New Jersey DWI Lawyer Blog

May 24, 2021

New Jersey Court Discusses Evidence Needed to Demonstrate Guilt in a Drug DUI Case

In New Jersey, it is unlawful to drive while under the influence of any intoxicating substance. Thus, a person who is impaired due to the use of illicit drugs may be charged with a DUI offense. The field sobriety tests for determining whether a person is impaired due to the use of drugs differ from those in cases involving alcohol, and because drug DUI crimes are less common than alcohol-induced DWI charges, the tests are not widely employed. That does not mean the results of such testing will be deemed inadmissible, however, as demonstrated in a recent ruling in which the court upheld the defendant’s conviction for DUI, finding there was sufficient evidence to establish his guilt. If you are charged with driving under the influence of drugs, it is smart to consult a New Jersey DUI defense lawyer regarding your possible defenses.

The Defendant’s Arrest and Trial

Reportedly, the police stopped the defendant in response to a call regarding an erratic driver. When they spoke with the defendant, they noted his pupils were constricted, and his speech was slurred and slow. One of the officers observed needle marks and bruises on the defendant’s arm and a plastic bag similar to the ones typically used for heroin in the defendant’s car as well.

Allegedly, due to the suspicion that the defendant was under the influence of drugs, the police conducted a thirteen-part drug influence evaluation (DIE). The defendant performed poorly on the DIE, and based on his results and behavior, he was arrested and charged with driving under the influence. The defendant was found guilty as charged following a trial in the law division, after which he appealed, arguing that the DIE evidence should not have been admitted because the State failed to demonstrate that such evidence was reliable or generally accepted. Continue reading

May 13, 2021

New Jersey Court Discusses Breath Test Results in DWI Cases

by Jonathan F. Marshall

When the police suspect that a person is driving while intoxicated, they will often administer a breath test. If the machine used to conduct the test does not comply with the parameters defined by law, though, a DWI defendant may be able to argue that the results are inaccurate and should be suppressed. Recently, a New Jersey court issued an opinion in which it explained the requirements for proving a breath test was performed via a proper device, in a matter in which it affirmed the defendant’s conviction. If you are accused of a DWI offense, it is wise to meet with a New Jersey DWI defense lawyer to discuss your options for seeking a just result.

The Defendant’s Arrest

It is reported that the police were dispatched to investigate a collision. When they arrived at the scene of the accident, they determined the defendant had been driving one of the vehicles. When they spoke with him, they observed that he smelled of alcohol and had slurred speech and bloodshot eyes. They asked the defendant to submit to a field sobriety test, and he refused.

Allegedly, the defendant was arrested and charged with DWI. He was transported to the police station, where a breath test revealed his blood alcohol content to be 0.11%, which was over the legal limit. As such, he was charged with DWI. He was convicted as charged and then filed an appeal. Continue reading

May 10, 2021

New Jersey Court Discusses Grounds for Denial of a PTI Application in a DWI Case

by Jonathan F. Marshall

Many people who are charged with DWI offenses are able to avoid the stress and risks associated with a criminal trial by entering into pre-trial intervention (PTI). PTI is not a right, however, and many people who apply for PTI are rejected. Recently, a New Jersey court explained the grounds for denying a DWI defendant entry into PTI in a case in which a first-time offender’s application was rejected. If you are charged with a DWI offense, it is advisable to meet with a New Jersey DWI defense lawyer to evaluate your potential defenses.

The Defendant’s Arrest

It is reported that the defendant was arrested for operating a car while intoxicated and with a suspended license. His infant children were in the vehicle at the time of his arrest, and one of them was not in a car seat. He was charged with numerous crimes, including DWI. He applied for admission to PTI, but the prosecutor advised his attorney that the PTI director was not recommending acceptance of the defendant.

Allegedly, he pleaded guilty to DWI while preserving his right to appeal his denial of PTI. He received a letter later that day setting forth the reasons for his denial. The program director later reversed her decision and recommended the defendant for PTI, but the prosecutor objected and would not consent to his enrollment. The defendant then appealed the denial of his PTI application, but the court affirmed the ruling. He then appealed to the superior court. Continue reading

May 10, 2021

New Jersey Court Discusses Legality of DWI Sentences

by Jonathan F. Marshall

People charged with second-offense DWI crimes in New Jersey often face the risk of substantial penalties if they are convicted. As such, in some instances, they will plead guilty in hopes of being granted a reduced sentence. It is within the court’s discretion to determine an appropriate sentence, however, and defendants who plead guilty may not always find the terms of their penalties agreeable. As long as a sentence is legal, it will likely be upheld, though, as shown in a recent opinion issued by a New Jersey court. If you are faced with charges of a second offense DWI, it is in your best interest to consult a skillful New Jersey DWI defense lawyer to weigh your options.

The Defendant’s Conviction and Sentencing

Reportedly, the defendant was charged with driving under the influence and driving during a period of license suspension for a DWI. He pleaded guilty to the charges. In accordance with the defendant’s plea agreement, the court sentenced the defendant to a total of 360 days imprisonment, with a mandatory period of parole ineligibility that also lasted 360 days imposed as a term of probation.

Allegedly, the sentence encompassed a 180-day term of imprisonment for the DWI conviction and a 180 term of imprisonment for the conviction for driving with a suspended license. The defendant filed an appeal, arguing that his sentences were illegal, as the criminal code did not permit the courts to authorize compulsory periods of parole ineligibility as a probationary condition. The appellate court disagreed and affirmed his sentence. Continue reading

April 22, 2021

Court Discusses the Consequences of the Failure to Provide a New Jersey DWI Defendant with Notice of Penalties for Subsequent Offenses

by Jonathan F. Marshall

People who are charged with third-offense DWI crimes are often rightfully concerned that they may face significant penalties, including jail time if they are convicted. As such, in some cases, people charged with third-offense DWIs may attempt to have earlier DWI convictions vacated on the grounds that they were not advised of the penalties for subsequent convictions. In a recent ruling, a New Jersey court discussed what a defendant must prove in order for a court to vacate a prior DWI conviction for lack of appropriate notice. If you are charged with a third offense DWI, it is smart to meet with a trusted New Jersey DWI defense lawyer to assess your possible defenses.

The Defendant’s Arguments

Reportedly, the defendant was charged with a third offense DWI in 2018, which carried a penalty of a mandatory six-month jail sentence. In an effort to avoid imprisonment, the defendant sought to have his guilty plea for his second DWI, which occurred in 2012, vacated on the grounds that he was not properly advised of the penalties he would face for a subsequent conviction. The municipal court denied his motion to vacate his 2012 plea, and he appealed. The first Law Division judge that heard the matter affirmed the trial court ruling, but the second Law Division judge vacated the defendant’s plea. The State then appealed.

Consequences of the Failure to Provide a DWI Defendant with Notice

Under New Jersey law, a motion to withdraw a guilty plea must be made before sentencing, but a court may permit such a motion at a later date if it is necessary to prevent manifest injustice. In the subject case, the court ultimately found that no injustice occurred and reversed the second Law Division judge’s ruling. Continue reading

April 14, 2021

New Jersey Court Discusses Warrantless Blood Draws in DWI Cases

by Jonathan F. Marshall

Generally, the police need a warrant to search a person, and searches conducted without a warrant are often unconstitutional. The courts have determined that blood draws in DWI cases constitute searches, and absent exigent circumstances, compulsory blood tests without warrants are impermissible. If the police take a blood sample from a person without a warrant or permission, it could result in a reversal of a DWI conviction based on the blood test, as demonstrated in a recent New Jersey ruling. If you are accused of a DWI crime, it is prudent to speak to an assertive New Jersey DWI defense lawyer to gauge your options.

The Defendant’s Charges

It is reported that the defendant struck a pedestrian after he was drinking at a bar. He immediately stopped, but the victim ultimately died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. When the police arrived at the scene, they described it as chaotic and found the defendant to be agitated and argumentative. He was taken to the police station, where he refused to submit to a field sobriety test. The police did not attempt to obtain a breath sample but placed the defendant under arrest and transported him to the hospital for a blood draw.

Allegedly, the defendant originally was uncooperative and asked to make a phone call, but his request was denied. He ultimately signed a consent form and gave a blood sample. He was charged with multiple offenses, including DWI and vehicular homicide. He moved to have the results of his blood draw suppressed, but his motion was denied. He pleaded guilty, and after his sentencing, he appealed. Continue reading

April 7, 2021

New Jersey Court Upholds DWI Conviction Following an Arrest of a Parked Motorist

by Jonathan F. Marshall

Typically, the police must harbor a reasonable suspicion that a person is engaging in unlawful activity to effectuate a traffic stop. As such, if they stop a person without just cause, any evidence obtained during the stop may ultimately be deemed inadmissible, making it very difficult for the prosecution to prove the defendant committed any crime. As discussed in a recent opinion issued by a New Jersey Court in a DWI case, there is, thought, an exception for instances in which officers are acting in their community care taking role. If you are charged with a DWI offense, you should consult a skilled New Jersey DWI defense lawyer to assess your potential defenses.

The Defendant’s Arrest

It is reported that the police were dispatched following a 911 call that reported an SUV was stopped in a road near an intersection. The caller advised that she observed the vehicle for three minutes and noticed that the driver’s head was hanging down and he was not moving. She reported she called 911 because she was concerned that he might need medical attention. When officers arrived at the scene, they found the defendant in an SUV, sitting as described by the 911 caller.

Allegedly, when they spoke with the defendant, they noticed he was lethargic, had difficulty completing sentences, and was rambling. Additionally, his eyes were bloodshot and watery. They administered field sobriety tests, which the defendant failed. He was arrested and charged with DWI. He was convicted as charged. He then appealed, arguing in part that his arrest constituted an unlawful violation of his fourth amendment rights because the investigating officers did not have probable cause to arrest him for DWI. Continue reading

March 29, 2021

New Jersey Court Discusses Evidence of Impairment in DWI Cases

by Jonathan F. Marshall

While many DWI charges rely on the defendant’s blood-alcohol level to prove guilt, not all do. In fact, a defendant can be found guilty of DWI despite the lack of chemical testing. The evidence presented must nonetheless be sufficient to demonstrate that the defendant operated a vehicle while impaired. Recently, a New Jersey court issued an opinion discussing what constitutes competent evidence of intoxication in a case in which the defendant challenged his DWI conviction. If you are accused of a DWI offense, it is smart to confer with a New Jersey DWI defense lawyer to evaluate what evidence the State may attempt to use against you.

The Defendant’s Arrest and Trial

It is reported that police officers were dispatched to investigate reports of a vehicle hitting a parked car numerous times. They were provided a description of the vehicle that matched an SUV they had observed earlier in a parking lot. They returned to the lot and saw the defendant standing outside of the SUV. When the officers spoke with the defendant, he appeared highly intoxicated and admitted to drinking four or five beers.

Allegedly, the officers determined that it was not safe to perform field sobriety testing but arrested the defendant and transported him to the police station, where he underwent a breath test. The defendant was charged with multiple crimes, including DWI. At the trial, evidence regarding his breath test was deemed inadmissible. He was convicted based on the arresting officers’ testimony, after which he appealed. Continue reading

March 19, 2021

New Jersey Court Discusses the Right to a Speedy Trial in DWI Cases

by Jonathan F. Marshall

Under New Jersey law, all criminal defendants, even those charged with DWI, are innocent until proven guilty and have numerous rights from the time the matter is under investigation through the resolution of their case. For example, a DWI defendant has the right to a speedy trial, and if the right is violated, the charges against the person may be dismissed. Recently, a New Jersey court issued an opinion discussing the right to a speedy trial in a matter in which the defendant’s trial was delayed for almost two years after her arrest. If you are charged with a DWI offense, it is in your best interest to speak to a New Jersey DWI defense lawyer to determine your rights.

The Defendant’s Arrest and Trial

It is reported that the defendant was arrested for DWI in July 2016. She waived her right to an arraignment hearing and her first appearance approximately a month after her arrest was adjourned at her attorney’s request. It was rescheduled for September 2016 but was continued by the court. The matter was ultimately scheduled for trial in February 2017 but was relisted to July 2017, which was the next available date, per the request of the defendant’s attorney.

Allegedly, the defendant then filed a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution, which was denied. She appealed, and her appeal was denied as well. Thus, she entered a conditional plea in April 2018, over 630 days after her arrest. She then appealed the denial of her motion to dismiss, arguing that her right to a speedy trial had been violated. Continue reading

March 18, 2021

New Jersey Court Upholds DWI Conviction Based on Observational Evidence

by Jonathan F. Marshall

Not all DWI charges are based on a driver’s blood alcohol level at the time of the arrest. Instead, many DWI charges and convictions arise out of the fact that the arresting officer observed the defendant operating a vehicle while in an impaired state. Regardless of the nature of the evidence presented at trial, the prosecution must prove a defendant committed a DWI offense beyond a reasonable doubt, and if it cannot, the defendant should be found not guilty. In a recent opinion, a New Jersey court discussed the sufficiency of observational evidence in a matter in which it ultimately upheld the defendant’s conviction for a third offense DWI. If you are accused of a third or subsequent DWI crime, it is smart to speak to a New Jersey DWI defense lawyer to assess your options.

The Defendant’s Arrest

It is reported that the arresting officer received a call regarding a car that was parked in the middle of an intersection. When he arrived at the scene, he observed the defendant sitting in the driver’s seat of a parked car. The defendant was playing very loud music, was slumped over, and had a small child in the back of the car. When the officer spoke with the defendant, he noticed his speech was slurred, and he had a half-empty bottle of liquor in the counsel.

Allegedly, the defendant agreed to submit to field sobriety testing. The officer noted that the defendant had an odor of alcohol on his breath. The defendant was unable to perform the testing and was subsequently arrested and charged with multiple crimes, including third offense DWI. He was convicted, after which he appealed, arguing in part that the State failed to produce sufficient evidence to sustain a DWI conviction based on the observational prong of the statute. Upon review, the appellate court affirmed the defendant’s conviction. Continue reading