DUI- Blood Required Without Probable Cause?

The New Jersey Assembly and Senate have proposed an amendment to the Driving Under the Influence Statute requiring a breath or blood sample be obtained at any time a person “operating a motor vehicle is involved in an accident resulting in the death or serious bodily injury of another person.” If passed, this will allow a breath or blood sample to be taken even if there is no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe the driver was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The requirements of probable cause and reasonable suspicion were established to protect the constitutional rights of the people from unreasonable search and seizure, which is exactly what this legislation would allow. In a statement as to the intent or purpose of the legislation, the Senate set forth in its statement regarding S-359, that the bill would “require police officers to obtain a breath or blood sample” in the event there is an accident resulting in death or serious bodily injury to another.” Often, the severity of injuries from a motor vehicle accident is unknown until days or weeks after the accident. Alcohol will not, and drugs may not, remain in a person’s system for as long as it takes to determine the seriousness of harm suffered from the accident. This is a slippery slope which will give rise to the “need” for taking of breath or blood samples from each and every individual involved in a motor vehicle accident with the stipulation that, if serious bodily injury does not occur the results will be suppressed. Following will be the issue that, even in the event there is not serious bodily injury, the State now has conclusive evidence that a defendant operated a motor vehicle on a public road in violation of the New Jersey Driving While Intoxicated statute, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, which is a per se violation, whether there was a motor vehicle accident or not, and will lead to prosecution of defendants without the required showings of probable cause or reasonable suspicion every time a driver is involved in an accident and found to have any controlled dangerous substances (CDS) or a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .08% or greater. The Assembly, in A-1225, has included a certain level of protection by adding that “a person operating a motor vehicle involved in the accident who the investigating police officer concludes has not contributed to the accident whatsoever shall not be required to submit a breath or blood sample.” Much like the time period required to determine whether serious bodily injury resulted from an accident, accident investigations often take time and will again give police the “need” to take blood or breath samples immediately so as not to lose potential evidence. 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.

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.

DUI Defendants loss An Opportunity To Escape Guilt in NJ

The main evidence used against drivers accused of driving under the influence is the Alcotest result. The Alcotest accuracy depends on multiple factors including calibration of the machine and various components thereof. It also depends on multiple other factors which the 20 minute observation period and removal of radios and cell phones from the room are designed to compensate for. The New Jersey Court recently held that defendants are not permitted to examine the rooms in which the machine is housed or the observation period occurs unless they have "a particularized" reasonable basis to believe the room's design or location had an actual bearing on their testing results. Although the Appellate Court ruled against the inspections because they found the Alcotest had been proven to be "well-shielded from" potential interference in prior matters the legislature called for a 20 minute observation period prior to administration of the Alcotest as well as including the requirement that all radios and cellular devices be removed from the room. The differing opinions of the legislature and judiciary in this matter leave this issue ripe for further dispute. 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.

Failure to Give Appropriate Breath Test Refusal Warning Can Result In Acquittal in NJ

Refusal to give a breath sample in a DUI matter carries substantial penalties including mandatory minimum 7 month loss of driving privileges and fines up to $500 for a first offense to a minimum 10 year loss of license to $1,000 fine for a third or subsequent offense. Additionally, if you refuse to submit a breath sample, you may still be convicted of DWI based on the officer's observations while you perform field sobriety tests. In the event you elect not to submit a breath sample into the Alcotest machine and are still charged and convicted with DWI, you will face a loss of license for each offense. Due to the severity of the penalties for refusal being akin to those for the underlying driving under the influence charge, the legislature has structured the warnings given in the event of a refusal to be of the same stricture as those issued for driving while intoxicated. In the recent case of State v. O'Driscoll, Harding Municipal Court Judge Gary Troxell found O'Driscoll guilty of refusal, DWI and possession of an open container of alcohol and Morris County Superior Court Judge Ironson affirmed the conviction on appeal. The Appellate Division overturned the conviction on the grounds that failure of arresting officers to read the current refusal warnings did not satisfy the intent of the legislature in the preparation and requirement of the specific statement regarding the consequences of refusal to submit to breath tests. DUI/DWI in New Jersey is not taken lightly and if you are arrested for these charges, or refusal to submit to a breath test, 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 refusal to submit to the Alcotest or DUI contact an attorney immediately to protect your rights. For more information on Driving While Intoxicated 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.

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.

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.