field sobriety test in New Jersey

10 New Jersey opinions name it 1 courts 2005–2025 3 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by New Jersey courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (5)

Case	Followed	Cited
Berkemer v. McCartygreen scotus · 1984 · cited in 3 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2005–2019 2 sentences 2011See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442 , 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3151 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317, 336 (1984) (holding that a police officer requesting the defendant to perform a field sobriety test in a public place “cannot fairly be characterized as the functional equivalent of formal arrest”); cf. State v. Green, 209 N.J.Super. 347, 350 , 507 A.2d 743 (App.Div. 1986) (holding that a DWI suspect is not entitled to Miranda 1 warnings prior to administration of field sobriety tests); State v. Ebert, 377 N.J.Super. 1, 9 , 871 A.2d 664 (App.Div.2005) (same); State v. Weber, 220 N.J.Super. 420, 424 , 532 A.2d 7 2011See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442 , 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3151 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317, 336 (1984) (holding that a police officer requesting the defendant to perform a field sobriety test in a public place “cannot fairly be characterized as the functional equivalent of formal arrest”); cf. State v. Green, 209 N.J.Super. 347, 350 , 507 A.2d 743 (App.Div. 1986) (holding that a DWI suspect is not entitled to Miranda 1 warnings prior to administration of field sobriety tests); State v. Ebert, 377 N.J.Super. 1, 9 , 871 A.2d 664 (App.Div.2005) (same); State v. Weber, 220 N.J.Super. 420, 424 , 532 A.2d 7	2	3
State v. Adubatogreen njsuperctappdiv · 2011 · cited in 2 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2011–2019 2 sentences 2011See, e.g., State v. Adubato, 420 N.J.Super. 167, 181 , 19 A.3d 1023 (App.Div.2011) (finding that the police officer had the “factual basis for an ‘articulable suspicion’ that the defendant had engaged in criminal conduct, ie., driving while intoxicated, sufficient to warrant a Terry stop, including the administration of field sobriety tests”); State v. Nikola, 359 N.J.Super. 573, 583 , 821 A.2d 110 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 178 N.J. 30 , 834 A.2d 404 (2003) (holding that asking defendant to perform a field sobriety test constituted a temporary investigative detention); State v. Moskal, 246 N 2011See, e.g., State v. Adubato, 420 N.J.Super. 167, 181 , 19 A.3d 1023 (App.Div.2011) (finding that the police officer had the “factual basis for an ‘articulable suspicion’ that the defendant had engaged in criminal conduct, ie., driving while intoxicated, sufficient to warrant a Terry stop, including the administration of field sobriety tests”); State v. Nikola, 359 N.J.Super. 573, 583 , 821 A.2d 110 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 178 N.J. 30 , 834 A.2d 404 (2003) (holding that asking defendant to perform a field sobriety test constituted a temporary investigative detention); State v. Moskal, 246 N	2	2
State v. William Roseman and Lori Lewin (073674)green nj · 2015 · cited in 1 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024The officers then arrested defendant and 1 "PTI is a 'diversionary program through which certain offenders are able to avoid criminal prosecution by receiving early rehabilitative services expected to deter future criminal behavior.'" State v. Roseman, 221 N.J. 611, 621 (2015).	1	1
State v. Hickmangreen njsuperctappdiv · 2000 · cited in 1 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019Ibid. (citing Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 442 ); see also State v. Hickman, 335 N.J.	1	1
Wilson v. Amerada Hess Corp.green nj · 2001 · cited in 1 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 2 sentences 2010See Wilson v. Amerada Hess Corp., 168 N.J. 236, 253 , 773 A. 2d 1121 (2001); Connolly v. Burger King Corp., 306 N.J.Super. 344, 349 , 703 A. 2d 941 (App.Div.1997); State v. Ford, 240 N.J.Super. 44, 50 , 572 A. 2d 640 (App.Div.1990). "[D]efendants' discovery in DWI cases is limited to those relevant items, within the limitations of Rule 3:13-3(a), which there is a reasonabl[e] basis to believe will assist a defendant's defense." Id. at 49 , 572 A. 2d 640 . 2010See Wilson v. Amerada Hess Corp., 168 N.J. 236, 253 , 773 A. 2d 1121 (2001); Connolly v. Burger King Corp., 306 N.J.Super. 344, 349 , 703 A. 2d 941 (App.Div.1997); State v. Ford, 240 N.J.Super. 44, 50 , 572 A. 2d 640 (App.Div.1990). "[D]efendants' discovery in DWI cases is limited to those relevant items, within the limitations of Rule 3:13-3(a), which there is a reasonabl[e] basis to believe will assist a defendant's defense." Id. at 49 , 572 A. 2d 640 .	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (14)

Case	Cited	Years
Miranda v. Arizona green scotus · 1966 2 sentences 2025Plaintiff then asked the State Trooper why he "smashed [defendant's] car." Plaintiff twice stated, "I'm gonna kill somebody tonight" and used a 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2014The officer arrested defendant, read him his Miranda1 rights, and handcuffed and seated defendant in 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L.	2	2014–2025
State v. Ebert green njsuperctappdiv · 2005 2 sentences 2011See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442 , 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3151 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317, 336 (1984) (holding that a police officer requesting the defendant to perform a field sobriety test in a public place “cannot fairly be characterized as the functional equivalent of formal arrest”); cf. State v. Green, 209 N.J.Super. 347, 350 , 507 A.2d 743 (App.Div. 1986) (holding that a DWI suspect is not entitled to Miranda 1 warnings prior to administration of field sobriety tests); State v. Ebert, 377 N.J.Super. 1, 9 , 871 A.2d 664 (App.Div.2005) (same); State v. Weber, 220 N.J.Super. 420, 424 , 532 A.2d 7 2011See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442 , 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3151 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317, 336 (1984) (holding that a police officer requesting the defendant to perform a field sobriety test in a public place “cannot fairly be characterized as the functional equivalent of formal arrest”); cf. State v. Green, 209 N.J.Super. 347, 350 , 507 A.2d 743 (App.Div. 1986) (holding that a DWI suspect is not entitled to Miranda 1 warnings prior to administration of field sobriety tests); State v. Ebert, 377 N.J.Super. 1, 9 , 871 A.2d 664 (App.Div.2005) (same); State v. Weber, 220 N.J.Super. 420, 424 , 532 A.2d 7	2	2011–2019
State v. Green green njsuperctappdiv · 1986 2 sentences 2011See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442 , 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3151 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317, 336 (1984) (holding that a police officer requesting the defendant to perform a field sobriety test in a public place “cannot fairly be characterized as the functional equivalent of formal arrest”); cf. State v. Green, 209 N.J.Super. 347, 350 , 507 A.2d 743 (App.Div. 1986) (holding that a DWI suspect is not entitled to Miranda 1 warnings prior to administration of field sobriety tests); State v. Ebert, 377 N.J.Super. 1, 9 , 871 A.2d 664 (App.Div.2005) (same); State v. Weber, 220 N.J.Super. 420, 424 , 532 A.2d 7 2011See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442 , 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3151 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317, 336 (1984) (holding that a police officer requesting the defendant to perform a field sobriety test in a public place “cannot fairly be characterized as the functional equivalent of formal arrest”); cf. State v. Green, 209 N.J.Super. 347, 350 , 507 A.2d 743 (App.Div. 1986) (holding that a DWI suspect is not entitled to Miranda 1 warnings prior to administration of field sobriety tests); State v. Ebert, 377 N.J.Super. 1, 9 , 871 A.2d 664 (App.Div.2005) (same); State v. Weber, 220 N.J.Super. 420, 424 , 532 A.2d 7	2	2005–2011
Cady v. Dombrowski green scotus · 1973 1 sentence 2025Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 [(1973)].	1	2025–2025
State v. Bernokeits green njsuperctappdiv · 2011 1 sentence 2019In the context of a detention to perform a field sobriety test, "our courts have consistently . . . upheld such routine, standardized testing on the basis of a reasonable, articulable suspicion of driver intoxication." Bernokeits, 423 N.J.	1	2019–2019
State v. Bealor green nj · 2006 1 sentence 2018Ibid.	1	2018–2018
State v. Scott Robertson(075326) green nj · 2017 1 sentence 2018Burzachiello told defendant he would normally conduct a field sobriety test at this point, but he was not able to do so because of the emergency nature of the situation. 1 An interlock device, also called an ignition interlock device, is a "blood alcohol equivalence measuring device which will prevent a motor vehicle from starting if the operator's blood alcohol content exceeds a predetermined level when the operator blows into the device." State v. Robertson, 228 N.J. 138 , 151 n.2 (2017) (quoting N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.17(d)).	1	2018–2018
State v. Darragh green nj · 1987 1 sentence 2011See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442 , 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3151 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317, 336 (1984) (holding that a police officer requesting the defendant to perform a field sobriety test in a public place “cannot fairly be characterized as the functional equivalent of formal arrest”); cf. State v. Green, 209 N.J.Super. 347, 350 , 507 A.2d 743 (App.Div. 1986) (holding that a DWI suspect is not entitled to Miranda 1 warnings prior to administration of field sobriety tests); State v. Ebert, 377 N.J.Super. 1, 9 , 871 A.2d 664 (App.Div.2005) (same); State v. Weber, 220 N.J.Super. 420, 424 , 532 A.2d 7	1	2011–2011
State v. Loyle green nj · 1987 1 sentence 2011See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442 , 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3151 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317, 336 (1984) (holding that a police officer requesting the defendant to perform a field sobriety test in a public place “cannot fairly be characterized as the functional equivalent of formal arrest”); cf. State v. Green, 209 N.J.Super. 347, 350 , 507 A.2d 743 (App.Div. 1986) (holding that a DWI suspect is not entitled to Miranda 1 warnings prior to administration of field sobriety tests); State v. Ebert, 377 N.J.Super. 1, 9 , 871 A.2d 664 (App.Div.2005) (same); State v. Weber, 220 N.J.Super. 420, 424 , 532 A.2d 7	1	2011–2011
State v. Nikola green njsuperctappdiv · 2003 2 sentences 2011See, e.g., State v. Adubato, 420 N.J.Super. 167, 181 , 19 A.3d 1023 (App.Div.2011) (finding that the police officer had the “factual basis for an ‘articulable suspicion’ that the defendant had engaged in criminal conduct, ie., driving while intoxicated, sufficient to warrant a Terry stop, including the administration of field sobriety tests”); State v. Nikola, 359 N.J.Super. 573, 583 , 821 A.2d 110 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 178 N.J. 30 , 834 A.2d 404 (2003) (holding that asking defendant to perform a field sobriety test constituted a temporary investigative detention); State v. Moskal, 246 N 2011See, e.g., State v. Adubato, 420 N.J.Super. 167, 181 , 19 A.3d 1023 (App.Div.2011) (finding that the police officer had the “factual basis for an ‘articulable suspicion’ that the defendant had engaged in criminal conduct, ie., driving while intoxicated, sufficient to warrant a Terry stop, including the administration of field sobriety tests”); State v. Nikola, 359 N.J.Super. 573, 583 , 821 A.2d 110 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 178 N.J. 30 , 834 A.2d 404 (2003) (holding that asking defendant to perform a field sobriety test constituted a temporary investigative detention); State v. Moskal, 246 N	1	2011–2011
State v. Weber green njsuperctappdiv · 1987 2 sentences 2011See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442 , 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3151 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317, 336 (1984) (holding that a police officer requesting the defendant to perform a field sobriety test in a public place “cannot fairly be characterized as the functional equivalent of formal arrest”); cf. State v. Green, 209 N.J.Super. 347, 350 , 507 A.2d 743 (App.Div. 1986) (holding that a DWI suspect is not entitled to Miranda 1 warnings prior to administration of field sobriety tests); State v. Ebert, 377 N.J.Super. 1, 9 , 871 A.2d 664 (App.Div.2005) (same); State v. Weber, 220 N.J.Super. 420, 424 , 532 A.2d 7 2011See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442 , 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3151 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317, 336 (1984) (holding that a police officer requesting the defendant to perform a field sobriety test in a public place “cannot fairly be characterized as the functional equivalent of formal arrest”); cf. State v. Green, 209 N.J.Super. 347, 350 , 507 A.2d 743 (App.Div. 1986) (holding that a DWI suspect is not entitled to Miranda 1 warnings prior to administration of field sobriety tests); State v. Ebert, 377 N.J.Super. 1, 9 , 871 A.2d 664 (App.Div.2005) (same); State v. Weber, 220 N.J.Super. 420, 424 , 532 A.2d 7	1	2011–2011
State v. Moskal green njsuperctappdiv · 1991 2 sentences 2011See, e.g., State v. Adubato, 420 N.J.Super. 167, 181 , 19 A.3d 1023 (App.Div.2011) (finding that the police officer had the “factual basis for an ‘articulable suspicion’ that the defendant had engaged in criminal conduct, ie., driving while intoxicated, sufficient to warrant a Terry stop, including the administration of field sobriety tests”); State v. Nikola, 359 N.J.Super. 573, 583 , 821 A.2d 110 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 178 N.J. 30 , 834 A.2d 404 (2003) (holding that asking defendant to perform a field sobriety test constituted a temporary investigative detention); State v. Moskal, 246 N 2011See, e.g., State v. Adubato, 420 N.J.Super. 167, 181 , 19 A.3d 1023 (App.Div.2011) (finding that the police officer had the “factual basis for an ‘articulable suspicion’ that the defendant had engaged in criminal conduct, ie., driving while intoxicated, sufficient to warrant a Terry stop, including the administration of field sobriety tests”); State v. Nikola, 359 N.J.Super. 573, 583 , 821 A.2d 110 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 178 N.J. 30 , 834 A.2d 404 (2003) (holding that asking defendant to perform a field sobriety test constituted a temporary investigative detention); State v. Moskal, 246 N	1	2011–2011
Connolly v. Burger King Corp. green njsuperctappdiv · 1997 2 sentences 2010See Wilson v. Amerada Hess Corp., 168 N.J. 236, 253 , 773 A. 2d 1121 (2001); Connolly v. Burger King Corp., 306 N.J.Super. 344, 349 , 703 A. 2d 941 (App.Div.1997); State v. Ford, 240 N.J.Super. 44, 50 , 572 A. 2d 640 (App.Div.1990). "[D]efendants' discovery in DWI cases is limited to those relevant items, within the limitations of Rule 3:13-3(a), which there is a reasonabl[e] basis to believe will assist a defendant's defense." Id. at 49 , 572 A. 2d 640 . 2010See Wilson v. Amerada Hess Corp., 168 N.J. 236, 253 , 773 A. 2d 1121 (2001); Connolly v. Burger King Corp., 306 N.J.Super. 344, 349 , 703 A. 2d 941 (App.Div.1997); State v. Ford, 240 N.J.Super. 44, 50 , 572 A. 2d 640 (App.Div.1990). "[D]efendants' discovery in DWI cases is limited to those relevant items, within the limitations of Rule 3:13-3(a), which there is a reasonabl[e] basis to believe will assist a defendant's defense." Id. at 49 , 572 A. 2d 640 .	1	2010–2010
State v. Ford green njsuperctappdiv · 1990 2 sentences 2010See Wilson v. Amerada Hess Corp., 168 N.J. 236, 253 , 773 A. 2d 1121 (2001); Connolly v. Burger King Corp., 306 N.J.Super. 344, 349 , 703 A. 2d 941 (App.Div.1997); State v. Ford, 240 N.J.Super. 44, 50 , 572 A. 2d 640 (App.Div.1990). "[D]efendants' discovery in DWI cases is limited to those relevant items, within the limitations of Rule 3:13-3(a), which there is a reasonabl[e] basis to believe will assist a defendant's defense." Id. at 49 , 572 A. 2d 640 . 2010See Wilson v. Amerada Hess Corp., 168 N.J. 236, 253 , 773 A. 2d 1121 (2001); Connolly v. Burger King Corp., 306 N.J.Super. 344, 349 , 703 A. 2d 941 (App.Div.1997); State v. Ford, 240 N.J.Super. 44, 50 , 572 A. 2d 640 (App.Div.1990). "[D]efendants' discovery in DWI cases is limited to those relevant items, within the limitations of Rule 3:13-3(a), which there is a reasonabl[e] basis to believe will assist a defendant's defense." Id. at 49 , 572 A. 2d 640 .	1	2010–2010

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NJ § N.J. Stat. § 39:4-50 (5)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

OH 203 (1990–2026) PA 110 (1979–2026) TX 104 (1985–2026) IL 50 (1990–2026) LA 43 (1981–2015) HI 39 (1984–2025) GA 35 (1988–2022) OR 29 (1981–2022) CA 28 (1968–2025) NY 27 (1984–2026) WI 24 (1994–2025) MA 23 (1984–2024) FL 23 (1982–2023) WA 20 (1991–2026) IN 14 (1988–2020) NM 14 (1987–2024) MO 13 (1999–2025) VA 11 (1991–2022) NJ 10 (2005–2025) ME 10 (1995–2023) IA 10 (1978–2024) SC 9 (1996–2022) UT 9 (1987–2021) MS 8 (2003–2024) KS 8 (1987–2024) TN 8 (1988–2016) MD 8 (1990–2025) MT 8 (1984–2021) KY 8 (2004–2024) NC 7 (2005–2021) WV 7 (1997–2023) MN 7 (2001–2026) MI 6 (2002–2024) AZ 5 (1987–2026) ID 5 (1995–2021) VT 5 (1988–2023) NV 5 (1997–2020) AL 4 (1989–2001) WY 4 (1993–2019) CT 4 (1997–2002) DE 3 (2016–2025) ND 3 (1986–2005) VI 2 (2001–2017) SD 2 (1985–1989) AR 2 (2015–2026) NH 2 (2021–2024) DC 2 (2014–2015)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check