2010 DWI Results

2010: Municipal Court – Retired police officer called in client for driving his SUV at 80 mph through a residential neighborhood. Police responded and found client in car drinking alcohol from a bottle. Although he smelled of alcohol, client denied drinking. Officer also observed another bottle (beer) in a brown paper bag. Client refused to perform psycho-physical tests and refused to submit to Breath Test. Charges were Driving While Intoxicated, 39:4-50; Refusal of a Breatholyzer, 39:4-50.4; Reckless Driving, 39:4-96 (5 point ticket); Open Container of Alcohol in a Motor Vehicle, 39:4-51b; and Consumption of Alcohol in a Motor Vehicle, 39:4-51a.

Result: Attorney successfully argued that without a breatholyzer result, the State was unable to prove the DWI and the 39:4-50 was dismissed. The Reckless Driving, Open Container, and Alcohol in a Motor Vehicle were also dismissed. Client pled guilty to the Refusal of a Breatholyzer and received a $306.00 fine and 7 month suspension of license.

2010: Municipal Court – Client was observed by police not being able to maintain lane. When client was pulled over the officer detected the smell of alcohol and client failed field sobriety tests. Alcotest had Control Test failure and client was transported to adjoining town for test which resulted in .25% BAC which would require 7 to 12 month license suspension. Client was charged with 39:4-50 Driving While Intoxicated, 39:5-88b Failure to Maintain Lane, and 39:4-96 Reckless Driving.

Result: Attorney argued that police officer failed to redo 20 minute observation period after transporting defendant to other town and Breath Test was inadmissable. Prosecutor agreed and 39:4:50 with a .25% BAC was amended down to a BAC between .08 and .10 resulting in only a 3 month license suspension along with 12 hours in Intoxicated Driver Resource Center and pay a $258 fine plus. Both 39:4-88b and 39:4-96 were dismissed.


2010: Municipal Court – Police were looking for client in connection with earlier altercation with neighbor. He was located and arrested while leaving a store. Officer smelled alcohol on his breath and required him to submit to a Breathalyzer test. Client refused to take the breath test and was charged with 39:4-50, Driving Under the Influence and 39:4-50.2, Refusal to Submit to a Breathalyzer.

Result: Attorney filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence and a Trial Brief and argued that there were insufficient proofs to establish that the client had operated the motor vehicle and could not prove the DWI. The police officers did not see the client drive up to the store, nor was there a reason to believe that he had the intention to drive because while they saw the car in the parking lot the client never even went near his vehicle. Attorney also argued that the State could not prove was that the defendant was intoxicated at the time he operated the vehicle as no time line could be established as to when the client drove the car.

Attorney also contended that the police officer did not have probable cause to arrest the client for a DWI and did not have reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant had been operating a motor vehicle while under the influence and therefore client could not be convicted of Refusal of a Breath Test.

The Court dismissed all of the the charges of 39:4-50 Driving Under the Influence and 39:4-50.2 Refusal to Submit to a Breathalyzer and client pled guilty to a municipal ordinance arising out of the original altercation and was fined $250.


2010: Municipal Court – Client, who did not have a motorcycle license or permit, was learning how to drive a motorcycle and was involved in a high speed accident causing severe injuries including a ruptured spleen and surgery to her passenger. Client was charged with 39:4-50, Driving under the Influence with a BAC of .13%; 39:4-96, Reckless Driving (5 point ticket); and 39:4-97, Careless Driving (2 points).

Result: Both 39:4-96 Reckless Driving and 39:4-97 Careless Driving were dismissed. Client pled guilty to 39:4-50 Driving Under the Influence with a BAC of .13%. The client was sentenced to a 7 month suspension of license (even though was facing up to 12 months because of the injuries), 48 hours of IDRC, and $506 in fines plus fees.


2010: Municipal Court – Client was pulled over while stopped in bridge toll plaza for no reason. The officer smelled alcohol and the client failed field sobriety tests. At the police station the client was given a breathalyzer test which read .11% BAC which is an upper level DWI requring a 7 months to 1 year of license suspension. The client was charged with 39:4-50, Driving Under the Influence (.11%); 39:4-56, Delaying Traffic, two violations of 39:3-29, Failure to Produce Documents; and 39:4-97, and Careless Driving.

Result: Attorney obtained an expert report and filed a Motion to Suppress the Alcotest contending that the digital thermometer used to calibrate the Alcotest was not an Ertco Hart Digital Thermometer as required in State v. Chun and that the Certificate of Analysis for the Breath Alcohol Simulator Solution used to calibrate the Alcotest was not properly notarized. Based on this argument the DWI was amended to Lower Tier DWI with a .08% BAC and the client received only a 3 months suspension of driving privileges, 12 hours IDRC, and $250 in fines plus court fees. The charges of 39:3-29 (2 Counts) and 39:4-97 Careless Driving were dismissed.


2010: Municipal Court – Client was stopped for a motor vehicle violation and was found in possession of Xanax and Marijuana. He appeared sleepy and disorientated and had difficulty in performing field sobriety tests. He was placed under arrest and was examined by a Drug Recognition Expert. He had a negative result for breath alcohol. In addition to his criminal charges he was charged with DUI, 39:4-50(a 7 to 12 month loss of license); Possession of CDS in a Motor Vehicle, 39:4-49.1(a 2 year loss of license), and Reckless Driving, 39:4-96.

Result: The State’s DRE prepared a report indicating that the client was under the influence of a Narcotic. The urine test was positive for cocaine. Attorney obtained an expert report from a Drug Recognition Expert that contradicted the findings of the State’s DRE and pointed out that cocaine is a Central Nervous System Stimulant, not a narcotic. The DUI and the Possession of CDS in a Motor Vehicle were dismissed and client pled guilty to a charge of Reckless Driving and received a 90 day license suspension and $206.00 in fines.


See More Results From 2014. Click Here.
See More Results from 2013. Click Here.
See More Results From 2012. Click here.
See More Results From 2011. Click here.
See More Results From 2009. Click here.
See More Results From 2008. Click here.
See More Results From 1999 – 2007. Click here.

This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. [ Sitemap ]