DWI and DUI Results

2016 – Municipal Court: Client was found asleep on the side of the road in her vehicle, in a snow bank. There vehicle was not running and the keys were resting in the Client’s lap. However, the engine compartment was still warm. The Client was visibly upset when the Officer approached the vehicle and upon exiting she continued to be visibly upset. The Client had called her husband to come pick her up. The Officer decided to have her perform the Standard Field Sobriety Test back at the station. These tests were never given because she was fluctuating between being visibly upset and yelling obscenities at the officers. She was charged with 39:4-50 Driving While Intoxicated, 39:4-96 Reckless Driving, and 39:3-40 Driving while Suspended. This would be a third offense DWI for the Client, which means she was facing a ten year loss of driving privileges, mandatory interlock device, and a mandatory 180 days in jail, 90 of which may be served in an inpatient rehabilitation program.

Result: Attorney obtained a not guilty finding on the DWI arguing that the State could not prove that the Client was intoxicated at the time she operated the motor vehicle because the State was unable to prove when she drank alcohol and when she operated the vehicle. However, due to the vehicle ending up in a snow bank, the client pled guilty to 39:4-96 Reckless Driving and received a one year suspension of her driving privileges. The charge of Driving while Suspended was amended to 39:3-10a Expired License. She was assessed approximately $578.00 in Court fines and fees.


2016– Municipal Court:  Officers were responding to a 911 call for a car accident in a parking lot of a motel. As the police arrived on the scene, Client’s vehicle was driving, very slowly, out of the parking lot. The officer attempted to have Client stop and after several attempts Client halted her vehicle. There was an odor of alcohol as the officer approached the Client’s vehicle. Client was extremely disoriented attempting to find documents in her vehicle. The officer instructed the Client to perform the Standard Field Sobriety Tests. Client was unable to successfully complete them.   She was taken to the station for the Alcotest. The machine was non-functional and she was taken to a second department. Client had a result of a .22% BAC. She was charged with 39:4-50 Driving while Intoxicated, 39:4-96 Reckless Driving, 39:4-97 Careless Driving, 39:3-29A Failure to Exhibit Driver’s License, 39:4-29C Failure to Exhibit Insurance Card, and 39:4-129B Leaving the Scene of an Accident. Client was facing a seven to twelve month loss of license and mandatory interlock device on the DWI. She was also facing a mandatory six month loss of driving privileges on the Leaving the Scene of an Accident charge.

Result:  In order for Alcotest results to be accepted by the Court, the State must show that there was a twenty minute uninterrupted observation before the first breathe test can be given. The failed breathe test was given at 28 minutes past the hour. Since the observation was interrupted by the drive to the second test site, there should have been another twenty minute observation commenced. The first breathe test at the second site was given at 37 minutes past the hour, with less than 10 minutes passing. Based on the failure to perform a second twenty minute observation the Attorney was able to plea to a lower tier DWI based upon the field sobriety tests without an Alcotest reading and client received a only a 3 month loss of driving privileges, 12 hours the in Intoxicated Driver Resource Center (IDRC), no interlock devicek and approximately $680.00 in court fines and fees. The leaving the scene and all other tickets were dismissed.


2016 – Municipal Court: Client was stopped for doing 84mph in a 65mph zone. Upon smelling alcohol the Trooper requested he perform the Standard Field Sobriety Tests (SFST). Client indicated that he had hip replacement surgery within the last year which would make the SFST difficult to perform. The Client was unable to successfully complete the tests and was taken back to the station for the Alcotest. Client was charged with 39:4-98 Speeding (84mph in a 65), 39:4-97 Careless Driving, and 39:4-50 Driving While Intoxicated.  It was a second offense DWI and client was facing a 2 year loss of license, a mandatory interlock device, and 90 days of jail or community service.

Result: The matter was set down for trial and the involved Trooper failed to show up for the scheduled trial date.  The attorney and the retained alcotest expert appeared with the client.   There was inconsistencies between the times on the Computer Assisted Dispatch Report and the times on the Alcotest.   Due to the inconsistencies in the CAD report and the Alcotest,  the Trooper’s failure to appear, and the lack of a proper twenty minute observation period, the Court entered a not guilty finding for the DWI. Client pled guilty to the speeding, as well as 39:4-97 Careless Driving. Client received an eight month loss of driving privileges for the Careless Driving and a total of $578.00 in Court fines and fees.


2016 – Municipal Court: Officers  responded to a 911 call for a one vehicle accident; the vehicle had hit a median, and continued to drive for several yards before stopping. First Aid and Officers had responded and the Client had refused medical attention. There was significant damage to the vehicle. Client was very confused and did not know where she was. She was unable to successfully complete the SFST. Client was charged with 39:4-50 Driving While Intoxicated (.22% BAC), 39:4-96 Reckless Driving, 39:4-88b Failure to Maintain Lane, and 39:4-51b Open Container of Alcohol in a Motor Vehicle. She was facing a seven to twelve month loss of license, a mandatory interlock device, and 12 hours in the Intoxicated Driver’s Resource Center (IDRC).

Result: Upon review of the Certification documents for the Alcotest machine, it was found that the Calibration Unit New Standard Solution Report did not have a certifying signature on it. Based on this, along with an expert report, the Alcotest results were thrown out. The Client pled guilty to 30:4-50, with no reading, therefore was sentenced to three month suspension of her driving privileges, no interlock device, 12 hours IDRC and approximately $680.00 in Court fines and fees. All other charges were dismissed.


2016 – Municipal Court: Client was in a one car motor vehicle accident where he collided with a telephone pole.  He stated that he had been coming home late from work thought he had fallen asleep. The Client informed the Officer that he struck his head during the accident. Prior to allowing the EMTs to examine the Client, he performed several SFST. The Client was taken by ambulance to the hospital. Upon arriving at the hospital the Client was given a Standard Blood Draw Consent Form which does state he has the right to refuse. Client refused to consent to the blood draw. He was charged with 39:4-50 DWI, 39:4-96 Reckless Driving, 39:4-97 Careless Driving.

Result: The attorney obtained an expert report showing that the slurring and other signs that the Officer’s report alleges were signs of intoxication could have also been due to the head injury or lack of  sleep. Since there was no blood draw or breath test the State conceded that they could not prove intoxication for the purposes of a DWI conviction. The charge of DWI was dismissed along with 39:4-97 Careless Driving. Client pled guilty to 39:4-96 Reckless Driving with a 45 day suspension of his driving privileges. He also paid $239.00 in Court fines and fees.


2016 – Municipal Court:  Police Officer observed two vehicles parked in the middle of the road.  As he approached one vehicle attempted to leave the area. The other driver flagged down the officer and indicated that he had called into the police because he believed the driver of the other vehicle was intoxicated as it was driving erratically and almost forced him off the road. The officer caught up to the vehicle and initiated a stop. Client admitted to drinking and taking prescription medication. Client was unable to successfully perform standard field sobriety tests, despite being given several attempts. She was taken to the police station. While being read the Attorney General’s Standard Statement for Motor Vehicle Operations Form the Client was very confused and did not consent to taking the breath test.   Client was charged with 39:4-50 Driving while Intoxicated, 39:4-50.2 Refusal, 39:4-96 Reckless Driving, and 39:4-88b Failure to Maintain Lane. Client was facing a three month loss of driving privileges on the DWI and a 7 month to one year loss of driving privileges and mandatory interlock device on the refusal charge.

Result: Attorney was able to establish that due to the Client’s medication she was unable to understand the Attorney General’s Standard Statement Form and did not understand that she was refusing. The State dismissed the refusal charge. Client pled guilty to 39:4-50, Driving While Suspended, and lost her driving privileges for three months. She had Court fines and fees approximately $680.00.


2016 – Municipal Court: Client was pulled over for failing to maintain lane. Based on the odor of alcohol the Officer had the Client exit the vehicle and perform Standard Field Sobriety tests. Based on his performance the Client was brought to the police station in order to take the Alcotest. Client took the breath test and recorded a result of .06% which is under the legal limit in New Jersey of .08%.   Client was charged with 39:4-50 Driving While Intoxicated, 39:6b-2 Failure to have Liability Insurance, 39:4-96 Reckless Driving, and 39:3-40 Driving while Suspended. Along with the 3 month loss of driving privileges for the DWI, Client was facing a one year loss of license on 39:6b-2, as well as a 6 month loss of driving privileges on the Driving while Suspended.

Result:  The State recognized that because the client blew under the legal limit and because of lack of a clear failure to the field sobriety tests, it could not prove the DWI beyond a reasonable doubt. The client was found not guilty of 39:4-50 DWI. Client was also able to provide proof of insurance during that period to the State, and therefore a finding of not guilty was entered on that charge as well. Client pled guilty to Reckless Driving  and to Driving while Suspended. Client received a 6 month loss of driving privileges as well as fines and fees totaling $1,374.00.


2016 – Municipal Court: Client was driving erratically, almost striking an officer’s patrol car. She was stopped and upon smelling the odor of alcohol was asked to step out of the vehicle for Standard Field Sobriety Tests. It was a very cold evening and Client did not have a jacket or non-high heeled shoes, making it difficult to perform the tests. Upon being brought to the station, it appears that there was some issue with the Alcotest machine, however no reports described it. Approximately an hour after arriving at the Station she was transferred to another station where she was eventually given a breath test. Her Alcotest results were a .09%BAC.  She was charged with 39:4-50 Driving While Intoxicated, 39:4-96 Reckless Driving, 39:4-97 Careless Driving, 39:4-82 Failure to Keep Right, 39:4-88b Failure to Maintain Lane, and 39:3-76 No Seatbelt.

Result: Attorney was able to show that there were issues with the transport and unaccounted for time. It is not clear from the records provided by the State when the transfer took place, and if a twenty minute observation period had been properly administered. Due to these inconsistencies the State admitted that they would be unable to properly prove their case. Therefore, a verdict of  not guilty was entered on the  39:4-50 DWI. Client pled guilty to 39:4-97 Careless Driving and received a 60 day loss of her driving privileges due to her erratic operation of the motor vehicle. All other charges were dismissed. Client paid approximately $289.00 in Court fines and fees.


2016 – Municipal Court: Client was operating a motorcycle going over 80mph in 40mph zone. Client showed signs of intoxication and was unable to perform the Standard Field Sobriety Tests. Upon being taken to the police station, he was read the Attorney General’s Standard Statement for Motor Vehicle Operations Form and the Miranda Warnings in quick succession. He stated no and was charged with 39:4-50.4 Refusal. He was also charged with 39:4-50 DWI, 39:4-96 Reckless Driving, 39:4-97 Careless Driving, 39:4-98 Speeding (84mph in 40mph zone), 39:4-92 Failure to Stop for an Emergency Vehicle. He was looking at a 3 month loss of license on the DWI as well as a one year loss of license and mandatory interlock device on the refusal.

Result: Attorney filed a Motion to Dismiss the Refusal charge based on the Client’s misunderstanding and confusion stemming from the Attorney General’s Standard Statement for Motor Vehicle Operations Form and the Miranda warnings.   The State conceded that it would be unable to prove the Refusal due to the Client’s confusion, and he was found not guilty. Client admitted that he had been drinking enough that his blood alcohol level would have exceeded a .10% BAC. He pled guilty to 39:4-50  DWI with BAC .11%. He received a seven month loss of driving privileges. He also entered a guilty plea to speeding, 39:4-98 84mph in a 40mph zone, a 5 point speeding ticket. The remaining summons were dismissed.


2016 – Municipal Court :  Client was a New York driver stopped on the parkway after complaints from motorists.  Trooper observed him weaving from left to right over two lanes.  Client allegedly failed field sobriety tests and was placed under arrest for DWI.  When brought to the barracks, client refused to submit to an alcotest and was also charged with Refusal as well as Reckless Driving.  Client was facing convictions on both the DWI and the Refusal with a maximum loss of license of 15 months.

Result:  Attorney argued that the field sobriety tests were in fact ambiguous and client’s performance was not sufficiently bad to convict on the DWI.  The Prosecutor agreed and the DWI was dismissed.  Client pled guilty to the Refusal and received the minimum 7 month suspension of his New Jersey driving privileges.

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 ]