DWI and DUI Results
2012 – DMV: Client had received DWI in 1992 and then moved out of state without completing the IDRC program. He had tried and failed on his own to get his driving privileges restored in New Jersey because New York would no longer renew his driver’s license as he was suspended on the National Registry. The attorney convinced the NJ Intoxicated Drivers Resource Center to accept a program he completed in New York and individual counseling sessions as satisfaction of the Certified Education Program for DUI offenders.
Result: Driving privileges were reinstated because the client was able to show that the program he used was acceptable in meeting requirements of the State of New Jersey.
2012 – Municipal Court: Client was pulled over for going 90m.p.h. in a 65m.p.h. zone and after failing psychophysical tests at the scene was charged with 39:4-96 Reckless Driving, 39:3-75 Tinted Windows, and 39:4-50 Driving While Intoxicated. An Alcotest was administered resulting in a .10% Blood Alcohol Content (“BAC”) which would result in a license suspension of between 7 and 12 months.
Result: The Attorney requested repair records for the Alcotest machine used to test the client. The Prosecutor failed to produce them and the Court granted the Attorney’s application to bar the admission of the breath test result. The client pled guilty to a lower tier DWI (.08% reading) and the client received only a 3 month suspension. The court dismissed 39:4-96 and 39:3-75.
2012: Municipal Court – Police pulled client over for motor vehicle violations. The officer believed the client to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol and took him into custody. Client was administered a breath test and a urine sample was collected. A Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) examination was conducted by a police officer. Client was charged with a criminal violation of 2C:35-10(a)(4) Possession of under 50 grams of marijuana (punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and six months in jail), 39:4-50 Driving Under the Influence, 39:4-49.1 Operating a Vehicle with Drugs in Possession (a mandatory 2 year license suspension), 39:3-10 Failure to Produce Driver’s License, 39:3-29 Failure to Produce Proof of Registration, and 39:4-88b Failure to Maintain Lane.
Result: While in custody the client was administered an alcotest and with a .05% BAC, which is under the .08 legal limit in New Jersey. The urine test came back positive for THC (marijuana) and the DRE report indicated that the client was under the influence of marijuana. The attorney engaged an independent Drug Recognition Expert who wrote a report indicating that the lab result could not show the level of THC and could not determine whether the defendant had smoked immediately before driving or several days beforehand. In fact, the absence of the metabolite Hydroxy THC from the clients urine sample indicated that the marijuana had been smoked more than six hour previously. He also disagreed with the findings of the Drug Recognition Expert. Based upon this report, the court found the client Not Guilty of the DWI under 39:4-50. It further dismissed the 39:4-49.1, 39:3-10, and 39:3-29. The charge of 39:4-88b was amended to 39:4-96 Reckless Driving and the client pled guilty and was sentenced to $300 in fines and a 90-day license suspension. A conditional discharge was granted on the possession of marijuana under 2C:35-10(a)(4) and the client was not found guilty of any criminal charges.
2012: Municipal Court – Police were dispatched to the scene of an accident where the driver struck a retaining wall. The client badly failed the field sobriety tests. At the scene of the accident the responding officer found tire tracks on the lawns of at least two properties. When brought to the station the client was given an Alcotest but failed to properly give a sample. He was charged with 39:4-50 Driving Under the Influence, 39:4-96 Reckless Driving, 39:4-50.4 Refusal to Submit to Breathalyzer, 39:4-129d Leaving the Scene of an Accident, 39:4-130 Failure to Report an Accident (which carries with it a six month license suspension), and 39:4-88b Failure to Maintain Lane.
Result: The court dismissed 39:4-129 and 39:4-88b. The attorney obtained a directed verdict of Not Guilty for the 39:4-50 Driving Under the Influence on the grounds that without a breath test there was insufficient evidence to prove that the client was intoxicated. The client pled guilty to 39:4-130 Failure to Report an Accident and 39:4-50.4 Refusal. He received a 7 month license suspension and $600 in fines. The attorney successfully argued that even though it was a Refusal conviction, no interlock device should be ordered as the Standard Warnings read by the police officer did not properly advise of the interlock penalty for a Refusal.
2012: Municipal Court – Police were called to the scene of an accident where a car driven by the client had gone off the road and stuck a parked vehicle. Client told the police that he had been cut off by an unknown vehicle and had swerved to avoid it. The police officer did not smell an odor of alcohol and indicated he was coherent and speaking clearly. The client was injured and transported to the hospital. The police then received a phone call from medical personal indicating that they smelled alcohol on the client’s breath. Client admitted in hospital that he had two beers two hours before. Blood drawn for the purposes of medical treatment showed a .14% BAC. Client consented to a blood test by the police officer. Client charged with Driving While Intoxicated 39:4-50 (a second offense) and Reckless Driving 39:4-96.
Result: Attorney filed a Motion to Suppress the Blood Test Results for Failure to Have Probable Cause to Request the Test and Failure to Provide Proper Foundational Documents for Admissibility. Attorney argued that based upon the fact that the client did not demonstrate any signs of intoxication and did not smell of alcohol to the police officers they did not have probable cause to request him to take the test. Attorney further argued that the police officers improperly considered the results of the hospital blood test as its disclosure by the medical staff violated Federal HIPPA Regulations and that could not be used to establish probable cause. The Court found the client Not Guilty of the DWI and a guilty finding was entered on the Reckless Driving with a $256 fine and a 75 day license suspension.
2012 – Municipal Court: Client was pulled over for traffic violations. The officer smelled alcohol on the client s breath, and administered field sobriety tests which the client failed. The client was arrested and brought to the police station. During the 20 minute observation period required before administration of an Alcotest, the client vomited. The officer re-started the observation period and then administered the tests which resulted in a reading of .11% BAC. This was an upper tier DWI reading and would have resulted in a license suspension of between 7 and 12 months. The client was charged with 39:4-50 Driving While Intoxicated with a B.A.C. of .11%.
Result: The attorney retained an expert who prepared a report indicating that proper protocols were not followed. The police officer was required to rinse and inspect the oral cavity after the person had vomited before again beginning the 20 minute observation. Based upon this report, the Alcotest was not admissible and the DWI was reduced to a lower tier DWI with a 3 month suspension and $550 in court fines and costs.
2012 – Federal Court/Fort Dix: Client was entering a military base and was stopped at the gate for the production of identification. When the officer at the gate smelled alcohol he asked the client to leave the car and perform a field sobriety test. The client refused and was placed under arrest. He was first brought to one police station where the Alcotest did not work. He was then transported to a second police station and was administered a breath test with a result of .08%. Client was charged with 39:4-50 Driving While Intoxicated (.08%) and 39:4-96 Reckless Driving.
Result: The attorney obtained an expert report indicating that the Black Key Temperature Probe used during the calibration of the instrument and found on the Alcotest 7100 Calibration Record was not clearly identified in the Control Tests in the tests administered to the client. Based upon this, the client was found not guilty of 39:4-50 Driving While Intoxicated. The client was found guilty of 39:4-96 Reckless Driving and given 6 months probation and 90 days license suspension. Client also had to pay $330 in court fines and fees.
2012 – Municipal Court: Client stopped his car to inquire why someone else was pulled over by police. He smelled of alcohol and was then asked by the police officer to perform a field sobriety test which he failed. He was arrested and brought to the police station. While in custody the client asked repeatedly to use the bathroom. The police were following the standard 20 minute observation period and refused to allow him to do so until after the breath test. He stated he could not wait and refused the breath test so he would be permitted to urinate. Client was charged with 39:4-50 Driving While Intoxicated and 39:4-50.2 Refusal. Because the DWI did not have a reading he was only facing a 3 month suspension on the DWI but the suspension on the Refusal would be 7 months to a year.
Result: Attorney argued that the only reason the client refused to take the Alcotest was that he had a prostate condition for which he was on medication and was physically unable to wait for the 20 minute observation period to take place before taking the test. The court dismissed the Refusal under 39:4-50.2. Client was found guilty of 39:4-50 and received a three month suspension, 12 hours DRC, no interlock device, and $600 in court fines and fees.
2012 – Municipal Court: Client was pulled over for failing to maintain a lane and crossing over the line. The officer noticed slurred speech, fumbling movements, and confusion. The officer asked the client to step out of the vehicle and submit to field sobriety testing which he failed. Client submitted to a breathalyzer once in the station and the Alcotest reported a .19% BAC. Client was charged with 39:4-50 Driving While Intoxicated, 39:4-96 Reckless Driving, 39:4-97 Careless Driving, 39:4-88(b) Failure to Maintain Lane, and 39:4-126 Failure to Use Turn Signal.
Result: The client did have a prior DWI but Attorney successfully contended that it was more than 10 years old and the case should be treated as a first offense. The attorney further noticed that the arrest time on the AIR (Alcohol Influence Report) prepared by the police officer appeared to be in error. He obtained a report from an expert who concluded that the police officer imputed into the machine an arrest time of 11:26 instead of 23:26 (military time is used) which resulted in the wrong reference point being used by the machine for the mandatory 20 minute lockout feature of the instrument. Without the .19% reading be admissible, the client was found guilty only of a lower tier DWI and received only a 3 month suspension and $480 in court fines and fees instead of the 7 month to one year suspension he was facing. The 39:4-96, 39:4-97, 39:4-88(b) and 39:4-126 were also all dismissed.
2012 – Municipal Court: Client was visiting New Jersey from Illinois. While driving his rental car he hit the side of a building and then left the scene. The police were called and located his vehicle. He smelled of alcohol and a field sobriety test was conducted. He did poorly and was placed under arrest and transported to the police station. He was administered and Alcotest with a reading of .15% BAC. Client was charged with 39:4-50 Driving While Intoxicated, 39:4-96 Reckless Driving, 39:4-129(b) Leaving the Scene of an Accident, and 39:4-130 Failure to Report an Accident. He was facing a license suspension of 7 months to one year on the DWI and an additional 6 months on the Leaving the Scene.
Result: The charges of 39:4-129(b) Leaving the Scene and 39:4-96 Reckless Driving were dismissed. Client pled guilty to Failing to Report an accident, 39:4-130, which was a fine of $139. Client also pled guilty to 39:4-50 and was given no jail time, 12 hours IRDC, 7 month suspension of driving privileges, and approximately $600 in fines and fees.
2012 – Municipal Court: Client was stopped when a police officer observed her car drifting across the lines multiple times. Upon approaching the vehicle the officer smelled alcohol and observed the client’s speech to be slurred. The client was asked to perform a field sobriety test and failed to adequately do so. She was then taken to the station, where she refused to submit to a breathalyzer test. Client was charged with 39:4-50 Driving While Intoxicated, 39:4-50.4 Refusal, and 39:4-97 Careless Driving. She was facing a suspension of 90 days on the DWI and 6 months to one year on the Refusal.
Result: Attorney argued that the client should be found not guilty on the Refusal since the standard form read to her as promulgated by the Attorney General of New Jersey had not been updated to include warnings about the imposition of an interlock device in the event of a conviction under the Refusal Statute. Based upon this argument, the client was found not guilty of 39:4-50.4 Refusal. The 39:4-97 Careless Driving was dismissed. Client was found guilty of 39:4-50 Driving While Intoxicated based on the video evidence of the field sobriety tests. She was sentenced to a 90 days license suspension and $650 in fines and court fees.
2012 – Municipal Court: Client was observed by a police officer driving through a stop sign without stopping. When the officer pulled her over he smelled alcohol and the client admitted to drinking that evening. She was given field sobriety tests and did not complete them to satisfaction. She was taken to the station and given a breathalyzer test, in which she blew a .06%. She was issued tickets for 39:4-50 Driving While Intoxicated, 39:4-96 Reckless Driving, 39:4-97 Carless Driving, 39:3-29C Failure to Exhibit Proof of Insurance, and 39:4-144 Failure to Stop at a Stop Sign. The tickets totaled 9 motor vehicle points and she was facing a licenses suspension of 90 days on the lower tier DWI.
Result: Attorney argued that given the low Alcotest reading there was insufficient evidence to convict her on the DWI. The Client was found not guilty of Driving While Intoxicated and the 39:4-96 Reckless Driving (5 points) was dismissed. Client pled guilty to 39:4-97 Careless Driving, 2 points; 39:4-144 Failure to Stop; and 39:3-29C Failure to Exhibit Proof of Insurance. Client had to pay $256 in court fines.
2012 – Municipal Court: Client was involved in a one car accident when he lost control of his car. When the police arrived he smelled of alcohol and was given a field sobriety test which he failed. Client refused to give samples for a breathalyzer test, and was subsequently issued tickets for 39:4-50 Driving While Intoxicated, 39:4-50.2 Refusal, and 39:4-97 Careless Driving.
Result: Attorney argued that given the lack of an Alcotest reading, there was not sufficient evidence to convict him of the DWI. The Client was found not guilty of 39:4-50 Driving While Intoxicated and 39:4-97 Carless Driving, a 2 point ticket, was dismissed. Client was found guilty of 39:4-50.2 Refusal, and was sentenced to 7 month suspension of driving privileges, 12 hour IDRC, and $540 in court fines and fees.
See More Results from 2011. Click Here.
See More Results From 2010. Click here.
See More Results From 2009. Click here.
See More Results From 2008. Click here.
See More Results From 1999 – 2007. Click here.