New Jersey DUI Lawyer – Supreme Court Questions Whether Drivers Can Be Forced to Take a Breathalyzer Test Without a Warrant

Last month, the United States Supreme Court addressed whether police can require drivers to take a “deep-lung” breath test without a search warrant. Three cases out of Minnesota and North Dakota were joined and brought before the Court. These states have laws that make it a crime for drivers to refuse to take a breathalyzer, urine, or blood test. Eleven other states have similar laws, including Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont and Virginia. A majority of the justices questioned whether these laws criminalizing refusal are constitutional, in light of an individual’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Generally speaking, the police cannot search a driver or their car after an arrest without first getting a search warrant, unless it is for their own personal safety or to preserve evidence. In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that police cannot conduct blood tests for drunken driving without first obtaining a warrant. However, some justices remain hesitant to apply the same rule to the breathalyzer test, because it is less intrusive than drawing blood.

Previously in North Dakota, refusal to submit to a chemical test carried only civil penalties, such as the suspension or revocation of one’s license. However in 2013, North Dakota lawmakers passed legislation to make penalties for drunk driving offenses more severe—in part by punishing a refusal to take a breathalyzer test in the same manner as it punishes the crime of driving under the influence.

The groups backing the states’ laws, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), have argued that when a person applies for a driver’s license, they give their implied consent to be subjected to a chemical test in the event that they are arrested for suspected drunk driving.

However, several groups backing the defendants, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the DUI Defense Lawyers Association (DDLA), have argued that the government cannot criminalize conduct protected by the Fourth Amendment. One cannot truly give “implied consent” to take a breathalyzer test when they get their license if they know that they will face criminal sanctions for refusing to take the test. The DDLA argued that there are better ways to deter drunk driving, including creating an electronic warrant system, setting up sobriety checkpoints, providing alcohol abuse treatment, and requiring the use of ignition interlock devices for convicted drunk drivers.

So how did the justices come down on the issue? Justice Samuel Alito was the only justice who seemed to be strongly in favor of criminalizing refusal, and he emphasized that breathalyzer tests are only a minimal intrusion. He expressed that the only reason people don’t want to submit to a breathalyzer test is because they don’t want their blood alcohol measured, it is not that they object to blowing into a straw. Justice Kagan seemed to agree with this line of reasoning, noting that police have an interest in testing a driver’s breath as quickly as possible, before their blood alcohol content (BAC) goes down.

Ultimately, the states were unable to come up with a persuasive reason why police cannot secure a warrant while transporting suspects to the police station or hospital for testing. Forty states now utilize electronic warrant systems.

Although it is not a crime to refuse to take a breathalyzer test in New Jersey, there are harsh civil penalties, including fines, motor vehicles surcharges, a long suspension of driving privileges and special sentencing enhancements if the refusal occurs within a school zone. A refusal can also be used to draw an inference of guilt in a DUI trial. If you are pulled over in New Jersey for a suspected DUI, the police can detain you and bring you to a hospital where staff may draw blood.

New Jersey DUI/DWI Lawyer Edward M. Janzekovich Represents Drivers Who Have Refused Chemical Testing

If you were arrested for drunk driving and refused to submit to chemical testing, you are likely facing steep penalties. In addition to a DWI charge, you are probably also facing penalties for refusing to take the breathalyzer test. To speak to an experienced New Jersey DUI lawyer and begin building your defense, call the Law Office of Edward M. Janzekovich at 732-257-1137 or contact us online today. We represent clients throughout New Jersey, including Ocean County, Monmouth County, Mercer County, Middlesex County, Union County and Somerset County.

New Jersey DWI – DUI Lawyer – Driving on a Revoked or Suspended License

Losing one’s driving privileges is often much more devastating than people anticipate.  You are not able to drive to work—New Jersey does not allow for any temporary, provisional or “work” licenses – you are not able to drive to school; you are not able to drive to the supermarket to purchase food for your children, or take them to the hospital in the event of a life-threatening emergency.  Quite simply, there is no flexibility in the law when it comes to a revoked or suspended driver’s license.  This especially holds true if you live in an area without public transportation, or have no family to assist you.

You may be on the revoked list for many reasons—you may have a prior DWI conviction, you may have failed to pay drunk driving surcharges to the Motor Vehicle Commission, or your license may have been suspended or revoked in another state.  Regardless of the reason for your suspension, if your license has been revoked, you cannot operate a motor vehicle in New Jersey during the period of your suspension for any reason.

Nevertheless, many people decide to drive without a valid license, gambling with their future, and betting that they won’t get caught.  Thousands of drivers on the revoked list are pulled over for routine traffic stops every year in New Jersey.

New Jersey License Suspension

If you are caught driving on a suspended license, you could face enormous fines, a mandatory 90 day jail sentence, steep motor vehicle surcharges, and an additional period of license suspension.  You will also face expensive collateral consequences that can financially hobble you for years (including expensive taxi rides and lost job opportunities).  These are consequences that you will have to face even if you are not aware that your license has been suspended.

There are several strategies that can be employed if you are charged with driving on a revoked license, that at the very least can give you a fighting chance against the imposition of an additional period of license suspension or jail time.  First, the governing statute N.J.S.A. 39:3-40 does not prohibit alternatives to jail time, such as community service, so under certain circumstances it is possible to request an alternative punishment during sentencing.  Second, charges for driving on a suspended license can be reduced through plea bargaining (whereas plea bargaining is not an option for DWI offenses).  Additionally, you may be able to avoid jail time if you entered a plea without being represented by an attorney, or in violation of your constitutional rights or New Jersey Court Rules.

Top New Jersey Drunk Driving Lawyer Edward M. Janzekovich Represents People Charged With Driving on a Suspended License

We understand how devastating the consequences of losing your license can be.  If you have been charged with driving on a suspended license, you could face an even longer suspension period, jail time and other life changing consequences.  Don’t take chances with your future.  To speak with an experienced New Jersey DWI lawyer about your situation, call us at 732-257-1137 or contact us online today.  We serve clients in Ocean County, Monmouth County, Mercer County, Middlesex County, Union County and Somerset County, including Union, Dover, Brick, Jackson, Wall, Woodbridge, East Brunswick, Evesham, Howell, Robbinsville, Bound Brook, Neptune, Hamilton, Linden City, Bridgewater and Tinton Falls.

New Jersey DWI/DUI Lawyer: What Happens If I Am Convicted of Drunk Driving in Another State?

Getting arrested and facing charges for drunk driving can be a very frightening and intimidating experience. You do not know what to expect. These feelings of anxiety may increase if you are arrested out-of-state and far from your home and family. If you are a New Jersey resident, in addition to having to deal with the charges in the state where you were convicted you will also face serious consequences in New Jersey.

Once your out-of-state DUI has been reported, you will probably have your license suspended in New Jersey and face expensive surcharges from the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission (MVC). In addition, if you are convicted of drunk driving in New Jersey any time during the ten years following your out-of-state conviction, you will face enhanced penalties in New Jersey as a repeat offender.

Suspension of Your Drivers License

Once you are convicted of DUI out-of-state, the record of your conviction will be reported to the Chief Administrator of the MVC through the Interstate Drivers License Compact (the Compact). The Compact is an interstate agreement between 45 states to exchange information about license suspensions and traffic violations, including DUI offenses. The Compact’s motto is “One Driver, One License, One Record.” The only five states that do not participate in the Compact are Massachusetts, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia and Tennessee; all other states, including the District of Columbia, participate.

When you are convicted in a state that participates in the Compact, your driving record will be affected just as if you had committed the offense in New Jersey. Out-of-state non-moving violations like parking tickets, tinted windows or a loud exhaust pipe will not be reported to the New Jersey MVC. But serious charges like a DWI/DUI will be reported.

For example, if you are convicted of a DWI/DUI in New York or Pennsylvania, your license will be suspended in New Jersey for:

  • 180 days if it is your first DWI/DUI offense
  • 2 years if it is your second DWI/DUI offense
  • 10 years if it is your third (or greater) DWI/DUI offense

All prior convictions (whether out-of-state or in New Jersey) count as prior offenses for determining how long your license will be administratively suspended.

Motor Vehicle Surcharges

Surcharges are fines assessed by the New Jersey Surcharge Violation System. If you have too many points on your license for moving violations, or if you are convicted of a DWI, you are liable for a surcharge in addition to any court fines and penalties you have to pay in the state where you were convicted. Once your out-of-state conviction is reported to the MVC, you will have to pay $1000 per year for the next three years. If the conviction is your second within three years, or your third offense, you will have to pay $1500 per year for the next three years.

Sentencing Enhancements

Violation of any law that is “substantially similar” to New Jersey’s own DWI statute will constitute a prior conviction if you are later convicted of a DWI in New Jersey. This is true even if the state where you were convicted is not a signatory to the Compact.

New Jersey DWI – DUI Lawyer Edward M. Janzekovich Represents People With Prior Drunk Driving Convictions

If you have been convicted of drunk driving in another state, and are facing new charges in New Jersey, trusted DWI lawyer Edward M. Janzekovich is prepared to defend you. We have a successful track record of defending clients in Ocean County, Monmouth County, Mercer County, Middlesex County, Union County and Somerset County, including Union, Dover, Brick, Jackson, Wall, Woodbridge, East Brunswick, Evesham, Howell, Robbinsville, Bound Brook, Neptune, Hamilton, Linden City, Bridgewater and Tinton Falls. To take charge of your situation, call us at 732-257-1137 or contact us online today.

New Jersey DWI – DUI Lawyer Edward M. Janzekovich – Mixing Prescription Drugs and Alcohol—A Dangerous Combination

When an individual is arrested for driving under the influence, law enforcement may opt to charge them with driving under the influence of alcohol, a drug, or a combination of both. A person can be found guilty even if the amount of alcohol consumed would be less than the legal limit of .08 percent. This is because the combined effect of drugs and alcohol can produce a synergistic effect—such that even if either substance alone might not impair the driver, their combined effect renders a driver profoundly impaired.

In New Jersey, you can be charged with a DWI even if you are under the influence of over-the-counter drugs or prescription medication that has been legally prescribed to you. Many recent studies demonstrate that common medications, particularly allergy medications, may impair a person’s driving even more than alcohol.

Common medications that can result in a drug-impaired driving charge include:

  • Sleeping pills, such as Ambien
  • Allergy medication, such as Benadryl
  • Cough syrup, such as Nyquil or Codeine-based syrups
  • Prescription painkillers, including Tylenol 3, Vicodin and OxyContin
  • Anti-anxiety medications, such as Ativan, Xanax and other benzodiazepines
  • Antidepressants
  • Muscle relaxers

In the typical scenario where both drugs and alcohol are involved, police will first arrest a motorist for driving under the influence of alcohol. Then, after administering field sobriety tests and a breathalyzer test, if the breathalyzer results and field sobriety test results do not correlate (because the driver appears to be more impaired than the breathalyzer results indicate), police may seek blood or urine samples to determine whether the driver is under the influence of drugs.

Many drugs stay in a person’s system for long periods of time, and can be detected in a person’s blood or urine long after the impairing effects have worn off. Therefore, to be convicted of a DWI in New Jersey for drug use, a driver will most likely be subject to a series of tests conducted by a drug recognition expert. If such an expert is not available at the police station when the driver is tested, the test results may become inadmissible in court.

New Jersey DWI – DUI Lawyer Edward M. Janzekovich Defends Motorists Accused of Driving Under the Influence of Drugs and Alcohol

Respected New Jersey DUI lawyer Edward M. Janzekovich has a vast knowledge of the technicalities of DWI law and has successfully defended countless clients against DWI charges. If you have been charged with driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol, you have rights. To discuss your situation, call us at 732-257-1137 or contact us online today. We serve clients in Ocean County, Monmouth County, Mercer County, Middlesex County, Union County and Somerset County, including Union, Dover, Brick, Jackson, Wall, Woodbridge, East Brunswick, Evesham, Howell, Robbinsville, Bound Brook, Neptune, Hamilton, Linden City, Bridgewater and Tinton Falls.

 

New Jersey Appellate Court Rejects DWI – DUI Refusal Challenge

On January 28, 2016 a New Jersey Appellate Court rejects a DWI / DUI refusal challenge that the Standard Statement police are required to read is defective. The argument is that the Statement does not fully advise a person in custody for suspected DWI / DUI of the exact potential penalties they will be charged with if they refuse to provide a breath sample for testing to determine if they are drunk driving in New Jersey.

The defendant argued thatshe should have been told that the mandatory minimum license revocation would be seven months,” and that “up to 20 years can mean anywhere between 0 days to 20 years.” She also challenged that she should have been told the mandatory minimum fine would be between $300 and $500, and that it would result in her having to install an ignition interlock device in her vehicle for a certain period of time.

In reality, the situation does potentially get even more confusing because in New Jersey – when a person is arrested for suspected DWI / DUI – most times, just prior to being read this Statement, they are also advised of their Miranda Rights, and the police then have them sign a rights card. Miranda says you have a right to remain silent, and the right to have an attorney. Then one minute later, you are read the Statement, which says you have no legal right to have an attorney, that you cannot remain silent, and that you must answer the question.

The take away from this, do not drink and drive, but if you are asked to provide a breath sample by a law enforcement officer, provide it, then hire a New Jersey DWI / DUI lawyer / attorney to help you. (you must supply at a minimum 2 good breath samples for the Alcotest to generate a test result and avoid a refusal charge.)

janz

Click the below link for the sourced article from the New Jersey Law Journal – January 28, 2016 by Michael Booth

NJ Court Rejects Challenge to Breath-Test Refusal Warnings

 

Contact DUI – DWI Defense Attorney Edward M. Janzekovich

To schedule a free initial consultation, contact my office online or call us at 732-257-1137. Evening and weekend consultations are available by appointment. I accept all major credit cards.

The Office of Edward M. Janzekovich can help if you have been arrested and charged with DWI / DUI in Union County, Ocean County, Monmouth County, Middlesex County, Burlington County, Mercer County & Somerset County.

We also serve the New Jersey cities of Union, Dover, Brick, Jackson, Wall, Woodbridge, East Brunswick, Evesham, Howell, Robbinsville, Bound Brook, Neptune, Hamilton, Linden City, Bridgewater & Tinton Falls.

 

Police Can Search Your Car Without a Warrant…Again.

No Warrant Required

Today, the New Jersey Supreme Court just reversed its position on the Warrant Requirement for searches of motor vehicles. NJ Supreme Court ruled in 2009 that police must obtain a warrant to search a motor vehicle, unless exigent circumstances were present. State v Pena Flores (2009).

This morning they decided in State v Witt, that the exigent circumstances standard set forth in Pena-Flores was unsound in principle and unworkable in practice to obtain warrants. They ruled that: The Automobile Exception authorizes the warrantless search of an automobile only when the police have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of an offense and the circumstances giving rise to probable cause are unforeseeable and spontaneous.

The Pena-Flores rule basically required police to request consent to search the vehicle from the owner/operator of the vehicle if probable cause was present, and if denied, they could apply for a telephonic warrant to search the vehicle.  Consent is no longer required.

POST – CONVICTION RELIEF

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE — POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

14-2-7407 State v. Hall, App. Div. (per curiam) (10 pp.) Defendant appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief . On September 25, 2000, pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant, a Jamaican national, pled guilty to two counts of first-degree armed robbery. On June 8, 2010, defendant filed a PCR petition, alleging counsel was ineffective because he failed to warn defendant about the deportation consequences of his guilty plea. The PCR judge denied the PCR request without a hearing, concluding defendant’s petition was time-barred.The PCR judge did not consider the merits of defendant’s request. On appeal, defendant argues his PCR request was not time-barred because the immigration consequences of his plea were not revealed until his 2009 release from prison, followed by the effectuation of the immigration detainer. He then consulted with counsel who advised he was subject to deportation based upon his prior guilty plea.

The record demonstrates that when the five-year filing deadline elapsed, defendant had no reason to suspect his attorney had potentially rendered ineffective assistance by failing to advise him of the deportation consequences of his guilty plea. Not until defendant was taken into custody by ICE in 2009, upon release from state custody, did he realize the consequences of his guilty plea and the possible deficiencies of his attorney’s performance. Concluding these are exceptional circumstances warranting a delay in the filing of the PCR petition, the appellate panel reverses and remands for an evidentiary hearing. \

Source – NJSBA Daily Briefing

DRUNK DRIVING — SPEEDY TRIAL

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE — DRUNK DRIVING — SPEEDY TRIAL

14-2-7618 State v. Vanderkooy, App. Div. (18 pp.) Defendant challenges his convictions for driving while intoxicated, refusal to take a breathalyzer test, and speeding in the Law Division at a trial de novo based on the record developed in the municipal court.

The panel affirms, finding that:

  1. defendant was not denied his right to a speedy trial where both parties are responsible for various delays, whether due to scheduling conflicts, discovery delays, or requesting a Frye hearing, the amount of time elapsed is mostly due to the Frye hearing, and defendant did not prove prejudice sufficient to warrant a speedy trial violation;
  2. defendant was not denied the requested discovery regarding the radar gun or the State’s radar gun expert;
  3. the State presented sufficient evidence of the scientific reliability of the Stalker Dual SL radar device used by police;
  4. there was sufficient evidence in the record of the operator’s training and testing of the radar device to admit the radar reading into evidence;
  5. defendant cannot establish that the municipal court judge or trial judge erred in finding the police officer’s testimony credible; and
  6. based on the officer’s observations and defendant’s conduct, it is clear that probable cause to arrest existed and the State established beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of DWI.

Source – NJSBA Daily Briefing

CRIME VICTIMS GET GREATER ROLE IN PROSECUTION OF THEIR CASES

New Jersey has enacted a law giving victims greater involvement in the prosecution of criminal cases, especially in the plea-bargaining process. The law, signed Tuesday, supplements an existing bill of rights by allowing victims to attend judicial or juvenile proceedings concerning the crime and to appear in any proceedings that implicate their rights. It also gives them standing to file a motion or to present argument on a motion filed by someone else in order to enforce their rights.

They will have a right to consult with the prosecution before any plea agreement can be reached, and the prosecutor must inform the court about the conversation and say whether the victim approves of the plea deal.

Source – NJSBA Daily Briefing

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – EXPUNGEMENTS

14-1-6924 In re Kollman, Petition for Expungement, Sup. Ct. (Rabner, C.J.) (32 pp.) Defendants seeking relief under the statute’s new five-year pathway to expungement have the burden of proving why expungement of a criminal record is in the public interest. Because petitioner appears to have met that burden, the court reverses the denial of his expungement application and remands to the trial court to assess the petitioner’s character and conduct as of the date of its new ruling.

Source – NJSBA Daily Briefing