DWI and DUI Results, 1999 – 2007

2007: Municipal Court – Client found asleep behind wheel of car in Dunkin Donuts with bottle of Tequila ¾ empty in front seat. Client failed psycho-physical tests and was given breathalyzer with result of .17%. A bag of marijuana was found in his pants pocket. Client was charged with DWI (39:4-50), Open Container of Alcohol (39:4-51A), Possession of CDS in a Motor Vehicle (39:4-49.1 – a two year driver’s license suspension), and a criminal charge of possession of Marijuana (3C:35-10a4). If convicted client faced a loss of driving privileges of 2 ½ years to 5 years.

Result: Attorney argued that State was unable to prove Defendant’s Operation of the vehicle and the DWI charge was dismissed. A plea was entered into whereby defendant pled guilty to Open Container of Alcohol and was fined $206 and the charge of Possession of CDS in a Motor Vehicle was dismissed. A Conditional Discharge was granted on the Marijuana Possession charge and the client was fined $833. No License Suspension and No Criminal Record.

2007: Municipal Court – Client stopped for headlight violation smelled of alcohol and failed roadside psycho-physical tests. Alcotest result was .07% BAC which is below legal limit.

Result: Attorney obtained dismissal of DWI (39:4-50) and pled guilty to a No Point violation of Unsafe Operation (39:4-97.2). Client was fined $389 and given a 15 day license suspension.

2007: Municipal Court – Client was 69 year old man stopped while coming home from dinner with wife. Breathalyzer administered at station had .12% BAC reading (legal limit is .08%). Client performed poorly on psycho-physical testing and was facing license suspension of between 7 and 12 months on DWI charge (39:4-50) and 5 points on Reckless Driving (39:4-96).

Result: Attorney hired expert who prepared report indicating that testing was done using Breathalyzer Ampoules manufactured in Canada in which the assay report failed to completely provide the chemical composition rendering the Breathalyzer test inadmissible. Prosecutor agreed to amend the charge to a lower tier DWI (based solely upon the psycho-physical tests) and client was fined $256 plus other monetary penalties with only a 3 month suspension of driver’s license. Reckless Driving charge was dismissed.

2007: Municipal Court – Client pulled over for erratic driving. Officer smelled burnt marijuana and observed that client had glassy eyes and failed field sobriety tests. Breathalyzer at station showed no alcohol but urine sample was taken. Client charged with Driving While Intoxicated (39:4-50), Reckless Driving (39:4-96), Unsafe Lane Change (39:4-88b), Maintenance of Lamps (39:3-66) and Criminal Charger of Being Under the Influence of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (2C:35-10(b)(2)).

Result: Police failed to produce results of urine sample or Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) report despite repeated demands from attorney. Attorney obtained dismissal of DWI and Dismissal of the Criminal Charge. Client pled guilty to Reckless Driving and was fined $500 and had his license suspended for 45 days. All other motor vehicle charges were dismissed.

2007: Municipal Court – Client, who was a surgeon, lost control of his vehicle and struck telephone pole in a severe head-on collision. Client did poorly on psych-physical testing at scene and had a Breathalyzer test result of .14% BAC facing upper tier DWI penalties of a 7 month to 1 year loss of driver’s license. Client was charged with Driving While Intoxicated (39:4-50) and Reckless Driving (39:4-96) (five motor vehicle points).

Result: Attorney reviewed discovery and found thermometer malfunction in after breath test certificate and successfully argued that test result was inadmissible. Client pled guilty to lower tier DWI based upon physical observations and was fined $256 with 3 month suspension of license. Reckless Driving charge was dismissed.

2007: Municipal Court – Client traveling unusually slowly and made right on red cutting off other vehicle. Police officer smelled strong odor of alcoholic beverages and client did poorly on psycho-physical testing. Breathalyzer result was only .02% BAC well under the legal limit. Client charged with DWI (39:4-50) and Failing to Obey a Traffic Signal (39:4-144).

Result: Attorney argued that given the blood alcohol reading client could not be convicted. DWI was dismissed and traffic summons was amended to 39:4-97.2 (No Point violation)

2007: Municipal Court – Police stopped client for backing up in the middle of a street. Client failed psycho-physical tests and was arrested for DWI (39:4-50). He admitted to drinking 4 drinks. The Alcotest machine reported results of .14% BAC but an internal check failed rendering the tests invalid. Client was then transported to another police department where Altotest Results of .14% BAC were again reported. Client was a first offender facing upper tier penalties of 7 to 13 month loss of driver’s license.

Result: Attorney determined that based upon the time the first Alcotest reported a test failure and the time the second Alcotest machine reported its first test result there was not sufficient time for the Police Officers to have transported the client from one police station to another and still have continually observed him for mouth alcohol or GERD for the required 20 minutes. Attorney hired an expert to compare the times who came to court to testify. Before the trial started the Prosecutor finally agreed that he could not prove the level of intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt and reduced the charge to a lower tier DWI. Client received 90 day license suspension, $400 fine, costs, and 12 hours IDRC.

2007: Municipal Court/Superior Court – Client with severe alcohol and drug problem facing DWI charge in Municipal Court and separate DWI and Possession of Heroin charges from two separate arrests in Superior Court, came to attorney because he was not happy with the advice he was receiving from his family lawyer who told him he had no defense to DWIs but should not enter into an Inpatient Treatment Program because it would make him look bad to the Judge.

Charges in the Municipal Court included Driving While Intoxicated (39:4-50) (7 to 13 month suspension of license), Reckless Driving (39:4-96) (5 Points and up to 90 day license suspension), Failure to Maintain Lane (39:4-88) (2 Points), and Failure to Yield at Intersection (39:4-123) (2 Points).

Charges in the Superior Court included Possession of CDS (Heroin) (2C:35-10a1) on three occasions (3rd degree offenses each carrying with it up to 5 years in State Prison, up to a $35,000 fine, and a 6 month to 2 year loss of driver’s license), Wandering in a Drug Zone for the Purpose of Obtaining CDS (2C:33-2.1) (Disorderly Persons Offense – up to 6 months in jail and $1000 fine), and Possession of CDS in a Motor Vehicle (39:4-49.1) (2 occasions each carrying with it a mandatory 2 year loss of license).

Result: Attorney began by assisting client in entering an in-patient treatment program and deferring court dates until he had completed his treatment. Attorney then successfully defended the Municipal Court DWI by engaging an expert to prepare a report indicating that the Breathalyzer readings of .08% and .09% BAC were actually no more then a .07% BAC because of the margin of error in the machine used. Based upon this report the Court entered a finding of Not Guilty on the DWI and the Client pled guilty to the Reckless Driving Charge and was fined $206 with a 45 day suspension of his license. The charge of Failure to Maintain Lane was dismissed. The Improper Turn was amended to Delaying Traffic (39:4-56) a No Point violation.

In the Superior Court one of the Possession of CDS charges was amended to a Conspiracy to Possess CDS so Client did not lose his license on it and he was sentenced to Probation. The other two Possession of CDS charges were dismissed. A guilty plea was entered to the DWI charge with a $250 fine and a 7 month license suspension. Both of the Possession of CDS in a Motor Vehicle charges were dismissed.

2007: Municipal Court – Client was a 33 year old woman accused in emotionally charged case of rear-ending an 18 year old girl’s car at high speed at a red light and fracturing her neck. Client’s blood alcohol level was twice the legal limit (.16%) and she had fled the scene of the accident. Victim’s parents and the Prosecutor were seeking 30 day jail sentence on DWI (39:4-50) and 180 days jail on Leaving the Scene of an Accident with Personal Injuries (39:4-129A) as well as a one year drivers license suspension on the DWI and an additional one year on the Leaving the Scene.

Result: Attorney convinced Prosecutor and Victim’s Parents that jail was inappropriate given the client’s excellent driving record and good character. Client pled guilty to DWI and Leaving the Scene and Reckless Driving (5 points) was dismissed. Client was sentenced on DWI to $406 fine and one year license suspension and on Leaving the Scene to $406 fine and 6 month concurrent suspension. No jail sentence was imposed.

2006: Municipal Court – Police called to Domestic Dispute with alleged assault found client driving off in an automobile. Client admitted drinking and failed psycho-physical tests at scene. Breathalyzer readings were under the legal limit at .06% and .07%. Client charged with Simple Assault (2C:12-1a), DWI (39:4-50), and Reckless Driving (39:4-96).

Result: Criminal charge amended to Boro Ordinance with $156 fine. DWI Dismissed. Reckless Driving amended to Careless Driving with $356 fine and 15 day license suspension.

2006: Municipal Court – Client charged with DWI (39:4-50) for Driving Under the Influence of Drugs after stopped for allegedly running stop sign and cutting off two vehicles while entering highway. Client had slow speech, staggered when walked, and failed field sobriety tests, and admitted to taking Ambien. Police Department had client examined by Certified Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) who noted various signs of being under the influence of a depressant including a pulse rate of 40. The DRE prepared a report giving the opinion that client was under the influence of a Central Nervous System Depressant. A Urine Test conducted by the State Police Laboratory was positive for Fluoxetine (the anti-depressantat Prozac).

Result: Client insisted that she was not under the influence of drugs and hired Attorney for a no holds barred attack on the State’s case. Attorney hired three experts to refute the State’s case. The first was Dr. John Brick, Ph.D., a psycho-pharmacologist. Dr. Brick prepared a report indicating that the symptoms that the DRE observed were consistent with an individual suffering from depression, not an overdose of Prozac. The symptoms were also consistent with the low pulse rate of 40 bmp which could cause fatigue and dizziness due to a lack of oxygen flow to the brain and should have been cause for the Officer to seek medical attention for the client, not arrest her for a DWI. Furthermore, fluoxetine is not a narcotic, hallucinogen, or habit-forming drug that would trigger a violation of the DWI Statute (39:4-50). The second expert was Herbert H. Leckie of DWI Consultants, Inc. a former New Jersey State Police Trooper and Certified Drug Recognition Expert. Mr. Leckie prepared a report indicating that the DRE report issued by the State was deficient and addressed technical issues with the DRE Progress Log and DRE Rolling Logs and the qualifications of the Police Officer as a DRE as well as the actual test results of the DRE Examination. The third expert was the defendant’s treating psychiatrist, a medical doctor, who prepared a report indicating that he had been treating the client for depression and had prescribed the fluoxetine. He provided the opinion that fluoxetine was not a narcotic, hallucinogenic, or habit-producing drug, and is not subject to abuse nor did it interfere with the client’s ability to operate an automobile. Based upon these reports the Prosecutor decided he could not prove the DWI beyond a reasonable doubt and the charge was dismissed. Client pled guilty to a charge of Careless Driving and was fined $106. No license suspension.

2006: Municipal Court – Client fled state following DWI arrest in 1991 wanted to be able to get driver’s license in New Mexico.

Result: Attorney re-opened case, had warrant lifted, and had matter scheduled for trial. While the Police Officer was still available, the State was unable to produce the discovery and police reports. The DWI was dismissed and the client fined $100 contempt without having to come back to New Jersey.

2006: Municipal Court – Client with prior DWI arrested for DWI (39:4-50) and Driving the Wrong Way on a One Way Street (39:4-85.1) faced penalties of a fine of between $500 and $1000, 2 year loss of license, 30 days community service, 2 to 90 days in jail, and installation of an ignition interlock device. Breathalyzer reading was .09% BAC which was over the .08% limit.

Result: Attorney hired an expert who challenged the reliability of the Breathalyzer calibration for test results at the levels between .08% and .10% and discussed the accepted margin of error generally present in the machine based upon simulator solution depletion and variations in temperature of an individual’s breath sample. The expert also attacked the validity of the psycho-physical motor testing performed indicating that the police officer failed to administer the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFST) in the manner prescribed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The case was submitted to the Court based upon stipulated facts, the expert’s report, and the video tape of the psycho-physical tests. The Judge found the Defendant Not Guilty of the DWI, but, found the Defendant Guilty of Reckless Driving (39:4-96), as she had been operated the vehicle after consuming alcohol, fined her $250 with a 120 day suspension of her driver’s license.

2006: Municipal Court – Pennsylvania resident involved in car accident who had blood alcohol level of .19% charged with Driving While Intoxicated (39:4-50), Careless Driving (39:4-97), Leaving the Scene of an Accident (39:4-129b), Failure to Report an Accident (39:4-130), and a criminal offense of Resisting Arrest (2C:29-2A). Client had a prior DWI charge in Pennsylvania for which he received an ARD (diversionary program) and was concerned that it would be treated as a 2nd Offense DWI in New Jersey.

Result: Attorney researched the Pennsylvania statute and convinced Prosecutor that it should not be treated as a prior offense for sentencing in New Jersey. Client pled guilty to DWI and received minimum first offender penalties of fines and penalties totaling $664, 7 month license suspension, and 12 hours IDRC. Leaving the Scene of an Accident which carried a six month loss of license was dismissed as well as the Careless Driving ticket. Client pled guilty to Failure to Report an Accident and was fined $100. Criminal charge was amended to a Borough Ordinance with $200 fine.

2006: Municipal Court – New York Attorney charged with Driving While Intoxicated (39:4-50), Reckless Driving (5 Points), Possession of CDS in a Motor Vehicle (39:4-49.1) (2 year loss of license), Headlight Violation (39:3-66), Failure to Maintain Lane (39:4-88) (2 points), Possession of Marijuana (2C-10(a)(4), and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (2C:36-2).

Result: Attorney filed Motion to Suppress Evidence contesting the validity of the automobile stop. A finding of Not Guilty was entered by the Judge on the DWI Charge following a trial on stipulated facts. A plea was entered to the charge of Reckless Driving and client received a $206 fine and a 45 day license suspension. Client received a Conditional Discharge on the Marijuana charge and six months of unsupervised probation with no license suspension. All other charges were dismissed.

2006: Municipal Court – Client charged with Driving While Intoxicated (39:4-50) and Reckless Driving (39:4-96) (5 Point Violation).

Result: Attorney obtained Expert Report challenging accuracy of Breatholyzer on .08% reading for per se conviction and Prosecutor agreed to Dismissal of DWI charge. Reckless Driving ticket was amended to Careless Driving (2 Points) and client received $356.00 fine and 30 day license suspension.

2005: Municipal Court and Superior Court Appeal – Client found semi-conscious behind wheel of car stopped in middle of road taken to hospital where blood test showed blood alcohol level of .24%. Attorney at trial challenged admissibility of blood test and proofs on operation of vehicle. Municipal Court Judge convicted and client’s license was suspended for 7 months. Attorney appealed to Superior Court and conviction was reversed. Superior Court Judge found Client Not Guilty. Click here to read the legal brief

2005: Municipal Court – Client charged with Driving While Intoxicated (39:4-50 DWI) and Refusal of a Breathalyzer (39:4-50.2). Potential penalty was $250.00 to $500.00 fine and six months to one year loss of license for each offense.

Result: Attorney challenged state’s proofs on operation of the motor vehicle and findings of not guilty on each charge was entered by the Court.

2005: Municipal Court – Client charged with Driving While Intoxicated(39:4-50), Leaving the Scene of an Accident (39:129b), Open Container of Alcohol in Motor Vehicle (39:4-51a), and Reckless Driving(39:4-96).

Result: Attorney utilized Breathalyzer Expert to challenge the admissibility of the .14% blood alcohol Breathalyzer Result and client pled guilty to an amended charge of Careless Driving and was fined $250.00. The DWI and all other charges were dismissed.

2005: Municipal Court – Client charged with Driving While Intoxicated (39:4-50 DWI), Reckless Driving (39:4-96), Underage DWI (39:4-50.14), Disorderly Persons Offense of Underage Possession of Alcohol in a Motor Vehicle (2C:33-15), License Plate Light (39:3-66), Failure to Keep Right (39:4-82), Provisional License Violation (39:3-13.8c), and Possession of Open Container of Alcohol in Motor Vehicle (39:4-51b). Potential Penalties included license suspension of up to one year, criminal record, and 7 motor vehicle points.

Result: Plea entered to Underage DWI ($200 fine, 30 days license suspension, and 30 days community service) and Boro Ordinance ($500 fine). All other charges dismissed. No criminal record. No motor vehicle points.

2004: Municipal Court – Client charged with Driving While Intoxicated (39:4-50) and Reckless Driving (39:4-96) as a result of an automobile accident.

Result: Attorney obtained expert’s report reducing breathalyzer result to under per se limit and court entered a directed verdict of Not Guilty on the DWI. Client pled guilty to reckless driving and was given a 30 day license suspension.

2004: Municipal Court – Client charged with DWI and Refusal of Breatholyzer. Potential penalties were 7 months to 1 year loss of license on DWI and consecutive 6 months to 1 year on Refusal. Attorney negotiated a plea to .08% DWI (lower tier) with a 90 day loss of license. Charge of Refusal of Breatholyzer was dismissed.

2004: Superior Court – Client with extensive criminal record and multiple DWI convictions charged with Eluding a Police Officer (2C:29-2b) (3rd degree), Driving While Intoxicated (5th offense), Refusal of a Breatholyzer Test, Cracked Tail Lens, Failure to Exhibit Documents, Reckless Driving, Failure to Keep Right, and Hindering Prosecution.

Result: Plea to Eluding and DWI. Remaining charges dismissed. Five years probation conditioned upon serving 90 days county jail on DWI.

2003: Municipal Court – Client charged with Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) and Reckless Driving.

Result: Obtained a Breathalyzer Expert’s Report indicating flaws in operator certification and ampoule testing. Court entered verdict of Not Guilty on DWI. Client who had rear-ended another car pled guilty to Reckless Driving and received a 60 day license suspension and $232.00 fine.

1999: Municipal Court – Client charged with Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), Unlicensed Driver, and Speeding.

Result: Directed Verdict of Not Guilty on DWI, Guilty on Unlicensed Driver and Speeding – $200.00 fine.

*While all of these results were actually obtained by Wolf Law in the Municipal Courts and Superior Courts of the State of New Jersey, the success in these cases does not guarantee a similar success in any future case. Clients names have been removed to protect their privacy. Due to the delay in posting these cases to this web site some cases may actually have taken place in the year before their posting date as it appears above.