Showing posts with label CDS in a motor vehicle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CDS in a motor vehicle. Show all posts

Friday, April 24, 2015

Limit On Police Requests For Passengers To Exit Vehicle

In State v. Bacome, a pretextual motor vehicle stop led to the discovery of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) in a vehicle. The NJ Appellate Division affirmed that police must have a “reasonable and articulable belief that their safety is in danger” before they can order passengers to exit a motor vehicle during a traffic stop. On April 11, 2014, Tawain Bacome and another gentleman suspected of drug use and distribution were followed by Woodbridge detectives to Newark. While in Newark, the detectives lost sight of the vehicle and returned to Woodbridge to wait for the vehicle to return. Upon seeing the vehicle coming into town, the detectives also noticed the passenger was not wearing a seatbelt and conducted a stop during which the passenger was ordered from the vehicle. Upon the passenger’s exit from the vehicle, the detectives saw certain evidence of crack use in plain view and used the evidence to obtain the vehicle’s owner’s consent to search. Ultimately, 13 vials of crack were discovered in the vehicle and Bacome was charged with drug possession and intent to distribute. The NJ Superior Court, Law Division, Criminal Part of Middlesex County denied Bacome’s motion to suppress the crack cocaine and other evidence found during the stop. On appeal, the NJ Appellate Division upheld State v. Smith, 134 N.J. 599, 637 A.2d 158 (1994) which set forth the need for police to have “reasonable and articulable belief that their safety is in danger” before they can order passengers to exit a motor vehicle during a traffic stop. Smith is more restrictive on police than the requirements set forth in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Maryland v. Wilson, 518 U.S. 408 (1997) wherein it was established that police officers were permitted to instruct passengers to exit a motor vehicle as long as the vehicle is stopped for a lawful reason. The NJ Appellate Division found the stop to be pretextual, based not on the passenger’s failure to wear a seatbelt but rather the detectives’ interest in searching the vehicle for evidence of drug use or distribution. The Appellate Division determined that the evidence should be suppressed and Bacome allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. If you are now facing charges as a result of a warrantless search and seizure, you should obtain experienced criminal defense counsel to represent you against the State’s charges. For more information about traffic stops, search and seizure, warrant requirements, warrantless searches, drug possession or distribution charges or other serious criminal matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Alternatives To Jail For Driving While Suspended For Multiple DUI Charges?

Driving while suspended for a second or subsequent driving under the influence (DUI) (N.J.S.A. 39:4-50) charge in New Jersey now carries a 180 day mandatory minimum jail term. Since N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b) was enacted on August 1, 2011, drivers sentenced to the mandatory minimum 180 days in jail without parole have been seeking alternative sentences. Under N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b), it is a fourth-degree crime to operate a motor vehicle during a period of license suspension for a second or subsequent driving while intoxicated (DWI) conviction or refusal to submit to chemical breath testing in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2. In State v. French, 437 N.J. Super 333 (App. Div. 2014) , the trial court sentenced French to 180 days in jail, but allowed for up to 90 days of the sentence to be served in an inpatient treatment facility. The NJ Appellate Division held that sentences other that incarceration were not what the Legislature contemplated in enacting the statute and refused to find opportunity for flexibility in sentencing. In State v. Harris, John D. Harris, III, was sentenced to 180 days but allowed to serve his sentence on the Home Electronic Detention System (HEDS) program. The State appealed the sentence and the NJ Appellate Division upheld the courts finding in French finding that the Legislative intent of N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b) was to protect the public from those who would continue to drive after multiple DUI convictions. Although there is likely to be further litigation regarding other alternatives to incarceration, including diversionary programs, for driving while suspended for DWI the present state of the law is that you will serve 180 days in jail for this offense. If you are facing charges of DUI, DWI or driving while suspended for these charges you are facing significant periods of license suspension and the possibility of jail. It is critical that you obtain experienced criminal defense counsel to protect your rights. For more information about DUI, DWI, driving while under the influence of drugs (DUID), driving while suspended for DUI, controlled dangerous substances (CDS) in a motor vehicle or other serious traffic related charges in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Thursday, July 18, 2013

DUI Overturned Due To Inappropriate Court Procedure

The facts in this driving under the influence (DUI) matter are that the defendant was stopped for speeding and admitted to the officer he had been drinking. After administering field sobriety tests the officer attempted to handcuff the defendant. Both the officer's testimony and the patrol car video show that the defendant resisted arrest and was wrestled to the ground by multiple officers then pepper sprayed. The defendant was ultimately charged with DUI and also resisting arrest, aggravated assault on a police officer and spitting on a police officer. In NJ Superior Court, the defendant pleaded guilty to the assault charges. Defendant next had to answer to the DUI charges in municipal court and moved to suppress evidence based on his claim the police lacked probable cause to stop him. The Judge, in State v. Gibson, found probable cause for the stop and then relied on the officer's testimony and video from the patrol car to determine the defendant had difficulty with the field sobriety tests in finding probable cause for the arrest. Due to chain of custody issues with the defendant's blood sample, the prosecutor would rely on the video and the officer's testimony at trial and defendant moved to dismiss claiming the State could not prove its case without the blood sample. The Judge heard the defendant and the state as to whether the evidence in the suppression hearing met the state's burden of proof then found the defendant guilty of the DUI. On appeal, the Superior Court Judge found the use of pre-trial evidence to convict was inappropriate but not prejudicial and upheld the conviction. The Appellate Division reversed the decision and ordered a not guilty finding reasoning that a suppression hearing pertains to admissibility of evidence but is not a trial of the matter at which all evidence is presented or at which testimony is offered and cross-examined. Due to the deprivation of due process rights, the defendant prevailed. A conviction for driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence in NJ has serious and lasting effects including the obvious loss of license as well as ramifications in later civil or criminal suits for wrongful death, damages and the like. A DUI, even if a first, can result in lengthy suspensions, fines and even jeopardize your ability to obtain certain professional licenses or other jobs. If you are charged with DUI in NJ, you should contact an experienced driving under the influence defense attorney to protect your rights. For more information about DWI, controlled dangerous substances (CDS) in a motor vehicle, reckless driving or other serious motor vehicle charges in New Jersey visit www.HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Thursday, July 4, 2013

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