STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WOOSAM PARK (2010)

Following denial of his motion to suppress in the municipal court, defendant Woosam Park pled guilty to driving while intoxicated, (DWI), N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, and refusal to submit to a breath test, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2. Defendant filed an appeal in the Law Division of Superior Court, and appeals from the October 21, 2009 order, entered following a de novo review, denying his motion to suppress.

On appeal, defendant raises the following argument:

FOR PURPOSES “ARTICULABLE AND REASONABLE SUSPICION,” THE LAW DIVISION FAILED TO CONDUCT A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE WITNESSES/POLICE OFFICERS' OBJECTIVE REASONABLENESS OF THEIR TESTIMONY, WHEN THE RECORD CONSISTED OF INSUFFICIENT CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A FINDING THAT THE STOP AT ISSUE WAS LEGAL.   THE LAW DIVISION SHOULD HAVE SET FORTH REASONS TO EXPLAIN THE MUNICIPAL COURT'S CONCLUSION OF FACT THAT THE POLICE OFFICERS WERE FOUND TO BE MORE CREDIBLE THAN THE DEFENDANT, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THE OFFICERS' ERRORS IN THE CHARGING DOCUMENTS AND POLICE REPORT AND THEIR INCONSISTENT TESTIMONY.

We have examined the record in its entirety and conclude the issues presented by defendant are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion.   R. 2:11-3(e)(2).   The factual discrepancy highlighted by defendant does not negate the overwhelming evidence adduced by the State that the police officers had probable cause to stop defendant.

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM