New Jersey DWI Lawyer Blog

A lawsuit filed in Newark Federal Court has pointed out some potentially serious problems with the policies at the Sparta Township Police Department, according to news reports. The suit, filed by two Newton, NJ, attorneys was prompted by their own 2008 arrest for driving while intoxicated in the Sussex County municipality.

As a New Jersey DWI defense lawyer, I know how strict certain police agencies' policies can be regarding drunk driving violations. Similarly, there are some municipalities that have questionable tactics, which can cause problems for the prosecuting attorneys in those cities and towns. Being a former prosecutor myself, I know the ins and outs of the court system when it comes to drunk driving cases, all of which helps me to provide an aggressive defense to my clients.

In the case of the Sparta suit, court records indicate that the attorneys allege Sparta police "routinely rely upon false pretexts to improperly stop, falsely charge, and overcharge motorists of alleged infractions of the Motor Vehicle And Traffic Laws." That's a pretty specific accusation and something that definitely matches what is being called a major civil rights case against the township of Sparta. Essentially, the suit is challenging the constitutionality of the practices and policies of the Sparta police department.

The suit stems from a traffic stop on April 11, 2008. Reportedly Kevin Kelly and Megan Ward had attended an event at the Lake Mohawk Country Club, after which they were seen arguing in the parking lot by an off-duty Blairstown police officer. That officer phoned Sparta police to report a possible domestic dispute and then informed dispatch the two seemed fine because they drove off together on West Shore Trail.

Based on reports, Sparta police were dispatched to the scene and then followed the attorney's vehicle, with Ward at the wheel and Kelly as the passenger. Despite there being no overt traffic violations -- as recorded by the police car video -- the officers still stopped and questioned the two occupants.

Ward was asked to step out of the vehicle and perform five sobriety tests. The officers made the determination she was impaired and arrested her. Kelly was also arrested as the presumed owner of the car driven by an impaired driver.

Continue reading "Sussex County, NJ, DWI Law Update: Sparta Township Drunk Driving Arrest Procedures Under Fire" »

Following a potentially deadly early-morning single-vehicle accident in Chatham Township, a Morristown man was arrested and charged with drunken driving. This kind of accident and subsequent DWI arrest is not uncommon, though in this case the man was perhaps lucky that he made it out alive. As a New Jersey drunk driving defense attorney, my main concern is to see that motorists get a fair shake in court.

The apparent drunk driving incident in question occurred around 1:30am in mid April, according to news accounts. Police had responded to a report of an overturned vehicle laying in the brook on Loantka Way in Chatham. Based on police investigation following the accident, the 37-year-old driver allegedly hit a utility pole with his car and then rolled into the nearby brook.

Shawn Beckler of Morristown had reportedly been traveling along Loantaka Way from Shunpike Road toward Spring Valley Road when he apparently failed to negotiate a curve in the roadway. Traveling straight, Beckler's vehicle struck a utility pole before hitting a fence and a stand of trees, then overturning and ending on its hood in the brook.

Officers arriving on the scene observed fallen electrical wires at the initial impact site. Following the damage to the brook, Officers Patrick Meade and Christopher Slayton located the car with the suspect still inside. According to police reports, Beckler was partially trapped underneath the vehicle.

Emergency crews from the Green Village Fire Department worked extricate the man, who was then taken to Morristown Memorial Hospital by the Chatham Emergency Squad for non-life threatening injuries. Based on news reports, Beckler was charged with DWI, reckless driving and failure to keep right.

Morristown man is charged with drunken driving after his car lands in a Chatham Township brook, NJ.com, April 15, 2010

Arrests for driving while intoxicated can happen nearly any time and almost anywhere. As a New Jersey DWI attorney, I have represented numerous motorists accused of drunken driving where a seemingly simple fender-bender precipitated into a full-blown drunk driving arrest.

Lyndhurst, like that most other Garden State municipalities, sees its share DWI, drug DUI and breath-test refusal cases every month. Some of these cases arise out of normal traffic enforcement, while others are called in by citizens who believe they have observed drunken driving behavior. Not long ago, a Lodi, NJ, man was arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol following an accident at a local Lyndhurst Wendy's fast food restaurant.

According to news reports, Lyndhurst police officers responded to an early morning call from the manager of a Wendy's on Ridge Road. The call, which came in just before 2am, alerted police to an incident at the restaurant where a light-colored vehicle apparently collided with the drive-through window before the driver, later identified as John Finn, fled the scene.

Police reports indicate that the driver and a 24-year-old passenger had pulled up to the restaurant window before realizing that the establishment was closed for the night. Realizing that the store was closed, Finn apparently attempted to exit, but instead crashed into the drive-through window, according to police.

After a search by the police, Finn and his vehicle were located several blocks north of the restaurant on Summit Avenue. The car, which police said had apparently been disabled due to front-end damage on the driver's side, also had a broken windshield.

According to news reports, Finn was arrested at the scene and taken to the Lyndhurst Police Department where he was charged with DWI. He had sustained minor lacerations to his face and hand, both of which were treated at police headquarters. Finn also received a summons for leaving the scene of an accident, police said.

Finn's vehicle was impounded and he was later released on his own recognizance. The passenger was not charged.

Police: Man drove through drive-thru window at Wendy's, LeaderNewspapers.net, April 30, 2010

An important part of a DWI arrest and conviction is proper police procedure. Before a law enforcement officer can stop a vehicle and its driver for drunk driving, there must be sufficient cause for the traffic stop to legally occur in the first place. This is why many drunken driving arrests happen following a seemingly routine traffic stop, such as an improper lane change, running a stop sign, or speeding.

As a New Jersey DWI defense lawyer and former municipal prosecutor, I understand the circumstances that can lead to an arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol or prescription drugs (also known as drug DWI or drug DUI). Because the police need to show sufficient cause for a traffic stop, this is an important element in any DWI prosecution or drunk driving defense.

A recent appellate court decision upheld a lower court ruling against a woman who was accused of driving while intoxicated in Florham Park, NJ, back in the summer of 2007. According to court records, Marylou Panza had appealed her drunken driving conviction and refusing a mandatory chemical test on the grounds that she had been stopped without reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.

On July 21 of that year, the defendant was attending a local "movie night" in Florham Parka when a police officer assigned to crowd control observed Panza walking off balance and swaying at about 8pm. The same officer saw her again just before 10pm after being told that there was trouble at a popcorn stand. When the officer arrived, everyone on line pointed to Panza, who reportedly smelled of alcohol and had glassy bloodshot eyes.

Seeing the defendant again around 10:30pm, the officer suspected that she might be planning to drive with a child apparently in her care, so he called another officer to the scene to monitor her. When that officer observed Panza get into her car and drive off, he followed her and pulled her over in the next street.

According to police reports, the officer detected the smell of alcohol and observed Panza's glassy eyes. He asked her to perform the finger dexterity sobriety test, which she passed. She failed the one leg stand and walk and turn tests, however, so the officer arrested her on suspicion of DWI. She refused the Alcotest breath testing device three times at the police station.

Following her DWI conviction and refusal of the breath test, Panza appealed her conviction because the police did not have adequate grounds to stop her -- and therefore the evidence obtained from the stop should have been thrown out.

The key point here is that a police officer may stop a motor vehicle without violating a person's 4th Amendment rights if that officer has an "articulable and reasonable suspicion" of a violation of law by the driver or a passenger (Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 [1979]). This is a lower standard than "probable cause" which is required to make an arrest, yet still requires specific objective facts that would lead to the conclusion that the individual in question has broken a particular law.

Unfortunately for Ms. Panza, the appellate court found that the first officer's observations that Ms. Panza was walking off balance, that she smelled of alcohol, and that her eyes eyes were glassy were specific facts that reasonably led to the conclusion that she was intoxicated.

The court also acknowledged that the arresting officer was entitled to rely on the first officer's recitation of these facts in making the stop, and taken together with his own observations that she was driving made it reasonable to stop her. Her performance on the field sobriety tests was sufficient basis for the arrest for DWI. The Appellate Division thus upheld the conviction and affirmed the conviction, along with Ms. Panza's sentence and fines.

Not a single days goes by that some New Jersey motorist is pulled over by a State Police trooper or local law enforcement officer for some traffic infraction. It is not uncommon for such routine traffic stops to turn into drunk driving arrests, for a number of reasons. As a New Jersey DWI defense attorney, my office provides a valuable service to individuals accused of driving under the influence of alcohol or prescription drug DUI.

Regardless of the circumstances, it is foolish to "take your medicine" and not fight a drunk driving charge. This is especially true for persons with jobs that require a valid driver's license and an unblemished driving record. Even those people who do not rely on driving to support themselves and their family, a DWI conviction can have a lasting effect on an individual's standing in the community and with their friend and relative.

The two recent arrests in Lyndhurst, NJ, illustrate the way in which motorists can be singled out by police and eventually charged with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

Late on a Saturday evening, Lyndhurst police officers observed a vehicle allegedly speeding on a surface street around 11pm. After apparently failing to stop for a pedestrian in a nearby crosswalk, 29-year-old Mary Murillo of Hasbrouck Heights was stopped by officers near Valley Brook and Grant Avenues. During the traffic stop officers apparently detected signs of alcohol consumption on the driver's part. Murillo was charged with drunk driving, as well as being issued summonses for careless driving and failure to stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk.

Earlier that same evening, an incident involving underage drinking was recorded by Lyndhurst police. Based on a report of drunken individuals on the property of Columbus School, police officers arrived at the scene around 9:40pm to find that several allegedly intoxicated juveniles had moved to Third Avenue near Ridge Road. Based on the police report, two youngsters -- a 17-year-old male and 16-year-old female -- were with a 19-year-old male who was allegedly in possession of alcohol. According to police, the three were taken into custody.

Following the incident, the two younger juveniles were turned over to their parents without charges being filed against them. However, the 19-year-old, an Ebenezer Fobe of Lyndhurst, NJ, was charged with underage consumption of alcohol.

Lyndhurst: Police Blotter, NorthJersey.com, April 29, 2010

Once again, the validity of breath-test measurements coming out of New Jersey's Alcotest devices is being questioned, this time by Seton Hall University's school of law. Titled "The Untestable Drunk Driving Test," the report shines a spotlight on the reputed accuracy and reliability one of the most damning pieces of evidence used by the state in DWI cases against motorists accused of driving under the influence of alcohol.

Working with other DWI defense lawyers at my firm, we have a great deal of experience in this area. In fact, as a former municipal prosecutor I myself relied on the results for the blood-alcohol content (BAC) testing that law enforcement officers perform everyday on accused drunken driving offenders.

According to this latest report out of Seton Hall in South Orange, NJ, Alcotest maker Draeger AG & Company lobbied to have the machine's source code classified as a trade secret. Because of this, there has apparently been no easy way to confirm the accuracy of the device. What this means, essentially, is that the state of New Jersey purchased a "black box" device that state police and other law enforcement agencies use regularly to arrest and charge drivers with drunk driving.

Because no independent group is allowed to buy and test the Alcotest device -- apparently a Seton Hall University professor attempted to buy one from Drager, but was denied -- scientific comparisons are next to impossible. Based on recent news reports, 20 people convicted of DWI have sued the state over the results of the Alcotest device. As a result, Drager agreed to allow outside companies to review the source code, but not the machine itself.

Reportedly, Draeger contracted Colorado-based SysTest Labs to review the device's source code, while the plaintiffs used a New York-based company to analyze the code. The Seton Hall report claims that both companies determined the code was flawed, however, these third parties each reached different conclusions regarding the reliability of the machine.

SysTest said that despite the flaws the Alcotest machine would "reliably produce consistent test results." This in itself is not a glowing endorsement, but the plaintiffs' research firm, Base One, went one further by saying it found 24 "major defects," nine of which would have a significant impact on the device's testing results.

Continue reading "Seton Hall Report Questions Accuracy of New Jersey Alcotest Breath-testing Machine Regarding DWI Cases" »

Being arrested, much less convicted, of drunken driving can adversely impact an individual's personal and work life. In fact, careers have been ended by DWI convictions. This just one of many pitfalls as a result of being arrested for DWI or drug DUI here in the Garden State. As a New Jersey drunk driving defense lawyer, I know what happens to motorists arrested and charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol.

Having worked as a municipal prosecutor in years past, I am particularly sensitive when I read that a law enforcement officer has apparently taken advantage of their position to avoid punishment for an alleged crime. It's a sad fact that many times police officers who enforce drunken driving laws will themselves get a "pass" from other officers if stopped for driving while intoxicated.

According to a recent news article, State Police Trooper Sheila McKaig was reportedly stopped 10 times for various offenses including DWI over a period of 14 months, yet she never received a citation in New Jersey for any of those incidents. The most recent one occurred in Atlantic City in 2008 when McKaig was let go after she was pulled over by another officer on suspicion of DWI.

Based on news reports, Police officer Ronald Gorneau spotted McKaig's Toyota swerving and pulled it over. According to the police incident report, McKaig admitted she drank "a lot" before getting behind the wheel. However, after being taken to the Hamilton Township police station in Mays Landing, when was released without charges and taken home by fellow troopers.

New articles indicate that this latest incident was not out of the ordinary. McKaig's Atlantic City stop was the third time in three months during early 2008 that McKaig was stopped while off duty by Hamilton police. Because of so-called professional courtesy, in each of those instances no blood-alcohol content (BAC) test was administered to McKaig, no charges were filed and no tickets were written.

Professional courtesy is attributed to instances where police officers give fellow cops a pass that they would not normally give to the average motorist. The irony is that during this same time that officer McKaig has been given multiple passes after DWI stops, the state of New Jersey and local law enforcement agencies have had a sustained crackdown on drunken driving.

According to news reports, state police officials have stated that the 41-year-old McKaig is a highly respected and decorated trooper who has earned her spot patrolling the Atlantic City Expressway by staying sober the past two years. Although she caught a break from Hamilton police, they said, she used the opportunity to turn her life around. All that can be said here is that very few ordinary New Jersey drivers would have been so lucky as officer McKaig.

Special treatment for trooper in DWI stops, TheDailyJournal.com, April 26, 2010

A recently passed law requires drivers under the age of 21 to place a red sticker on their vehicle's license plates. While the intent of the law appears to be a good-hearted attempt at traffic safety, as a New Jersey DWI defense attorney I tend to side with those claiming the $4 sticker will only invite unwarranted scrutiny and potential discrimination against a segment of the driving public.

When it comes to drunk driving enforcement, New Jersey State Police and municipal police officers are always on the lookout for motorists who may be operating their vehicles while impaired due to alcohol, prescription drugs or controlled dangerous substances (CDS). Young drivers who exhibit traffic behavior suggesting inebriation could quite possibly by singled out due to that red mark on their license plate.

According to an editorial, the new law that took effect on May 1 will must likely lead to discrimination against young drivers which probably wouldn't happen without a red dot. According to the author, New Jersey is one of the top ten safest states for teenage drivers. Referring to the 2001 law that established a curfew for teenagers and significantly decreased the teen driver accident rates, the editorial asks if there is any good reason to put another law into effect.

The law calls for $100 fine for any young driver who does not have the sticker on their plates. A percentage of students across the Garden State may feel that police will be prejudiced when deciding whom to pull over. While teenage driver accident rates due to distracted driving, alcohol use, speeding and other causes may be reduced somewhat, the law is likely to cause a lot of controversy.

Part of the uproar comes from those who point out that 18-year-olds are considered legal adults, so the law tends to separate these individuals from 21 and older adults. By 18, many students are heading off to college, living in dorms or apartments and are essentially functioning on their own. The author asks why this law should affect this small group of legal adults whose just happen to be younger than 21. This would result in subjecting adults to being treated as if they were still teenagers, when all of the while society continues to tell them to just grow up.

There are other concerns, such as making under-21 drivers more distinguishable to pedophiles, sex offenders and rapists who may tend to seek out younger people -- the red-dot sticker would only make it that much easier for criminals to prey on these individuals. The argument is whether or not traffic accident rates go down, will we see an increase in crimes against these younger people, such as rape and sexual assault.

Ultimately, the question is whether or not the effects of the law itself will be worse than the claimed improvements in traffic safety. With the law in effect, only time will tell if New Jersey's lawmakers have made the right decision.

A red dot on cars, HSJ.org, May 4, 2010

Here in New Jersey, state and local law enforcement agencies take underage drinking very seriously. As a minor or parent of an underage child, you should know that New Jersey law is very specific when it comes to underage drinking and driving. Since a person must be 21 years or older to puchase, be in possession of or consume an alcoholic beverage, underage drinking is -- by definition -- against the law.

The consequences of underage drinking are rather severe under state law, especially as when as it applies to operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. But regardless of whether you are stopped for DWI while operating a vehicle, simply being convicted of underage drinking could very probably affect your driving privileges into the future.

Case in point, say an individual under 21 is arrested for purchasing and/or consuming a beer or wine cooler at a licensed establishment, that person could be fined $500, not to mention lose his or her driver's license for a maximum of 6 months. Parents please make a note here: Even if your youngster doesn't have his or her driver's license yet, the potential driver's license suspension will begin as soon as he or she becomes eligible to receive their license. Furthermore, any youngster who violates New Jersey's underage drinking laws may also be required to attend an alcohol treatment or education program.

Anyone under 21 caught with even the slightest amount of alcohol in their system -- that is, a blood-alcohol content of 0.01 or more -- will be subject to the following penalties under New Jersey law:

-- Loss or postponement of driving privileges for 30 to 90 days
-- 15 to 30 days of community service
-- Successful completion of the program requirements of an Intoxicated Driver Resource Center or an alcohol education and highway safety program

As drunk driving attorneys, I and my colleagues have a great deal of experience in defending individuals charged with underage DWI offenses. We have been defending clients in New Jersey Municipal Courts for more than 15 years. Because conviction for a drinking and driving offense can have a serious impact on a young person's life going forward, an underage drinking arrest should not be ignored.

Understanding how the police and court system approaches drunk driving offenders is the first step in preparing yourself for a possible DWI arrest in the future. Of course, no one wants to be charged with driving while intoxicated and most people are usually unprepared when it does happen. But being taken into custody for driving under the influence is the beginning of a protracted extended process.

As a New Jersey drunk driving defense lawyer and former municipal prosecutor, I believe knowledge is power. Below are some additional pieces of information that go along with a previous entry elsewhere in this blog. My hope is this may help some drivers when if and when they are pulled over for DWI, drug DUI or marijuana possession in a vehicle.

When it comes to drunk driving, a police officer may suspect that you have been operating your car or truck while impaired. One way for the patrolman to make a decision on whether to take you to police headquarters for a breath test is the use of several standardized field sobriety tests.

Field sobriety tests are one of the main tools of law enforcement and can be used as one of many pieces of evidence to prove that you were, in fact, under the influence of alcohol or prescription drugs at the time of the arrest. These tests typically involve three separate tests:

1) The walk-and-turn test
2) The one leg stand test
3) The horizontal gaze nystagmus

This last one is something many people have seen in the movies and on TV where the patrolman asks the subject to follow a light or a finger with his eyes from one side to the other.

In addition to these tests, the officer will be watching and noting nearly every thing you say or do during the traffic stop, all of which may be used in court as evidence to gain a DWI or drug DUI conviction. Even how you get out of your car can be noted and used against you by the prosecutor's office.

Continue reading "New Jersey DWI Defense Update: What Every Driver Should Know If Stopped for Drunk Driving -- Part Two" »

I would never suggest the kind of approach that one New Jersey resident used to complain about a police checkpoint that delayed him from visiting an ailing relative back in 2002. As a New Jersey drunk driving defense lawyer, my aim is to assist individuals in fighting DWI and drug DUI traffic citations. I will not argue that the sobriety checkpoints used frequently throughout the New Jersey area can slow down traffic and cause delays for numerous motorists.

The issue in this recently resolved case revolved around a non-drunk driving checkpoint that was set up in Mount Olive Township on August 4, 2002. For reference, DWI checkpoints, also known as drunk driving or DUI roadblocks are set up by local police departments to catch drivers operating their vehicles under the influence of alcohol.

According to a news report, William P. Duncan, Jr. was awarded $25,000 as a settlement for a suit he was pursuing against Mount Olive Township over the incident nearly eight years earlier. Based on reports, Duncan placed a 911 call to complain about a delay he suffered when trying to visit a local hospital to see a relative being treated there.

That non-emergency 911 call apparently prompted a police officer and township officials to press charges against the motorist. Court records show that Duncan spent two days in jail back in March 2004 due to the original incident. According to Mount Olive mayor, David M. Scapicchio, the recent settlement was reached because the township's insurance carrier recommended it was the best alternative.

News reports show that Duncan was driving to a hospital on August 4, 2002, to visit an aunt who had been taken there after falling down a set of concrete steps and breaking her hip. Traveling on Route 46, Duncan was stopped at a police roadblock by officers looking through car windows to search for contraband. Duncan became frustrated by the delay so he called 911 and used offensive language and asked the operator if they "lived in a Nazi state.''

Continue reading "New Jersey Driver Gets $25,000 from Mount Olive after 911 Complaint regarding Non-DWI Checkpoint" »

Not long ago a New Jersey appellate court made its decision in the case of STATE v. HANNA, No. A-5256-08T4 (N.J.A.D. 2010). In this appeals case, the appellant, Douglas Hanna, argued that his drunk driving conviction was not valid because certain procedures that are now required for the collection of evidence through chemical-based blood-alcohol content (BAC) measurement testing were not in place when he was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated.

As a New Jersey DWI defense attorney, I know there are many instances where an appeal can make sense following an unfavorable judgment in a drunk driving, drug DUI or breath test refusal case. In fact, I and my colleagues are experienced in this area and work aggressively to defend motorists who are caught on charges of driving under the influence of alcohol or prescription drugs.

In the case of Mr. Hanna, he was picked up for drunk driving on November 21 of 2007. Following his arrest, he was transported to the hospital due to complaints of chest pain. After being released from the facility, approximately two hours later, the police officer in charge detected the odor of alcohol on Hanna's breath. The man did consent to a breath alcohol test conducted on an Alcotest device, which returned a BAC of 0.18 percent. According to court records, the device had last been calibrated seven months prior.

In the interval between Hanna's arrest and trial, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54 (2008). In Chun, the court ruled that police departments must have all Alcotest devices calibrated every six months and also to maintain a central database of the Alcotest results.

At trial, Mr. Hanna petitioned the court to throw out the results of his Alcotest because the device had not been maintained (calibrated) under the new rules, namely every six months, not seven. The defendant also asked for access to the data collected from the device used on him in lieu of the State database which had not yet been created. Both requests were denied.

Unfortunately for Mr. Hanna, courts hardly ever apply new laws or precedents to older cases. In fact, the wording used in the Chun decision also worked against Hanna's appeal, since it states that the State must "forthwith... commence inspection and recalibration of all Alcotest devices every six months.'' As it appears, the decision was obviously meant to apply to cases following the 2008 Chun decision, which would not apply to Hanna's 2007 arrest.

Following the court's denial of Hanna's appeal, he agreed to a plea of guilty to a first-offense DWI. Hanna was fined $664 and sentenced to 12 hours at the Intoxicated Driver's Resource Center. In addition, his New Jersey driver's license was suspended for, ironically, seven months.