The Future of DUI Testing In NJ

Those arrested for driving under the influence (DUI), N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, are most often exonerated or convicted based on the results of chemical breath testing. The Alcotest machine is presently used to determine whether individuals were driving under the influence by using chemical testing to determine their blood alcohol content (BAC) exceeds the legal limit in New Jersey. The machine has been the subject of multiple challenges, the most well-known being State v. Chun, 195 N.J. 54 (2009),and the NJ Attorney General's Office indicated to the NJ Supreme Court that the machine's use would be discontinued by the end of 2016 in light of the machine's manufacturer, Draeger Safety, announcing they would no longer support the machine. Over the years since the Alcotest 7110 was introduced in NJ in 2001, the software has become outdated and the scientific reliability has come into question. Now, as the sun is setting on the Attorney General's time to find a suitable replacement, pay for another company to service the Alcotest machine or for the state to begin serving the machine in-house, those subject to testing for driving while intoxicated, especially those found to be just over the legal limit, are left with the fact that although they may be convicted based on results that have a reasonable probability of being inaccurate, the Attorney General's Office has a window of opportunity wherein this probability is allowed to persist. Additionally, as of this date, no suitable replacement has been indicated by the Office of the Attorney General. If you are facing charges of DUI, whether for alcohol or drugs, you should obtain experienced criminal defense counsel immediately. For more information about DWI, refusal to submit to chemical breath testing, controlled dangerous substances (CDS) in a motor vehicle, reckless driving or other serious motor vehicle charges in NJ visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

S385/A1368 And DUI In NJ

Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (N.J.S.A. 39:4-50) can have devastating consequences to both victims and drivers alike. New Jersey legislation, S385/A1368, has been proposed as a means of preventing would-be repeat offenders from getting behind the wheel while allowing individuals who made an innocent but costly mistake a chance to continue to drive by installing an Ignition Interlock Device on their primary vehicle or vehicles. The proposed legislation includes only 10 day license suspensions upon conviction for the purpose of installing the device on the vehicle. Once installed, the driver must blow into the device, which detects alcohol on the breath, in order to start the vehicle. If the ignition interlock device detects that the driver's blood alcohol content (BAC) is elevated over .05%, the ignition will be disabled. Additionally, once the vehicle is in operation, the ignition interlock device requires the driver to blow into the mouthpiece at certain intervals to better insure the individual driving the vehicle remains sober and the individual who initially blew into the device is in fact the driver. NJ S385/A1368 would permit first-offenders with a BAC of between .08 and .10% to avoid long-term license suspension by installing in ignition interlock device for 3 to 6 months, unless aggravating circumstances exist which indicate a long-term license suspension is appropriate. First-time offenders with a BAC of .10% or greater would be required to install the device for 7 to 12 months. Additionally, there are additional penalties for those who circumvent the ignition interlock device or drive a vehicle without an interlock device during their required installation period. Those who in any way facilitate another in circumventing an ignition interlock device, by blowing into the device, disabling it or providing another vehicle to the suspended driver also face criminal charges which can result in up to 6 months in jail. Second-offenders would be required to install the device for a period of 2 to 4 years. Persistent offenders would continue to face long-term suspension and jail terms. The ignition interlock device bears an installation cost as well as a monthly service fee and drivers still face increased insurance costs and other motor vehicle fees in the event of a DUI conviction. If you are facing DUI charges, the consequences can include large fines, loss of a job due to inability to commute or loss of certain professional licenses as a result of the DUI, jail and the social stigma associated with DUI. If you have been charged with driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you need experienced defense counsel in your corner. For more information about DUI, DUID, controlled dangerous substances (CDS) in a motor vehicle, reckless driving or other motor vehicle charges visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

DUI Blood Draw Due To Exigent Circumstances

Donna Jones was suspected of driving under the influence (DUI) at the time she caused a three car accident, resulting in injury to herself and another, by rear ending a car stopped at a light then striking a second car immediately in front of the first before her vehicle came to rest. As a result of the accident, Jones was unconscious. Although officers were alerted by EMTs to an odor of an alcoholic beverage emanating from Jones' breath at the scene, no field sobriety testing was possible due to her condition. Jones was transported to the hospital for treatment after emergency personnel extracted her from her vehicle. At the hospital Jones remained unconscious for some time and was despondent upon regaining consciousness. An officer requested that blood be extracted from Jones without a warrant and the resultant blood alcohol content (BAC) reading was .345 percent. Jones was indicted for fourth-degree assault by auto (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(c)(2)) and issued summonsed for DUI (N.J.S.A. 39:4-50) and reckless driving (N.J.S.A. 39:4-96). In Missouri v. McNeely, ___ U.S.___, 133 S. Ct. 1552, 185 L. Ed. 2d 696 (2013), a driver was arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI) as a result of a routine traffic stop and U.S. Supreme Court determined that the natural metabolization of alcohol in an individual's bloodstream does not, without more, constitute exigent circumstances giving rise to the ability of police to forego the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment and withdraw a blood sample without consent. Pursuant to the holding in McNeely and the fact that there was no proof police were unable to obtain a warrant under the particular facts of the case, the trial court suppressed Jones' blood alcohol content (BAC) reading. On appeal, in State v. Jones, the State argued that McNeely should not have been applied retroactively in this case where the incident occurred but the case was decided after McNeely. The NJ Appellate division determined the trial judge erred in his application of the standard required under McNeely and Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), and held that the BAC results of Jones should not have been suppressed. In State v. Dyal, 97 N.J. 229, 238 (1984), New Jersey courts held it legal to obtain a blood sample without the need for a warrant as long as there was a reasonable belief the driver was intoxicated and the blood was withdrawn "in a medically acceptable manner…without the use of excessive force." The NJ Appellate Division did consider McNeely in determining that it is a given that a person's BAC does dissipate once the alcohol is fully absorbed into the blood stream and declines over time until it is fully metabolized thus creating a need for drawing blood to preserve evidence of intoxication. The decision of the trial court with regard to suppression of the BAC results was reversed. If you are convicted of DUI you face serious penalties including loss of license for up to 10 years, incarceration for up to 180 days and substantial fines. You should obtain an experienced DUI attorney immediately to help fight your case. For more information about DWI, drug DUI, CDS in a motor vehicle, blood and urine testing, reckless driving, refusal to submit to a breath test or other serious motor vehicle offenses in NJ visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

A1368 May Overhaul DUI Punishment In NJ

A1368 is a NJ bill, proposed by the Assembly, which could revise the NJ drunk driving statute, N.J.S.A 39:4-50. The bill was approved by the Assembly and Senate and currently under revision pursuant to comments by Governor Chris Christie. If accepted the new statute would permit those convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) to avoid long-term loss of driving privileges by having an ignition interlock device installed in their vehicles. First-offenders with a blood alcohol level (BAC) between .08 and .10% will be required to have an ignition interlock device installed for 3 months and those with .10 to .15% BAC readings would require 7 to 12 months with an ignition device. First-offenders with a .15% BAC or higher would lose their driving privileges for 7 to 12 months but, after 90 days, could make application to the court for an ignition interlock device. In any case, if the court determined there were too many aggravating factors including “circumstances of the offender’s conduct”, prior driving record, how long the offender has been licensed, or indicators of a substantial risk of re-offending, the current method of license suspension for a specified period between 3 and 12 months rather than ignition interlock device installation would be applicable. In the case of a first-offender with a BAC of .10 to .15%, if they do not own, lease or principally operate a vehicle and no ignition interlock may be installed, their driving privileges will simply be forfeited for 7 to 12 months. First-offenders with BAC levels of .15% or greater who do not own, lease or principally operate a vehicle will lose their driving privileges for 7 to 12 months for DUI and a consecutive 7 to 12 months making their suspension period as long as they would have been required to maintain an ignition interlock device on their vehicle. For a second driving while intoxicated (DWI) charge, the suspension would be for a period of 2 to 4 years rather than the current 2 year period. Additionally, an interlock device would be required on the person’s vehicle for the entire suspension period as well as thereafter. For a third or subsequent DUI, suspension would increase from the current 10 year period to a period of 10 to 20 years. Those convicted of refusal to provide a breath sample (N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2) in the case of second and subsequent events will also face these same suspension periods and interlock device requirements. This bill forgives first-offenders and provides them with opportunity to maintain their livelihood while preventing them from harming others through future instances of driving while intoxicated. Additionally, it is designed to send a strong message to drivers that re-offenders will be punished severely by long-term suspensions, additional expense of an ignition interlock device for an extended term, substantial fines and jail time. If passed, this bill will substantially alter the futures of those convicted of DUI. If you are charged with DUI, you need experienced defense counsel to protect your rights. For more information about DWI, refusal to submit to breath tests, driving while suspended for DUI, driving under the influence of drugs (DUID), controlled dangerous substance (CDS) and other serious driving charges in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

DUI Discovery Rules Apply To Defendants, Not State

Right to speedy DUI trial, as long as the state wants one, and the right to know the evidence the state will use against you but anything they leave out will be admissible later. Hardly sounds fair right? In State v. Wolfe the defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated based only on his Alcotest result. The DUI was the second for defendant, carrying harsher penalties. The state failed to provide discovery, including the Alcohol Influence Report (AIR) which includes machine test blanks, defendant’s test times, breath sample quantities and provides the defendant’s blood alcohol content (BAC) level to determine whether defendant is over the legal limit of .08%. At the time the trial began Wolfe, not having received the results of his breathylizer test, believed the trial would be based only on the observation of officers on the scene of the arrest regarding his balance, coordination and ability to process information mentally. Midway through the trial the state provided the results and defendant was convicted of per se driving under the influence based on the Alcotest result. The New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the conviction because defendant suffered no prejudice as a result of the delay and the state’s failure to submit the document was an error and not intentional. By way of contrast, if the defendant failed to provide notice of exhibits or witnesses, was not ready to proceed or otherwise sought to alter the standard procedure in the trial of the matter it is unlikely, based on experience, that judges would allow for such measures by defendants. Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs in New Jersey can have serious and lasting consequences including the loss of license which limits freedom, can preclude you from certain jobs or other opportunities, bears substantial fines and penalties including the possibility of an interlock device being installed in your vehicle and even jail time. If you are charged with DUI, you should consult an experienced attorney immediately to provide you with the best defense possible and ensure your rights are protected. For more information about DWI, controlled dangerous substances (CDS) in a motor vehicle, reckless driving, driving while suspended or other serious municipal court matters visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Alcotest to Stay For Now In NJ

The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that, for the time being, the Alcotest, the chemical test formerly known as the Breathylizer, given to drivers arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) to test their blood alcohol content (BAC) or alcohol to blood ratio, will stay after much debate. For months there has been much discussion of the possibility of dispensing with the Alcotest as a result of the State's failure to comply with the ruling in State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54 (2008), the monumental case pertaining to the implementation of the Alcotest in place of the Breathylizer and wheher the Alcotest was scientifically reliable as a means of measuring BAC levels. In Chun, the NJ Supreme Court held the Alcotest to be scientifically reliable at the time and that, with the nine software revisions to be implemented over time by the manufacturer, Draeger, it would remain reliable. The recent litigation was over the fact that Draeger never did the software updates and a database that set up to store information regarding Alcotest device logs, including service dates and test results, which attorneys could use in trying DUI matters in the event of errors or discrepancies with machine results. In the past two years there have been an increasing number of people questioning the reliability of the device based on errors in the database and lack of software updates. The result of unreliable machine or data could be a significant detriment to those facing charges of driving under the influence. The NJ Supreme Court has now made it clear that they are deeming the machine to be reliable yet intend to replace its use in the State of New Jersey within the next 3 years. The court expressed that if a suitable replacement can be found they will consider the device, however, in spite of the Courts reversal of it's own prior requirement for updates and database maintenance, with the three years ahead on them there is no rush. DWI in NJ will have a serious impact on your life and can have significant implications in related matters such as later personal injury. If you are charged with a DWI in NJ you should seek an experienced attorney immediately to protect your rights. For more information about DWI, DUI, possession of a CDS in a motor vehicle, reckless driving or other serious municipal court or traffic matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Sleeping it Off In Your Car Can Lead to DUI and Drug Charges

Happy 4th of July! Here's a tip for those celebrating with alcohol: If the police find you sleeping it off in your car, you will be charged with DUI! Many people believe that in order to be charged with Driving Under the Influence, you must be in the driver's seat with the car in motion on a public road. This is far from true! The police can charge you with Driving While Intoxicated based on presumptive operation, either you were going to drive the car while intoxicated or you drove the car to the place they found you then decided to stop and sleep it off. Presumptive operation can be based on a vehicle being parked across multiple spaces as if the driver was impaired, being the only one in the vehicle with no other possible driver, approaching your car with keys on your person, starting the car to stay warm in the winter and a host of other surprising reasons. As an example, on July 3rd, 2013 a fifty-three year old Bayonne resident was found sleeping behind the wheel of his automobile in a Quick Check paring lot. When asked by the police officer to step out of the car the man dropped a small package of an unknown substance, which was later found to be heroin. The man was charged with both possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (CDS) in a Motor Vehicle, as well as DUI. Under New Jersey law the definition of operating a vehicle is extremely broad to include more than simply driving that automobile, as many residents think. Dating back almost fifty years the courts have made monumental decisions in the matters of sleeping intoxicated drivers behind the wheel of a car, such as State v. Baumgartner, 21 N.J. Super. 348 (App. Div. 1952). That case made it clear that when an operator of a vehicle is found sleeping behind the wheel there are a number of situations that can result in a DUI charge of the driver. As in Baumgatrner, this Bayonne man was charged with a DUI due to the fact that he was found in a parking lot, one in which he stated was not in earlier. The man had a blood alcohol content (BAC) over the legal limit and it was then deduced, not observed, that the man had driven to that location under the influence of alcohol. DUI/DWI in NJ will have a serious impact on your life and can have significant implications in related matters such as later personal injury or vehicular manslaughter charges. If you are charged with DUI in NJ you should seek an experienced attorney immediately to protect your rights. For more information on driving under the influence, reckless driving or other serious municipal court/traffic matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter. Be safe this 4th of July and if you drink, don't drive! DUI, DWI, Driving while intoxicated, driving under the influence, drug charges, CDS, CDS in a motor vehicle, Controlled dangerous substance, alcotest, BAC, blood alcohol content