Court Opinion

ID: 9730721
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:21:49.596947+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:08.878934
License: Public Domain

Pashman, J.,
concurring. I concur in the opinion of the Court subject to the qualifications expressed in my concurring opinion in State v. Ercolano, 79 N. J. 25 (1979), filed today. Although defendant’s vehicle, unlike the one involved in Ercolano, was not lawfully parked at the time of the arrest — inasmuch as the police spotted defendant while the vehicle was in motion and forced him to pull over to the curb — nevertheless there did not exist any “substantial police need” to subject the vehicle to impoundment. There was no showing that the police could not have conveniently parked and locked the car or that defendant, even though arrested, could not have made his own arrangements to have the car moved. This seizure was therefore unnecessary to the attainment of any lawful police objective, and hence illegal.
Accordingly, I agree that the judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed, and the order suppressing the evidence reinstated.