clearly mistaken" or 

"so wide of the mark" that the interests of justice require appellate 

intervention, State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224, 245 (2007) (internal quotations 

omitted), mindful it is the trial judge who saw the witnesses and heard them 

testify, see Trusky v. Ford Motor Co., Lincoln-Mercury Div., 19 N.J. Super. 

100, 104 (App. Div. 1952) (likening the transcription of oral testimony to a 

dehydrated peach). Our review of the trial court's application of the law to the 

facts, however, is plenary. State v. Hubbard, 222 N.J. 249, 263 (2015). 

Stated differently, although "a reviewing court should take care both to 

review findings of historical fact only for clear error and to give due weight to 

inferences drawn from those facts by resident judges and local law 

enforcement officers," the trial court's "determinations of reasonable suspicion 

and probable cause should be reviewed de novo on appeal." Ornelas v. United 

States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996). 

Applying those principles here, we note we have no quarrel with the trial 

court's factual findings. The facts are undisputed. We disagree about what 

those facts mean for the constitutionality of this stop. Specifically, we 

conclude the trial court erred in finding the State put forth facts sufficient to 
17 A-3503-21

establish the detective had reasonable articulable suspicion to stop Boone for 

failing to keep the Yukon "as nearly as practicable entirely within a single 

lane" in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-88(b). 

N.J.S.A. 39:4-88, which applies to roadways that have "been divided 

into clearly marked lanes for traffic," provides in section (b) that "[a] vehicle 

shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall 

not be moved from that lane until the driver has first ascertained that the 

movement can be made with safety." Although section 88(b) has been part of 

our motor vehicle code since 1931, it had never been addressed in a published 

opinion before our former colleague Judge Ostrer, then sitting on the trial 

bench, issued his comprehensive assessment of the provision in State v. 

Woodruff, 403 N.J. Super. 620, 623 (Law Div. 2008). After a scholarly review 

of how other courts had interpreted provisions comparable to ours, which is 

based on the Uniform Vehicle Code, see Unif. Vehicle Code § 11-309(a), 

reprinted in Traffic Laws Annotated, National Committee on Uniform Traffic 

Laws and Ordinances, U.S. Dep't of Transp. (1979), Judge Ostrer concluded 

the section imposes two independent requirements: "First, a driver must, as 

nearly as practicable, drive within his single lane, in other words, maintain his 

lane. Second, a driver may not change lanes until he can do so safely."
18 A-3503-21

Although we later disagreed with Woodruff in an unpublished opinion, 

concluding section 88(b) described only one offense, not two, our Supreme 

Court agreed with Judge Ostrer that the provision "describes two separate and 

independent offenses, one for a driver's failure to maintain a lane to the extent 

practicable and the other for changing lanes without ascertaining the safety of 

the lane change." State v. Regis, 208 N.J. 439, 442 (2011). The Court also 

agreed with Judge Ostrer's view in Woodruff that the State need not establish 

that the driver's failure to maintain his lane risked the safety of other drivers, 

finding section 88(b) "is not limited to circumstances in which the deviation 

from the lane is demonstrated to be a danger to other drivers." Id. at 448.

Although the trial judge referred to Boone's alleged violation as an 

"unsafe lane change," there is no dispute that Boone was issued the ticket for 

failure to maintain a lane. And although the judge was satisfied the detective 

credibly testified he saw the Yukon cross the center line, that fact alone does 

not establish the violation. Section 88(b) is not a strict liability offense. The 

statute requires a driver to maintain his lane "as nearly as practicable." 

N.J.S.A. 39:88(b). See Regis, 208 N.J. at 449 n.3 (emphasizing "the 

Legislature qualified its mandate to remain in a single lane with the crucial 

phrase 'as nearly as practicable'"). The detective's testimony at the hearing 

was simply inadequate to permit the judge, as a matter of law, to determine 
19 A-3503-21

whether the detective possessed a reasonable suspicion that the statute had 

been violated.

As Judge Ostrer explained in Woodruff, "[t]he statute plainly does not 

make it a violation anytime a driver strays from a lane. If it is not practicable 

to maintain the lane, then a departure from lane is not a violation." 403 N.J. 

Super. at 627. Woodruff holds, and we agree, that "a driver must maintain 

a lane to the extent that a person may reasonably maintain the lane, given 

surrounding circumstances, such as road conditions, weather, vehicle 

condition, and vehicle size and lane width, and taking into account the skill 

that a reasonable driver, as opposed to a perfect driver, should have." Id. at

627-28. 

Because "a stop founded on a suspected motor vehicle violation 

essentially is governed by the same case law used to evaluate a stop based on 

suspected criminal or quasi-criminal activity," State v. Golotta, 178 N.J. 205,

213 (2003), the officer conducting the stop must have a "particularized 

suspicion" based on objective observations that the driver has violated the 

traffic laws or has engaged in some criminal conduct, which "must be based 

upon the law enforcement officer's assessment of the totality of circumstances 

with which he is faced." State v. Davis, 104 N.J. 490, 504 (1986). The State 

is not required to prove the violation occurred. State v. Williamson, 138 N.J. 
20 A-3503-21

302, 304 (1994). "[T]he State need prove only that the police lawfully stopped 

the car, not that it could convict the driver of the motor-vehicle offense." Ibid. 

Nevertheless, "[t]he stop must be reasonable and justified by articulable facts; 

it may not be based on arbitrary police practices, [or] the officer's subjective 

good faith." State v. Coles, 218 N.J. 322, 343 (2014).

Because section 88(b) does not make every crossing of the center line a 

violation, the officer conducting a stop must have an articulable basis for 

concluding the driver failed to adhere to his single lane as nearly as 

practicable. See Williamson, 138 N.J. at 304 (holding an officer stopping a car 

for failure to signal a lane change "must have some articulable basis for 

concluding that the lane change might have an effect on traffic" as 

N.J.S.A. 39:4-126 requires a motorist to signal only "in the event any other 

traffic may be affected by such movement"). As Judge Ostrer held in 

Woodruff, "the lane maintenance statute requires 'a fact-specific inquiry into 

the particular circumstances present during the incident in question in order to 

determine whether the driver could reasonably be expected to maintain a 

straight course at that time in that vehicle on that roadway.'" 403 N.J. Super. 

at 628 (quoting United States v. Alvarado, 430 F.3d 1305, 1309 (10th Cir. 

2005)).

As explained in Woodruff:
21 A-3503-21

Based on such a fact-sensitive analysis, one or two 

deviations from a lane may or may not constitute a 

violation, depending on the circumstances. While it 

might not be reasonable to expect a driver to avoid 

even the slightest deviation from a lane over an 

extended distance, it may be reasonable to expect 

drivers to avoid a sudden, significant deviation from 

the lane or a sudden, over-compensating return back, 

absent physical obstacles, mechanical difficulty, or 

other uncontrollable circumstances. Moreover, even if 

it may be unreasonable to expect a driver on an empty 

road to avoid any slight deviation from a lane over an 

extended distance, it would be reasonable to expect 

drivers to avoid repeatedly deviating from the lane, 

although slightly, over a short distance.

[Id. at 629.]

The detective testified Boone's Yukon crossed the center line on North 

West Avenue more than one time but was not driving erratically. That is all 

the particulars the detective offered the court. He couldn't say where Boone 

crossed, how many times he crossed, or how far into the other lane he went 

each time. And although there is evidence in the record it was near midnight, 

dark and raining, that there was little to no traffic, the speed-limit was only 

twenty-five miles per hour and Boone was driving a fifteen-year-old, full-size 

SUV, there was no testimony about the width of the road or its condition. 8 

Moreover, there is nothing in the record to allow the court to conclude the 

8

 The detective's incident report in evidence notes the Yukon was from model 

year 2003.
22 A-3503-21

detective considered any of those things — or indeed, anything other than 

Boone's crossing the center line — in deciding to pull him over, 

notwithstanding "the number of lane departures is just one factor in 

determining whether a driver has adhered to a single lane as nearly as 

practicable." Id. at 627. 

We do not believe Boone's "tacit admission" that he may have crossed 

the center line changes the analysis. First, of course, is that crossing the center 

line is, depending on the circumstances, not necessarily a violation of the 

statute. Second, the detective did not advise Boone he'd seen the Yukon cross 

the line multiple times when Boone allowed he may have been talking with his 

passenger and not "really paying attention too much." More serious is the 

detective's explanation for his inability to better describe what he believed to 

have been the violation — his candid admission that he was likewise distracted 

following the Yukon, "listening to the police radio. . . . [P]aying attention to 

all [his] surroundings, other traffic, the weather conditions. What [he was]

going to do. Is this guy going to try to harm me? Is he going to be polite? Is 

he going to be cooperative? A lot going on." 

The law is well settled that "[t]he suspicion necessary to justify a stop 

must not only be reasonable, but also particularized." State v. Scriven, 226 

N.J. 20, 37 (2016). The detective's generalized statement that the Yukon 
23 A-3503-21

crossed the center line more than once without any particulars as to where, 

how many times, over what distance, how extensive the incursion or the effect 

of the darkness, the rain, the Yukon's size and the condition of the road on his 

assessment of the violation simply does not suffice here. Although inferences 

from the facts testified to will often suffice to establish reasonable suspicion 

for the violation, see, e.g., State v. Jones, 326 N.J. Super. 234, 239 (App. Div. 

1999) (finding a trooper's testimony about the rush hour traffic conditions 

sufficed to support an articulable and reasonable basis for concluding the unsignaled lane change might have affected other cars), the only facts the 

detective could offer here were wholly insufficient to establish reasonable 

suspicion of the violation, see Williamson, 138 N.J. at 304-06 (finding an 

officer offered no articulable basis for concluding "the lane change might have 

an effect on traffic").

It was the State's obligation to put forth facts at the suppression hearing 

to establish the detective had "a 'particularized suspicion' based upon an 

objective observation" that Boone had violated section 88(b), which it patently 

failed to do. See Davis, 104 N.J. at 504. To the extent the detective believed 

that a motorist crossing the center line was sufficient to establish a violation of 

section 88(b), he was incorrect. See Regis, 208 N.J. at 449 n.3 (describing the 

provision's "as nearly as practicable" language as a "crucial phrase" qualifying 
24 A-3503-21

the Legislative mandate that motorists "remain in a single lane"); see also State 

v. Carter, 247 N.J. 488, 532 (2021) (declining "to adopt a reasonable mistake 

of law exception under the New Jersey Constitution").

We do not question the detective's good faith or impugn the trial court's 

finding that he was a credible witness. Neither is enough, however, to justify 

this stop. See State v. Shaw, 213 N.J. 398, 411 (2012) (observing "an officer's 

hunch or subjective good faith — even if correct in the end — cannot justify 

an investigatory stop or detention"). The trial judge thoughtfully considered 

and conscientiously addressed the issues presented by this stop and search. 

The detective simply failed to offer facts sufficient, as a matter of law, to 

allow the court to determine he possessed a reasonable suspicion that Boone 

failed to maintain his lane "as nearly as practicable." N.J.S.A. 39:88(b).9 

Because we conclude the motor vehicle stop conducted in this case did 

not meet constitutional requirements, we reverse the order denying defendant's 

9

 Although the Court in Williamson remanded for the trial court to determine 

whether the trooper had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the 

"defendant's failure to signal may have affected other traffic," the Court made 

clear the issue, which was essential to determine whether the trooper had 

an objective basis to believe the violation had occurred, had not been

addressed at the hearing. 138 N.J. at 303-06. To the extent the "as nearly as 

practicable" factors were not specifically addressed at the suppression hearing 

in this matter, it was because the detective could not recall any details of the 

stop. See State v. Rice, 115 N.J. Super. 128, 132 (App. Div. 1971) ("[N]o 

sound reason exists in this case to give the State a second chance to bolster its 

proofs," it presumably "presented all its proofs at the suppression hearing").
25 A-3503-21

suppression motion and remand for suppression of the evidence and further 

proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Our disposition makes it 

unnecessary to address defendant's remaining issues. We do not retain 

jurisdiction.

Reversed.