Blood Drawn For Medical Care Used in DUI Prosecution in NJ

In matters where probable cause exists to believe you were driving under the influence of intoxicating substances the police may obtain blood drawn for the purposes of treating you medically and test for the presence of intoxicants. Although driving on the roads of New Jersey creates an implicit agreement that, if you are suspected of DUI, you will provide breath or blood samples, you retain the right to refuse to provide such samples and face the penalties of refusal statutes instead. In cases where an accident has occurred, often the defendant is unconscious and cannot offer or deny consent. In other cases, a conscious defendant may consent to a physician or other hospital employee taking blood in the event a transfusion is needed or for other medical reasons outside the presence of law enforcement officers. In these cases there may be no request whatsoever at the time of treatment from police officers for consent to test the defendant's blood for intoxicants. However, the police may still attempt to obtain samples of the defendant's blood to prove guilt in a DWI case against the defendant. DUI/DWI in NJ will have a serious impact on your life and can have significant implications in related matters such later personal injury or vehicular manslaughter charges. If you are charged with DUI in NJ you should seek an experienced attorney immediately to protect your rights. For more information on Driving While Intoxicated, reckless driving or other serious municipal court/traffic matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter.

DUI Statute Changes Will Allow You to Keep Driving in NJ

The success of ignition interlock devices required for NJ Driving Under the Influence convictions and breath test refusals has been so effective at preventing future intoxicated driving that new legislation has been proposed. S-2427, sponsored by Senator Nicholas Scutari of Union County, was advanced by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The measure would require a first time offender with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .08-.10% to have an ignition interlock device installed for 3 to 6 months and a first time offender with a BAC over .10% to have the device installed for 7 to 12 months. The ignition interlock device would be required in any vehicle the individual owns, leases or is a primary driver of. Once the device is installed, the individual would be entitled to a provisional license to drive to work or certain other approved places. Failure to install the device would be a disorderly persons offense. Drivers who do not lease, own or regularly drive a vehicle will have their licenses suspended for the time periods set forth above. Individuals with drug related DUI would be subject to installation of the interlock device for the same periods as those driving while under the influence of alcohol. This represents a substantial shift in the way DWI cases are managed. Presently drivers are subject to suspension resulting in severe financial hardship, including job loss, as a result of inability to operate a motor vehicle. Presently, drivers with BAC of .15% or more are subject to installation of the interlock device for 6 months after the license suspension period ends. In line with the current suspension periods, under the proposed legislation, second-time offenders would be required to install the device for 2-4 years and third-time and subsequent offenders would be required to install the ignition interlock device for 10-20 years. If you are facing DUI charges, you should consult an experienced driving while intoxicated defense attorney immediately in order to preserve your ability to commute to work, transport your children, attend medical appointments and the like. For more information on motor vehicle, municipal court and other criminal law matters, in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter.

Drivers Can Be Charged With Multiple Refusals as a Result of a Single Event in NJ

In State v. Nunnally, 420 N.J. Super. 58 (App. Div 2011), a defendant in was charged with refusal to submit to a breath test under the DUI statute but not under the CDL statute. When the officers were alter unable to prove that the driver was under the influence, they attempted to charge the defendant with refusal to submit to a breath test under the CDL statute. The Bergen County court addressed the matter and concluded that CDL refusal is not a lesser included offense of a general DUI refusal because each requires proof of a different set of facts and the Appellate Division affirmed. The CDL refusal statute requires proof the arresting officer had probable cause to believe the person had been operating or was in actual physical control of a commercial motor vehicle on the public highways or quasi-public area with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .04% or greater. This differs from the general DUI statute which requires proof the driver is under the influence of intoxicants rather than simply having a BAC of .04% or greater. As a result of the officers failure to charge him with CDL refusal within 90 days of the incident Nunnally was only held to account for the general DUI charge. Although Nunnally escaped prosecution under the CDL refusal statute, it is an uncommon event that officers would not bring complaints for all significant charges against a driver, including the often minor issues which gave rise to probable cause in the matter. Penalties for DWI are severe, including jail, loss of license, significant fines, court ordered counseling for drugs and alcohol as well as installation of ignition interlock devices. Interlock devices are expensive to install and require payment of monthly fees, as well as visits to certified inspectors to insure proper operation of the device during the install period. If you are charged with a DUI, you should seek experienced defense counsel immediately to protect your rights. For more information on DUI, driving while intoxicated, refusal to submit to an Alcotest (formerly Breathylizer), CDL refusal, CDS in a motor vehicle or other serious driving related charges visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com.

Must You Provide A Urine Sample in A NJ DUI Arrest?

On July 2, 2012 the New Jersey Appellate Court heard the case of State v. Verpent (A-3807-10T4). Verpent was found guilty of DUI and challenged the failure of Bergen County Superior Court Judge Jerejian to suppress the lab results from his urine sample. The Appellate Division upheld prior cases requiring the submission of urine and its use in proving Driving Under the Influence Cases. Once an officer's observations lead to a conclusion that an individual is under the influence of intoxicants, the officer may request the performance of field sobriety testing in the event that the officer believes the individual may safely perform the tests. If the field sobriety tests provide further evidence of intoxication, the individual will be asked to provide a breath sample into an Alcotest device. If the individual's blood alcohol level (BAC) is under the legal limit or non-existent and the officer believes drugs may be causing the inability to perform tests, a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) will then perform further testing along with obtaining urine and sometimes blood samples from the accused. N.J.S. 39:4-50.2(a) requires all drivers to consent to submission of urine and blood samples upon an officer's request. Although defendant challenged the taking of his urine without a warrant, the Court held that the officer's observations gave rise to probable cause to arrest and exigent circumstances justifying taking of a urine sample without a warrant under the theory that delay could result in "destruction of evidence." Although urine screens are not always accurate and the results are subject to challenge, the NJ courts have long required defendants in driving while intoxicated matters to provide urine specimens and there is "no federal constitutional right to prevent being required to giving a urine sample". State v. Malik (534 A.2d 27 (App. Div. 1987) DUI/DWI in New Jersey is not taken lightly and if you are arrested for these charges you should seek an experienced attorney to assist you in your defense. Selecting an attorney who knows your rights and is able to avoid a conviction based on mistakes by officers in their attempt to prove your guilt is the difference between keeping or losing your license, as well as a host of other problems that come with a refusal conviction in NJ. If you are charged with DUI contact an attorney immediately to protect your rights. For more information on Driving Under the Influence or other serious municipal court/traffic matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter.