Distracted Driving In NJ

Although most thing of the New Jersey Cell Phone law (N.J.S.A. 39:4-97.3) when thinking of distracted driving in New Jersey. Although texting and driving is a frequent cause of serious motor vehicle accidents, there are other classifications of "distracted driving" which can lead to police pulling you over and issuing you a summons resulting in $200-$400 plus court costs for a first offense, $400-600 plus court costs for a second offense and $600-800, 3 points and up to 90 day loss of license for a third or subsequent offense. In addition to texting or talking on a cell phone, programming or using an electronic device to find your destination can also lead to a summons. Although many see people applying make-up or shaving while driving and shaken our heads in disbelief, routine activities many are guilty of including eating or drinking, adjusting your radio, looking at a map, and even talking to your passengers can be reasons for police to stop you and issue a summons. With newly relaxed search warrant rules established in State v. Witt, (A-9-14)(074468), 435 N.J. Super. 608, 610-11 (App. Div. 2014), 219 N.J. 624 (2014), this can ultimately lead to a search of your vehicle, arrest and other serious charges. If you are charged with distracted driving, you should consult an experienced traffic attorney immediately. For more information about using a cell phone while driving, warrantless vehicle searches, distracted driving and other motor vehicle charges visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

DUI Step-Down Is Not Limited To One Use Per Driver

The NJ driving under the influence (DUI) statute (N.J.S.A. 39:4-50) includes a provision wherein a “step-down” in sentencing occurs after any ten (10) year period in which an individual charged with a prior DUI receives a lesser level penalty for a subsequent DUI. For example, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a)(2), if an individual was convicted of their first DUI in 1986 and a second DUI in 1994, they would be sentenced, among other penalties, to a two year loss of driving privileges as a second offender in 1994. However, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a)(3), if an individual was convicted of their first DUI in 1986 and a second DUI in 1997, more than ten (10) years later, they would be sentenced to, among other penalties, a seven to twelve month loss of driving privileges as a first-offender in 1997. In State v. Revie, the defendant, James Revie was convicted of a fourth driving while intoxicated (DWI) charge in 2011 in Wharton, NJ after an initial DWI in 1981 in Hillsdale, NJ, a second and uncounseled DWI in 1982 in Bogota, NJ, and a third DWI over ten (10) years later in 1994 in Montvale, NJ. Due to the fact that the second DWI was uncounseled and the defendant should have received the benefit of the step-down provision for the ten (10) year lapse between the second and third DWI convictions, the defendant argued that, for the 2011 DUI, he should be sentenced as a second-offender with regard to any term of incarceration. However, the Municipal Court Judge sentenced him as a third-offender refusing to read N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a)(3) as providing more than one “step-down” benefit to any driver. The NJ Superior Court, Law Division, Morris County affirmed as did the NJ Appellate Division. The NJ Supreme court held that there is no indication that the Legislature intended for a defendant meeting the requirements of the “step-down” provision on more than one occasion to be entitled to the benefits thereof on only one such occasion. In addition to the Legislative intent, included in the NJ Supreme Court’s consideration were also State v. Laurick, 120 N.J. 1, 498 U.S. 967, 111S.Ct. 429, 112 L. Ed. 2d 413, (1990) and State v. Hrycak, 184 N.J. 351 (2005) as they pertained to Revies’ second and uncounseled DUI and State v. Conroy, 397 N.J. Super. 324 (App.Div. 2007) as it pertained to a defendant sentenced with the benefit of Laurick and the “step-down” provision of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a)(3). The matter was remanded to the Law Division for re-sentencing as a second-offender. DUI charges, whether for alcohol or drugs, are very serious charges which 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 HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Dash Camera Video Available In Traffic Cases?

In October 2014, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Vincent Grasso issued two rulings regarding police dash cam video records that have stirred quite a bit of interest from attorneys who handle traffic cases in New Jersey. As an attorney, I routinely hear a story from my clients which differs greatly from the contents of the police report I receive in response to my discovery request. Although the officer prepares a routine report at the end or shortly after their shift, they handle many similar matters day in and day out. This results in an awareness of what highlights to give attention to when writing a report as well as a blurring of their memory as to specific incidents as a result of substantial similarity in driving under the influence (DUI) stops, reckless driving stops and other motor vehicle stops. On the other hand, a driver facing DUI, reckless driving, careless driving or other motor vehicle charges is likely to be stopped on an infrequent basis and have absolutely no confusion about the conditions and events surrounding the motor vehicle stop. On the other hand, the driver is most often unfamiliar with the statute under which they are being stopped and the portions of the event they recall specifically may not relate to the statutory factors which will determine their guilt or innocence. For example, drivers often focus on conditions external to the stop which, in their opinion, gave rise to the circumstances resulting in the stop such as the need to move a vehicle after consuming alcohol. In either version of the event, the officers or the defendant's, there is the possibility for error. If Judge Grasso's ruling with regard to the cases, including Ganzweig v. Township of Lakewood, result in the routine provision of video footage to the public, the diverging stories will become of less import as there will be an accurate and unbiased video recording of the event for the defendant, the officer, the prosecutor, defense counsel and the judge to view. As it stands, obtaining video of traffic stops, when available at all, can be challenging resulting in substantial delays of the matter and frustration to clients paying attorneys for continued court appearances for no purpose other than discovery motions with regard to the video sought in any particular matter. If you are facing charges for a traffic violation including DUI, driving under the influence of drugs (DUID), reckless driving, driving while suspended, controlled dangerous substances (CDS) in a motor vehicle or other traffic matters you can face incarceration, loss of license, substantial fines and surcharges and increased insurance rates. You should seek an experienced municipal court attorney to protect your rights. For more information about traffic court matters visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only 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.

Driving While Suspended For DUI Without the DUI?

In deciding State v. Suzanne Sylvester, the court held that driving while suspended for a second or subsequent driving under the influence (DUI) charge under N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26b is a 4th degree crime even in the event the underlying DUI suspension is later vacated. Sylvester was convicted in the Somerset County Superior Court of N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26b and sentenced to a 3 year probationary term with a mandatory minimum incarceration of 180 days without parole. Sylvester had been convicted of DUI in 1991, 1992 and in Mendham Municipal Court in 2011. It was during the suspension for the 2011 DUI when the defendant was charged with driving while suspended. Although Sylvester was permitted to rely on a sentencing step-down afforded under State v. Laurick, 120 N.J. 1 (1990) due to the lapse of time between her second and third DUI convictions, the Appellate Division found that Defendant was aware of a valid suspension at the time she drove and therefore the conviction under N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26b was also valid. In upholding the decision of the court below, the NJ Appellate Division relied on the earlier decision in State v. Gandhi, 201 N.J. 161 (2010) wherein the court established that a defendant violating N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26b shall not be entitled to relief from conviction in the event the DUI is later vacated. If you are found guilty of driving while suspended for a second or subsequent DUI, you may be punished under N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26b which bears minimum penalties of 180 days in jail and an additional 1 year loss of license. For more information about driving while suspended for DUI, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, controlled dangerous substance (CDS) in a motor vehicle or other serious driving offenses visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

DUI Blood Withdrawal Does Not Require Warrant

In State v. Sekhon, a single car fatal accident took place in which it was believed the defendant was driving under the influence (DUI). A passenger died when the vehicle exited the roadway and crashed. Responding officers detected an odor of alcoholic beverages on the driver, who admitted to having two drinks, but the officers had no opportunity to take breath samples as the driver was taken to the hospital by ambulance from the scene. At the hospital blood was drawn from Sundeep Sekhon without seeking a warrant and without the defendant's consent. Although the defendant's blood alcohol content (BAC) was only .062, the prosecution still intended to utilize the evidence to show defendant was drinking before the accident in the second-degree vehicular homicide case. There is a long history of cases relating to the need to preserve evidence creating exigent circumstances as balanced against the 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizure. Missouri v. NcNeely _______U.S. ________, ________, 133 S. Ct. 1552, 185 L. Ed. 2d 696 (2013) considered the premise that the speed with which a warrant may be obtained, exigent circumstances may no longer be presumed in DUI matters requiring a blood sample rather than breath sample. In State v. Adkins, 433 N.J. Super. 479 (App. Div. 2013), the Appellate Division held that the exclusionary rule does not require suppression of blood tests taken without a warrant in certain circumstances as long as the motor vehicle stop occurred before McNeely was decided. Adkins requires the that police have probable cause to believe that the driver was under the influence and that the police action in taking the blood samples occurred in good faith reliance on then existing law. Under the guidance of McNeely and Adkins the NJ Appellate Division held that the BAC results from Sekhon need not be suppressed. DUI charges carry serious and lasting consequences. If you are facing DUI charges, you should seek experienced defense counsel immediately to protect your rights. For more information regarding DUI, drug DUI, controlled dangerous substance (CDS) in a motor vehicle, reckless driving or other serious municipal court matters in NJ visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Prior DUI Convictions Enhance Penalty For Refusal In NJ

In the recent case of State v. Frye, the NJ Supreme Court upheld the use of prior Driving Under the Influence (DUI) convictions to enhance the sentence for refusal to submit to chemical breath testing. In Frye, the defendant was convicted to a 10 year loss of license as a result of 2 prior DUIs. Although the court held, in State v. Ciancaglini, 204 N.J. 597 (2011) that a prior refusals to submit to chemical breath testing could not be used to enhance penalties for subsequent DUIs, the Frye court found the logic behind this instant decision to be different. The Court reasoned that, failure to utilize prior DUI convictions to enhance refusal convictions would then leave a strategic opportunity to repeat DUI offenders to obtain a significantly reduced penalty for subsequent offenses by simply refusing to submit to the Alcotest. The chemical breath test refusal statute, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.4a, does contemplate enhanced sentencing for repeat refusal offenses in a manner which parallels enhancement for repeat DUI offenses bringing the Frye decision in line with the Legislative intent of keeping intoxicated drivers off NJ roads. The Frye decision is not the first of its kind in New Jersey. In re Bergwall, 85 N.J. 382 (1981), decided by the NJ Supreme Court over 30 years ago, held that a prior DUI convictions should be used to enhance suspensions in refusal cases. 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 substance (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.

Distribution of Drugs in a School-Zone May Not Bar Drug Court

In a recent case involving 3rd degree distribution of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS), marijuana, in a school zone a defendant was denied admission into the Drug Court program and appealed. Mike Pope appealed the decision of the Sussex County Superior Court Judge based on the misapplication of the standard for ordinary probation to deny him entry into Drug Court, based on a school-zone offense, while N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 allows school-zone offenders to be sentenced to Drug Court probation. The statute permitting entry into Drug Court applies as long as the transaction occurring within the school-zone does not involve distribution to a minor. Mark Pope pled guilty to distribution in the parking lot of Vernon High School under a negotiated settlement agreement which contemplated defendant's intent to apply to Drug Court. The Sussex County prosecutor argued that Pope's violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7, involving distribution within 1000 feet of a school-zone, served as an automatic bar to defendant's entry into Drug Court. Defendant's appeal, in State v. Pope, asked the NJ Appellate Division to reconsider Pope's application to Drug Court based on the requirements of track 1 or 2 for admission. Track 1 being the commission of a crime subject to a presumption of mandatory incarceration and the satisfaction of 9 factors. Typically this is reserved for 1st or 2nd degree crimes and is done with the consent of the prosecutor. Track 2 is typically applied to those with ongoing drug habits who have not committed any form of violent offense. The NJ Appellate Judges held that the trial court misapplied the statute and remanded the matter for consideration under the appropriate criteria. A drug related conviction in NJ can have serious and lasting consequences including prison, loss of license, substantial fines and the stigma of the conviction or plea can result in the loss of certain employment or educational opportunities. If you are facing charges of use, possession or distribution of CDS including marijuana, meth, oxy, heroin, xanax or other drugs, it is critical you consult with an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately to protect your rights. For more information about prescription or non-prescription drug charges for use possession or distribution, gang-related drug charges, controlled dangerous substances in a motor vehicle, DUI and other criminal and serious municipal court matters visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

How Likely is Jail in NJ Careless Driving Cases?

Under the NJ careless driving statute (N.J.S.A. 39:4-97), in addition to monetary penalties, offenders can be sentenced to jail. Until now, jail has been a very infrequent consequence of careless driving charges. However, the NJ Supreme Court is considering the criteria for sending careless drivers to jail. State v. Palma involved a driver who hit a pedestrian and dragged her down the road with the vehicle unknowingly. The pedestrian later died from her injuries. An investigation revealed Palma was not intoxicated and was not using a cellular phone while driving. The Judge sentenced Palma to 15 days in jail as a penalty for careless driving in addition to suspending her license. The Court considered the factors in State v. Moran, 202 N.J. 311 (2010) which include the nature of the conduct, the risk of harm, any harm actually caused and the drivers prior record. The Moran principles set forth considerations for suspension in the event of reckless driving and have no bearing on jail terms for careless driving. The NJ Appellate Division held the Moran factors to be acceptable in the determination of whether to impose a jail term for careless driving. The NJ Supreme Court accepted the prosecutor's appeal and is now considering the criteria for sending careless drivers to jail. Depending on the court's decision, jail for careless driver may be a mechanism used by prosecutors to pressure clients into plea agreements which include lengthy suspension or harsher fines in exchange for no jail time. If you are facing careless driving charges, the consequences may be more severe than you think. For more information about careless driving, reckless driving, driving while suspended, DUI, DWI or other 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.

Will Police in NJ Be Permitted to Inspect Cell Phone Contents At Accident Scenes?

If a newly introduced bill relating to NJ motor vehicle safety is passed, police officers will be able to confiscate cell phones under certain circumstances relating to auto accidents in order to assess motor vehicle penalties. The bill also increases penalties for texting while driving. The bill (S-2783) was introduced May 20, 2013 by Senator James W. Holzapfel (D-Ocean). As introduced, the bill permits any police officer coming to the scene of a motor vehicle accident resulting in death, bodily injury, or property damage to confiscate the driver's cell phone if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe the driver was using the cell phone while driving. The bill includes that the officer may review the cell phone's CALL history, however, the pertinent statute Section 39:4-97.3 of the NJ Motor Vehicle Code defines "Use" of a cell phone as including, "but not be limited to, talking or listening to another person on the telephone, text messaging, or sending an electronic. This means police will be reading text messages and emails, viewing installed applications ("aps") on the phone, memos and anything else they wish to view. This will permit the police the right to trounce citizen's rights against unreasonable search and seizure each time a motor vehicle accident occurs. The bill requires no warrant showing probable cause and merely permits police to make a judgment call as to whether the driver was "operating" a cell phone as well as whether a hands-free device or feature was in use at the time of the accident. Even in the event police determine there was no use of the cell phone, there is nothing in the bill limiting their use of any information obtained from the phone for other purposes such as criminal complaints against the driver. Also, it can be assumed the phones of any passengers in the vehicle will also be searched as police claim that a witness saw the driver pass the phone to a passenger immediately following the accident. Given the use of passwords, swipe patterns, voice and face recognition software and other means of protecting the information on personal cell phones, information contained in cell phones is considered private and falls within the expectation of privacy contemplated under the Fourth Amendment. Other penalties include a fine of $100 for calls, $300 for texts, 2 points and suspension of driving privileges for 3 months. If you have been charged with use of a cell phone while driving or face criminal charges as a result of unreasonable search and seizure in NJ, you should immediately obtain an experienced criminal defense attorney to protect your rights. For more information on protecting your rights if charged with motor vehicle offenses or other crimes in NJ visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and is not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.