DUI Susupensions Do Not Call For Lenity

In State v. Rodriguez, five Defendants filed consolidated appeals after convictions of fourth degree operating a motor vehicle during suspensions for driving while intoxicated, N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26. The Defendants had all pled guilty to driving while suspended for driving under the influence, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, were seeking to serve their sentences at night or on weekends and the judge agreed, giving two of them night sentences and the other three received weekend only sentences. The Appellate Division ruled that the sentences meted out were within the court’s discretion but that the 180 day noncontiguous sentence had to be served in blocks of 24 hours each to qualify for a “day served”. The Appellate Division’s decision included the fact that N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(c) does not specify that the 180 days need be served consecutively, that there is no reduction in the total term of confinement and there was an effort to allow some lenity as long as there was no reduction in the deterrent effect of the sentence. The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted the State’s petition for higher appeal, 234 N.J. 314 (2018), as to whether sentences could be served intermittently and ultimately held that one sentenced to a statutory minimum term of 180 days for operating a motor vehicle while suspended for DUI must serve the entire term consecutively. N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(c) calls for a “fixed minimum sentence of not less than 180 days during which the defendant shall not be eligible for parole.” The Supreme Court reasoned that when the Legislature wishes to leave discretion to the sentencing court, they normally indicate so clearly in the language of the statute. Further, the court indicated that the clear reference to a minimum 180 day period of parole ineligibility is a bar to serving the term intermittently. If you have been charged with DUI or driving while suspended for DWI, contact The Darling Law Firm, LLC now at 973-584-6200 to speak to a seasoned attorney and insure your rights are protected. For more information on driving while intoxicated or driving while suspended, visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

In DUI A Stay Of Sentence On Appeal Is Not A Right

Scott Robertson was convicted in municipal court of Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) (N.J.S.A. 39:4-50). Robertson was stopped after police observed him to be driving erratically and he admitted to the consumption of alcohol during the motor vehicle stop. Robertson performed poorly on the field sobriety tests and his blood alcohol content (BAC) registered as .13 on the Alcotest machine. He was also charged with failure to maintain a lane (N.J.S.A. 39:4-88(b)), and reckless driving (N.J.S.A. 39:4-96). At trial, Robertson unsuccessfully challenged the admissibility of the Alcotest results based on the unavailability of repair records and diagnostic tests for the Alcotest machine used for his test. Although Robertson received numerous records, there were service related records within the manufacturer which he could not access to which he believed he was entitled. On appeal, the New Jersey Superior Court affirmed. Once again Robertson appealed, this time to the New Jersey Appellate Division which affirmed the DUI conviction holding that under State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54, cert. denied, 555 U.S. 825, 129 S. Ct. 158, 172 L. Ed. 2d 41 (2008) there was no basis for excluding the Alcotest results. Of note, on each successive appeal, Robertson sought a stay of the suspension of his driving privileges. He was sentenced to 7 months loss of license in municipal court and a stay of his suspension was granted, with no reasons stated on the record, to allow for a trial de novo in the New Jersey Superior Court, Middlesex County. At the trial de novo of State v. Robertson, the New Jersey Superior Court judge found Robertson guilty based on both the DVR of the psychophysical tests and the Alcotest results. The defendant again sought a stay of his license suspension based on multiple cases pending certification in the Supreme Court with regard to the ability of those accused of DUI to obtain repair and service records relating to specific Alcotest machines and the possibility of a favorable outcome for the Defendant. The State objected to the stay based on several unreported Appellate Division opinions supporting the finding that the records sought by the Defendant need not be provided. The stay was granted and addressed by the Appellate Division as being governed by a three-part test under Crowe v. DeGoia, 90 N.J. 126 (1982) requiring a showing that failure to obtain the stay would subject the defendant to irreparable harm, that the defendant has a reasonable chance of success on appeal, and there is not substantial harm created by granting the stay. In the case of DUI, the potential for harm to the public by an intoxicated driver creates a special circumstance for consideration and the Appellate Division found that stay of a suspension in a DUI case was not a matter of right pending appeal. With regard to the suppression motion, the New Jersey Appellate Division looked to precedent interpreting Chun. In State v. Maricic, 417 N.J. Super. 280, 288 (App. Div. 2010), the Appellate Division held that, although twelve foundational documents were required by Chun, that did not serve to limit additional discovery requests with a reasonable basis. The Appellate Division also reviewed State v. Carrero, 428 N.J. Super. 495, 507 (App. Div. 2012) holding that DWI cases are quasi-criminal and subject to a more limited discovery than criminal matters. Pursuant to R. 3:13-3(b)(1)(C) and 7:7-7(b)(4) the State is obligated to produce documents within the prosecutor’s custody or control but the Appellate Division reasoned that, although the Alcotest manufacturer’s documents were not within the State’s control, the Defendant could have subpoenaed them from the manufacturer had he felt they would prove to exculpate him. Ultimately, the Appellate Division found the argument that the diagnostic tests were material to the defense to be unconvincing. DWI charges, whether for alcohol or drugs, are very serious charges and can lead to loss of driving privileges up to 10 years as well as incarceration. Additionally, the newly created statute regarding driving while suspended for multiple DUI offenses guarantees a 6 month jail term. If you are facing charges for DUI it is critical that you obtain experienced defense counsel immediately to determine whether you can win your case. For more information about DUI, DWI, DUID, driving while suspended for DUI, controlled dangerous substances (CDS) in a motor vehicle, refusal to submit to chemical breath tests, reckless driving or other serious motor vehicle charges in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

DUI Case Opens Door To Further Discovery In Municipal Court

Pursuant to the N.J. Supreme Court’s ruling in State v. Stein, a driving under the influence (DUI) (N.J.S.A. 39:4-50) matter, municipal court prosecutors must turn over evidence from all jurisdictions involved in an arrest. The N.J. Supreme Court’s ruling overturned both the trial and Appellate Division rulings on the matter. Robert Stein was involved in a motor vehicle accident on Route 23 in Wayne and a Pequannock officer was the first to respond to the scene. Later Wayne officers relieved the Pequannock officer. Stein was ultimately charged with driving while intoxicated, as a third offender, and found guilty in the municipal court and the N.J. Superior Court, Law Division, Passaic County. He was also charged with careless driving (N.J.S.A. 39:4-97). Stein was sentenced to 180 days in the Passaic County Jail; 10 year loss of driving privileges; 48 hours at the Intoxicated Driver’s Resource Center; required to install an ignition interlock device on his vehicle and substantial fines. Justice Albin drafted the opinion including that Rule 7:7-7(b) requires the municipal prosecutor to provide all relevant evidence, including that from other jurisdictions and the names of officers in possession of knowledge pertaining to the alleged incident. The N.J. Supreme Court agreed with Stein’s argument that any inculpatory evidence could also be exculpatory and needed to be turned over. In Stein’s case, he did not raise or preserve the issue of the failure of the Wayne Municipal Prosecutor to turn over the name of the Pequannock officer for appeal. However, the ruling is relevant and could prove beneficial to those facing charges in municipal court. DUI charges, whether for alcohol or drugs, are very serious and can lead to incarceration and loss of driving privileges up to ten years. If you are facing charges for DUI it is critical that you obtain experienced defense counsel immediately. For more information about DUI, DUID, controlled dangerous substances (CDS) in a motor vehicle, refusal to submit to chemical breath tests, reckless driving or other serious motor vehicle 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 Dismissed On Speedy Trial Violation

In State v. Cahill, the defendant faced a driving under the influence (DUI) charge after being found guilty of assault by auto charges stemming from the same event. It was established that Michael Cahill consumed alcohol at a bar, later drove from the bar, swerved to avoid an obstacle in the road, crossed two lanes of traffic and collided with a police car causing injuries to the officer. Following a conviction and sentencing in the death by auto matter, the Superior Court judge remanded the driving while intoxicated charge to municipal court for disposition. A full 16 months later, Michael Cahill received notice from the municipal court that his matter had been scheduled for trial. Through counsel, he filed a motion to dismiss based on the court’s failure to uphold his right to a speedy trial. The municipal court judge denied the motion and Cahill appealed after entering a conditional guilty plea. The NJ Superior Court held that Cahill’s right to a speedy trial was violated under the particular circumstances of the matter and vacated the sentence after a review of the matter based on the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Barker v. Wingo. In Barker v. Wingo, the US Supreme Court established a four factor balancing test to determine whether a defendant’s right to a speedy trial was upheld. In the instant case, the NJ Superior Court found the 16 month delay was held to be too lengthy, without good cause, and prejudicial to the defendant who suffered anxiety over the prospect of the trail as well as limited his employment alternatives based on the likelihood he would be found guilty at trial. The decision to dismiss the DWI charge was upheld by the NJ Appellate Division and the NJ Supreme Court and Cahill’s sentence was vacated. Driving under the influence charges carry significant consequences including loss of driving privileges for 7-12 months for a first offense, 2 years for a second offense and ten years for a third or subsequent offense as well as substantial fines and penalties, the inability to work and the social stigma that is associated with DUI. There are ways that an attorney can help you, even if you think you will be found guilty and it is always critical that you consult with an experienced traffic attorney prior to deciding whether to enter into a guilty plea for DUI. For more information about DUI/DWI, reckless driving and other serious traffic court matters, visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of counsel.

Lawyer Challenges His DUI Plea Based On Lack Of Counsel

Henry Aratow was convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI)(N.J.S.A. 39:4-50) in 1988, pled guilty to a driving under the influence (DUI) in 2004, and pled guilty to a 2009 in 2011. In the case of the 2009 DUI, Aratow was sentenced as a third offender resulting in a 10 year loss of driving privileges and 180 days incarceration. In 2013, Aratow sought post conviction relief from in the municipal court and then Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County with regard to the 2004 DUI in order to avail himself of the step-down provisions under State v. Revie, 220 N.J. 126 (2014), pertaining to successive DUI convictions. The relief sought was denied and Aratow appealed to the NJ Appellate Division. In 2004, Aratow was stopped by police and charged with DWI, refusal to submit to a breath sample (N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2), and making an improper turn (N.J.S.A. 39:4-116). Both at the time he was stopped by police and when he appeared in court for the resulting charges, Aratow was a practicing attorney. Aratow waived his right to counsel and entered into a plea to operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content (BAC) between .08 and .10 with a dismissal of the refusal to submit to chemical breath testing and the improper turn charges. At the time of the 2004 plea, the municipal court judge engaged in lengthy colloquy with the defendant regarding his right to counsel, the factual basis of his plea. The NJ Appellate Division determined that the Aratow was not advised by the municipal court judge of the progressively harsher consequences of successive DUI convictions and, therefore, did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently enter into the plea as required under N.J. Court Rule 7:6-2(a)(1). The court also questioned the sufficiency of the factual basis given by the defendant, as set forth in State v. Campfield, 213 N.J. 218 (2013). The court found that, although Aratow admitted to operating a motor vehicle after consuming 3 vodka and tonics, he was not questioned as to whether he believed that the alcohol he consumed substantially impaired his ability to operate the vehicle or that his BAC was between .08 and .10. Under State v. Barboza, 115 N.J. 415 (1989), the remedy for a plea entered with an insufficient factual basis is to reinstate all charges and restore the matter to its original status prior to the entry of the plea. Accordingly, the NJ Appellate Division reversed and remanded the 2004 matter for a new trial. 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.

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.

DUI Conviction Becomes Easier For State

The appeal of a Union County driving under the influence (DUI) charge led to removal of yet another burden of proof previously borne by the State. In State v. Peralta, the defendant sought to suppress the Alcotest result of .19% blood alcohol content (BAC) as a result after the officers processing the arrest failed to read the standard refusal statement required by N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2(e). The municipal court refused to suppress the Alcotest reading and Peralta was convicted of driving while intoxicated. Of note is the fact that the officers observations were not found to be sufficient to convict the defendant of DUI. On appeal, the Law Division also convicted Peralta based on the BAC result. On appeal to the NJ Appellate Division the court held that the refusal statement was created by the Legislature for the purpose of advising those who would refuse to provide a breath sample that those driving on the roads of New Jersey are "deemed to have given their consent to the taking of samples of their breath", N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2(a), and advise them of the consequences of such a refusal. State v. Marquez, 202 N.J. 485 (2010). The Appellate Division indicated that N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2(e) was not created to add an additional burden on officers processing DWI matters where the accused is willing to provide a breath sample upon request. If you are facing charges of DUI or refusal, whether for alcohol or drugs, you should obtain experienced criminal defense counsel immediately. For more information about DUI, controlled dangerous substances (CDS) in a motor vehicle, reckless driving or other serious motor vehicle charges in NJ visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Second DUI Offense Requires Mandatory Confinement

Roger Dent struck two vehicles stopped at a red light and was charged with driving under the influence (DUI)(N.J.S.A. 39:4-50), careless driving (N.J.S.A. 39:4-97), possession of an open container of alcohol (N.J.S.A. 39:4-51(b)) and failure to wear a seatbelt (N.J.S.A. 39:3-76.2(f)). The defendant was convicted of DUI in municipal court and sentenced to 180 days in prison as a third offender, as well as 10 year loss of driving privileges and substantial fines. Dent had three prior convictions for driving while intoxicated (DWI). Due to one of the prior DUIs being without counsel, that particular DUI could not be used to enhance any future custodial sentences for DUI pursuant to State v. Laurick, 120 N.J. 1 (1990). Following appeal of the municipal court decision, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County. Dent was sentenced to 60 days in prison as a second-time DUI offender which, pursuant to the judge, he could serve in the County Supplemental Labor Service (CSLSP), frequently referred to as SLAP. In State v. Dent, the State appealed the sentence as contrary to N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a)(2) and (3) which specifies a minimum 48 hour period of incarceration which is also not to exceed 90 days and that said sentence “shall not be suspended or served on probation…” but the statute does allow for “county jail, to the workhouse of the county wherein the offense was committed, to an inpatient rehabilitation program or to an Intoxicated Driver Resource Center…” The NJ Appellate Division held that, pursuant to State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 174 (1964), “imprisonment was intended to be mandatory” for second-time or subsequent DWI offenders and remanded the matter to the Superior Court for resentencing. Dent’s argument that his 48 hours in an Intoxicated Driver’s Resource Center satisfied the 48 hour incarceration period may be considered by the Law Division as credit against any sentence he may be given thereby. 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 (DUID), controlled dangerous substance (CDS) in a motor vehicle, reckless driving, refusal to submit to a breath test or other serious motor vehicle offenses in NJ visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Stay Of Suspension During DUI Appeals Becomes Unlikely

As a result of State v. Robinson, judges have been warned about the stay of license suspensions pending appeal in driving under the influence (DUI) cases. Brian Robertson was convicted of driving while intoxicated as a result of the officers observations and his Alcotest reading of .13% blood alcohol content (BAC) after Robertson provided breath samples. In an effort to eliminate the Alcotest results, the defendant sought records with regard to repairs and diagnostic tests with regard to the specific Alcotest machine used. The records were not provided and the defendant appealed. Both the municipal court judge and the state court judge stayed the sentence of 7 month license suspension pending appeal. The NJ Appellate Division affirmed the conviction as some of the records sought had been deleted in good faith and others would not sway the court from convicting the defendant based on the officers observations and totality of the circumstances. The most problematic issue with this case for the Appellate Division was the stays of sentence permitted without findings as to the factors set forth in Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126 (1982). The factors include the result of irreparable harm to the defendant if temporary relief is not afforded, whether any substantial issue remains unsettled, whether all material facts are controverted, and the whether a hardship would result to the defendant in the event the defendant's license suspension was not stayed. Neither the municipal court judge nor law division judge made findings with regard to defendant's driving or substance abuse history or any harms, such as loss of employment, he could have sustained as a result of the sentence imposed. As a result of the need to protect the public from the possibility of defendant's re-offending during the appellate process, judges are cautioned that stays pending appeal are not to be utilized "without giving good reason for it." 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, drug DUI, 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.

10 Year DUI Sentence Upheld Without Alcotest or Blood Sample

John Cumpston was charged with driving under the influence (DUI) (N.J.S.A. 39:4-50), driving while intoxicated (DWI) in a school zone (N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(g)), driving while suspended (N.J.S.A. 39:3-40) reckless driving (N.J.S.A. 39:4-96) and careless driving (39:4-97) after Tenafly police responding to an accident call found him in his Toyota Camry which he had driven into a telephone pole. There were no other occupants in the vehicle and a scrape on Cumpston's face was consistent with the airbag's deployment. Cumpston's speech was slurred, his breath smelled of an alcoholic beverage, he had difficulty balancing when standing, his clothes were disheveled and he was without shoes, he admitted to consuming various alcoholic beverages prior to driving, he did not wake when his blood was drawn in the hospital and urinated on himself while sleeping in the hospital. In State v. Cumpston, the State stipulated to suppression of the blood test upon Defendant's motion but the court refused to suppress the Defendant's pre-arrest statements. At trial in the Tenafly Municipal Court, Judge Bell based the convictions for DUI, DWI within 1000 feet of a school zone, reckless driving and careless driving on the officers' testimony and the totality of the circumstances. The Defendant was sentenced to 180 days in the Bergen County jail and 10-year loss of license as a third time DUI offender with a concurrent 180 day sentence for DWI in a school zone and a 20-year loss of license on that charge. The Defendant was also ordered to addend the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center (IDRC) in association with the DUI and DWI in a school zone charges and fines totaling over $3,000 collectively on all convictions. On appeal before Judge Jerejian in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, Cumpston sought to have his admissions at the scene of the crash, with regard to alcohol consumption, suppressed under claim that his Miranda rights were violated, sought to have the convictions reversed and for a reduction in his sentence. The State submitted that the conviction for DUI should merge into DWI in a school zone. Under State v. Kent, 391 N.J. Super. 352 (App. Div. 2007) field sobriety tests are not required for a DWI conviction. Other proofs including "a defendant's demeanor and physical appearance- coupled with proofs as to the cause of intoxication - i.e., the smell of alcohol, and admission of the consumption of alcohol, or a lay opinion of alcohol intoxication." State v. Bealor, 187 N.J. 574, 589 (2006). As to the Defendant's statements at the scene, New Jersey has long held that Miranda warnings are not required prior to field sobriety testing. State v. Ebert, 377 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2005); State v. Green, 209 N.J. Super. 347, 350 (App. Div. 1986); State v. Weber, 220 N.J. Super. 420, 424 (App. Div. 1987). Further, in Berkemer v. McCarthy, 467 U.S. 420, 442 (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court held that basic on scene questioning and field sobriety tests do not give rise to a "formal arrest" requiring Miranda warnings. The Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, did agree that the Defendant's sentence should be modified to merge the DUI into the DWI in a school zone as well as the fact that, although the Defendant was a third offender under N.J.S.A. 3:4-50(a), he was a first time offender under N.J.S.A. 3:4-50(g). The sentence for DWI in a school zone was modified to 180 days in the Bergen County Jail, $1,000 fine and 10-year loss of license. 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, enhanced penalties for driving while intoxicated in a school zone, 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, DWI, DUI in a school zone, 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.

DWI Acquittal When State Failed To Prove Operation Of Vehicle

Wardell Harvey was convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI) contrary to N.J.S.A. 39:4-50. At sentencing, he was sentenced as a 3rd offender including jail for 180 days, 10 year loss of license, required an interlock device on his vehicle for 1 year following restoration of his driving privileges and fines. At his municipal court trial, the Defendant testified that he procured five 24oz cans of beer on the way to his doctor where he was to learn whether he required back surgery. He was stopped by Officer Clerico of the Somers Point Police Department on the way to his doctor for speeding and an illegal turn. The officer further testified that, during the motor vehicle stop on the way to the doctor's office, he detected no odor of an alcoholic beverage when speaking with Harvey. Upon arrival at the doctor's office, Harvey consumed less than 2 cans of beer in the parking lot while seated in his vehicle. Following his appointment, according to the defendant, he was anticipating the arrival of a Ms. Bowen who worked in a nearby building and to whom the vehicle belonged as she would be driving him home. Prior to his returning to the vehicle, after receiving a call from someone in the doctor's office about an intoxicated patient preparing to leave the office, police stopped Harvey to question him about driving under the influence. Officer Cunningham smelled alcohol on the Defendant's breath, observed an open beer in the cup holder of the truck Harvey drove and found the keys in the truck's ignition. Harvey admitted to consuming alcohol but denied any wrongdoing. Both sides believed that State v. Snyder, 337 N.J. Super 59, (App. Div. 2001) regarding post-operation consumption of alcohol was the controlling case. The municipal court judge decided the State had met its burden of proof as to evidence of operation in a preliminary Rule 104 Hearing. Ultimately the Defendant pled with the admission of consumption of alcohol but without admission of operation. In State v. Harvey, the Law Division judge, on trial de novo, held that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction with regard to operation prior to the doctor's appointment but sufficient to support a conviction based on his intent to drive following his doctor's appointment under State v. Mulcahy, 107 N.J. 467 (1987). On appeal, it was held that the Rule 104 hearing was inappropriate and testimony elicited therein violated the hearsay rules. Additionally, the Appellate Division held that, under Mulcahy, Harvey could not be required to submit to Alcotest testing based on the belief that "[he would] operate a motor vehicle at some time in the near future." Finally, the State changing its argument from operation prior to the doctor's appointment in municipal court to constructive operation after the doctor's visit in the Law Division was fundamentally unfair and that "appellate courts affirm or reverse judgments and orders, not reasons" Isko v. Planning Bd. of the Twp. of Livingston, 51 N.J. 162, 175 (1968). The NJ Appellate Division reversed Harvey's conviction for driving under the influence (DUI) and remanded the matter to the Law Division for a judgment of acquittal. DWI is a very serious offense with substantial consequences including jail and loss of driving privileges which may result in loss of your job and other consequences. If you are facing DUI charges, you should obtain an experienced DUI defense attorney immediately. For more information about DUI, Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), underage DUI, drug DUI, controlled dangerous substance (CDS) in a motor vehicle or other serious driving infractions in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

180 Days In Jail For Driving While Suspended For DUI

James French had been convicted of 9 Driving Under the Influence (DUI) events prior to being stopped by police in Warren County, NJ who observed him to be driving erratically and to have an inoperable brake light on his vehicle. He was sentenced, by Warren County Superior Court Judge Ann Bartlett, to 90 days in jail followed by 90 days in an inpatient treatment facility. The Prosecutor appealed French's sentence as not meeting the requirements of the applicable statute. In 2011, the NJ State Legislature passed new legislation, N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b), directed at driving while suspended for DUI. The statute was drafted by the legislature to punish those driving while suspended for multiple DUIs. N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b) makes driving while suspended for a second or subsequent DUI or refusal to submit to chemical breath tests a 4th degree criminal offense and requires a 180 day jail sentence with no possibility of parole. Under DUI Statute, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, a 3rd or subsequent DUI is punished by a minimum 180 days in jail, 90 of which may be served in an inpatient rehabilitation facility. In State v. French, the NJ Appellate Division decided that the legislative intent in drafting N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b) was to levy a higher penalty on those who would continue to drive while suspended for DUI. In reversing the decision of the Warren County Superior Court Judge, the NJ Appellate Division determined that the statute plainly includes a 180 day jail sentence without eligibility for parole and makes no provision for inpatient rehabilitation. DUI is a very serious offense with substantial consequences including jail and loss of driving privileges which may result in loss of your job and other consequences. If you are facing DUI charges, you should obtain an experienced DUI defense attorney immediately. For more information about DUI, Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), underage DUI, drug DUI, controlled dangerous substance (CDS) in a motor vehicle or other serious driving infractions in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only 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.

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.

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.

Effects of Certain Medical Treatments on DUI Prosecution

Driving under the influence is illegal no matter whether the driver is under the influence of heroin or something prescribed to them by a doctor. Many people get behind the wheel of a car daily while taking under treatment for drug addiction. These drivers are under the mistaken belief that, because they are receiving legally acceptable medical treatments, they are immune from prosecution for consequences stemming from the treatments. Although these drivers may not be under the influence of the drug on which they are dependent, they are still under the influence for the purposes of driving in the event the methadone treatments they are receiving are seriously impacting their ability to drive. Methadone may cause hallucination, low blood pressure, blurred vision and other negative side effects which would impact an individual's ability to drive. Although the under the influence component in such an offense would not be intentional, anyone making this mistake could still be found guilty of DUI based only on their impairment. This a long standing principle of law in NJ and was considered by the NJ Supreme Court in State v. Tamburro in 1975. DUI in NJ is a very serious matter with long lasting consequences including hefty fines, loss of driving privileges, possible loss of professional licenses and inability to obtain certain jobs or entry into certain educational institutions. A conviction for driving while intoxicated cannot be expunged and will remain on your record forever. If you are facing charges for DWI you should contact an experienced DWI attorney immediately to protect your rights. For more information on DUI, DWI, controlled dangerous substances (CDS) in a motor vehicle or other serious motor vehicle offenses 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.

Parents Potentially Liable for Underage Drinking

It is likely you have heard the stories of parents being arrested for providing alcohol or a location for underage drinking to take place. There are many misconceptions as well as doubts that parents should or can be held liable for teenagers drinking together. Regardless of your opinion, New Jersey has laws establishing strict liability and punishments if one would be convicted. Providing alcohol to any persons under twenty-one can carry a punishment under N.J.S.A 2C:33-17a of up to 6 months in jail and as much as $1,000 in fines. Allowing underage drinking to take place on private property carries the same penalty as providing alcohol to minors. Some adults believe that by allowing teenagers to drink under their supervision they are making a responsible decision that could potentially save lives from being lost as a result of the teens driving while intoxicated. While this may be true, adults must also see the potential position of culpability they may be putting themselves in. Whether parents are at home or away while the underage drinking is taking place there is a potential to be held liable for the actions of underage drinkers. Even when simply leaving their children home for a weekend, if parents do not find suitable supervision they may be seen as negligent and therefore liable. Teenagers and their parents can seek damages against adults who permit the teens to drink in the event they incur medical bills, property damage or other forms of pain and suffering. Although in other countries alcohol is viewed differently and children often enjoy wine with meals, that is not the case in our society and the laws do not allow it. Allowing your children to drink can subject you to liability for damages and harm to others as well as having your children removed from your home for negligent parenting. Allowing other underage drinking, even under your supervision, can subject you to criminal penalties. Underage Drinking and allowing underage drinking in NJ will have a serious impact on your life and can have significant implications in related matters such as later personal injury or other criminal charges. If you are charged with underage drinking, providing alcohol to a minor or allowing underage drinking in NJ you should seek an experienced attorney immediately to protect your rights. For more information on DUI, possession of a CDS in a motor vehicle or other serious motor vehicle charges in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

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.

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