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

Knowing what to expect following a drunken driving traffic stop may help some individuals prepare themselves for the next steps in the DWI arrest and conviction process. Of course, nobody wants to have a drunk driving conviction on their record, but this is always a risk when a motorist who may have had too much to drink is stopped for erratic driving or some other seemingly minor traffic offense.

As a New Jersey DWI defense attorney, I feel that knowledge is power especially when the law is concerned. A drunk driving arrest or summons is just the beginning. Whether the reason is excessive alcohol consumption, a reaction to prescription drug use, or illicit drug or marijuana use, being stopped by a law enforcement officer can spell the end of a clean driving record. And, being taken into custody for driving under the influence can signal the beginning of a lengthy and potentially costly episode in a person's life.

Prior to being charged with drunk driving, a motorist may not even be suspected of it at first. However, in many cases, a patrolman who is trained to detect drunken behavior may already suspect that a driver is operating his or her vehicle while impaired. Stopping the motorist for a simple yet justifiable traffic infraction is the opening move toward a full-blown DWI or drug DUI arrest.

Field sobriety tests are a key tool that law enforcement professionals use to determine possible inebriation. Failure to pass one or more of these tests can become one of numerous pieces of evidence that the state can present as proof that a driver was, in fact, impaired by drugs or alcohol at the time of the arrest.

There are several standard tests that police can use to confirm their suspicion that a driver is intoxicated. These can be administered on the roadside following a traffic stop or in a location where drivers are being checked for drunkenness, such as a sobriety checkpoint or roadblock. They include:

A) Horizontal gaze nystagmus
B) Walk-and-turning test
C) One-leg standing test

Continue reading "New Jersey Drunk Driving Update: Reasons and Procedures for DWI-related Field Sobriety Testing" »

Anyone considering driving under the influence of marijuana should definitely understand the law here in the Garden State. In fact, anyone who knowingly is in possession of pot, weed or hash while operating a motor vehicle runs the risk of being arrested and charged with a violation of New Jersey law, specifically N.J.S.A. 39:4-49.1 - this is no joke. The cops will arrest you and local prosecutors will push for a conviction.

As a New Jersey DWI and drug DUI defense lawyer, I have years of experience in this area. Having been a former municipal prosecutor, I also know the lengths to which the state will go to secure a conviction. Understanding the prosecution's tactics, however, helps me to provide an aggressive defense for individuals accused of violation the law.

A news article not long ago detailed a couple arrests out of Morris County. These marijuana possession cases are not unlike those that occur every month throughout the state. Whatever the circumstances, if marijuana is found in your car, the police will usually issue a summons for marijuana possession in a motor vehicle. If found guilty, you could have you driver's license suspended for a lengthy two-year period with no chance for an special provisions or conditional license. Without the ability to drive, one could lose his or her job over such a conviction.

According to news reports, officers patrolling the Cinema 12 parking lot investigated what they felt as a suspicious vehicle at the rear of the theater. On closer inspection police wound remnants of a cigar near the driver's side door. At the time, the vehicle was occupied by two men. The driver, a 19-year-old Denville resident, was arrested when a small quantity of marijuana and a pipe were discovered in the vehicle. Police charged the man with under-50-gram possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of controlled dangerous substances (CDS) in a motor vehicle.

About a week later, police officers responded to a parking area at 200 Baldwin Road following reports of a suspicious vehicle. As the officers approached the vehicle, they noticed what appeared to be a marijuana cigarette sitting on the vehicle's center console. The 19-year-old driver was charged with possession of marijuana (under 50 grams) and subsequently released on his own recognizance pending a court date.

Parsippany: Police Blotter, NorthJersey.com, May 5, 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.

If you feel that jail time for a drunken driving conviction merits DWI being categorized as a crime, and therefore a jury trial, you're not alone. However, as stiff as sentences can be for driving under the influence, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, believes otherwise. A recent decision made that abundantly clear when Steven G. McLaughlin filed an appeal for a DWI conviction he received because his case was not heard by a jury.

As a New Jersey DWI defense attorney, I have heard defendants say they wanted a jury trial. This may not seem so odd, as many people believe that if jail time can be attached to a drunken driving conviction, then they deserve to have their case heard by a jury of their peers. Unfortunately, this latest ruling by the New Jersey Superior Court will probably put juried trials on hold for motorists accused of driving under the influence of alcohol.

According to court records, in October 2008, Stephen McLaughlin was denied his motion for a jury trial on his third charge of driving while intoxicated by the Law Division. This motion followed a trial in Brick Township back in September 2005 when McLaughlin was convicted of DWI, reckless driving, and speeding.

Upon appeal the man was again found guilty of all three offenses and was sentenced to 90 days in jail and 90 days of in-patient alcohol treatment for the drunk driving offense. This included a concurrent sentence of 30 days for the reckless driving charge. The court also ordered the man's license to be suspended for 10 years, as well as being assessed related fines and court costs.

Following a third appeal and conviction, McLaughlin applied to the Law Division for a jury trial on his drunk driving offense. The trial judge in that particular appeal denied the defendant's motion and ordering the immediate execution of the sentence previously imposed.

In the Superior Court's decision, it stated that it rejected McLaughlin's motion for exercise of their [sic] rights to indictment by a Grand Jury and trial by jury. While the defendant indicated he faced serious "quasi-criminal and civil consequences" as a direct result of the municipal court proceedings, the fact remains that defendant faces these stated consequences as a direct result of driving while under the influence for a third time and charged accordingly.

Continue reading "Appellate Court: DWI Not a Crime under NJ Law Despite Jail Time for Certain Convictions" »

Times change, as they say, and nothing indicates change like the increased use of medical marijuana as well as illegal pot. Although many states around the nation have passed medicinal marijuana laws, state law enforcement agencies and local police are still stopping individuals who are possibly impaired due to driving while under the influence of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS), in this case marijuana or weed.

Whether a driver is actually impaired due to smoking hash or cannabis (drug DUI), or because of alcohol consumption (DWI) or just drowsy behind the wheel, traffic enforcement officers will likely key on possible erratic driving behavior or a defective vehicle equipment as justification for a traffic stop.

Since marijuana is one of the most common drugs encountered in the New Jersey area, marijuana possession arrests are relatively common. Possession in a vehicle is a chargeable offense and usually requires the services of a qualified drunk driving and DUI defense attorney.

• The questions that anyone arrested for marijuana possession should include the following:
• Did the officer have probable cause before he pulled you over?
• Did officers conduct a proper search of your vehicle (or person)?
• Can a local prosecutor actually prove possession or control of the pot discovered?
• Did law enforcement officers maintain a proper chain of custody and testing of the marijuana?

When it comes to proving possession, there are two types: actual and constructive. In cases where the state is trying to prove an individual was involved in the distribution of marijuana, it is essential for prosecutors to establish possession of the marijuana in question. It's important to understand that actual possession is literally the physical control of the marijuana coupled with a so-called awareness that the substance in question is, in fact, pot.

On the other hand, constructive possession constitutes an individual being aware that he or she is in the presence of the drug -- including the intention of possessing and the capacity to control the substance. Any individual accused of this must have the power and purpose to exercise control of the marijuana to be in constructive possession.

Of course, being arrested for possession of marijuana in a vehicle can result in a mandatory two-year driver's license suspension. And unlike a drunk driving-related suspension, possession of marijuana in a motor vehicle means a complete and total exclusion from operating a motor vehicle. Understand that when it comes to possession of pot in a car there are no special provisions under the law, such as a work license or a conditional driver's license. This is in addition to fines, assessments and other surcharges that inevitably are attached to a conviction involving marijuana possession in a motor vehicle.

If you feel that because jail time can be attached to certain drunken driving convictions that it makes sense for drunk driving offenses to be categorized as crimes requiring a trial by jury, well, you're probably not alone. However, as stiff as drug DUI or DWI sentence can be in cases of driving under the influence of alcohol or prescription drugs, the Superior Court of New Jersey apparently believes the right to a jury trial is not usually called for, or so it would seem based on a recent decision by the high court.

The recent decision in New Jersey v. McLaughlin by the state's Supreme Court Appellate Division made this abundantly clear when Steven G. McLaughlin filed an appeal a DWI conviction he received after he was denied a jury trial five years back in Ocean County, NJ.

According to court records, Mr. McLaughlin was pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving in 2005 year when he was stopped for speeding in Brick Township, NJ. As a result of that drunken driving police stop, McLaughlin was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated. His case went to court on September 21, 2005, which resulted in a conviction for DWI, speeding and reckless driving.

On appeal McLaughlin was again found guilty on all three counts and sentenced to 90 days in jail, plus another 90 days of in-patient treatment as a result of the DWI offense. There was also a 30-day concurrent sentence for his reckless driving conviction. The man's driver's license was suspended for 10 years and the court levied related fines and court costs against him. Prior his next appeal, McLaughlin's sentence and all penalties, except his revoked license, were suspended pending that court's decision.

On review of the case, the defendant's convictions were upheld in an unreported decision on June 13, 2007. It was at this point that McLaughlin applied to the Law Division for a jury trial on his DWI offense. Following oral arguments on October 10, 2008, the presiding judge denied the defendant's motion and ordering the immediate execution of the DWI and other sentences previously imposed.

The judge in the 2008 decision concluded that although the defendant indicated he faced serious quasi-criminal and civil consequences as a direct result of his original court hearing the law states that a defendant charged with DWI is not entitled to a criminal trial by jury. In short, drunk driving is not a criminal offense within the meaning of the New Jersey Constitution.

Continue reading "NJ Drunk Driving Defense News: Despite Potential Jail Time, DWI Not a Crime Meriting Jury Trial" »

A recent New Jersey appellate court ruling has opened the door to lawsuits from obviously intoxicated customers who purchase liquor prior to being involved in a DWI-related injury accident. The ruling essentially states that liquor establishments, such as beer and wine shops, are not protected under the same New Jersey statutes that prevent third parties from being sued by drivers found to be at fault in a car accident as a result of driving under the influence of alcohol.

The court explained its decision stating that drivers who endanger public safety by driving while intoxicated should be penalized by being stripped of their right to suing third parties, however those owners of stores licensed for the sale of alcohol have a legal obligation to avoid serving drunken customers and then allowing them to go forth and travel New Jersey roadways (Voss v. Tranquilino, No. A-5431-08T1).

It was suggested that the state legislature was likely wrong to have imagined that the instances of drunk driving on Garden State roads would have been reduced by essentially "immunizing" beer-, wine- and liquor-sales establishments from lawsuits filed by drivers arrested for DWI-related traffic offenses.

This recent ruling affirmed the right of Frederick Voss, a cyclist injured in an accident in Toms River back in 2006, to pursue this claim against Tiffany's Restaurant, which had served him while drunk thus contributing to the accident. Voss reportedly pleaded guilty to DWI as a result of that accident.

Tiffany's argued it was immune from suit and sought summary judgment. Ocean County Superior Court Judge John Peterson denied the motion and the appeals court affirmed.

The 1997 anti-drunken driving amendments to motor vehicle insurance law, at N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5(b), say a driver convicted of DWI in connection with an accident "shall have no cause of action for his or her injuries."

But this does not trump the Dram Shop Act, adopted 10 years prior, which protects the rights of people who suffer loss as a result of the negligent service of alcoholic beverages by licensed servers, the court explained. An interesting point here is that while typical suits against dram shops are usually brought by the victim of a drunk driver, the Dram Shop Law itself does not make a distinction between the victim or perpetrator of the accident.

The Voss decision is reportedly the first by a state appeals court to specifically deprive licensed premises of immunity in such cases. Regardless, the attorney for Tiffany's said that his client may appeal to the Supreme Court.

Drunken Drivers May Sue Dram Shops That Served Them Prior to Accidents, Law.com, April 30, 2010

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" »

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.

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" »

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" »

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.