DWI and DUI Results

2019 – Municipal Court: Officer observed a motor vehicle going approximately 70 mph in a 55 mph zone and tailgating the vehicle in front of him. The Officer initiated a motor vehicle stop, and immediately smelled alcohol on the Client’s breath. The Client was uncooperative with the Officer and refused to do the Stand Field Sobriety Tests and based on his operation of the motor vehicle and the smell of alcohol was placed under arrest. Once they arrived at the police station the Client refused to submit to the breath test. Client was charged with 39:4-50 Driving while Intoxicated; 39:4-50.4A Refusal to Submit to a Breath Test; 39:4-88b, Failure to Maintain Lane; 39:4-126 Failure to Use Turn Signal, a two point ticket; 39:4-89 Tailgating, a five point ticket.

Result: The Attorney’s investigation revealed that with respect to the charge of 39:4-50.4A, Refusal, the required NJ Attorney General’s implied consent form was not properly executed. It requires that a second paragraph be read if the defendant’s initial response to a request to take a breath test is “no.” That second paragraph was not read to the Client. Further, because there was no alcotest reading or field sobriety tests conducted, the State was unable to prove the DWI beyond a reasonable doubt. Based on the deficiencies in the case, both the DWI and the Refusal Charges were dismissed. The charge of 39:4-126 was amended to 39:4-96 Reckless Driving and the Client pled guilty to the amended charge with a $239.00 fine and a 60 day loss of license. He also pled guilty to 39:4-88b, Failure to Maintain Lane. All other motor vehicle summonses were dismissed.

2019 – Municipal Court: An officer observed Client fail to maintain his lane, crossing the over the center line, and a motor vehicle stop was initiated. The officer immediately smelled alcohol upon approaching the vehicle. Client was asked to do the Standard Field Sobriety Tests and was unable to successfully complete them. He was charged with 39:4-50 Driving While Intoxicated and 39:4-97 Careless Driving, a two point ticket. Client had a BAC of a .09%, and was facing a 3 month loss of his driving privileges, 12 hours in the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center, and fines and penalties of approximately $700.00.

Result: The State is required to provide all discovery, including police reports and video recordings, in a timely manner. If they fail to do so, the defendant can file what is called a Hollup Motion, which requires the State to turn over discovery by a certain date or it can be barred from introduction at the time of trial. While the State confirmed that there was a Motor Vehicle Recording of the stop, they failed to provide it despite repeated requests. The Attorneys filed the appropriate motion, obtained a Hollup Order, and the State still failed to supply the video which could have resulted in any statements or observations that would have appeared on the video being suppressed at trial. The Prosecutor therefore agreed to dismiss the DWI and the Client pled guilty to 39:4-97 Careless Driving, with a forty-five day loss of her driving privileges. He paid $239.00 in fines and penalties. All other motor vehicle tickets, including 39:4-50 DWI were dismissed.

2019 – Municipal Court: Dispatch put out a description of a possibly intoxicated driver and gave description of vehicle. When the officer located the matching vehicle, the rear passenger tire was up on the curb. Client said she had lunch at a bar and was on her way home. She was unable to successfully complete the Standard Field Sobriety Tests. She told the Officer that she had a medical condition that made her unable to complete the tests. Client was charged with N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 Driving while Intoxicated and N.J.S.A. 39:4-96 Reckless Driving, a five point ticket. Since the client had a reading of a .20% BAC, she was facing a 7 to 12 month loss of her driving privileges, 12 hour in the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center (an alcohol education and evaluation program), and a mandatory interlock device for a minimum of six (6) months.

Result: An expert was retained to review the operation of the Alcotest Machine, as it appeared there might be an issue when the attorneys reviewed the Alcohol Influence Report The alcotest expert determined that the machine may not have been functioning properly. Further, the information entered into the Alcohol Influence Report was inputted incorrectly by the arresting officer. Based upon all this information, the prosecutor agreed that the breath test results were not admissible. Therefore, the Client pled guilty 39:4-50 DWI with no reading and was sentenced to a 90 day loss of license and 12 hours in the Intoxicated Drivers Resource Center along with $689.00 in fines and penalties. All other tickets were dismissed as part of the plea.

2019 – Municipal Court: Client was on her way to the bank when she was involved in a motor vehicle accident. Instead of waiting for the police to come, she instead went into the bank. When the police responded to the scene and spoke to the Client they smelled the odor of alcohol. Client had indicated to Officers prior to beginning the Standard Field Sobriety Tests (SFST) that she had problems with her feet. She was unable to successfully complete the SFST and was placed under arrest and taken to the police station where she submitted to an Alcotest resulting in a reading of .20% BAC. She was charged with 39:4-50 Driving while Intoxicated; 39:4-50(g) Driving While Intoxicated in a School Zone, which doubles all fines and penalties; 39:4-96 Reckless Driving, a five point ticket; 39:4-97 Careless Driving, a two point ticket; 39:4-127 Improper Backing or Turning on a Street, a two point ticket; 39:4-129 Leaving the Scene of an Accident, a mandatory 1 year loss of license; and 39:4-130 Failure to Report an Accident. This would be a second offense DWI for the Client, so she was facing a four year loss of license and 48 hours in the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center.

Result: Based upon the fact that the client merely went into a bank in the same parking lot as the accident, the Leaving the Scene was dismissed. Because her prior DWI was more then 10 years before this one, we obtained a step-down to a first offense DWI to which the client pled guilty with $689.00 fines, 7 months loss, 48 hrs IDRC, 6 month interlock . The School Zone charge was dismissed 39:4-50(g)(1 as were the 4-96, 4-97, 4-127, 4-129B, 4-130.

2019 – Municipal Court: Officer observed Client driving through a red light and driving on the wrong side of the road. The Officer then initiated the motor vehicle stop, approached the Client’s vehicle, and upon smelling alcohol coming from the passenger cabin, asked the Client to exit the vehicle. As the Client exited his vehicle he stumbled and almost fell over. He was asked to do the Standard Field Sobriety Tests and was unable to successfully complete them. After being taken to the police station, an Alcotest was administered resulting in a BAC of .17%. He was charged with 39:4-50 Driving While Intoxicated, 39:4-96 Reckless Driving, and 39:4-97 Careless Driving. This was a second offense for the Client, however since it had been over ten years since his first DWI, for purposes of sentencing he was entitled to be treated as a first offender with a seven to twelve month loss of his driving privileges, a mandatory interlock device for a minimum of six months, and 12 hours in the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center.

Result: The Attorney obtained an expert on the Alcotest who found issues with the instructions given on the field sobriety tests and the operation of the Alcotest machine. The State refused to permit a plea to a lower tier DWI that would have resulted in only a 90 day loss of license and the matter was set down for trial. On the day of trial with the expert in court, the State finally conceded that the Alcotest results would be inadmissible and as a result the Client pled guilty to a lower tier DWI 39:4-50 with no Alcotest reading. He was sentenced to a 90 day loss of his driving privileges, 12 hours in the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center, and $689.00 in fines and penalties.

2019 – Municipal Court: Client was found sleeping with his parked vehicle running at a rest area on the New Jersey Turnpike. He was woken up by the Officer knocking on his window who asked him to step out of his vehicle. The Officer smelled alcohol when the Client opened the window to speak with him. The Client was asked to perform the Standard Field Sobriety Tests and was unable to successfully do so. Once brought back to the station, the Client was read the first part of the Attorney General’s Standard Statement for breath testing and told the Officer he would not submit to the breath test. At this time, the Officer should have read the second part of the statement, which he failed to do. The Client was charged with 39:4-50 DWI, 39:4-50.4A Refusal to Submit to a Breath Test, and N.J.S.A. 19:9-1.3(c) Failure to Obey Traffic Control Device, a two point ticket. Since there was no reading, on the DWI he was facing a three month loss of his driving privileges and 12 hours in the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center (IDRC). On the Refusal, he was facing a 7 to 12 month loss of his driving privileges, 12 hours in the IDRC, and a minimum six month interlock device.

Result: The Attorney argued that the State had two major flaws in their case. The first was that the State could not prove that the Client was intoxicated at the time he operated the motor vehicle. The State had no evidence of how long he had been at the rest area or when had allegedly consumed the alcohol. The second flaw was that the Refusal Form was not properly executed. Based on these two issues, the State could not prove DWI (39:4-50) or the Refusal (39:4-50.4A) and both of those charges were dismissed. The Client pled guilty to 4-96, Reckless Driving with a four month loss of his driving privileges and fines and penalties totaling $239.00. The final ticket, 19:9-1.3(c) was dismissed.

2019 – Municipal Court: A detective from the County Prosecutor’s office saw the client drinking in the park, and then drive to the liquor store. The detective followed her to liquor store parking lot where he blocked her vehicle in with his own and contacted Police Dispatch. He reported that the client was driving in “an impaired manner” “swerving.” The local police responded to the scene and administered the Standard Field Sobriety Tests (SFST) which the Client failed. She in fact struggled to stay upright through most of the testing. She was placed under arrest for 39:4-50 DWI and 39:4-96 Reckless Driving, a five point ticket. Once she arrived at the police station, she attempted to submit to a breath test. However, at 75 years of age with underlying medical conditions, she was unable to provide an adequate breath sample. She was additionally charged with Refusal to Submit to a Breath Test, 39:4-50.4A, and was facing a 7 to 12 month loss of her driving privileges, 12 hours in the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center, and an interlock device for a minimum of six months. This was in addition to the three month loss of license she was facing for the DWI.

Result: The client pled guilty to 39:4-50, with no reading and was sentenced to a 90 day loss of her driving privileges, 12 hours in the IDRC, and $689.00 in fines and penalties. The charge of 39:4-50.4A, Refusal was dismissed due to medical documentation obtained by the Attorney to demonstrate the client’s physical inability to provide a breath sample based upon her medical conditions and age. The charge of 39:4-96 was dismissed.

2019 – Municipal Court: Client was pulled over when an officer observed him speeding and failing to maintain his lane of travel. He completely failed the Standard Field Sobriety Tests and was arrested for a violation of 39:4-50, DWI. The Alcotest was properly administered and had a BAC result of .30%, more than three times the legal limit. This was the Client’s third DWI so he was facing a 10 year loss of his driving privileges and a mandatory 180 days in the County Jail.

Result: The DWI itself was not defensible given the level of the reading. The client was obviously concerned with a 10 year loss of his drive’s license, but even more worried about the 180 days in jail which would have resulted in the loss of his job and his home. The Attorney investigated the Client’s prior DWIs and found one from back when he was in college in the early 1990s in which he stated he was not represented by an attorney and had never been advised of his right to have counsel appointed in the event he could not afford it. The attorney attempted to obtain records from that original Municipal Court but they were not available. We then filed a Motion for Post-Conviction Relief under State v. Laurick, seeking an Order that this prior DWI Conviction could not be used for the purposes of imposing jail under a third offense DWI. The Municipal Court denied our motion on the grounds that we were unable to produce the Court records substantiating the client’s claim that he was not advised of the right to counsel. Before we went to Court on this third DWI, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued an opinion in a case called State v.Patel that confirmed our argument that such records were not required where the municipal court no longer had them. We filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was then granted by the first Municipal Court. The Client then pled guilty to 39:4-50, a third offense DWI and was sentenced to a 10 year loss of license, 12 hours in the IDRC, and 1 year interlock. There was no jail time imposed, due to the first court granting the Motion for Post-Conviction Relief. The balance of the summonses were dismissed.

2019 – Municipal Court: An Officer responded to a 911 call of a dangerous driver failing to maintain his lane which provided the make, model, and license plate number. The Officer indicated that he observed the Client traveling approximately 40mph in a 30mph zone and initiated a motor vehicle stop. Client was unable to successfully complete the Standard Field Sobriety Tests. Client took a breath test and had a reading of a .06% BAC, below the legal limit of .08% BAC. Client was charged with 39:4-50 DWI and was facing a three month loss of license and a charge of 39:4-97 Careless Driving.

Result: As the Client’s blood alcohol level was below the legal limit, the prosecutor conceded that he could not successfully prove the violation of 39:4-50, DWI based solely on the psycho-physical testing and the charge was dismissed. The Client pled guilty to 39:4-97, Carless Driving and assessed fines and penalties totaling $289.00 with no license suspension.

2019 – Municipal Court: We were retained to help a client get his license back which had been suspended for over 20 years. The client had served in the military and as a result suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. After finally getting treatment for PTSD, Client was ready to clean up his past. He had a third offense DWI under 39:4-50 as well as a 39:3-40 Driving while Suspended, and 39:6B-2 Failure to have Liability Insurance. He was facing an 11 ½ year additional loss of his license and 6 months in the County Jail.

Result: We presented proof of the Client’s military service and subsequent treatment to the Prosecutor. Due to the age of the case, the State no longer had the arresting officer, the necessary discovery, or the ability to prosecute the case. Therefore, all tickets were dismissed.

2019 – Municipal Court: Client was observed failing to maintain his lane of travel and an officer initiated a motor vehicle stop. When Client interacted with the Officer, the Officer smelled alcohol and asked the Client to step out of the vehicle and take the Standard Field Sobriety Tests. He was unable to successfully complete that testing and was taken back to the police station for a breath test. When traveling back to the station, the Client advised the officer he had asthma and needed his inhaler because he was having difficulty breathing. They did not allow him to use it prior to attempting to take the breath test. The Client was unable to provide an adequate breath sample and was charged with the DWI, 39:4-50 with a three month loss of license, a Refusal to Submit to Breath Testing, 39:4-50.4a, with a seven to twelve month loss of license and an interlock device for a minimum of six months. Client was also charged with 39:4-96 Reckless Driving, a five point ticke and 39:4-88b Failure to Maintain Lane, a two point ticket.

Result: We obtained reports from the client’s doctor that documented his history of asthma and were able to argue that he was not able to physically provide an adequate breath sample. Based on this, the Prosecutor dismissed 39:4-50.4A, Refusal. Client pled guilty to 39:4-50 DWI, and was sentenced to a three month loss of his driving privileges, 12 hours in the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center and fines and penalties of $689.00. The violations of 39:4-96 and 39:4-88b were dismissed.