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.

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.

Alcotest to Stay For Now In NJ

The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that, for the time being, the Alcotest, the chemical test formerly known as the Breathylizer, given to drivers arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) to test their blood alcohol content (BAC) or alcohol to blood ratio, will stay after much debate. For months there has been much discussion of the possibility of dispensing with the Alcotest as a result of the State's failure to comply with the ruling in State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54 (2008), the monumental case pertaining to the implementation of the Alcotest in place of the Breathylizer and wheher the Alcotest was scientifically reliable as a means of measuring BAC levels. In Chun, the NJ Supreme Court held the Alcotest to be scientifically reliable at the time and that, with the nine software revisions to be implemented over time by the manufacturer, Draeger, it would remain reliable. The recent litigation was over the fact that Draeger never did the software updates and a database that set up to store information regarding Alcotest device logs, including service dates and test results, which attorneys could use in trying DUI matters in the event of errors or discrepancies with machine results. In the past two years there have been an increasing number of people questioning the reliability of the device based on errors in the database and lack of software updates. The result of unreliable machine or data could be a significant detriment to those facing charges of driving under the influence. The NJ Supreme Court has now made it clear that they are deeming the machine to be reliable yet intend to replace its use in the State of New Jersey within the next 3 years. The court expressed that if a suitable replacement can be found they will consider the device, however, in spite of the Courts reversal of it's own prior requirement for updates and database maintenance, with the three years ahead on them there is no rush. DWI in NJ will have a serious impact on your life and can have significant implications in related matters such as later personal injury. If you are charged with a DWI in NJ you should seek an experienced attorney immediately to protect your rights. For more information about DWI, DUI, possession of a CDS in a motor vehicle, reckless driving or other serious municipal court or traffic matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Some Still Say Breathylizer and Alcotest is Already On The Way Out

The Alcotest device which replaced the Breathylizer for driving under the influence (DUI) testing in NJ is already on the way out. The Alcotest was introduced in the late 1990's and was subject to substantial litigation regarding its reliability by 2005. In 2008, the NJ Supreme Court decided State v. Chun and set forth the standards under which the Alcotest could be considered reliable in NJ. Now, software updates to the device as mandated by the Chun court are not available and the online database of readings from the device is corrupt. The device's manufacturer, Draeger Safety Diagnostics, has decided it will no longer employ software developer Ayoka Systems to correct software issues and eliminate issues causing data corruption. Additionally, Draeger will cease to warranty the device in 2016. Rather than employ Ayoka or another company to update the device manufactured by Draeger, the state has opted to find a replacement device for the Alcotest by 2016. Although the Chun court did not indicate Alcotest data from machines without updates would necessarily be corrupt, there are substantial differences between the raw data and the database results. Notably, exceptional results found in the raw data are apparently filtered out by the database. This leaves substantial room to challenge NJ Driving While Intoxicated charges in which the Alcotest is the state's primary evidence. Currently, there is a motion pending regarding the database which may result in a hold on the resolution of DWI cases for a substantial period of time depending on the results of the motion and subsequent challenges relating to reliability of the device and litigants' rights. 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.