NJ Alcotest Trial

A guilty verdict in a DUI can have serious consequences including loss of license, heavy fines and even incarceration.
If you have been charged with DUI in New Jersey, there are ways in which you can beat the charges. The Prosecutor MUST prove, by clear and convincing evidence, you were 1) operating a motor vehicle and 2) under the influence an intoxicant.
Provided it is possible, the accused is typically forced to submit to "field sobriety tests" by a trained officer. Of course, this is a subjective test and may be affected by many issues such as inner ear infections and other issues causing balance problems, disabilities or injuries causing balance or mobility problems, eye problems and other medical conditions or medicines.
In NJ you will also be asked to submit to an Alcotest (formerly Breathylizer) which determines the amount of alcohol in your blood by taking a breath sample. Although the officer administering the test will claim it is infallible, there are multiple parts to the machine which all must be working properly. A trained DUI attorney knows the parts of the machine subject to attack and how to go about proving they were not working properly at the time the Alcotest was administered to the accused. Additionally, there are certain conditions under which the test must be administered which a trained DUI lawyer is aware of and knows to look for. Finally, the officer administering the test must not only follow proper procedure but must be certified to perform the test as well.
We also have trained experts available to assist you in your case against a DUI matter. These experts were former Alcotest operators and trainers who trained the offices to use the alcotest machines. They know how to help us beat a DUI.
If you have been charged with DUI in Morris, Sussex, Bergen or Passaic County, New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com for more information or contact us directly at 973-584-6200 to get the help you need.
A DUI is a serious matter and should not be faced alone.
For more information about us or a DUI visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com

Tracking you

Although most of us are aware that our cell phones, GPS devices, laptops, netbooks and the like offer a glimpse into who and often where we are but just how much information is recorded about us. In addition to "cookies" being added to your devices to determine your demographic, spending habits, hobbies, interests and anything useful to advertisers your cell phone provider may be giving even more information. For those of you who cannot live without your Blackberry, iPhone or Droid be aware that every 7 seconds your cellular company sends a signal to determine where you will receive the best reception. The answer is recorded. In case you missed that, every 7 seconds your location is being recorded. This is in addition to the existing record of your texts, calls, internet usage and the like. Unless you plan to give up your phone there is nothing you can do to fight this as it is perfectly legal for your cellular provider to continue to strive to improve their service to you. Just remember that if you are accused of criminal activity these records are readily available now to prove your whereabouts and it is only a matter of time until they become common discovery in criminal proceedings.
For more infomation on criminal matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

Warrantless Searches

Warrantless seizures and searches are presumptively invalid as contrary to the United States and the New Jersey Constitutions.” State v. Pineiro, 181 N.J. 13, 19, 853 A.2d 887 (2004). Failure to obtain a warrant or meet the burden of proof of one of the exceptions to the requirement of a warrant is reason to bring a Motion to Suppress illegally seized evidence in order to obtain a not guilty result for a criminal defendant.
When no warrant is sought, the State has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the warrantless search falls within one of the few well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2043, 36 L.Ed.2d 854, 858 (1973)
In many warrantless search and seizure matters "probable cause" is the stated reason for the failure to obtain a warrant. Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949), defined probable cause as existing "where ‘the facts and circumstances within ... [the officers'] knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that’ an offense has been or is being committed.” Of course this definition leaves much to the discretion of the officers and has served as both the reason for success and failure of multitudes of suppression motions.
In obtaining a warrant the police must set forth a sound basis for undertaking a search and seizure prior to said undertaking, without the benefit of any further knowledge or evidence obtained during the search itself. By undertaking a warrantless search and seizure the police are able to avoid some of the investigation otherwise required in building their case against the the accused by merely using the evidence obtained in the warrantless search to later obtain facts unknown at the time of the search which they may then be used to secure a conviction against a criminal defendant.
At all times an individual has a right to certain expectations of privacy in his or her belongings and person. What constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of the person against unreasonable search and seizure is a regular and hotly contended matter within the Courts and anyone believing their Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure should consult defense counsel to insure those rights are properly protected by suppression of any evidence seized in violation thereof.
For more information or representation in the event of a violation of Fourth Amendment rights visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com.