When a drug dog alerted during a sniff test the officers found drugs the dog was not trained to detect the defendant sought to challenge the dog’s record in the field for false alerts. The defendant in Florida v. Harris was stopped and on 2 separate occasions and his vehicle was searched on both occasions as a result of a sniff test by the same dog. The initial search revealed ingredients used in manufacturing methamphetamines. The second search occurred while defendant was out on bail for the arrest during the first stop. The second search revealed no drugs. The United States Supreme Court heard the case and held that a defendant is entitled to challenge the evidence relating to a drug dog’s reliability. The defendant may challenge the dog’s reliability with his or her own witness, by cross-examination of testifying handler or both. Challenges may go to the dog’s training or actual field results. If you have been charged with a drug related crime in New Jersey, you should obtain experienced defense counsel immediately to insure your rights are protected any search and seizure was proper. Experienced counsel can challenged the State’s probable cause for the stop as well as any search which resulted in the prosecution’s finding of evidence. For more information on drug charges, controlled dangerous substances (CDS) in a motor vehicle or criminal law or municipal court 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.

DWI Acquittal Results in Dismissal of Vehicular Manslaughter Case In NJ

Defendant was charged with DWI, vehicular manslaughter, possession of marijuana, paraphernalia, reckless driving and CDS in a motor vehicle. Defendant was acquitted of the DWI but was found guilty of all charges. Defendant appealed the vehicular manslaughter charge because the Model Jury Charge did not instruct that the DWI acquittal needed to be taken into account. The New Jersey Appellate Court held that the erroneous instructions relative to the DWI constituted reversible error. The Appellate Court also found that instructing the jury on the concept of "recklessness" without comparison to the concept of "negligence" was erroneous. The conviction for vehicular manslaughter was vacated. DUI/DWI in NJ is not taken lightly in any case 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.