Legal landscape note: This article was originally published in 2016 and describes the law as it stood at that time. New Jersey law changes frequently -- contact us to discuss how the current law applies to your situation.
Overview
In July 2016, the New Jersey Supreme Court acquitted vehicle passenger Al-Sharif Scriven of possession of a handgun for an unlawful purpose, holding that the traffic stop that led to the discovery of the weapon was unconstitutional. State v. Scriven, decided July 19, 2016, turned on the proper interpretation of N.J.S.A. 39:3-60 — New Jersey's high beam statute — and the scope of the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution.
The case reinforced a principle that New Jersey motorists should understand: a traffic stop must be justified by a reasonable articulable suspicion of a traffic violation, and when the officer misapplies the statute, the resulting search may be unlawful.
The Traffic Stop
The stop occurred when a police officer, walking near his parked vehicle on a side street, initiated a traffic stop on a car traveling in a perpendicular direction. The officer claimed the driver failed to dim the high beams under N.J.S.A. 39:3-60.
Justice Albin, writing for the Court, examined the statute's language. N.J.S.A. 39:3-60 requires drivers to dim their high beams only when approaching an "oncoming vehicle." The officer was not "oncoming" — he was stationary on a side street. The stop therefore lacked reasonable articulable suspicion and violated both the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution.
The "Fruits of the Poisonous Tree" Doctrine
During the unconstitutional stop, Scriven — the passenger — was questioned and found to be in possession of a handgun loaded with hollow-point bullets and a large-capacity magazine. Public Defender Joseph E. Krakora moved to suppress the weapon under the exclusionary rule, arguing that evidence obtained from an unconstitutional stop must be excluded from trial.
The trial court granted the suppression motion. The State appealed, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The Supreme Court upheld both lower courts, applying the well-established "fruits of the poisonous tree" doctrine: when the initial police action is unconstitutional, all evidence derived from that action is tainted and inadmissible.
Why This Matters in New Jersey
New Jersey's constitution provides greater protection against unreasonable searches and seizures than the federal Fourth Amendment in many contexts. Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as affording broader rights to citizens stopped on New Jersey roadways.
For defendants charged with weapons offenses in Essex County, Camden County, or Middlesex County, Scriven provides a framework for challenging stops that rest on shaky statutory grounds. The case also illustrates why experienced criminal defense counsel should carefully examine the factual basis for every traffic stop — particularly when the alleged violation involves a technical motor vehicle statute.
Key Takeaways
- A traffic stop must be justified by actual violation of the motor vehicle code
- N.J.S.A. 39:3-60 applies only to approaching "oncoming vehicles," not stationary officers
- Evidence obtained from an unconstitutional stop is suppressible under the exclusionary rule
- New Jersey's constitution provides broader search and seizure protections than the Fourth Amendment
- Every traffic stop should be scrutinized for constitutional compliance
Reviewed by Britt J. Simon, Esq., Managing Partner — Simon Law Group, LLC — May 2026
The content on this website is for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Every case is different. You should consult with a qualified attorney before making any legal decisions. Contacting us through this website does not create an attorney-client relationship. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.