NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

PER CURIAM.

Following the denial of his suppression motion, defendant Rodney Jenkins pled guilty to third-degree fraudulent use of a credit card, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-6(h), and was sentenced to three years in prison. His appeal from the conviction focuses on the July 1, 2014 order denying his suppression motion. Defendant presents the following point of argument:

We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by Judge John R. Tassini in his written statement of reasons issued on July 8, 2014. We add these comments.

In brief summary, patrol officer Spiegel received a call from headquarters (dispatch) alerting him that the loss prevention officer of a Best Buy store (the manager) had just reported that he believed a person driving a Mercedes with tinted windows and a specific Florida license plate number had committed credit card fraud at the store.1 Spiegel was aware of many prior incidents of credit card fraud at the Best Buy store, following a similar pattern. Shortly after getting the dispatch call, he spotted a car matching the manager's description, and then observed the vehicle taking what appeared to be evasive action as soon as the driver saw his police car. Spiegel stopped the vehicle and questioned the driver, later identified as defendant. In response to questioning, defendant produced a driver's license in his own name, and a bag with Best Buy merchandise but no receipt.

Spiegel called the store manager for further details and was told that the suspect had used a credit card with the name "James Green." After defendant made some furtive movements that caused Spiegel to fear for his safety, the officer ordered defendant out of the car. As defendant exited the car, Spiegel observed an open wallet in the car, with various credit cards bearing the name "James Green." At that point, he arrested defendant and seized the evidence.

Citing State v. Stovall, 170 N.J. 346, 362 (2002), Judge Tassini concluded that the store manager's report provided reasonable grounds to suspect that the driver of the Florida Mercedes had committed a crime. That suspicion was heightened when Spiegel saw the driver appearing to take evasive action after spotting the police car. Judge Tassini reasoned that "the officer had reasonable suspicion and a basis sufficient for the investigatory stop and limited questioning of the defendant in the identified vehicle." The judge further concluded that the officer was justified in asking defendant to step out of the car, at which point the officer saw the evidence of crime in plain view.

Having reviewed the record, we find that Judge Tassini's factual findings are supported by sufficient credible evidence. See State v. Hreha, 217 N.J. 368, 381-82 (2014). In light of those factual findings, his legal conclusions are unassailable. Defendant argues that if the store manager had insufficient grounds to suspect defendant of credit card fraud, the resulting stop was unlawful. We are not persuaded. What the manager told the police was sufficient to trigger an investigation. The police at headquarters were entitled to rely on a report from "an ordinary citizen," and were not required to conduct an in-depth investigation of the manager's information before dispatching Spiegel to stop the reported vehicle. See State v. Basil, 202 N.J. 570, 586 (2010). In turn, Spiegel was entitled to rely on the information he received from the police dispatcher. State v. Crawley, 187 N.J. 440, 457-58, cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1078, 127 S.Ct. 740, 166 L. Ed. 2d 563 (2006).

Affirmed.