DUI Suspicion Is Not A Reason To Draw Blood Without A Warrant

In 2010 Timothy Adkins was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI)(N.J.S.A. 39:4-50), after the vehicle he was operating struck a utility pole, injuring himself and two passengers. Adkins failed the field sobriety tests administered by police and was ultimately taken to the hospital, where the police obtained a blood sample from Adkins. Adkins blood alcohol level (BAC) was .157 percent, almost twice the legal limit of .08 percent. In Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S.___, 133 S. Ct. 1552, 185 L. Ed. 2d 696 (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the natural dissipation of alcohol from the blood stream over time does not, on its own, give rise to exigent circumstances such that a warrant may be avoided when the police are seeking a blood sample. Therefore, unless the individual suspected of driving while intoxicated is involved in an accident, a warrant is required. In State v. Adkins, 433 N.J. Super. 479 (App. Div. 2013) a trial judge determined that the blood sample taken from Adkins without a warrant was inadmissible. The New Jersey Appellate Division reversed the ruling based on Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) wherein the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that drawing blood from an individual suspected of drunk driving was acceptable. In McNeely, the U.S. Supreme Court established a new standard based on the fact that, through radios, cellular phones and facsimiles, obtaining a warrant is a much simpler and expedient process for police. As a result of the ruling in McNeely, the N.J. Supreme Court, in Adkins, DUIdetermined that the results of the blood sample, withdrawn without a warrant, must be suppressed. If you are facing DUI charges, 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, driving while suspended 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.

Coffee Drinking In NJ - From Keeping You Alert To A Violation?

The same penalties which apply to using a cell phone while driving, N.J.S.A. 39:4-97.3, in New Jersey could soon apply to drinking coffee or eating while driving if Assemblymen John Wisniewski of Middlesex County and Nicholas Chiaravalloti of Hudson County, both Democrats, get their way. The revisions would subject drivers to a $200 fine for a first offense, $600 fine for a second offense, with a third or subsequent offense subjecting coffee drinkers to up to $800 in fines and up to 90 day loss of license. The Assemblymen are claiming the bill is intended to prevent distracted driving, not punish would be coffee drinkers, but that theory ignores the reality that the effect is the same for drivers. In support of the bill, some are citing enforcement of seatbelt laws and a significant increase in seatbelt use with a corollary decrease in life threatening crash related injuries. The bill is still in its infancy and, as many believe this to be excessive overreaching on the part of Wisniewski and Chiaravalloti, hopes remain high that this bill will garner little support from those responsible for the stewardship of New Jersey. For more information about motor vehicle offenses including using a hand-held electronic device while driving, driving under the influence (DUI), reckless driving and other traffic offenses 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.

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.

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

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

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.

Jail Sentence For Driving Without A License

Armando Carreon was sentenced to both a custodial term and fined for driving without a license (N.J.S.A. 39:3-10). Carreon was initially charged with failure to obey a stop sign (N.J.S.A. 39:4-144) and driving without a license and pled guilty to driving without a license. At sentencing, the municipal court judge found this to be Defendant's third offense for the same infraction and imposed 10 days in jail. The Defendant sought post conviction relief and the Law Division rejected the Defendant's argument with regard to the statutory mandate of a fine or incarceration but not both under N.J.S.A. 39:3-10 and Carreon appealed. The NJ Appellate division reversed as the statute allows for "…a fine not exceeding $500 or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 60 days, but if that person has never been licensed to drive in this State or any other jurisdiction, he shall be subject to a fine of not less than $200 and, in addition, the court shall issue an order to the commission requiring the commission to refuse to issue a license to operate a motor vehicle to the person for a period of not less than 180 days." The appellate judges reasoned that the statute was amended to provide a more harsh penalty for never-licensed drivers and reserving judicial discretion for the harsher option of imprisonment in both situations. Further, in reversing and remanding the matter, the appellate judges held that those sentenced under this statute would be subject to a fine or imprisonment but not both. Driving without a license in NJ carries serious penalties and should not be taken lightly. If you are charged driving without a license in NJ you should seek an experienced attorney immediately to protect your rights. For more information about traffic offenses, driving without a license, DUI, CDS in a motor vehicle or other municipal court 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.

Conditional Dismissal in NJ Municipal Court Effective January 4, 2014

On September 6, 2013, Governor Christie signed into effect A-3598, establishing a Conditional Dismissal program in NJ municipal courts. The law became effective on January 4, 2014 and applies to those convicted of or pleading guilty to disorderly or petty disorderly offenses. The Conditional Discharge in municipal court was previously available only for drug offenders in municipal court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:36A-1. However, those convicted of or pleading guilty to certain greater offenses in the NJ Superior Court were eligible for Pre-Trial Intervention (PTI). Now the playing field for eligible first offenders is level between the courts. Conditional Discharge and PTI are one time programs available to those accused of criminal offenses. Once they are utilized, defendants are ineligible to use them again. Additionally, use of PTI renders you ineligible for Conditional Discharge and the converse is true as well. Also, domestic violence and driving under the influence (DUI) defendants are not eligible for Conditional Dismissal. Although an individual may be eligible for Conditional Dismissal, the court retains discretion as to whether a defendant is admitted based on criteria including the nature of the offense, the interests of the victim, the defendant's history and public interest. This program is a diversionary program wherein defendants are placed on probation for a period of one year wherein certain requirements must be met or the defendant will be expelled from the program and returned to court to face the original charges against them. Additionally, those pleading to or found guilty of other offenses during their probationary term will be expelled from the diversionary program. Although this program helps avoid a criminal record, fingerprinting is required under N.J.S.A. 53:1-15 and there are associated fees as well. Successful completion of the program will not be deemed a conviction on a defendant's criminal record and will not be counted as a first conviction for sentencing purposes in the event of future convictions. However, a Conditional Dismissal will appear on their criminal record and bar eligibility for future diversionary programs. Criminal charges in NJ can have a serious, lasting and detrimental effect on your future. if you are facing criminal charges, whether in municipal or superior court, it is critical you obtain an experienced criminal defense attorney to help resolve your matter. For more information about Conditional Dismissal, Conditional Discharge, Pre-Trial Intervention or 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: 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.

Texting A Driver Can Bring Liability In NJ

A recently decided court case could change people’s behavior in respect to texting friends who are driving. Kubert v. Best has created a new potential liability for the sender of a text message to a driver who is involved in an accident. Best, the driver of the vehicle in the case was sent text messages by Shannon Colonia, a friend, when he caused an accident with a motorcycle in which both people on the motorcycle lost their legs. While the driver has the ultimate responsibility for avoiding distractions while behind the wheel, the court deemed that like a passenger who must avoid distracting the driver, a sender of the text message must do the same. Liability for accidents involving the sender of a text message can vest when the person sending the text to the driver knows the recipient of the message is behind the wheel. It is almost akin to an accomplice liability where the texter can be liable if they had knowledge of the driver's actions through continued exchange of texts. In this case the claim of liability against Colonia, the sender of the text message, was dismissed due to the lack of evidence regarding her knowledge of Best being on the road. This could however create a new cause of action for parties involved in accidents due to driving while texting. This new crime can carry a one hundred dollar fine for a first offense and up to a six hundred dollar fine with a 90 day loss of license for a third offense. This case could potentially have created precedenct on future personal injury liability cases involving texting while driving, however we will have to wait and see. Municipal and Traffic Court offenses in NJ will have a serious impact on your life and can have significant implications in related matters such as personal injury. If you are charged with municipal or traffic court violations in NJ you should seek an experienced attorney immediately to protect your rights. For more information about use of a cell phone while driving, 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 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.

Changes to NJ Driving Without Insurance Penalties?

A Bill, A-1844, proposed by the NJ State Assembly would change the penalty for driving without insurance in the state of New Jersey. Presently, driving without insurance carries the heavy penalty of loss of license for a period of 1 year from the date of conviction or plea. Often those driving without insurance are unaware their insurance is expired. Perhaps they have moved and the bill comes only once a year to an old address, there may be a former spouse or partner withholding mail or the person may forget to update the automatic payment when changing accounts. Because of the many reasons other than willful intent to drive without insurance that people commit this offense, the Assembly has proposed offering municipal court judges the opportunity to consider the reasons presented by the offender when meting out punishment. If this bill passes, municipal court judges will be given discretion in deciding whether an individual's license should be suspended and, if so, permits the judge to mete out a suspension of between 2 months and 1 year. Presently, in addition to mandatory suspension, there is a fine of between $300 and $1,000 and a period of community service to be determined by the court. The Bill does not apply to subsequent offenses which call for a fine of up to $5,000, incarceration for a term of 14 days and 30 days of community service along with the loss of driving privileges for a period of 2 years from the date of conviction or plea. If you are facing a charge of driving without insurance in NJ you should seek experienced legal counsel to protect your rights. For more information about driving while suspended, 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.

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.