DUI Repeat Offenders Will Be Punished Accordingly

Repeat DUI (N.J.S.A. 39:4-50) offenders may not serve weekend jail terms. Although it was determined by the N.J. Appellate Division on July 13, 2019, that those charged with multiple driving under the influence charges are ineligible for periods of incarceration over a length of time, many charged with such repeat offenses continue to believe the alternate sentencing in possible. State v. Grabowski, a 2006 case, held that periodic imprisonment was acceptable for multiple drunk driving offenses. Pedro Anicama, a Newark restaurateur convicted of his third DWI, was permitted by the Harrison Municipal Court to serve his sentence of incarceration by spending 2 days per week in jail so as to minimize the adverse effect of the incarceration on Anicama's business. On a trial de novo in the Law Division, the ruling of the Harrison Municipal Court was overturned and the Appellate Division affirmed the Law Division's ruling. The Appellate opinion, delivered by the Honorable George Leone, focused on the punitive intent of the Legislature in drafting the provisions of N.J.S.A. 39:4-51, which addresses violations of 39:4-50. The Appellate Division indicated the Legislative intent to allow work-release in limited situations for first and second offenders but to prevent third or subsequent offenders the opportunity to participate in work-release programs. If you are facing charges for DUI/DWI, reckless driving, careless driving, CDS in a motor vehicle or other serious motor vehicle charges, please visit us at DarlingFirm.com or call 973-584-6200 now to schedule a consultation. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

One and One Make Two in DUI

James Dougherty was charged with violating N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b) for driving while suspended for a second or subsequent conviction or plea to driving while intoxicated (N.J.S.A. 39:4-50) or refusal to submit to chemical breath testing (N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.4(a)). Dougherty, seeking to avoid mandatory jail time, took the position that 2C:40-26(b) required conviction for two charges of refusing to submit to chemical breath testing or convictions for two charges of driving under the influence while Dougherty had only one conviction of each. In August 2015, the Defendant was convicted of DWI for a charge stemming from a February 23, 2009 arrest and was convicted of a refusal in November 2015, for a charge stemming from and arrest on February 4, 2009. While serving the seven month sentence for the refusal charge, the Defendant was stopped by the police while operating a motor vehicle. Dougherty was sentenced to a mandatory term of 180 days in jail, which term was stayed pending appeal. Defendant, relying on State v. Ciancaglini, 204 N.J. 597 (2011), argued that a "second or subsequent violation" under N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b) requires two convictions of the same predicate offense, rather than one of each. The Appellate Division found that State v. Ciancaglini does not address the issue head on. However, State v. Frye, 217 N.J. 566 (2014), reaffirms In re Bergwall, 85 N.J. 382 (1981), holding that a prior DUI does enhance a sentence for a refusal conviction. Additionally, the legislative history of the DUI statutes is centered upon the premise of discouraging driving under the influence by including ever increasing penalties for successive offenses. The Defendant's basic premise, from State v. Olivero, 221 N.J. 632, 639 (2015) and In re Estate of Fisher, 443 N.J. Super. 180, 190-195 (App. Div. 2015), that the word "or" should be interpreted as "or" rather than "either/or" is incorrect. When considered in the framework of the history and evolution of DWI laws, becoming ever stricter, there is no question as to the interpretation of the statute to include the word "either". The Appellate Division affirmed the defendant's conviction. 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 Charges Follow Without Miranda After Accident

John Martens was charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI) (N.J.S.A. 39:4-50) after attempting to walk away from his burning vehicle. A passerby reported a vehicle fire and that the vehicle’s driver was attempting to leave the scene. The vehicle had damage to the driver’s side, flat tires and the airbags had been deployed. Investigating officers found only one person in the area who was swaying as he was walking away from the vehicle. The individual admitted he was the vehicle’s owner and that the vehicle struck the median. While speaking with Martens, officers noted his speech was slurred and eye movements were slow. They administered field sobriety tests (FSTs) and arrested Martens. Later, an Alcotest was administered and Marten’s blood alcohol content (BAC) was determined to be .17%. Martens was charged with DUI, reckless driving (N.J.S.A. 39:4-96); failure to maintain lanes (39:4-88); and abandoning a vehicle (N.J.S.A. 39:4-56.6). Among other motions, Martens sought to suppress statements to the officers prior to his arrest based on the fact that he was not read his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966). The suppression motion was denied and Martens entered a conditional guilty plea to driving under the influence, reserving his right to challenge the denial of the suppression motion on appeal. Martens was sentenced as a 3rd time offender and received a 180 day jail sentence, 10 year suspension of his driving privileges, 1 year ignition interlock requirement, 12 hours in the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center as well as fines and surcharges. In State v. John Martens, the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, denied Martens’ suppression motions, found him guilty based upon his plea in the municipal court and imposed the same sentence as the municipal court. Martens appealed to the N.J. Appellate Division. Miranda warnings must be administered when a custodial interrogation occurs wherein the suspect has been deprived of freedom in a significant way. State v. Timmendequas, 161 N.J. 515, 614 (1999). Police need not administer Miranda warnings during routine traffic stops. Berkemer v. McCarthy, 468 U.S. 420, 104 S. Ct. 3138, 82 L. Ed. 2d 31 (1984); State v. Ebert, 377 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2005). Martens was asked a limited number of questions and was not subject to the equivalent of an arrest prior to being Mirandized by the officers following the FSTs. The decision of the N.J. Superior Court was affirmed. If you are charged with DUI, you are facing substantial penalties beginning with up to 1 year loss of driving privileges for a first offense up to a maximum of a 10 year loss of driving privileges and 180 days in jail for a third offense. In addition, you face the possibility of losing your job, certain professional licenses and the social stigma that comes with DUI. You need the assistance of an experience defense attorney and should not face these charges without one. For more information about driving while intoxicated, reckless driving, driving while suspended or other serious motor vehicle offenses in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This Blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Celebrating Memorial Day

Memorial Day is synonymous with the start of the summer season and also with driving under the influence (DUI) for police, courts and lawyers. Please remember to celebrate responsibly! Most importantly, remember that Memorial Day is a day on which those who died in active military service are remembered. Take time this weekend to reflect, remember and give thanks to those who are no longer with as as well as those serving today to keep us safe and our country free. To all who serve, have served, and those who have lost family members who made the ultimate sacrifice, thank you from The Darling Law Firm.

Refusal to Submit to DUI Breath Testing Receives Step-Down Sentence

Thomas Taylor was charged with driving under the influence (DUI)(N.J.S.A. 39:5-50) and pled guilty to refusal to submit to a breath test (N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2). Taylor had been convicted of two prior driving while intoxicated charges, both of which occurred over ten years prior to the event in question. The municipal court judge sentenced Taylor as a third offender to a 10 year suspension and a $1000 fine. The defendant appealed. In State v. Taylor, Taylor used the misplaced argument that, pursuant to State v. Ciancaglini, 204 N.J. 597 (2011), which addressed the impact of prior refusal convictions to enhance subsequent DUI penalties. However, In re Bergwall, 85 N.J. 382 (1981), reaffirmed in State v. Frye, 217 N.J. 566 (2014), held that a prior driving while intoxicated conviction may be used in enhancing a sentence for a subsequent refusal conviction. Designed as punishment for driving under the influence, the penalties for refusal mirror those for DUI in that they increase with each subsequent offense. The statutes differ in that the DWI statute calls for a "step-down" in sentencing for each 10-year period in which a driver goes without a conviction for DUI, but the refusal statute does not include such a provision. This means that an individual convicted of DUI in 1990 who is convicted of a second DUI in 2001 would be again sentenced as a first offender in 2001. Likewise, a third DWI conviction occurring 10 or more years after a second conviction would subject the driver to sentencing as a second offender under the DUI statute, pursuant to State v. Revie, 220 N.J. 126 (2014). Taylor argued that his refusal should be sentenced under the terms of a second offender, as more than 10 years had elapsed since his prior offense. In State v. Fielding, 290 N.J. Super 191 (App. Div. 1996) the court addressed the matter of applying step-down sentencing to refusal conviction and determined that it was appropriate under the principal of fundamental fairness. After review, the matter was remanded for resentencing as a second offense including a significantly lower 2 year suspension and $500 fine. 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 refusal, DUI, 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.

A1368 May Overhaul DUI Punishment In NJ

A1368 is a NJ bill, proposed by the Assembly, which could revise the NJ drunk driving statute, N.J.S.A 39:4-50. The bill was approved by the Assembly and Senate and currently under revision pursuant to comments by Governor Chris Christie. If accepted the new statute would permit those convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) to avoid long-term loss of driving privileges by having an ignition interlock device installed in their vehicles. First-offenders with a blood alcohol level (BAC) between .08 and .10% will be required to have an ignition interlock device installed for 3 months and those with .10 to .15% BAC readings would require 7 to 12 months with an ignition device. First-offenders with a .15% BAC or higher would lose their driving privileges for 7 to 12 months but, after 90 days, could make application to the court for an ignition interlock device. In any case, if the court determined there were too many aggravating factors including “circumstances of the offender’s conduct”, prior driving record, how long the offender has been licensed, or indicators of a substantial risk of re-offending, the current method of license suspension for a specified period between 3 and 12 months rather than ignition interlock device installation would be applicable. In the case of a first-offender with a BAC of .10 to .15%, if they do not own, lease or principally operate a vehicle and no ignition interlock may be installed, their driving privileges will simply be forfeited for 7 to 12 months. First-offenders with BAC levels of .15% or greater who do not own, lease or principally operate a vehicle will lose their driving privileges for 7 to 12 months for DUI and a consecutive 7 to 12 months making their suspension period as long as they would have been required to maintain an ignition interlock device on their vehicle. For a second driving while intoxicated (DWI) charge, the suspension would be for a period of 2 to 4 years rather than the current 2 year period. Additionally, an interlock device would be required on the person’s vehicle for the entire suspension period as well as thereafter. For a third or subsequent DUI, suspension would increase from the current 10 year period to a period of 10 to 20 years. Those convicted of refusal to provide a breath sample (N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2) in the case of second and subsequent events will also face these same suspension periods and interlock device requirements. This bill forgives first-offenders and provides them with opportunity to maintain their livelihood while preventing them from harming others through future instances of driving while intoxicated. Additionally, it is designed to send a strong message to drivers that re-offenders will be punished severely by long-term suspensions, additional expense of an ignition interlock device for an extended term, substantial fines and jail time. If passed, this bill will substantially alter the futures of those convicted of DUI. If you are charged with DUI, you need experienced defense counsel to protect your rights. For more information about DWI, refusal to submit to breath tests, driving while suspended for DUI, driving under the influence of drugs (DUID), controlled dangerous substance (CDS) and other serious driving 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 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.

Legalizing Marijuana in NJ?

A bill, A-2842, legalizing possession of less than 50 grams of marijuana for any purpose is moving toward legalization in NJ at this time. Presently N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10 criminalizes the possession, use or being under the influence or failure to make lawful disposition of marijuana. N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(4) currently reads: "Possession of 50 grams or less of marijuana, including any adulterants or dilutants, or five grams or less a disorderly person." The penalty is up to one year in jail, a fine of up to $1000, or both. Assemblymen Michael Patrick Carroll, R- Morris, and Reed Guscoria, D-Mercer introduced this legislation after seeing the weight of the public sentiment moving toward legalization of marijuana use. The New Jersey State Municipal Prosecutors Association also supports the legalization of small amounts of marijuana for personal use as court dockets are overburdened with marijuana possession charges. Police personnel also find themselves spending copious amounts of time dealing with cases involving these small quantities of marijuana for personal use. Although the bill decriminalizes possession of small quantities as well as being under the influence, operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence would remain illegal. Although many are behind this referendum, there are opponents who believe it will be problematic. One person opposed to legalizing marijuana is Governor Chris Christie who has vowed that such changes to the law "will not happen on my watch ever." For the time being, possession, use or being under the influence of marijuana remains illegal in New Jersey. If you are charged with these or any other crimes under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10, you can face serious consequences including imprisonment, loss of license, large fines and the stigma of a criminal charge on your record. You should seek experienced legal counsel immediately. For more information about use, possession or being under the influence of marijuana, CDS in a motor vehicle, DUI or other drug 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: Newly Proposed Bill Regarding Blood Samples

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

Driving While Suspended May Result In Extending Your Suspension

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