Bill > A2019

Introduced Session

This bill concerns motor vehicle stops by law enforcement officers. Specifically, under the provisions of this bill, a State, county, or municipal law enforcement officer is prohibited from initiating a motor vehicle stop solely for a violation of Title 39 of the Revised Statutes with exceptions for certain violations of Title 39 of the Revised Statutes which pose a risk to public safety. Instead, the law enforcement officer may issue a citation for a violation of Title 39 of the Revised Statutes observed by the law enforcement officer by first class mail to the registered owner of the motor vehicle on form prescribed by the Administrative Director of the Courts. The bill provides that any photographs or video from a law enforcement officer's mobile video recording system depicting the alleged violation are to be made available to the registered owner of the motor vehicle. If a citation is issued, the citation is required to be issued and sent by the law enforcement agency to the registered owner of the motor vehicle within seven days from the date on which the alleged violation occurred. In addition, photographs of the alleged violation and information regarding how to access video of the alleged violation also are required to be sent with the citation. Under the bill, law enforcement officers may initiate a motor vehicle stop for the following motor vehicle violations: 1) racing on a highway; 2) improper passing on right or off the roadway; 3) improper passing in a no passing zone; 4) tailgating; 5) reckless driving; 6) use of a handheld cellphone or electronic communication device while driving; 7) speeding when the driver exceeds the posted speed limit by 30 miles per hour or more; 8) leaving the scene of an accident; and 9) driving while intoxicated. In addition, the bill provides that a law enforcement officer may initiate a motor vehicle stop following an observed motor vehicle violation if: 1) there is a risk to public safety; 2) there is an outstanding warrant for the arrest of the registered owner of the motor vehicle or the law enforcement officer has reasonable cause to believe the driver of the motor vehicle has committed a crime; or 3) the motor vehicle matches the description of a motor vehicle that a law enforcement officer has reasonable cause to believe is involved in a kidnapping, human trafficking, or any other crime for which failure to immediately apprehend the suspect is reasonably likely to result in death or serious bodily injury to a person other than the suspect. The provisions of the bill define "risk to public safety." Further, under the bill, there is a rebuttable presumption that the registered owner of the vehicle which was involved in a violation of Title 39 of the Revised Statutes was the person who committed the violation, with the exception of certain offenses as provided in the bill. The bill also provides that a registered owner of a motor vehicle who receives a citation by mail under the bill's provisions, but was not the person who committed the violation is to be permitted to contest it electronically or by remote access, rather than requiring the owner to appear in court. The Administrative Director of the Courts is required to develop and implement a system that allows for this and is required to adopt guidelines, which are to include the types of proof that the registered owner of the motor vehicle may submit to the court to rebut the presumption that the registered owner of the motor vehicle involved in the violation was the person who committed the violation. In addition, after initiating a motor vehicle stop for a violation of Title 39 of the Revised Statutes, a State, county, or municipal law enforcement officer is prohibited from asking an operator or occupant of a motor vehicle for consent to search the motor vehicle, the contents of the motor vehicle, or the person of the operator or occupant unless the law enforcement officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal behavior, other than a violation of Title 39 of the Revised Statutes, was occurring or was about to occur. The bill also provides that the odor of cannabis, either burned or raw, by itself, does not establish probable cause for a State, county, or municipal law enforcement officer to search a motor vehicle or the operator or occupants of a motor vehicle. Under the bill, after initiating a motor vehicle stop, a State, county, or municipal law enforcement officer is not to use a drug-detection canine, unless the law enforcement officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that there is a controlled dangerous substance or controlled substance analog, other than marijuana or cannabis, in the motor vehicle or on the person of the operator or occupant of the motor vehicle. Under current law, the Office of Law Enforcement Professional Standards is required to prepare semi-annual reports on State Police traffic enforcement activities and procedures. This bill requires the reports to also include aggregate statistics on the number of citations issued by mail by the State Police for a violation of Title 39 of the Revised Statutes and the number of motor vehicles stops that are initiated by the State Police due to the exceptions provided under the bill. Finally, the bill provides the provisions of the bill are to preempt any law, ordinance, resolution or regulation adopted by the governing body of a county or municipality authorizing a law enforcement officer to engage in any conduct that is prohibited under the bill or otherwise inconsistent with the bill's provisions. The bill also provides that nothing in the bill's provisions or Title 39 of the Revised Statutes is to be construed to preempt or prohibit any law, ordinance, resolution, or regulation from being adopted by the governing body of a county or municipality that imposes restrictions in addition to those set forth under the bill on the role of law enforcement officers in the enforcement of violations of Title 39 of the Revised Statutes, including, but not limited to assigning the enforcement of violations of Title 39 of the Revised Statutes to local officials or personnel rather than law enforcement officers or imposing additional limitations on the actions of law enforcement officers during a motor vehicle stop for a violation of Title 39 of the Revised Statutes. According to the sponsor, contactless policing would be beneficial to the community and law enforcement officers. It would allow law enforcement officers to police crime and not people. Contactless policing would result in the elimination of millions of motor vehicle stops each year. As the average police stop takes up to 15 minutes, this would free up a law enforcement officer's time to police crime and engage in community policing. For example, law enforcement officers now know if a driver's registration and insurance are valid before initiating a motor vehicle stop by performing a simple registration check. As a result, it would not be necessary for a law enforcement officer to initiate a motor vehicle stop in order to issue a citation, but rather the search would reveal the infraction and the officer would be able to issue a citation by mail without initiating an interaction with the driver. The intent of this is to reduce the loss of all lives at the hands of law enforcement officers by using technology to reduce pretextual stops, during which a driver is detained for a minor infraction while law enforcement seek evidence of a more serious crime. According to the sponsor, community policing creates opportunities for interaction between community members and law enforcement officers, not only in the context of an officer responding to a crime. This results in more interaction in general, but more importantly, more positive interaction. Effective community policing requires altering a law enforcement department's policies, practices, and guiding philosophies. According to the sponsor, in analyzing police data of motor vehicle stops, multiple studies have found support for the "veil of darkness" theory: as the sun sets and it becomes more difficult to determine the race of the driver, the percentage of black drivers stopped by law enforcement officers for motor vehicle violations decreases significantly, with a 10 to 15 percent decrease in many jurisdictions. Often, these motor vehicle stops of black drivers are pretextual. Sandra Bland was stopped for failing to signal a turn. Philando Castile was stopped because his brake light was out, the last of his 52 stops by police. Eric Garner was stopped for selling loose cigarettes. Duante Wright was stopped for expired tags. None of these individuals survived their encounters with law enforcement. This disproportionate targeting of black drivers by the police is the State action that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted to address.

Committee Categories

Reginald Atkins (D)*,  Shanique Speight (D)*, 

Introduced, Referred to Assembly Public Safety and Preparedness Committee (on 01/09/2024)

Official Document