New Jersey Criminal Lawyers Blog

A conviction under N.J.S.A. 2C: 29-2b (Resisting Arrest; Eluding Officer) requires that the person fleeing must "knowingly flee or attempt to elude any police or law enforcement officer after having received any signal from such officer to bring the vehicle or vessel to a full stop."

A recent unpublished New Jersey Appellate Division case discussed this issue. (State v. Padilla-Bustamante). The relevant facts involve the defendant who "fled" the scene of a crime because he feared for his own safety. While giving a ride home to some people he knew from a tavern, the defendant stopped for gas. While at the gas station, the defendant's passengers left his automobile and began to engage in a fight. He left the scene and returned. The passengers involved in the fight returned to the car and the defendant once again fled the scene. He was signaled by a police officer to pull over, but did not. The vehicle came to a stop only when it was involved in a collision. At that point, the defendant and a passenger exited the vehicle and ran into a wooded area. A police officer caught up with them and the defendant explained that he was the driver of the vehicle and fled the scene because he was afraid for his safety.

At trial, a jury convicted the defendant of "eluding". The defendant argues that the jury instruction on the doctrine of flight was clear error by the judge. The Appellate Division agreed, overturning the conviction for eluding and remanded the trial. The trial judge explained the doctrine of "flight" as occurring after "an offense" or "a crime" but did not explicitly say which crime he was referring to (there were multiple charges levied against the defendant). The Appellate Division found that this was clear error because the instructions to the jury could have implied a presumption of guilt, which could have unfairly prejudiced the jury's perception of the character of the defendant. The "flight" charge was not at all connected to the "eluding" charge, but the jury instruction by the trial judge seemed to confuse the two. The "flight" charge could only be linked to the other charges levied against the defendant. The eluding charge required that the defendant knew he was eluding an officer. At trial, the defendant claimed that he did not look in his rear view mirror and he did not stop because he was in fear for his safety. A reasonable jury could hear that evidence and choose not to convict him of eluding.

Continue reading "Eluding A Police Officer In New Jersey. "Knowledge" Is Required For A Conviction. Discuss Your Case With An Experienced NJ Criminal Defense Attorney." »

In a recent Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division case (State v. Zeikel), the question of sentencing for repeat offenders of New Jersey DWI laws was addressed. More specifically, the Appellate Division had to decide if two prior DWAI (Driving While Ability Impaired) charges from New York State had any bearing or no bearing at all on the enhanced sentencing as a repeat DWI offender in New Jersey. The Appellant, Jeffrey Zeikel argued that they should not have any bearing on his current New Jersey DWI sentencing because the New York DWAI charge is not "substantially similar" to the New Jersey DWI, DUI, Refusal statute. This is a requirement under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 which reads: "A conviction of a violation of a law of substantially similar nature in another jurisdiction...shall constitute a prior conviction under this subsection unless the defendant can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the conviction in the other jurisdiction was based exclusively upon a violation of a proscribed blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of less than 0.08%."

In defining the statutory language of "substantially similar" the court ultimately ruled that a New York State DWAI is similar to a New Jersey DWI. The statutory language places the burden of proving that it is NOT "substantially similar" on the defendant. In other words, Mr. Zeikel needed to show by "clear and convincing evidence" that the New York DWAI conviction was based exclusively on a violation that proscribed a BAC of less than 0.08%. In this case, Mr. Zeikel could not present the appropriate evidence as the older New York DWAI's occurred in the 1980's. Due to their age, the proper New York authority no longer had an evidentiary record of them. Simply, if the defendant cannot introduce evidentiary proof (whether it is available or not), the prior convictions will serve to enhance the punishment of the current New Jersey DWI charge.

The court also relied on previous holdings on the same issue, which was quite damaging to the defendant's case. According to Div. of Motor Vehicles v. Lawrence, the court held that a New York DWAI was "of a substantially similar nature as a New Jersey DWI conviction," and in comparing the language and policy goals of the New York and New Jersey statutes, the court concluded that, " both laws deal with alcohol related offenses and are aimed to deter and punish drunk drivers." Essentially, the New Jersey court gave full faith and credit to the New York DWAI statute when it decided to use a prior conviction under it for enhancement purposes.

Continue reading "Did You Receive A DWAI In New York Or A Similar Charge In Another State? If So, It Could Be Used To Enhance The Penalties Of Your Current New Jersey DWI Conviction! Discuss Your Case With An Experienced NJ DWI Lawyer. " »

In a recent United States Supreme Court case (Bullcoming v. New Mexico), a defendant's DWI conviction was reversed and remanded on Constitutional grounds. The opinion of the highest court in the land is of course binding on all inferior courts in the United States. The principle at issue was a defendant's constitutional right to confront witnesses that present testimony or evidence used to prove his guilt. The confrontation clause is in place so that a defendant may confront his accusers so as to ensure a fair trial.

The underlying issue at question was whether or not a lab report showing a defendant's blood alcohol content (BAC) may be admitted into evidence during DWI proceedings without corroborating testimony by the analyst who actually prepared the report. The government attempted to submit in person testimony of another analyst who worked at the particular lab but did not prepare the defendant's actual report. This was problematic for the defendant and the Supreme Court. Since the analyst who was present at the trial could not answer specific questions regarding the preparation of the defendant's lab report, the court ruled that the admittance of the lab report itself was violative of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Confrontation Clause.

The court also ruled that report was purely testimonial in nature. When a report is testimonial, it can mean that the report was specifically prepared in preparation of litigation. Here, it is clear that the lab report (measuring blood alcohol content) was only prepared to show that the defendant was intoxicated while driving his motor vehicle. The report was in fact key evidence and essential to the case. Because the defendant could not question the analyst who prepared the report, it's validity, authenticity, and process could not be ascertained with certainty.

There are a few exceptions that would allow the report without the corroborating testimony of the analyst. If the analyst was not available to testify, the lab report could be submitted without him or her. There are very stringent standards, however, to show that he is not available to testify. Another exception could be that the defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine the analyst pre-trial (either by deposition or interrogatory).

The right to confront an accuser is a fundamental right granted under the United States Constitution and it applies in every courtroom in the United States. If you believe that you're right to confrontation has been violated, contact an experienced DWI attorney who can navigate your legal issues. It is important to obtain counsel that is knowledgeable in DWI, DUI, and Refusal proceedings in New Jersey to protect your rights.

Continue reading "Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution Finds It's Way into DWI Proceedings Through the U.S. Supreme Court; New Jersey Courts must follow!" »

A defendant charged and convicted of a 2nd or subsequent New Jersey DWI may wish to file a Petition for Post Conviction Relief (PCR) for a number of reasons. One such reason was raised during the trial of Karen Weil (State v. Weil). Ms. Weil, plead guilty to a 3rd DWI and applied for PCR (post trial), which was subsequently denied. Post Conviction Relief in this case was requested because the defendant believed that she had sustained a "substantial denial in the conviction proceedings of [her] rights under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution or laws of New Jersey" (R. 7:10-2) stemming from a prior (first) DWI conviction in 1994.

Defendant, Karen Weil filed a "Laurick" application for Post Conviction Relief (State v. Laurick). A defendant who has sustained a prior un-counseled DWI conviction could be entitled to a step down in the jail sentence associated with a 3rd DWI conviction. For a 3rd DWI conviction there is a mandatory jail term of not less than 180 days. If Ms. Weil's "Laurick" application were successful, she would only be required to serve a jail sentence affiliated with a 2nd offense DWI which is not less than 48 consecutive hours nor more than 90 days.

As shown by Ms. Weil's case, a step down for a Post Conviction Relief "Laurick" application is not easy. Ms. Weil claimed that she could not remember whether or not she was represented by a public defender in her 1994 DWI conviction but she specifically recalls not being represented by private counsel. Since it had been 16 years since the initial DWI conviction, the court could not provide records or court transcripts. The only information available was a copy of the back of the summons, which indicated that Ms. Weil paid a $50.00 public defender fee. The defendant argued that this information alone was not enough to establish that she was in fact represented by counsel and is entitled to relief due to the facts that all other records were not available.

The State argued that Ms. Weil needed to establish a prima facie case and the court agreed. As to the delay, New Jersey Municipal Court Rules state that there is a less than stringent five-year time limit for filing a PCR petition. Ms. Weil had in fact waited for 16 years and did not convince the court that it was not a result of her neglect.

Defendants who file a Laurick PCR application are charged with the burden of proof and must overcome a few hurdles, which the New Jersey Supreme Court has articulated in the progeny of State v. Laurick. Before getting to the two-tiered analysis of Laurick, a defendant must first prove that he or she did not receive notice of a right to counsel in a DWI proceeding. After establishing that no notice was given, the defendant must show two things: (1) unaware that he or she was entitled to counsel and (2) if the defendant was considered to be indigent (could not afford private counsel) then he must show that he would have derived a benefit from notice that he was entitled to a public defender. If the defendant was non-indigent and could afford private counsel, the defendant needs to show that the lack of notice affected the outcome of the case. Defendant, Karen Weil was not able to meet the significant burden of the test, therefore, her conviction was affirmed and no PCR was granted.

Continue reading "Significant Burden Must Be Overcome for Success on Post Conviction Relief "Laurick" Application for Prior NJ Drunk Driving Conviction. " »

In the wake of Columbus Day festivities in Seaside Heights, New Jersey, patrons to the events might find themselves in trouble with the law. Anytime there is a large gathering of people for a multi-day event in close proximity to an abundant amount of bars, the Seaside Heights Police are usually out in full force. The three-day Italian Festival brought a lot of fun, a lot of good food, and unfortunately, patrons may have been arrested for common disorderly persons offenses in Seaside Heights, municipal ordinance violations in Seaside Heights, motor vehicle violations in Seaside Heights and in some cases, indictable criminal offenses in Seaside Heights.

Disorderly persons offenses in Seaside Heights are commonly written and are a general category of offenses that are punishable by up to a $1,000 fine, payments of restitution, up to 6 months in jail, and other fines and penalties. If you were arrested for a disorderly persons charge in Seaside Heights, it is important to realize that you may have options. Contact an experienced Seaside Heights Criminal Defense Attorney to discuss your case. Some commonly written disorderly persons offenses in Seaside Heights include: disorderly conduct (N.J.S. 2C:33-2), trespass (N.J.S. 2C: 18-3(b)), criminal mischief (N.J.S. 2C: 17-3), simple assault (N.J.S. 2C: 12-1), fake ID (N.J.S. 2C: 28-7), underage drinking (N.J.S. 2C:33-15), possession of CDS (N.J.S. 2C:35-10), and resisting arrest (N.J.S. 2C:29-2).

Very common at such large events are Underage Drinking charges (N.J.S. 2C: 33-15) and Fake ID charges (N.J.S. 33:1-81). Underage drinking charges carry a mandatory fine of $500. If the underage drinkers are found consuming alcohol in a motor vehicle they could face a suspension of their drivers license for up to 6 months. Fake ID charges are also quite serious and violators could be looking at the same penalties. Conviction of both could lead to a loss of license for 6 months and fines of no less than $1,000. If you have been charged with Underage Drinking, Fake ID, or any other disorderly persons offense, call an experienced New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney to discuss your case and protect your rights.

In addition to disorderly persons offenses, Seaside Heights Police Officers often write tickets for moving violations. Motor vehicle violations can also carry serious penalties including points assessed to your driver's license, fines, or suspension of your driver's license. Commonly written motor vehicle violations include: speeding (N.J.S. 39:4-98 and N.J.S. 39:4-99), failure to yield to a traffic sign (N.J.S. 39:4-81), reckless driving (N.J.S. 39:4-96), and careless driving (N.J.S. 39:4-97). DWI, DUI, and Refusal charges are very serious motor vehicle violations in New Jersey. Penalties for a DWI, DUI, or Refusal conviction can include jail-time, loss of your driver's license, heavy fines, mandatory participation in an Intoxicated Driver Resource Center (IDRC) program, installation of an Ignition Interlock Device and additional fines and penalties.

Continue reading "Arrested in Seaside Heights? Call an Experienced Seaside Heights Criminal Defense Attorney." »

In a recent unpublished New Jersey Appellate Division case (State v. Koch), a seemingly routine underage drinking charge became the subject of great scrutiny for the court. A local ordinance was written and the defendant Koch was charged with a "quasi-criminal" offense to which a Municipal Court of Mansfield Judge ordered a fine of $250 and $33 in court costs. Koch appealed the decision to the Law Division and the same result was reached. Koch then appealed to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

The validity of the local underage drinking ordinance was not at issue for the court to decide; rather, the method in which Koch was charged controlled and commanded the attention of the court. The underage drinking charge made it unlawful for "any person under the legal age to knowingly possess or consume alcoholic beverage on private property." The defendant and his girlfriend were admittedly at a house party. Neighbors complaining of the noise and the smell of marijuana called the police. When the police officers arrived, some partygoers fled into the woods and no attempt was made to go after them. Defendant Koch was among those who remained. Patrolman DeWitt lined up all those in the house and told them that they were not free to leave. He then proceeded to "sniff" the breath of everyone in the line. As the officer approached, Koch (according to Officer DeWitt's testimony) allegedly exclaimed, "I only had one." The record states that the officers detained the partygoers for approximately 20 minutes. After the "sniff" tests were completed, no charges were written and the officers discharged everyone.

Later on in the evening, Koch was pulled over by Officer DeWitt and two different stories about the stop were submitted. Koch claimed that he was the driver of his girlfriend's maroon Pontiac and the vehicle was in motion when Officer DeWitt signaled for him to pull over. Officer DeWitt claimed that the car was stationary and that Koch had given him a story that he was driving because his girlfriend Ashley was under 18 and could not drive past midnight. Koch claimed that Officer DeWitt's testimony was not true and attempted to submit a videotape of the stop to impeach his testimony. No charge was issued at the time and Koch was ordered to continue driving. Koch only found out that he was charged with the underage drinking ordinance when he was suspended at school because of it.

At trial, the Municipal Judge and the Law Division would not allow the videotape of the stop to be admitted. The videotape shows that the maroon Pontiac was in motion for a considerable amount of time before being pulled over. The Appellate Division concluded (at the urge of defense counsel) that this tape should have been admitted to impeach Officer Dewitt as a witness (both for the vehicle stop and statements made at the party.)

Perhaps more relevant than the evidentiary issue were the grounds that Koch was charged and the procedure the officers followed in doing so. Koch argued and the Appellate Court agreed that because the partygoers were told that they could not leave, they were considered to be "in custody". Furthermore, the partygoers were subjected to a "sniff" test and were not told that they could refuse to do so. The "sniff" test was administered in a custodial setting and therefore, the officers were required to read Miranda rights to all those detained. Furthermore, the court ruled that a "sniff" test and the officer's testimony of smelling alcohol were insufficient as a matter of law to sustain a conviction. The smell of alcohol can only be used to gain probable cause, not as grounds to convict a suspect. On those grounds, the Appellate Division reversed the conviction.

Continue reading "Were You Read Miranda Rights? Discuss Your Arrest With An Experienced NJ Criminal Defense Attorney." »

New Jersey law enforcement officers, including local police officers and State Troopers, have a goal of preventing drunk driving in New Jersey during the last days of summer. The New Jersey Division of Highway Traffic Safety is utilizing the Drunk Driving- Over the Limit, Under Arrest and the Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over campaigns. From August 19 through September 5 many local and state law enforcement officers will be conducting field sobriety checkpoints.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 1990 (Michigan v. Sitz) upheld the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints. The Court held that the interest in reducing alcohol-impaired driving was sufficient to justify the brief intrusion of a sobriety checkpoint. If conducted properly, sobriety checkpoints do not constitute illegal search and seizure in most states. Click here for further information of sobriety checkpoints.

Penalties for a first offense DWI in New Jersey can include loss of your driver's license from 7 months to 1 year, a fine of up to $500.00, 12 to 48 hours of detainment and/or counseling as prescribed by the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center, up to 30 days in jail, mandatory installation of an Ignition Interlock Device, and other fines and penalties. An experienced New Jersey DWI criminal defense attorney may uncover possible defenses to your case to minimize the penalties you are facing.

Due to the fact that no New Jersey DWI, New Jersey DUI, or New Jersey refusal case has the same set of facts, an experienced New Jersey DWI attorney, will take the time to discuss and review with you:
• The circumstances that permitted the stop;
• The tests the police conducted to determine if you were intoxicated;
• The specific results of the breathalyzer, Alcotest®, or blood test that the State will use against you;
• The adherence by the police to the strict procedures necessary to sustain a valid blood alcohol content (BAC) reading;
• The possible fines and penalties you may be sentenced to if convicted of a New Jersey DWI, DUI, or refusal;
• The possible suspension of your New Jersey or other state's driver's license;
• The possible installation of an ignition interlock device in your vehicle;
• The possibility of being sentenced to jail;
• The determination of whether the use of expert witnesses would be a benefit in defending your case;
• The review of all possible defenses and mitigating factors to obtain the best result.

Continue reading "New Jersey Drunk Driving Crackdown! If You Are Arrested For Drunking Driving In New Jersey Call An Experienced NJ DWI Lawyer." »

What many might not know, is that Monmouth County and all New Jersey law enforcement officials have an obligation and have been authorized to communicate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during certain arrests and violations. It might be obvious to most that immigration status and citizenship must be verified if an individual commits a serious or violent indictable offense in Monmouth County. But what is not immediately obvious is that an individual being pulled over and charged with driving drunk or driving while intoxicated in New Jersey can be deported as a result of the report to ICE.

In general, immigrants to the United States can be deported for a number of reasons including criminal activity, violent crimes, and marriage fraud. In 2007, now former Attorney General of New Jersey, Anne Milgram wrote and circulated "Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive No. 2007-3." In the Directive distributed to New Jersey law enforcement officials including Monmouth County, Ms. Milgram charged the State that officers should, "Necessarily and appropriately inquire about a person's immigration status under certain circumstances." One particular circumstance enumerated in the Directive is, "The arrest of undocumented immigrants for indictable offenses AND driving while intoxicated [violations]." It charges that if an arrest is made in conjunction with a DWI, the arresting officer must inquire about the immigrant's status and if appropriate must report it to ICE. This could ultimately lead to a deportation if a conviction for DWI is sustained and possibly even if it is not.

Some recent statistics have circulated via the Associated Press indicating that deportations due to DWI are significantly on the rise. In 2010, there were just about 393,000 deported individuals. Of those deported, an estimated 27,635 or 7 percent were deported due to DWI related incidents. In short, the Directive seems to have taken full effect. On it's face, the policy seems fair and just, but people are urged to keep in mind that New Jersey does not consider a DWI related offense a criminal offense as some other states do.

A conviction for a DWI, DUI, or refusal can lead to very severe penalties. For a first conviction of DWI in Monmouth County, an individual faces heavy fines and other fees, jail time, loss of their driver's license for up to 1 year, participation in an Intoxicated Driver Resource Center program, and the possible installation of an ignition interlock device. If an individual has a questionable immigration status, he or she could be facing deportation as well! Any non-citizen DWI offenders are encouraged to contact an experienced immigration attorney in addition to a Monmouth County DWI lawyer.

Continue reading "Deportation Due to a NJ DWI is on the Rise; Call a Monmouth County DWI Lawyer to Defend Your Case!" »

In a recent news article, Wall Township Police claim to have written two drunk driving charges within 15 minutes of each other during an early Sunday morning around 2:00 am in July. To those who are familiar with Wall Township and the surrounding towns, this is no surprise. Wall Township is nearby the summer hot spots of Point Pleasant Beach, Belmar, Brielle, Manasquan, and Sea Girt. All of these beachfront towns attract late night crowds to various bars and nightclubs during the weekends of the summer. In addition, the busy roads of Route 138, Route 35, Route 34, Route 18, and portions of the Garden State Parkway and I-195 dissect Wall Township making it nearly impossible to not travel through Wall after a night of drinking. Recent Wall drunk driving related stops have been reported on Route 34 just outside the Garden State Parkway entrance, and on Route 138 (the entrance of I-195).

DWI and DUI are serious offenses in Wall Township and all throughout New Jersey. In 2010, there were an estimated 350 DWIs in Wall. In order to be convicted of a per se DWI/DUI in Wall Township and all of New Jersey, your BAC must be 0.08% or over. For a first offense drunk driving in New Jersey, depending on your BAC level from the new Alcotest® 7110 breath testing device (0.08%-0.15% or above) you face very serious penalties.

Penalties for a first offense DWI in New Jersey include: (1) loss of your driver's license for up to a year; (2) a fine of up to $500.00 plus other fees and administrative costs; (3) up to 30 days in jail; (4) completion of a program at an Intoxicated Driver Resource Center; and (5) you may have to install an ignition interlock device into your vehicle.

Refusal in Wall Township is also a common charge. Refusal charges can be written when the alleged intoxicated motorist refuses to submit to a breath test or a blood test to determine their Blood Alcohol Content (BAC). There is a process that all Wall Township Police Officers must follow which is contained on the Division of Motor Vehicles Standard Statement. The officer must read you your rights and the law contained thereon, and ask if you will submit to a BAC test. If you refuse, the officer is then required to read an additional legal warning and ask once more. If you refuse the second time, you will be charged with a refusal. If convicted of the refusal, you may face similar penalties to those of an actual DWI. One major difference is that if convicted of refusal, you will be ordered to install an Ignition Interlock Device in your motor vehicle even if it is a first refusal. These devices will not allow you to turn on your automobile unless the device determines that there is no alcohol in your system.

Continue reading "DWI In Wall Township: Call an Experienced Wall Township DWI Attorney" »

With over 75,000 year round residents, Brick Township, New Jersey is a large municipality in Ocean County. Encompassing just over 32 square miles and containing three municipal oceanfront beaches, Brick Township is also large in size. Brick Township is close in proximity to Point Pleasant Borough, Point Pleasant Beach, Brielle, Wall Township, and Toms River. Traffic flows through Brick Township on the busy roads of Route 70, Route 88, Brick Boulevard, and a portion of the Garden State Parkway. As a result of Brick's close proximity to many beachfront towns, Brick Township saw an estimated 313 DWI, DUI, and refusal charges written by police officers in 2010.

Refusal charges have evolved in Brick Township and all throughout New Jersey from years past. Refusal in the past could be used to mitigate the penalties of DWI and DUI. If an individual knew that he was severely intoxicated, he could simply refuse, denying the police officer valid and admissible proof needed at trial for a DWI or DUI conviction. The apparent intoxicated motorist faced penalties much less severe than those of DWI and DUI per se violations.

Today, however, this is not the case. Lawmakers have moved to a stricter standard to reduce the amount of drunk drivers on New Jersey roads. Refusal charges in Brick Township and all of New Jersey carry very harsh penalties almost identical to those of per se DWI and DUI violations with the added burden of the installation of an ignition interlock device. In fact, a first refusal charge will result in the same penalties as an upper tier, first DWI or DUI conviction. Essentially, if you refuse to take a chemical test, the State presumes that you would have blown a 0.10% BAC or above as if you had in fact been tested.

If a Brick Township police officer suspects a motorist of DWI or DUI and wishes the individual to submit to a chemical test, he must read a standard statement outlining the individual's rights and obligations regarding the test. After the officer reads the lengthy statement, he must then ask the individual to submit to the chemical test. If the individual answers with a clear "no", then he/she will be charged with a refusal. If the individual replies with an ambiguous answer, the officer is then required to read an additional legal warning and ask again. If the individuals reply to the second statement is "no" or ambiguous, a refusal may then be charged. To be convicted of a refusal, the State must simply show three things: (1) that an individual was driving a motor vehicle on a public or quasi-public road; (2) that the individual appears to have driven a vehicle or intended to drive a vehicle while intoxicated; and (3) that the individual was requested to submit to a breathalyzer examination/chemical test and refused. As the law is designed, it becomes much easier for the State to convict an individual for a refusal than it is to convict for a DWI or DUI. Given the fact that the penalties are just as severe for refusal as they are for DWI and DUI, you could be making it very easy for the State to remove you from the road.

In addition to a per se refusal, you could even be charged with a refusal if you agree to submit to a chemical breath test. Since the Alcotest® 7110 breathalyzer (use of this device is mandated by the State) is a sensitive device that requires the operator to administer the test very carefully, there are many factors that can render it incapable of obtaining a reading. In order to obtain a proper BAC reading, a certain volume of air must be blown into a tube. If the proper amount is not introduced into the machine, the Alcotest® will not take a reading. Other factors such as moving the tube too quickly or failure to change the mouthpiece after each individual can invalidate a breath test. If you are being administered a breath test and are incapable of breathing the proper volume of air into the machine, you might be charged with a refusal. If there is a medical reason such as asthma or some other pulmonary disorder that you cannot blow the proper volume, evidence of such may be introduced and examined at trial. If, however, the operator or officer believes that you are not making a good-faith effort to perform the test, you could be charged with a refusal. The penalties for refusal include: loss of license for up to 1 year, fine of up to $500.00, the requirement to install an Ignition Interlock Device, program and fee requirements of an Intoxicated Driver Resource Center (IDRC), and other fines and penalties.

Continue reading "Refusal in Brick: Brick DWI Lawyer" »

Long Beach Island or LBI is a collection of six municipalities contained on an 18-mile long barrier island nestled between the Barnegat Bay and the Atlantic Ocean. The six beachfront communities include: Barnegat Light, Long Beach Township, Harvey Cedars, Surf City, Ship Bottom, and Beach Haven. The total year-round population of Long Beach Island is around 20,000. During the summer months, the population swells nearly five times to almost 100,000 and the roadways inevitably become congested.

Due to the large population explosion during the summer months and the number of activities and attractions contained on Long Beach Island, it is no surprise that LBI saw approximately 123 DWI, DUI, and refusal charges written throughout its six municipalities. DWI, DUI, and refusal charges, while not criminal, are quite serious and have long-lasting, life altering repercussions.

If you are caught operating a motor vehicle, motorcycle, or boat while under the influence of an intoxicating liquor, habit forming drug (legal or illegal), or narcotic, you will be charged with a DWI or DUI. In order to be charged, the LBI Police Officer must read a standard statement outlining your legal rights and obligations regarding DWI violation. After reading the statement the officer must ask if you will submit to a chemical test to determine your Blood Alcohol Content (BAC). If you agree to submit to the test and your answer is not ambiguous, the officer will take you to a Long Beach Island Police Station (depending on which municipality you were stopped in) where a trained officer will administer a BAC test using the Draeger Alcotest® 7110.

Since the Draeger Alcotest® 7110 device is so sensitive, New Jersey law has mandated that the officer observe you for a period of no less than 20 minutes before he asks you to breath into the machine to ensure that you have not done anything or will not do anything that may skew the results. Once you breath into the device, your BAC will be taken using both infrared and electro-chemical sensors. If the machine performed without malfunction and it takes a BAC reading of 0.08% or above, you will be charged with a per se DWI. If, however, your BAC reading is under 0.08% or the officer has not administered one, you might still be charged with a DWI.

You can be written a DWI charge if the officer believes that you were driving drunk. He may testify in court that the charge was proper because he observed you slurring words, observed the smell of alcohol, observed you staggering, or observed you fumbling while attempting to produce necessary documentation. Without a BAC reading or one below the statutory limit, the State or municipality can only charge and convict you of a first tier, first offense DWI.

If convicted of a DWI or DUI you could face the following penalties depending on your actual BAC reading and the number of previous DWI drunk driving convictions you have sustained: loss of license for up to 1 year, a $500.00 fine, other monetary penalties, up to 30 days in jail, must meet the program and fee requirements of the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center (IDRC), and could possibly be forced to install an ignition interlock device in your car.

Continue reading "LBI Drunk Driving: Long Beach Island DWI Lawyer" »

Wall Township, New Jersey is located in southern Monmouth County and is accessible by Route 35, Route 34, Route 70, Garden State Parkway interchange 98, I-195, and Route 138. Many drivers travel through Wall on their way to the various beachfront towns of Belmar, Point Pleasant Beach, Spring Lake, Brielle, Sea Girt, and Manasquan. Wall Township encompasses different districts such as Allaire, Allenwood, and Glendola. Allaire State Park and Wall Speedway are popular destinations frequented by residents and visitors as well as the numerous shopping locations, bars, and restaurants located in Belmar and Lake Como.

Since Wall Township has many major roads and highways passing through it, DWI, DUI, and refusal offenses often occur. Last year alone, there were 350 DWI related charges written in Wall Township. DWI, DUI, and refusal offenses are very serious and can have a long lasting effect. While not a criminal offense, DWI, DUI, and refusal penalties and fines are very substantial. A per se DWI is written when a person is caught operating a motor vehicle under the influence of an intoxicating liquor and who has a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) reading of 0.08% or above.

In Wall Township and in all of New Jersey, the police officer that has pulled you over must go through numerous steps to ensure he has accurately tested your BAC. This includes using the mandated, statewide Alcotest® 7110 MKIII-C breath testing device. If the officer accurately follows the mandated procedure, and an individual has a BAC reading of 0.08% or above, you will be charged with a per se DWI or DUI. However, you can be charged with a first tier, first offense, DWI or DUI even if you have blown a BAC under the statutory 0.08% or no reading was taken. If the officer observes and will testify that he observes any combination of psychophysical indicators of intoxication such as slurred speech, glassy eyes, or alcohol on the breath he will most likely charge the individual with a DWI or DUI. Penalties for DWI and DUI offenses can vary depending on BAC level and the number of previous offenses. If no BAC reading is taken due to a refusal, the same penalties apply as if the individual blew over a 0.10% BAC.

Recent law changes and New Jersey court cases have modified the way law enforcement agencies statewide can charge you with a DWI, DUI, or refusal. Most notably, all New Jersey law enforcement agencies must use the latest cutting edge technology in blood alcohol content (BAC) analysis. The Alcotest® 7110 MKIII-C manufactured by Draeger Safety Diagnostics represents a change in the way a motorist can be charged with a drunk driving, DWI, DUI, or refusal. Quite simply, there are many variables and procedures that can significantly affect your case at trial. The Draeger Alcotest® uses a sophisticated approach in measuring BAC in the bloodstream. It uses both infrared sensors and electrochemical sensors to obtain a reading within the court ordered tolerance of 0.005%. The Alcotest® replaces the outdated "breathalyzers" that were previously in use throughout the State since the 1950's.

If a valid BAC reading is taken using the Alcotest® 7110 and it is above the statutory 0.08% requirement, you will face severe penalties depending on what the Alcotest® 7110 reading is. For a first offense DWI or DUI, you can face: loss of license for up to one year, a fine of up to $500.00 plus additional fees, up to 30 days in jail, program and fee requirements of the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center (IDRC), and a possible installation of an ignition interlock device in your automobile.

Continue reading "Wall Drunk Driving: Wall DWI Lawyer" »

If you received a ticket for a motor vehicle violation, received a summons for a DWI/DUI or refusal, or were served with a complaint or summons for a criminal offense, disorderly persons offense or petty disorderly persons offense in Wall Township, New Jersey, you need to discuss your case with an experienced New Jersey criminal defense attorney.

Information for Wall Township Municipal Court:

Wall Township Municipal Court
2700 Allaire Rd
PO Box 1168
Wall, New Jersey
Phone: (732) 449-4666
Fax: (732) 974-0762

Judge: Honorable Joseph F. DeFino, J.M.C.
Court Administrator: Gail Connors
Court sessions are held every Tuesday and Wednesday of each month.

The Prosecutor for the Wall Township Municipal Court is:
John T. Lane, Esq.

For further information on the Wall Township Municipal Court, visit their website at: http://www.wallnj.com/court.htm

In 2010 there were approximately 4,000 motor vehicle/traffic violations issued in Wall. This is not surprising given that major roadways travel through Wall including Route 35, Route 34, Highway 138, Route 18, and a portion of the Garden State Parkway. You need an experienced municipal court criminal defense attorney to represent you whether you were speeding on the parkway, ran a red light on Route 35, or were in a car accident on your way home from work.

An estimated 389 disorderly persons offenses were written by law enforcement in Wall Township in 2010. There are numerous bars and restaurants where trouble may arise. Other tourist areas where criminal activity arises in Wall include Allaire State Park and Wall Township Speedway. Additionally, Wall sees arrests for possession of illegal drugs. Shoplifting is another charge seen in Wall given the many shopping centers that are present in the township. Lewdness is also a charge that originates from the rest stop on the Garden State Parkway.

Wall Municipal Court hears many drunk driving cases each year, an estimated 350 were heard in 2010. If you received a DWI charge, DUI charge or refusal charge in Wall you need an experienced New Jersey DWI criminal defense attorney who is familiar with the Wall roadways, intersections, and the area in town where you may have been pulled over for a possible DWI. The stakes are high, as a DWI conviction will result in a loss of your driver's license ranging from 3 months to 1 year for a first offense and up to 10 years and mandatory jail for a third offense.

Continue reading "Discuss Your Case With An Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney If You Have Charges Pending In Wall Township Municipal Court" »

In the recent Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division case of State v. Maricic, the Court's decision further discussed the scope of discovery availabe to a municipal court defendant in a prosecution for driving while intoxicated, New Jersey Statute 39:4-50.

One relevant piece of evidence that is discoverable in a New Jersey DWI case is the repair records of the Alcotest device. State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54 (2008).

A second piece of evidence is downloaded Alcotest results from the date of the machine's last calibration. State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54 (2008). The State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54 (2008)decision ordered the State to create and maintain a centralized statewide database, comprised of downloaded Alcotest results, and make the data, available to defendants and counsel. Currently, this data is available on an interim local basis while a statewide database is established.

Furthermore, there are foundational documents required in order to establish the reliability of the Alcotest device utilized in connection with a particular prosecution. A proper foundation for the admission of an Alcotest reading should include the testimony of the operator that the customary procedures have been meticulously followed and the production of the operator's credentials and twelve enumerated foundational documents that must be provided by the municipal prosecutor in discovery that could be admitted in evidence as business records if kept in the normal course of the State's business.

The Court in State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54 (2008), held:

The foundational documents that we conclude need to be entered into evidence therefore are few. They are: (1) the most recent calibration report prior to a defendant's test, with part I control tests, part II -- linearity tests, and the credentials of the coordinator who performed the calibration; (2) the most recent new standard solution report prior to a defendant's test; and (3) the certificate of analysis of the 0.10 simulator solution used in a defendant's control tests.

Continue reading "Discovery Available To A Defendant In A New Jersey Driving While Intoxicated Prosecution" »

In a recent Asbury Park Press article entitled, "Ticket writing is up in NJ; Is it to make roads safer, or just a money grab?" the writers provided a great summary of the possible link between increased traffic tickets and the need for additional revenue for budget deficiencies in New Jersey municipalities. Drivers in Ocean County and Monmouth County need to be aware of red-light cameras and increased law enforcement efforts.

Last year Brick Township installed two red light cameras at the intersections of Brick Blvd. / Chambers Bridge Road and State Hwy. 70 / Chambers Bridge Road. Brick's traffic violations more than doubled to 13,738 in the last half year since one camera became fully active September 1. Brick is considering adding three more red light cameras.

In Freehold there has been a 66% increase in tickets attributed by police to two factors. First, there is a safety-motivated crackdown on seat belt violators. The Freehold police have a system of monitoring vehicles stuck in downtown traffic by using a spotter and three officers which nets up to 50 tickets a day for seat belt violations. Parking tickets in Freehold rose 167% thanks to a special officer that is very vigilant.

Beach Haven in Ocean County has seen a 108% jump in traffic tickets most likely in the summer months when visitors flock to the Long Beach Island beaches. Monmouth County towns that have seen an increase include Englishtown where a few roads have dramatic reductions in speed limit; Spring Lake Heights with its many stop signs through residential neighborhoods; and Neptune City which many visitors and residents pass through on the way to Monmouth County beaches.

There is no denying that more traffic tickets equals more revenue for municipalities trying to bridge gaps in budgets due to loss of State aid. Police and municipal official's opinions are that more traffic tickets will save lives with better traffic law enforcement.

Continue reading "Drivers In Ocean County And Monmouth County, New Jersey Beware Of Red-Light Cameras And Traffic Law Enforcement!" »