Articles Posted in DWI Defenses

Typically, the police must harbor a reasonable suspicion that a person is engaging in unlawful activity to effectuate a traffic stop. As such, if they stop a person without just cause, any evidence obtained during the stop may ultimately be deemed inadmissible, making it very difficult for the prosecution to prove the defendant committed any crime. As discussed in a recent opinion issued by a New Jersey Court in a DWI case, there is, thought, an exception for instances in which officers are acting in their community care taking role. If you are charged with a DWI offense, you should consult a skilled New Jersey DWI defense lawyer to assess your potential defenses.

The Defendant’s Arrest

It is reported that the police were dispatched following a 911 call that reported an SUV was stopped in a road near an intersection. The caller advised that she observed the vehicle for three minutes and noticed that the driver’s head was hanging down and he was not moving. She reported she called 911 because she was concerned that he might need medical attention. When officers arrived at the scene, they found the defendant in an SUV, sitting as described by the 911 caller.

Allegedly, when they spoke with the defendant, they noticed he was lethargic, had difficulty completing sentences, and was rambling. Additionally, his eyes were bloodshot and watery. They administered field sobriety tests, which the defendant failed. He was arrested and charged with DWI. He was convicted as charged. He then appealed, arguing in part that his arrest constituted an unlawful violation of his fourth amendment rights because the investigating officers did not have probable cause to arrest him for DWI. Continue reading

While many DWI charges rely on the defendant’s blood-alcohol level to prove guilt, not all do. In fact, a defendant can be found guilty of DWI despite the lack of chemical testing. The evidence presented must nonetheless be sufficient to demonstrate that the defendant operated a vehicle while impaired. Recently, a New Jersey court issued an opinion discussing what constitutes competent evidence of intoxication in a case in which the defendant challenged his DWI conviction. If you are accused of a  DWI offense, it is smart to confer with a New Jersey DWI defense lawyer to evaluate what evidence the State may attempt to use against you.

The Defendant’s Arrest and Trial

It is reported that police officers were dispatched to investigate reports of a vehicle hitting a parked car numerous times. They were provided a description of the vehicle that matched an SUV they had observed earlier in a parking lot. They returned to the lot and saw the defendant standing outside of the SUV. When the officers spoke with the defendant, he appeared highly intoxicated and admitted to drinking four or five beers.

Allegedly, the officers determined that it was not safe to perform field sobriety testing but arrested the defendant and transported him to the police station, where he underwent a breath test. The defendant was charged with multiple crimes, including DWI. At the trial, evidence regarding his breath test was deemed inadmissible. He was convicted based on the arresting officers’ testimony, after which he appealed. Continue reading

Under New Jersey law, all criminal defendants, even those charged with DWI, are innocent until proven guilty and have numerous rights from the time the matter is under investigation through the resolution of their case. For example, a DWI defendant has the right to a speedy trial, and if the right is violated, the charges against the person may be dismissed. Recently, a New Jersey court issued an opinion discussing the right to a speedy trial in a matter in which the defendant’s trial was delayed for almost two years after her arrest.  If you are charged with a DWI offense, it is in your best interest to speak to a New Jersey DWI defense lawyer to determine your rights.

The Defendant’s Arrest and Trial

It is reported that the defendant was arrested for DWI in July 2016. She waived her right to an arraignment hearing and her first appearance approximately a month after her arrest was adjourned at her attorney’s request. It was rescheduled for September 2016 but was continued by the court. The matter was ultimately scheduled for trial in February 2017 but was relisted to July 2017, which was the next available date, per the request of the defendant’s attorney.

Allegedly, the defendant then filed a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution, which was denied. She appealed, and her appeal was denied as well. Thus, she entered a conditional plea in April 2018, over 630 days after her arrest. She then appealed the denial of her motion to dismiss, arguing that her right to a speedy trial had been violated. Continue reading

Under New Jersey law, people can be charged with DWI offenses, even if they were not actually driving at the time of their arrest. Rather, under the DWI law, a person merely has to “operate” a vehicle while intoxicated to be found guilty of DWI. What constitutes operation is a question frequently brought before the New Jersey courts. In a recent ruling in which a DWI conviction was confirmed, a New Jersey court explained what is considered sufficient evidence of operation for purposes of DWI. If you are accused of a DWI crime, it is in your best interest to meet with a New Jersey DWI defense lawyer to evaluate what defenses you may be able to assert.

The Defendant’s Arrest

It is reported that police officers observed the defendant standing on the side of a highway next to his vehicle at approximately 2 am. The vehicle’s lights were flashing, and the defendant was adjusting his pants. The officers spoke with the defendant, who advised that he was on the way home from the casino and stopped to urinate. He admitted he had a drink earlier in the day and agreed to submit to a field sobriety test. He failed the test and refused to provide a breath sample and was subsequently arrested and charged with refusal to submit to a chemical breath test and DWI. He was convicted as charged, after which he appealed. On appeal, he argued, among other things, that the State failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he had the intent to operate his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The appellate court rejected the defendant’s argument and affirmed his conviction.

Operation of a Vehicle

Under New Jersey law, a person that operates a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% or more, or while under the influence of alcohol, is guilty of DWI. The court explained that operates is broadly construed to include more than just driving. The operation, then, can be established by numerous circumstances, including an observation of the defendant in or out of the vehicle under circumstances that would indicate the defendant had been driving while intoxicated, actual observation of the defendant driving while intoxicated, or the defendant’s admission. Continue reading

In New Jersey, when a person is suspected of DWI, the police must obtain either a warrant or the person’s permission prior to obtaining a blood sample. In certain instances, however, the police may obtain a blood sample absent consent or the authority to do so from a judge. The circumstances under which a warrantless blood draw may be conducted were recently discussed in a New Jersey appeal in which the defendant was convicted of aggravated manslaughter. If you are a New Jersey resident currently charged with a DWI crime, it is wise to speak to a New Jersey DWI defense attorney about the rights you are afforded under the law.

History of the Case

It is reported that a police officer responded to the scene of an accident where he learned that two young girls who were walking down the side of a road were struck by a vehicle driven by the defendant. When the officer spoke with the defendant, he appeared to be impaired, in that he smelled of alcohol and had bloodshot eyes. He was asked to submit to field sobriety tests, which he failed. The officer then noticed that the defendant’s right hand was injured and transported the defendant to the hospital for medical care.

Allegedly, while the defendant was at the hospital, a blood draw was conducted that revealed the presence of prescription anxiety and pain pills and a BAC of 0.183%. The officer involved was not trained in administering a breath test. The two girls involved in the accident died, and the defendant was charged with aggravated manslaughter. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the results of his blood test, which was denied. He then pled guilty, and following his sentencing, appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion. Continue reading

While generally people charged with DWI offer a defense at trial, in some instances, it makes sense for a defendant to enter a guilty plea. Even if a defendant chooses not to contest the charges against him or her though, the court must take certain measures to ensure that the defendant understands the ramifications of his or her choice; otherwise the plea could potentially be vacated at a later date. The grounds for vacating a guilty plea were recently discussed in a New Jersey action in which the defendant argued the factual basis for his not guilty plea was insufficient. If you are charged with driving while intoxicated in New Jersey, you should speak to a dedicated New Jersey DWI defense attorney to determine the best strategy to seek a favorable outcome under the facts of your case.

Factual and Procedural History

It is reported that the defendant crashed the car he was operating in 2011. He was transported to a hospital where it was revealed that his blood alcohol content was over twice the legal limit. As such, he was charged with a per se DWI offense, to which he entered a guilty plea. Then, in August 2018, the defendant was charged with a second DWI offense. Following the second charge, he moved to vacate his earlier conviction to avoid facing increased penalties as a repeat offender.

Allegedly, during oral argument on the matter, the defendant argued that he was not properly advised of the legal consequences of the plea and that the factual basis for the guilty verdict was inadequate. The lower court rejected the defendant’s reasoning, and the defendant appealed. Continue reading