Motorist's rights not violated, court says

northjersey.com ^ | 12.22.08 | JOHN PETRICK

[Coleus]

The state Supreme Court has reversed a lower court’s decision that a Clifton motorist's constitutional rights were violated when police pulled him over for suspected drunken driving based on a phone tip from his daughter. In so doing, it found that the teenage girl’s assessment of “a commonly understood condition” was enough for police to act on it.

Two Clifton police officers were dispatched to the home of Clifton resident Paul Amelio on Dec. 11, 2005 about 12:30 a.m. to investigate a domestic disturbance between him and his 17-year-old daughter, according to the Supreme Court decision. The daughter had initially called police to report a verbal dispute, the decision states. While officers were on their way, the police dispatcher advised officers that the daughter had called back to say her father was drunk and was leaving the home driving a black Oldsmobile, according to the decision. One of the responding officers recognized the vehicle on the same street as his residence, based on the description and license plate number the daughter gave. The officer pulled his marked patrol car behind Amelio’s car, which had stopped on the side of the road, according to the decision.

After about five seconds, the defendant drove away and officers followed, activating their lights and siren until stopping behind Amelio’s vehicle when he pulled into his driveway, the decision states. Amelio was charged with driving while intoxicated and refusing to submit to a breathalyzer test, according to the decision. A Municipal Court judge denied Amelio’s subsequent pre-trial motion challenging the legality of the stop. The defendant then entered a conditional guilty plea to DWI, reserving his right to appeal the municipal judge’s decision on the legality of the motor vehicle stop, the ruling states.

A state Law Division judge reversed the decision, finding that the police did not have reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant’s car. The state Superior Court Appellate Division agreed, saying there was no evidence that Amelio operated his vehicle erratically and that there was no way of knowing what the term “drunk” meant to a 17-year-old immediately following a verbal dispute with her father.

In its ruling today, the state Supreme Court overturned that decision. “The caller’s description that her father was drunk provided a sufficiently precise description of a commonly understood condition, and, therefore, no further elaboration on his condition was required,” the decision states. “The details of those reports by a known citizen gave police reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop and investigate the conduct of the defendant.”

Amelio and an attorney representing him on appeal could not be reached for comment Monday. Clifton Capt. Gary Giardina did not remember the particular arrest, but said that the department occasionally gets calls from people trying to stop an intoxicated family member from driving. “Obviously, any kind of information that keeps a drunk off the street is helpful,” said Giardina, who heads the patrol division in Clifton. “It’s unfortunate that the dad put his daughter in that situation, but she may have saved his life, or someone else’s.”

Eugene O’Donnell, a professor of police studies at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, said because the daughter’s original call had been in regard to a dispute, the case was more about domestic violence than driving under the influence. “It seems to me, whether or not he was drunk, police would be duty-bound to stop him,” said O’Donnell. “Then, if he’s drunk, it’s a drunk driving case.”

[MrEdd]

Sounds like she is the parent and the old boozer is the kid.