N.J. Supreme Court: Police Can't Stop Cars Solely on Race, Gender

In a major decision hailed by civil rights advocates as another curb on racial profiling, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled unanimously that police officers cannot stop a vehicle during an investigation based solely on a suspect’s race and gender.

The 6-0 decision on Tuesday nullified the results of what they deemed was an illegal car search by a Hamilton Township Police sergeant moments after an armed robbery took place a decade ago.

The court said the 9-1-1 dispatcher’s description of “two Black males, one with a handgun,” was too vague and did not constitute enough reasonable suspicion for police to pull over the vehicle with three Black men inside, even though they would later plead guilty to the crime

The state’s top court tossed the conviction of one man, Peter Nyema—and upheld the vacated sentence of another, Jamar Myers — both of whom were involved in the May 2011 robbery of a 7-Eleven in Mercer County.

Minutes after the crime was reported, 9-1-1 dispatchers described the suspects as “two Black males,” and Sgt. Mark Horan pulled over a vehicle with three Black males inside that included Nyema and Myers. The third man, the driver, was identified as Tyrone Miller.

Justice Fabiana Pierre-Louis, who authored the Jan. 25 opinion, said Officer Horan’s actions violated the constitutional rights of the three passengers and the stop was not based on reasonable suspicion.

“The only information the officer possessed at the time of the stop was the race and sex of the suspects, with no further descriptors,” Pierre-Louis wrote in the 34-page opinion. “That information, which effectively placed every single Black male in the area under the veil of suspicion, was insufficient to justify the stop of the vehicle and therefore does not withstand constitutional scrutiny.”

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey hailed the decision with a tweet immediately after Tuesday’s ruling came down:

“VICTORY: The NJ Supreme Court took BIG steps to limit racial profiling,” said the tweet. “... Today, the Court held: police cannot stop a car based on vague descriptions of race and sex.”

After they were arrested, Miller pled guilty to two weapons offenses and agreed to testify against Nyema and Myers.

Both Myers and Nyema argued that evidence seized during the stop should not be used because there was no reasonable suspicion to stop the car. After that was denied, both men eventually pleaded guilty to first-degree robbery.

An appeals court later backed the trial judge’s decision in Myers’ case, but it overturned Nyema’s conviction. The Supreme Court Tuesday agreed that Nyema’s case should be overturned and reversed the appeals court ruling for Myers.

Accordingly, Nyema’s conviction was reversed, his sentence vacated, and the matter remanded for back to the trial court.

The state Attorney General’s office, which represented the state, had no comment. But earlier, the AG filed a brief outlining its 2005 directive that prohibits “racially-influenced policing.”

Alexander Shalom, Director of Supreme Court Advocacy at the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, filed a brief on behalf of a group of Black ministers and other clergy condemning racial profiling and its harmful effects on Black and brown communities.

“Our clients—66 Black ministers and other clergy—have witnessed the suffering of their congregants brought about by police stops based on race,” Shalom said in an email on Wednesday. “We are gratified that the Court recognized this harm and took steps to remind law enforcement that racial profiling, including reliance of vague racial descriptions, has no place in New Jersey.”

Alyssa Aiello, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, represented Nyema, while Tamar Y. Lerer, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, represented Myers.

Aiello and Lerer issued this joint comment:

“We are gratified that the New Jersey Supreme Court has taken a significant step in protecting citizens from racial profiling by prohibiting stops based on vague descriptions of race and sex. The opinion recognizes the reality that racial bias permeates the criminal justice system and is consistent with the Court’s recent efforts to reckon with that reality.”

The decision comes on the heels of another landmark case, State v. Roman-Rosado, involving police stopping cars with partially covered license plate frames. The state Supreme Court decided last summer that such stops encourage and sanction discriminatory stops by law enforcement that disproportionately affect people of color.

Chief Justice Stuart Rabner and Justices Barry Albin, Anne Patterson, Faustino Fernandez-Vina and Lee Solomon joined in the 6-0 opinion on Tuesday.

The high court is minus one justice. Former Associate Justice Jaynee LaVecchia retired on Dec. 31, 2021, and her potential replacement, civil rights attorney Rachel Wainer Apter, is awaiting a state Senate confirmation hearing.

_______

Visit nj.com.

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.