New Jersey DWI Lawyer Blog

When it comes to drunken driving arrests, police agencies all across New Jersey are now required to give instruction to DWI suspects in a language they can understand. The latest change in police procedures as they apply to drunk driving offenders is a result of a July decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court.

The Court's 4-3 ruling on July 12 states that patrolmen must now communicate to a motorist suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol in a language that he or she understands that they are required under the law to submit to a breathalyzer test to determine blood-alcohol content (BAC).

The downside from a drunk driving defense standpoint is that this new requirement will likely reduce the opportunities for appeals, according to some law enforcement professionals.

The ruling came from a case out of Plainfield, NJ, where a man was charged with driving while intoxicated following a 2007 accident. According to court records, the defendant spoke only Spanish and did not understand the patrolman's English-language instructions stating that the motorist was required by state law to submit to a breath test. Although the man's conviction for DWI remains intact, his conviction for breath test refusal and the associated seven-month license suspension was vacated by the Court's ruling.

The New Jersey Attorney General's office has reportedly recorded translated instructions into 10 separate languages including Chinese, Russian, Arabic and Portuguese. The recordings are posted on a New Jersey government website (njpdresources.org) so that police can easily can play them for suspects prior to administering a breath test.

Court: Police must translate breath test requirement, if needed, NorthJersey.com, July 22, 2010

LyndhurstA 56-year-old out-of-state woman was arrested and charged with DWI after she apparently left the scene of a minor accident. According to police reports, officers were called to the scene of a motor vehicle accident on a late Monday afternoon, from which one of the drivers had subsequently left. At nearly the same time, police received reports of an allegedly intoxicated person in a Quality Inn parking lot across the street from the accident. The woman was taken into custody and eventually released on summonses.

East Rutherford
A 21-year-old Weehawken, NJ, female resident was stopped by police after officers observed the driver make a U-turn along New Jersey's Route 120 and in the process hit the center divider of the highway. After pulling over the suspect's car police determined that the woman was apparently intoxicated. Officers noticed a plastic bag in the vehicle, which the driver eventually identified as containing marijuana. She also admitted to police that she had planned to sell the controlled dangerous substance (CDS). The woman was arrested and charged with multiple violations including possession of CDS under 50 grams and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.

A Hasbrouck Heights man was arrested for drunk driving after several people called police to report a vehicle hitting a light pole around 7am. The 54-year-old driver was located by officers not far from the accident scene in a vehicle matching the description provided by the witnesses. Officers asked the driver to perform several field sobriety tests, which he allegedly could not complete successfully. He was given a breathalyzer test that returned a blood-alcohol content (BAC) of 0.18, according to police.

A Passaic, NJ, man was arrested in the early morning hours on a Sunday after officers reportedly observed him peel out from a stop sign on Carlton and Paterson avenues, then accelerate quickly. The man was pulled over and allegedly could not successfully complete the field sobriety test, and his blood alcohol levelwas 0.18, according to police. He was subsequently released to a responsible party.

A local man was arrested on a Tuesday and charged with possession of CDS in a motor vehicle. The arrest followed a traffic stop after officers noticed a vehicle being driven erratically. As the man exited his vehicle, a paper towel tube allegedly containing crack cocaine fell out of the vehicle. Officers took the driver into custody charging him with possession of crack cocaine, careless driving, being an unlicensed driver, failure to exhibit a driver's license and possession of CDS. He was issued summonses and released.

BLOTTER: 07/22/10 issue, LeaderNewspapers.net, July 22, 2010

As I've said here before, DWI arrests can happen anywhere, not just on a highway or city street. As a New Jersey drunk driving defense lawyer, I have represented motorists who have been accused of drinking and driving in nearly any situation imaginable. And since I have experience as a former municipal prosecutor, I have approached cases from the law enforcement side as well.

Whatever the venue, New Jersey law prohibits driving while under the influence of alcohol, prescription drug, or other substance that causes physical and mental impairment. A recent news article illustrates how anyone can get a drunk driving summons even while sitting in a parking lot.

Based on police reports, an off-duty Middle Township patrolman observed what she believed to be person under the influence of alcohol sitting in a vehicle in the Acme Plaza Shopping center in Cape May Court House, NJ. Calling the situation into the local police headquarters, she was able to wrest the keys away from the driver who was apparently attempting to flee the scene. A uniformed officer arrived who had just ended his shoft for the day responded to help.

The suspect, 51-year-old Matthew Condon of Dennis Township, NJ, was arrested on the spot for DWI. Officers transported Condon to police headquarters where he was processed and tested. The result of his blood-alcohol content (BAC) test was 0.33 percent -- more than four times above the legal limit of 0.08 percent BAC.

Due to the extremely high alcohol content in Condon's bloodstream, police transported him immediately to Cape Regional Medical Center for observation, after which he was released to a friend. According to police, Condon was charged with DWI, failure to produce vehicle registration, failure to produce vehicle insurance and careless driving.

Middle Township Police Charge Dennis Township Man With DUI, CapeMayCountyHerald.com, June 19, 2010

Drunk driving arrests can happen anywhere, anytime. In the Garden State, state police and local law enforcement agencies have little tolerance for motorists who drive while under the influence of alcohol, prescription drugs and marijuana, and illicit and illegal drugs (also known as controlled dangerous substances, or CDS).

As a New Jersey drunk driving defense lawyer, I and my staff have vast experience defending drivers accused of operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol or drugs. In fact, it is common for drunken driving charges to be brought against an individual who is suspected of driving under the influence of drugs (also known as DUID). These include but are not necessarily limited to narcotic, hallucinogenic, or habit-forming substances.

It is important to understand also that New Jersey law prohibits driving if a person is impaired by marijuana, cocaine, or other narcotics -- which even includes prescription drugs such as morphine. For legal purposes, the standard of proof used to establish a narcotic-based DWI charge has been established in the 2006 court case of State v. Bealor. Furthermore, in State v. DiCarlo, the law actually defines the term narcotic -- for the specific purpose of establishing a basis for driving while intoxicated charges here in New Jersey.

Defending against a DUID requires a slightly different approach than that of a DWI defense, at least in the area of blood and breath tests. One area in particular is challenging any chemical test that may have been administered to evaluate a driver's alleged drug use. It's a fact that New Jersey's implied consent law applies only to alcohol and doesn't require that a motorist to provide blood, breath or urine samples when he or she is suspected of driving while impaired by drugs.

It is important to note that the law makes a distinction between drivers of privately-owned passenger cars and truck drivers (or other person with a commercial driver's license or CDL). These individuals are required to take a chemical test if they are involved in a traffic accident or even suspected of driving under the influence of drugs.

When it comes to chemical tests, it is understood that the concentration of a drug in the bloodstream does not necessarily reflect the level of that individual's intoxication. For DUID defense purposes, chemical tests (when used to detect drugs in the bloodstream) are only valid if they were administered by a DRE or drug recognition expert. If the police station tests a driver but has no DRE on staff, the evidence will be inadmissible in a court of law.

Defending motorists accused of drunken driving can involve multiple factors, such as how the arrest was conducted, whether or not an Alcotest or other breathalyzer blood-alcohol content (BAC) test was performed, what kind of field sobriety test(s) were administered, and in which municipality the alleged DWI took place. As New Jersey drunk driving defense lawyers, my staff and fellow attorneys understand the ins and outs of DWI prosecution here in the Garden State. The following are some examples of the types of cases that are heard daily in our municipal courtrooms across the state.

Little Falls Car Crash and DWI, Marijuana Possession Arrest
Little Falls police officers were called to respond to a traffic accident on Main Street near Brookside Ave. According to news reports, a motor vehicle driven by a 19-year-old Fairfield, NJ, resident apparently ran into a utility pole. During the investigation, officers noticed that the driver had outward signs of being drunk and under the influence of alcohol. The driver was arrested for operating a vehicle while intoxicated as well as possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia in a vehicle.

Montclair Police Charge Motorists with Drunk Driving
A 27-year-old North Plainfield man and a 20-year-old Newark resident were arrested in separate DWI stops during the early morning hours. The North Plainfield driver had stopped his vehicle in the intersection of Forest Street and Claremont Avenue for no apparent reason, while the Newark man hit a curb, drove onto a local resident's front lawn and destroyed some shrubs as well as hitting a PSE&G utility box. The Newark suspect apparently left the scene, but was found and charged with DWI.

A few days later police stopped a motorist driving a Cadillac in an erratic manner along Elm Street. The driver reportedly almost hit a curb as well as another vehicle parked on the street. Officers found an open bottle of beer in the car. The driver was given several field sobriety tests, which he reportedly failed. The man was issued summonses for drunk driving, careless driving and possession of an open alcoholic beverage container in a motor vehicle.

Teen Charged with DWI and Leaving an Accident Scene
Responding to a report of a driver needing assistance, police officers came upon a single-vehicle crash. According to news reports, police arriving in the area of Watchung Rd. and Wildwood Dr. in the early morning hours found the front lawn of a local residence. The responding officers found damage to the front lawn including a trail of automotive fluids leading about 60 ft. to an apparently abandoned car with a damaged front end. Tracing the vehicle back to the owner, police charged an 18-year-old for allegedly driving while intoxicated, plus careless driving and leaving the scene of an accident.

Little Falls: Police Blotter, NorthJersey.com, April 8, 2010

Montclair Police Blotter: DWI, Vandalism, Thefts, Baristanet.com, April 13, 2010

Police charge town teen with DWI, NorthJersey.com, May 13, 2010

When it comes to driving under the influence of alcohol on New Jersey's public roads, "tolerance" is by no means a word found in the vocabulary of the state's law enforcement community. Similarly the state has no patience for drinking and piloting a boat along the Garden State's coastline, its lakes or rivers and estuaries. DWI on the high seas, so to speak is just as serious an offense as here on land.

What's surprising is that boat owners don't always consider that the same standards which govern drinking and driving on public roads also apply to the operation of watercraft. Boaters must observe the same drunken driving laws as car, motorcycle and truck owners. Because of this, individuals who violate the DWI laws while boating are also subject to arrest for driving while intoxicated. And also included with this are those related offenses, such as prescription drug DUI and breath test refusal when the operator of a boat has a blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) in excess of 0.08 percent.

New Jersey's statutes governing operation of a boat while under the influence of alcohol or drugs are nearly identical to those that pertain to DWI with a motor vehicle. The penalties are also closely related. The implied consent laws that oblige a licensed driver to submit to a breath or blood test following a drunk driving stop also applies to the operator of a watercraft in New Jersey.

On the flip side, because the statutes are nearly identical between motor vehicle and boat operators, the approach to DWI defense is also quite similar. This fact means that a qualified and experienced drunk driving attorney can usually handle boating-related DWI cases with similar results -- certainly something to consider with the Fourth of July holiday just around the corner and summer coming into full swing.

Many people confronted with a first-time arrest for driving while intoxicated begin to wonder what factors, beyond any actual beer, wine or liquor consumption, affect the blood-alcohol content (BAC) results from an Alcotest or other breathalyzer device. Naturally, as New Jersey DWI defense lawyers, we understand this area of the law quite well. But sadly, the science behind drunken driving arrests and convictions may not always be completely reliable.

Whether a motorist received a breathalyzer test at a mobile DWI unit or at a police department, the machines are very similar. These devices do not measure alcohol content in the blood itself, they are actually designed to detect chemical compounds containing the methyl group of molecules. Based on this methyl measurement, these devices produce a reading (as a percentage of blood-alcohol content) that is used to charge the motorist with driving while under the influence.

One of the weaknesses in this method of BAC measurement is that breathalyzers like the Alcotest machine make an assumption that any methyl molecule detected in a person's breath is from alcohol. However, methyl molecules are not just found in alcoholic beverages, they exist in other substances.

The fact that the methyl group occurs elsewhere can be important knowledge for one segment of New Jersey's driving public: Smokers. According to recent studies, breathalyzer machines may have a hard time distinguishing between the methyl molecules in alcohol and those found in acetaldehyde.

For readers who didn't go to medical school or graduate with a degree in chemistry, acetaldehyde is a compound produced by the liver in small amounts as a by-product in the metabolism of alcohol. What came as a surprise to some researchers is the finding that acetaldehyde concentrations in the lungs of smokers was often many time greater than that found in the lungs of non-smokers.

Continue reading "New Jersey Drunk Driving Defense Update: Cigarette Smoking May Cause Higher BAC Breathalyzer Reading" »

Having worked for many years as a municipal prosecutor I gained a healthy respect for the people serving in law enforcement. Now as a New Jersey DWI defense lawyer, I defend motorists accused of driving while intoxicated, arrested by some of those very same officers. While I admire the dedication of our police and their commitment to public safety, it gives me pause when I read about patrolmen and other individuals associated with law enforcement who flaunt the very laws they are sworn to uphold.

Being accused of drunken driving is nothing to be taken lightly, especially when fines and jail time are fairly heavy and the social stigma of being convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol can very often ruin reputations and business careers. The police, like other persons of authority, have a duty to be exemplary role models to the rest of society.

A recent news article reminds all of us that police officers do not always practice what they preach, and sometimes cause great harm when ignoring the law themselves. Based on reports, forty-year-old Ruth Zelaya died on March 24 as a result of "complications from a 2007 car crash that killed her 2-year-old son and left her in a comatose state until her recent passing.

According to court reports, the three-year-old accident was caused by Kevin Freibott, a Middletown resident and Jersey City police officer. The former cop plead guilty in December 2007 to vehicular homicide, assault by auto and drunk driving. The ex-patrolman, now 40 years old, is currently serving an 11-year prison sentence and is not expected to face additional charges as a result of Zelaya's death due to the terms of his plea agreement.

The accident occurred in January 2007 on a stretch of the Pulaski Skyway in Jersey City following a Freibott's reportedly five-and-a-half-hour "drinking marathon." According to police records, the man's blood-alcohol content (BAC) was 0.242 percent -- better than three times the legal limit in New Jersey.

An FBI agent who saw Freibott's Jeep Cherokee shortly before the crash told authorities that it "blew by him like he was standing still," Hudson County Assistant Prosecutor Peter Stoma told Superior Court Judge Peter J. Vazquez.

News articles state that Freibott was fired from the Middletown police department in 2001 following a minor accident outside a tavern, however he was reinstated one year later. In 2005, he transferred over to the police department in Jersey City.

Other reports show that Freibott had a history of driving offenses dating back to 1986. According to New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission records, the man had six traffic violations between 1988 and 2001, including two for speeding and one other for driving under the influence of alcohol.

SECOND VICTIM OF DRUNK COP DIES, RedBankGreen.com, April 27, 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

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" »

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.

When fighting a drunken driving charge, a New Jersey DWI defense lawyer will use all of his experience to help his client get a fair trial. Since being arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol is a serious offense with long-lasting and potentially detrimental effects on a person's life and livelihood, a drunk driving attorney will use the law in an effort to achieve the most favorable outcome.

The court will usually consider the defense's arguments and weigh those against that of the prosecution. A recent New Jersey appellate court decision (STATE V. UZUPIS) upheld one man's appeal of a drunk driving conviction. The circumstances of the arrest appeared to be questionable, which is why the defense files an appeal.

According to the original case tried in an Atlantic County court, Luke J. Uzupis had been arrested after police found him sleeping in his running vehicle. At that time, a police officer spotted the man's car parked at a closed gas station around midnight. The headlights were reportedly will on and the engine was running.

Police reported seeing the man lying back in the driver's seat. He did not respond when the officer knocked on the window, after which the officer opened the door, shook Uzupis and woke him up. Detecting the odor of alcohol on the man's breath, the officer reportedly heard the man say that he had been drinking.

Court records show that Uzupis did poorly on the field sobriety tests and when taken to police headquarters his blood-alcohol content (BAC) was measured at 0.10 percent. Uzupis was convicted of violating N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 in municipal court.

This latest appeal was the second one following the man's conviction in Atlantic County. Regardless, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division upheld the original DWI conviction based on the reasons set forth in Judge Robert Neustadter's original decision.

The appellate court added that the only viable issue was whether the police had waited the twenty minutes required by State v. Chun before administering the Alcotest and whether he had defendant under continuous observation during that time. Both the municipal and the Law Division judges found that the Chun requirements had been met.

The defendant offered expert testimony that the field sobriety tests used were not scientifically reliable, but the State did not offer them as scientifically reliable tests. They were the basis for the officer's observations of intoxication. Proof of a defendant's physical condition of intoxication typically consists of proof through the testimony of a police officer with respect to his or her observations of the defendant.

The court added that a police officer is permitted to give lay opinion testimony as to whether a defendant was under the influence of alcohol, and added that the field sobriety tests certainly provided an acceptable basis for the arrest and subsequent administration of the Alcotest.

Marijuana CDS
In a possible drug DUI incident in North Arlington, NJ, two 20-year-olds in a light truck were stopped by a police officer who had been alerted by local residents to a possible marijuana drug deal going on in a local neighborhood. The traffic stop occurred on Belmont Avenue just before 4pm on a weekday. When the two men -- who apparently were passengers in the truck -- denied holding any marijuana, the officer told them that he would call in a drug sniffing dog to investigate. At that point, one man reportedly ran from the scene. He was eventually caught and arrested. Both he and the other 20-year-old were charged with possession of controlled substances and later released on summonses.

In Lyndhurst on a Saturday evening, police approached an apparently suspicious looking car that was sitting in a lot on Chubb Avenue. As officers approached the occupied vehicle, they could detect the reportedly strong odor of marijuana coming from the car. Based on police reports, a 15-year-old passenger and resident of Belleville, NJ, was charged with possession of marijuana.

Drunk Driving
In Rutherford, a 25-year-old woman was charged with DWI in the early hours on a weekday morning. The driver was pulled over after an officer noticed a cracked left taillight on her vehicle. The patrolman reportedly observed the woman's vehicle swaying and traveling over the speed limit on West Erie Avenue near Hackett Place. Failing to pass a field sobriety test, she was taken to headquarters where her blood-alcohol content (BAC) was measured at 0.18 percent. She was released to a responsible party.

In Lyndhurst a 53-year-old local resident was charged with DWI after he allegedly sideswiped a parked car on Kingsland Avenue late at night. Police allege that the man did not stop after hitting the car and refused a breath test when he was pulled over. He was issued a series of summonses, including DWI, leaving the scene of an accident, driving while suspended and operating an uninsured vehicle.

In another, early morning Lyndhurst traffic stop, police pulled over a vehicle on Riverside Avenue after officers observed the driver make a turn without signaling. Pulling over the 42-year-old Hoboken resident, officers noticed evidence of alcohol. The man was arrested and charged with DWI, as well as issued a summons for failure to signal a turn and for driving with a burned-out taillight. The driver was eventually released on summonses.

BLOTTER, LeaderNewspapers.net, March 25, 2010

BLOTTER, LeaderNewspapers.net, March 18, 2010

Lyndhurst: Police Blotter, NorthJersey.com, March 11, 2010

Since the passing of another anti-drunk driving bill in the state legislature earlier this year, some people have voiced concern over the safety of ignition interlock devices, which are designed to disable a vehicle if the operator's blood-alcohol content (BAC) is over a certain level. The law requires even those convicted of a first-time DWI violation to have the breathalyzer-type device installed on their vehicle.

As a New Jersey lawyer who defends motorists charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, I was not surprised by the passage of this law especially considering the strong public support for most any DWI, drug DUI or other drunken driving offenses. Not only does a conviction for driving while intoxicated carry a stigma that is not easily lost, court costs, fines and increased insurance premiums only add to the burden, even for first-time offenders.

Recently, an editorial addressed the concern of having so many vehicles fitted with a breathalyzer-ignition interlock device. The fear is that these devices might cause additional distractions or literally shut off the vehicle as it is traveling on a busy expressway, possibly causing an accident.

Based on the piece, which asks the question of whether or not you would plow up a balloon for your kids while operating a motor vehicle, answers some of the questions involving the safety of these ignition interlocks.

It's a legitimate question, since many accidents do occur because of driver distraction. Since the new state law requires a convicted DWI offender to blow into an ignition interlock device, does this happen while they are driving? And if so, really how safe is that for the driving public in general?

While the device requires the driver to blow into it to allow the engine to start, and then periodically while the car is being used, it apparently will not "shut down" the engine while the vehicle is in motion. In this case, if the device detects a BAC sample above a predetermined level, a signal will cause the headlights to flash and the horn to sound.

According to reports, it's a quick procedure that should not be as distracting as carrying on a continual conversation on a hand-held cellphone. That's nice to know, because we don't need any court-mandated devices causing additional accidents all in the name of safety.

Road Warrior: Drunken driving interlocks: Are they dangerous?, NorthJersey.com, March 3, 2010