## Facts

- Multiple criminal cases were consolidated on motions to suppress narcotics and other evidence seized after New Jersey Turnpike traffic stops between approximately 1988 and 1991, largely south of Exit 3 and, for statistical analysis, between Exits 1 and 7A.
- Seventeen moving defendants, all of African ancestry, alleged New Jersey State Police selectively enforced traffic laws against Black motorists as a pretext for drug interdiction.
- Fourth Amendment challenges were pleaded but severed and deferred; the hearing focused on Equal Protection and Due Process claims under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The parties compiled a stop database for troopers patrolling between Exits 1 and 7A across 35 randomly selected days from April 1988 to May 1991, totaling 3,060 stops.
- Defendants’ expert, Dr. John Lamberth, conducted:
  - A traffic survey between Exits 1 and 3 estimating the percentage of vehicles with at least one Black occupant.
  - A “violator” survey identifying objectively speeding vehicles to estimate the racial composition of traffic violators.
- Lamberth’s surveys estimated roughly 13.5% Black occupancy in overall traffic and about 15% Black occupancy among speeding violators, but the stop data reflected a substantially higher Black share (approximately 42–46% in the relevant corridor), which defendants argued showed disparate targeting.
- The State’s expert, Dr. Leonard Cupingood, challenged the defense methodology and offered alternative analyses; the court found the State’s rebuttal largely speculative and methodologically unsound.
- Defendants also presented evidence about State Police training and institutional practices, including leadership statements and alleged tolerance of discriminatory targeting during drug-interdiction efforts.

## Issues

1. Whether defendants established a prima facie case of racially selective enforcement of traffic laws, violating the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Whether the State rebutted the prima facie showing with credible, non-discriminatory explanations or reliable statistical analysis.
3. If a Fourteenth Amendment selective-enforcement violation was shown, whether suppression of contraband and other evidence obtained from the stops was an appropriate remedy.

## Decision

- The court found defendants established a prima facie case of selective enforcement on the basis of race.
- The court held the State failed to rebut that prima facie case.
- The court ordered suppression of all contraband and evidence seized from the challenged stops.
- Because suppression was warranted on Fourteenth Amendment grounds, the court did not reach the severed Fourth Amendment claims.

## Legal Principles

- A selective-enforcement claim under the Fourteenth Amendment requires proof that enforcement was intentionally discriminatory and that similarly situated persons of other races were not targeted to the same degree.
- Substantial statistical disparities between the racial composition of actual violators (baseline) and those stopped can support an inference of discriminatory enforcement, particularly when coupled with contextual proof of institutional practices.
- Conjecture or unsupported alternative hypotheses do not rebut a prima facie statistical showing of discriminatory enforcement.
- Evidence about training, supervision, and command-level tolerance may corroborate discriminatory intent and support a finding of a de facto discriminatory policy.
- Suppression of evidence may be ordered as a remedy where a traffic stop and resulting seizure are products of unconstitutional selective enforcement.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that the defendants proved, through statistical evidence and institutional context, a prima facie pattern of intentional race-based selective traffic enforcement on the New Jersey Turnpike and that the State’s inadequate rebuttal required suppression of all evidence obtained from the challenged stops.


State v. Soto, 324 N.J. Super. 66, 734 A.2d 350 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1996)