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.

Sentence For Possession With Intent To Distribute Should Fit The Offender At The Time Of Sentencing

Joseph Jafee pled guilty, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County, to third-degree conspiracy to possess a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) with intent to distribute (N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1)) for which the judge imposed a three-year sentence in spite of marked changes in Jaffee’s lifestyle in the year between his guilty plea and sentencing. Jaffee became engaged and acted as a father to his fiancee’s son, remained sober, routinely attended substance abuse meetings and became a counselor to at-risk youth. Additionally, as part of the plea agreement, Jaffee cooperated in the prosecution of his co-defendants. Judge Manahan followed the sentencing guidelines but refused to consider the changes Jaffee had made in the prior year. The NJ Appellate Division affirmed the sentence and Jaffee appealed. In State v. Jaffe, the NJ Supreme Court considered the opinions of State v. Bridges, 131 N.J. 402 (1993) and State v. Hodge, 95 N.J. 369 (1984) with regard to its analysis of uniform sentencing consideration. In addition, the NJ Supreme Court pointed to the fact that the NJ Code of Criminal Justice does allow for consideration of the defendant’s individual situation. Ultimately, the NJ Supreme Court held that, in light of State v. Randolph, 210 N.J. 330 (2012), the Law Division should have assess the defendant “as he stands before the court on the day of sentencing” in addition to simply weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors. After making the determination that Jaffe’s circumstances at the time of sentencing should be considered, the NJ Supreme Court remanded for resentencing in light of the fact that the sentencing judge specifically declined consideration thereof. If you have been charged with possession or possession with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance (CDS), it is critical that you obtain experienced criminal defense counsel immediately in order that all exculpatory evidence may be obtained, favorable witnesses may be located, and all appropriate procedures are followed by the police and the prosecution. There are frequently problems with consent to search, warrants, Miranda warnings, inappropriate denial of suppression motions and improper trial procedure which may make a substantial difference in the outcome of your matter. For more information about possession, intent to distribute, CDS, conspiracy and other drug charges in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Drug Distribution Conviction Reversed For Lack Of Probable Cause

Jermaine Wright was charged with possession of controlled dangerous substance (CDS) (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10a) and possession of CDS with intent to distribute (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5). Wright's arrest was made by police in Trenton after Ewing Township detectives received a tip from a confidential informant that "Jazzz" was delivering CDS in Trenton in a specific vehicle. Initially the Ewing detectives followed up on the tip, verifying the vehicle and general location provided by the informant, but seeing no activity indicative of drug trade, then Ewing was dispatched to another call and passed the information on to Trenton detectives. Trenton detectives located the vehicle and approached on foot. Later testimony would conflict as to whether the officers guns were drawn as they approached the vehicle. The officer used flashlights to illuminate the occupied vehicle's interior and saw the occupants using a scale to measure a quantity of CDS, which they suspected to be cocaine. As the driver exited the vehicle, a large amount of money could be viewed plainly in the purse she left behind and a bag on the passenger seat was partially open leaving a significant quantity of cocaine in plain view. In State v. Wright, Defendant attempted to suppress the evidence claiming the officers' actions constituted de facto arrest without probable cause but the judge held that the stop was investigative in nature, of limited duration and of little intrusion upon the Defendant's liberty. The judge further held that the evidence initially seized was in plain view and the remainder was seized based on probable cause and under exigent circumstances. In spite of the motion judge's determination that Trenton officers parked their vehicle in a manner to prevent the defendants' exit and swift approach with guns drawn conveying the message they were not free to leave, the judge held the stop was not thereby converted to an arrest requiring probable cause. The Defendant's motion to suppress the CDS was denied and he entered a guilty plea to narcotics related offenses. The NJ Appellate Division referred to State v. Dickey, 152 N.J. 468, 475 (1998) in holding "the temporary detention of individuals during an automobile stop by police, even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose constitutes a seizure. The Appellate Division also referenced State v. Gibson, ___ N.J. ___, (2014) in finding the judge below inaccurately utilized the reasonable and articulable suspicion standard for a stop rather than the probable cause standard required for an arrest. After a thorough analysis of warrantless seizure cases (State v. Pena-Flores, 198 N.J. 6 (2009), State v. Cooke, 163 N.J. 657 (2000) and State v. Mann, 203 N.J. 328 (2010)) and cases involving levels of police interaction (State v. Nishina, 175 N.J. 502 (2003), Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), State v. Stoval, 170 N.J. 346 (2002), State v. Bernokeits, 423 N.J. Super. 365 (App. Div. 2011)) the appellate judges looked to further considerations including the duration of the stop, reasonableness, degree of the intrusion and the State's interest in the welfare of the public. The Appellate Division further reasoned that a reasonable articulable suspicion was required in this case but there were no particularized facts justifying the seizure. In fact, Trenton detectives testified they observed nothing giving rise to suspicion and approached the vehicle solely on the limited information provided by the Ewing Township detectives. The appellate division reasoned that the seizure of Wright was illegal as it was not supported by reasonable and articulable suspicion. Therefore, pursuant to State v. Smith, 155 N.J. 83 (1998), the appellate division reasoned the evidence obtained from the unlawful seizure must be suppressed and reversed the decision of the court below. Drug distribution charges are met with harsh penalties due to the public interest in deterrence. If you are facing charges for drug distribution or possession, there are multiple factors which may affect the ultimate outcome and an experienced criminal defense attorney will know how to protect your rights. For more information regarding drug distribution, possession, possession with intent to distribute or controlled dangerous substances (CDS) visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Blood Sample Taken From DWI Defendant Will Not Be Suppressed If Legally Withdrawn

Blood taken without a warrant in a Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) and death by auto case need not be suppressed depending on the law at the time of the accident. The defendant was involved in a single car accident in 2010 in which 2 passengers were injured when the vehicle he was driving hit a utility pole. The police detected the odor of an alcoholic beverage emanating from the defendant, Adkins, and administered field sobriety tests which he failed. Defendant was arrested and transported to the police station where he was read his Miranda rights and opted to remain silent until he had the benefit of counsel. Later that night, Defendant was transported to the hospital by police. Because alcohol remains in the body for a limited time, at the request of police and upon the signature of the defendant, police and the nurse to perform the procedure, blood was withdrawn from the defendant with his consent. At trial, in State v. Adkins, the defendant sought to suppress the blood as it was obtained without a warrant and the suppression was granted. The State appealed the matter and the NJ Appellate division considered a series of cases relating to warrantless searches and exceptions to the warrant requirement. The NJ Appellate Court was considering the issue of whether they should apply the ruling in Davis v. United States, 564 US ___ (2011), or State v. Novembrino, 105 N.J. 95 (1987), in light of federal retroactivity requirements. Under Davis the US Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule, which protects the public from warrantless seizures, would not operate in a defendant's favor where the police were acting in good-faith reliance on existing law. Under Novembrino the NJ Supreme Court held that a good-faith exception served to deprive defendants of their rights and would not be upheld. The NJ Appellate Division made its determination with its focus toward the purpose of the exclusionary rule in protecting defendants from illegal police intrusion. In 2010, at the time the blood was drawn from the defendant, the police conduct was lawful and with consent of the defendant. They were not acting pursuant to a defective warrant and their conduct was not unreasonable or improper. The suppression of the blood samples in this case would not further the interests of justice or rectify improper behavior by police. Although Adkins' personal interests may be served by suppression, the suppression of the blood sample which was taken legally at the time of the accident would severely disrupt the criminal justice system when the multitude of defendants already sentenced sought to reopen their cases with retroactive application of the law. Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol in New Jersey bears serious consequences including loss of driving privileges from 7 months for a first event to 10 years for a third or subsequent event, heavy fines and even jail. If you are facing DUI charges, it is critical you obtain experienced defense counsel to represent you against those charges. For more information about DUI, controlled dangerous substances (CDS) in a motor vehicle, reckless driving, driving without insurance or other serious municipal court charges in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlinglawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Judge Acts As Judge, Jury and Prosecutor in Theft Case

Linden Municipal Court Judge DiLeo denied the requests of Anthony and Wendell Kirkland for appointed public defenders in their theft case and then conducted the trial without a prosecutor present. The judge went so far as to take on the prosecutor's role by undertaking direct examination of the police officers, thereby eliciting the information he felt should be heard, and cross-examining the defendants. The Kirklands were charged with attempting to steal tires from a vehicle. Initially, they sought private counsel then later requested public defenders. The judge found the defendants to have waived their right to counsel. At the trial, the judge invited the Kirklands to participate in cross-examination of the police officers testifying and also to present testimony on their own behalf. The Kirklands presented no testimony or witnesses yet the judge allowed the officers to cross-examine the Kirklands. At the close of this farce, DiLeo found the defendants guilty of theft of moveable property, possession of burglary tools and possession of under 50 grams of marijuana and sentenced them to county jail terms. By the time NJ Superior Court Judge Scott Moynihan heard the Kirklands' appeal, resulting in dismissal of the drug charges and remand to the municipal court for a hearing on the remaining theft charges, the Kirklands had spent 124 days in the Union County jail. This case resulted in a new standard for imposition of punishment on judges for misconduct on the bench. When a reasonable person would find the conduct of the judge to be obviously and seriously wrong, contrary to clearly determined law without question as to interpretation, egregious and made in bad faith or as part of a pattern of error. If you have been accused of a crime, you cannot rely on the legal system to protect your rights. Although the system is designed, on its face, to protect the interests of both the state and the accused, the prosecutors, judges and police officers involved in your case are human and fallible. For more information about theft, burglary, possession of controlled dangerous substances (CDS) or other criminal charges in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Limits of Doctor-Patient Privilege

The defendant in State v. Marcano was charged with uttering a forged instrument (N.J.S.A. 2C:21-1(a)(3)), attempting to obtain a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) by fraud (N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1 and 2C:35-13) and attempting to obtain prescription legend drugs (N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1 and 2C:35-10.5(d)). The Hudson County Superior Court trial judge limited the testimony of the State's principal witness on the theory that the physician-patient privilege, N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-22.1 to -22.7 and N.J.R.E. 506, bars the defendant's doctor from testifying regarding the defendant's alleged criminal actions of attempting to obtain Percocet within the doctor's office. Thadeusz Majchrzak, M.D. contacted the Jersey City police to notify them Marcano presented an apparently altered prescription for Percocet at a drug store she frequently utilized and the drug store requested the doctor's verification regarding the prescription. A prescription form, including three drugs, was provided to defendant's mother and presented to the pharmacy by Marcano with a fourth item listed on it. During that same office visit, for defendant's mother's care, Marcano had asked the Majchrzak to prescribe her Percocet but he refused and referred her to pain management. The trial judge relied on the New York case of People v. Sinski, 669 N.E.2d 809 (N.Y. 1996) in limiting the doctor's testimony and found the remaining evidence insufficient to establish a criminal purpose for the requested prescription. In an effort to balance the doctor-patient privilege with the statutory duty of doctors to report forged prescriptions the judge limited the doctor's testimony to only the forgery. Finding that the truth is of ultimate import, the court, in Carchidi v. Iavicoli, 412 N.J. Super. 374, 383 (App.Div. 2010), opined that privileges simply serve to "inhibit the search for the truth." However, privileges must yield to other societal interests when necessary according to the court in State v. Schreiber, 122 N.J. 579, 583 (1991). Because the physician-patient privilege protects those "who, for the sole purpose of securing preventive, palliative or curative treatment consults a physician" pursuant to N.J.R.E. 506(a) and it is not designed to protect those attempting to commit crimes it does not apply to Marcano. The Appellate Division determined the doctor's testimony should have been admissible as to the entire series of events and reversed the decision of the trial court judge. If you are facing charges relating to drugs, whether prescription or not, it is critical you obtain experienced criminal defense counsel to fight to protect your rights. If you are convicted or plead guilty to drug charges you face incarceration, loss of driving privileges, substantial fines and penalties and probation. For more information about controlled dangerous substances, prescription drug charges, CDS in a motor vehicle, driving under the influence (DUI) or other criminal charges in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Multiple DUI and Driving While Suspended Charges in NJ

In a case involving 3 prior driving while intoxicated (DWI) convictions and 4 prior convictions for driving while suspended, a woman was charged with a 5th driving while suspended (DWS) charge. Such matters involving multiple prior events are forwarded from the municipal court to the county prosecutor’s office for resolution. The jury, in State v. Sharp, indicted the defendant on two counts of 4th degree driving while suspended and the defendant applied for pre-trial intervention (PTI). The defendant was accepted into the PTI program but the prosecutor objected to her entry based on her prior driving record which they found to reflect a lack of interest in rehabilitation and a pattern of disregard for the safety of other motorists and passengers. The defendant filed a motion for admission to PTI over the prosecution’s objection and the judge found in favor of Sharp, permitting her to enter the PTI program. In matters of PTI, the prosecutor has broad discretion in making the determination of whether defendants should be admitted. The standard for a judge to overrule the prosecution in requests for PTI admission is patent and gross abuse of discretion on the part of the prosecution. The state appealed the judge’s decision and the NJ Appellate Division found the judge to have erred in making the decision to overrule the prosecutor’s denial of admission to the PTI program. A guilty finding or plea in a DUI or other criminal matter can have substantial negative consequences on your future. PTI is a diversionary program which permits certain defendants to avoid more serious charges on their record and also is expungeable after a period of time. For more information about PTI, driving under the influence, driving while suspended, controlled dangerous substances (CDS) in a motor vehicle and other municipal and superior court 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.

NJ Municipal Courts Prepare To Roll Out Diversionary Program

Until now, Municipal Court defendants accused of drug charges could apply for a Conditional Discharge and Superior Court defendants accused of other crimes could apply for Pre-Trial Intervention (PTI) but Municipal Court defendants accused of disorderly or petty disorderly persons offenses had no such opportunities available. Now, municipal courts are preparing for the new Conditional Dismissal program to take effect. Legislation was signed in September by Governor Christie to remedy the unfairness municipal court defendants faced as a result of the lack of a "second chance" program for certain minor offenses. Previously, the only thing that could be done was to downgrade disorderly or petty disorderly persons offenses to local ordinance violations which would still result in a criminal record for the defendants. Defendants who successfully complete the Conditional Dismissal program, including a year on probation, restitution to any victims, court costs, fines and other mandatory or discretionary assessments will not appear as a prior conviction for the defendants. Defendants are eligible for only one diversionary program in their histories. Meaning, if you have used a Conditional Discharge or PTI, you will not be eligible for a Conditional Dismissal. Additionally, if you utilize the Conditional Dismissal program you will not be able to use it again in the future. Additionally, defendants charged with DUI, gang activity, animal cruelty, offenses against the elderly, disabled or minors and official breach of public trust are ineligible for entry into the program. Those facing charges for controlled dangerous substances (CDS) in municipal court are eligible for a Conditional Discharge but not Conditional Dismissal. Criminal charges of any kind, even disorderly or petty disorderly persons offenses such as shoplifting or simple assault committed while young or during a lapse of good judgment can have significant and lasting impacts on your ability to enter certain schools, obtain certain professional licenses, obtain employment requiring public trust, security clearances and the like as well as the stigma that can accompany a criminal record. As a result of the way criminal charges can restrict your future opportunities, earnings, lifestyle and associations it is critical that you seek and experienced criminal defense attorney to assist you in any criminal charges you face, no matter how minor those charges may seem at the moment. For more information regarding Conditional Dismissal, Conditional Discharge, Pre-Trial Intervention, disorderly persons offenses, petty disorderly persons offenses, controlled dangerous substance, shoplifting, simple assault or other Municipal Court matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.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.

DUI: Newly Proposed Bill Regarding Blood Samples

A controversial bill is currently being reviewed by the New Jersey Legislation could have a great effect upon automobile accidents involving driving under the influence (DUI). The bill, A-4464, is proposing that any accident that results in a fatality would subject drivers of the vehicles involved to mandatory blood testing for both illegal drugs and alcohol. Currently, under New Jersey state law, police are required to have probable cause to believe the driver is under the influence in order take a blood or breath sample from a driver of a vehicle. In addition, the bill would impose the same penalties and suspension of a driver’s license for refusing a blood test as they would for refusal of a breath test. Some defense attorney’s throughout the state do not believe the proposed bill will pass on a constitutional basis. In a United States Supreme Court case decided in April of this year, the court held that there is a requirement of law enforcement to obtain a search warrant or consent in order to extract blood from driver to test for alcohol. Prosecutors throughout the state generally believe that the bill would permit them to perform the justice they believe is needed in cases of vehicular manslaughter committed by drivers under the influence of drugs or controlled dangerous substances (CDS). Prosecutors will likely seek to extend the bill to accidents that result in serious injury. The bill will not be heard and voted on by the state legislature until the next legislative session in November. DWI in NJ will have a serious impact on your life including loss of license for up to 10 years, thousands of dollars in fines and penalties and can have significant implications in related matters such as later personal injury. If you are charged with driving while intoxicated in NJ you should seek an experienced DUI attorney immediately to protect your rights. For more information on DUI, possession of CDS in a motor vehicle, reckless driving or other serious municipal court/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.

Driving While Suspended May Result In Extending Your Suspension

Many New Jersey motorists are stopped on a daily basis for routine traffic offenses only to find out their license is suspended. In many cases, the drivers are suspended for failure to pay a parking ticket, failure to pay New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission (NJMVC) fines or other administrative reasons. On the other hand, the drivers have been suspended for other reasons such as prior driving while suspended charges, driving under the influence, controlled dangerous substances (CDS) in a motor vehicle or other drug offenses. No matter the reason, driving while suspended can cause an extended loss of your license that you may not have anticipated prior to that routine traffic stop. Violating N.J.S.A. 39:3-40, the NJ statue relating to driving while suspended, carries monetary fines as well as a potential loss of license depending on the circumstances. For first offenders, drivers will have a fine of up to five hundred dollars as well as a surcharge of two hundred and fifty dollars to the NJMVC each calendar year. For second and third time offenders, the fines for driving while suspended increase up to seven hundred and fifty dollars and one thousand dollars respectively. Second and third offenses can also carry from five to ten days imprisonment. Having an experienced attorney can greatly benefit those drivers who are trying to maneuver through these violations with little or no penalties for them to face when their day in municipal court approaches. Those who drive while suspended for driving under the influence face greater penalties. Those drivers can be fined up to an additional five hundred dollars and lose their license for at least one year but not more than two years in addition to suspension period levied during their DWI sentencing. If you are pulled over and are told your license has been suspended, it may be a simple mistake on the part of the NJMVC. However, you do not want to take that for granted due to the consequences and must appear in municipal court with proof the matter has been resolved or you will be subject to the same penalties as if your license was actually suspended. Driving while suspended in NJ carries serious penalties and should not be taken lightly. If you are charged driving while suspended in NJ you should seek an experienced attorney immediately to protect your rights. For more information on municipal court, DUI, CDS in a motor vehicle or other serious drug charges 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.