New Jersey DWI Attorney Blog

May 6, 2018

Where Do DWI Cases Go in the New Jersey Court System?

Under the laws of the state of New Jersey, driving while intoxicated (DWI) is a motor vehicle offense rather than a criminal offense. While a DWI conviction can result in serious penalties, including the possibility of jail time, the New Jersey court system does not deal with DWI cases in the same way it handles most criminal cases. A defendant in a New Jersey DWI case, for example, does not have the right to a trial by jury as described in the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. DWI is considered a “petty” offense, and therefore it is not covered by all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights that apply in criminal cases. Most other rights, like the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and the Sixth Amendment’s right to confront one’s accuser, still apply in DWI cases. Understanding which courts may consider DWI prosecutions and appeals, and how they are allowed to consider them, is important when planning a defense against DWI charges.

Municipal courts have original jurisdiction over DWI cases under Rule 7:1 of the New Jersey Rules of Court (NJROC). The municipal court judge handles all pretrial motions and other matters, and presides over the trial if one occurs. The judge will render a verdict and decide on a sentence. Several levels of appeal are available after a conviction in municipal court. If a person seeks post-conviction relief, however, NJROC 7:10-2 requires them to file a petition in the municipal court where the conviction took place.

Appeals from a municipal court conviction go to the Superior Court, Law Division. NJROC 3:23 requires a defendant to file a notice of appeal within 20 days of their conviction. The Law Division, upon receiving a transcript from the municipal court, may reverse the conviction and remand the case to the lower court, or it may conduct a trial de novo. While the Law Division is not bound by the municipal court’s findings of law or fact, it must “give due…regard to the opportunity of the [municipal court] to judge the credibility of the witnesses,” according to the New Jersey Supreme Court 1964 ruling in State v. Johnson.

February 19, 2018

Evidence in New Jersey DWI Cases, Part 4: Field Sobriety Testing

by Evan M. Levow

In cases involving alleged driving while intoxicated (DWI) in New Jersey, prosecutors must prove all of the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The New Jersey DWI statute states that a person commits an offense when they operate a vehicle “while under the influence” of drugs or alcohol. Prosecutors can prove this through testimony, such as by having the arresting officer testify about their observations of the defendant’s appearance or behavior, or through the defendant’s performance on field sobriety tests (FSTs). New Jersey evidence rules govern the ways prosecutors may introduce evidence of defendants’ performance on these tests at trial.

Accepted Field Sobriety TestsThe National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has created standard procedures for three FSTs. New Jersey courts accept the use of two of the three tests in DWI investigations: the “One Leg Stand” and the “Walk and Turn”. HGN has not been held relaible to measure or check for intoxication, since there are 40 or more other causes of nystagmus in addition to intoxication.

– The “walk and turn” test involves taking nine heel-to-toe steps along a straight line, and then turning and taking nine heel-to-toe steps along the same line, back to the starting point. Officers look for whether the person maintains their balance, stays on the line, and maintains heel-to-toe contact.

February 17, 2018

Evidence in New Jersey DWI Cases, Part 3: Consciousness of Guilt

by Evan M. Levow

Under the laws of New Jersey, driving while intoxicated (DWI) is a motor vehicle offense, rather than a criminal offense. A DWI proceeding still resembles a criminal case in many ways. Just as in a criminal case, prosecutors have the burden of proving every element of the offense of DWI beyond a reasonable doubt. DWI trials in New Jersey take place in municipal courts, with the municipal judge hearing the evidence and reaching a verdict. Prosecutors can introduce various forms of evidence, including certain actions and statements by a defendant that indicate a “consciousness of guilt.” Evidence that a defendant believed themselves to be guilty is not enough, by itself, for a conviction, but it can provide strong support for the state’s case. New Jersey courts have developed a series of rules regarding consciousness of guilt in criminal cases in general, and in DWI cases in particular.

Many criminal statutes include a particular mental state, known as mens rea, or “guilty mind,” as an element of the offense that the state must prove. Perhaps the most well-known example is the legal difference between murder and manslaughter. The offense of murder requires proof that a defendant acted with intent, meaning that they intended to kill their victim. Manslaughter involves reckless or negligent conduct by a defendant that results in someone’s death. Evidence of “consciousness of guilt” can support the state’s theory about a defendant’s “guilty mind.” The New Jersey Supreme Court reviewed some types of evidence of consciousness of guilt in a 1993 ruling, State v. Mann. Fleeing or escaping from custody for the purpose of “avoid[ing] accusation [and]…prosecution,” the court held, could be evidence of consciousness of guilt.

The New Jersey DWI statute’s definition of the offense makes no mention of mens rea. The state does not have to prove that a defendant intended to commit DWI, or even that they knew that they were impaired. Municipal judges may still infer consciousness of guilt from certain acts by DWI defendants. State law requires DWI suspects to provide breath samples to police, and it treats refusal as a distinct offense. In certain circumstances, refusal to submit to breath testing could also serve as evidence of consciousness of guilt. The New Jersey Appellate Division ruled that a defendant’s refusal was admissible as evidence in a DWI trial in State v. Tabisz in 1974. The New Jersey Supreme Court further affirmed this in 1987 in State v. Stever.

December 28, 2017

Evidence in New Jersey DWI Cases, Part 2: Chemical Testing

by Evan M. Levow

The state has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in New Jersey driving while intoxicated (DWI) cases. A defense attorney’s job, in part, is to identify defects or deficiencies in the state’s case. DWI cases often require a considerable amount of documentation. Under the DWI statute, a person is guilty of DWI if they operate a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or while their blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is at least 0.08 percent. Police can determine BAC by testing samples of breath, blood, or urine. Breath testing is most common, followed by blood. Each type of testing requires proof that police followed specific procedures. The evidence must meet standards set by the New Jersey Rules of Evidence (NJRE), state law, and court decisions.

Authentication of Documents

In a courtroom, BAC evidence generally takes the form of written reports. In the case of breath testing, this is usually a series of reports generated by the Alcotest device. BAC results obtained from blood samples involve reports from the laboratory that performed the test. NJRE 901 requires authentication of all documents offered as evidence, meaning evidence that the document is, in fact, what the party offering it claims it is. This can be accomplished by having the person who created the document authenticate it in sworn testimony. Some documents are “self-authenticating,” as described by NJRE 902.

December 19, 2017

Evidence in New Jersey DWI Cases, Part 1: Testimony

by Evan M. Levow

In any prosecution for driving while intoxicated (DWI) in New Jersey, the burden of proof is on the state to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. When a DWI case goes to trial, every piece of evidence introduced by both parties must be approved and admitted by the judge. The evidence must comply with the New Jersey Rules of Evidence (NJRE). Testimony is often a critical part of the state’s evidence in DWI cases, such as an arresting officer testifying about their observations of a defendant and establishing their reasons for suspecting them of DWI. Understanding which testimony is allowed under the NJRE is crucial to defending against a DWI charge.

Elements of a New Jersey DWI Case

New Jersey’s DWI statute allows prosecutors to meet their burden by proving impairment by alcohol or drugs, or by proving a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of at least 0.08 percent. Proving impairment without BAC evidence requires testimony from police officers who witnessed the defendant in whichever circumstances led to the DWI charge. Even with BAC evidence, prosecutors must introduce testimony that justifies the arrest and authenticates the BAC test results.

December 7, 2017

“Dry Towns” in New Jersey Often Have the Most DWI Arrests

by Evan M. Levow

New Jersey laws dealing with driving while intoxicated (DWI) are consistent throughout the state, meaning that prosecutors in each county in New Jersey must meet the same burden of proof to obtain a conviction. A review of municipalities around the state by NJ.com, however, has found that some local police departments are much more assertive in enforcing these laws. New Jersey law allows municipalities to regulate the sale of alcoholic beverages, including by prohibiting their sale within city limits. These “dry towns,” according to the NJ.com report, have some of the highest DWI arrest rates in the state. Differences in arrest rates can have many possible causes, including prioritization by local law enforcement.

A person commits the offense of DWI if they operate a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol or drugs, or while they have a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08 percent or higher. Police and prosecutors often prefer to prove impairment with BAC evidence, since a BAC above the “legal limit” of 0.08 percent creates a presumption of intoxication. They can also meet their burden of proof with evidence of how a driver behaved, appeared, or smelled at the time police pulled them over. During patrols, police may look for vehicles that are moving erratically, which could indicate impairment by a driver. Police are also allowed to operate roadside checkpoints for the purpose of checking motorists for common signs of intoxication. Each police department has wide leeway in setting enforcement priorities.

Businesses that serve or sell alcohol must have a license to do so. New Jersey law gives municipalities the authority to determine how many licenses, if any, to issue. A municipality might ban the sale of alcohol altogether, or it might prohibit retail sales while allowing restaurants to serve alcohol. New Jersey has 32 dry towns that prohibit alcohol sales to some extent. Most of these are located in the southern part of the state. Camden County is home to four dry towns: Audubon Park, Collingswood, Haddon Heights, and Haddonfield.

December 2, 2017

Alleged Mishandling of DWI Evidence by New Jersey Law Enforcement Official Could Affect Thousands of Cases

by Evan M. Levow

In order to convict someone of driving while intoxicated (DWI), New Jersey prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person was impaired by alcohol or drugs. State law allows police to collect breath samples to test blood alcohol concentration (BAC) in suspected DWI cases. Police in New Jersey typically use a device known as an Alcotest, which analyzes breath samples provided by blowing into a tube. These devices require careful maintenance and calibration in order to produce reliable measurements. In October 2017, prosecutors in several New Jersey counties notified thousands of individuals with DWI convictions or pending charges that police may have mishandled BAC evidence in their cases. A specially appointed judge will determine whether any New Jersey DWI cases should be reviewed in light of this alleged misconduct.

New Jersey law creates an incentive for prosecutors to rely on BAC evidence. They can prove that a defendant was legally impaired through circumstantial evidence, such as an arresting officer’s testimony about a DWI defendant’s behavior and appearance. New Jersey’s DWI statute creates a presumption of impairment, however, when a defendant’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was 0.08 percent or higher at the time of, or within several hours of, their arrest. Penalties are also higher for first-time DWI convictions if the defendant’s BAC was 0.10 percent or greater.

The Alcotest device purports to measure the concentration of alcohol in a person’s blood by performing tests on samples of that person’s breath. This requires a certain amount of extrapolation using algorithms in the device’s programming. The device uses infrared technology and the process of electrochemical oxidation to test breath samples. This latter process is particularly sensitive to environmental factors like temperature and potential contaminants. The New Jersey Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in State v. Chun, in which we represented several appellants, established guidelines for the maintenance and calibration of these devices, as well as documentation to indicate when an Alcotest device was most recently serviced.

November 30, 2017

New Jersey Appellate Court Reverses DWI Conviction Based on Warrantless Blood Draw

by Evan M. Levow

New Jersey’s driving while intoxicated (DWI) statute allows the state to prove that a defendant was impaired by alcohol with the results of blood alcohol content (BAC) testing. A BAC of 0.08 percent or higher creates a legal presumption of impairment. Police can determine BAC by testing a sample of breath, blood, or urine. Breath testing is considered to be the least intrusive. Blood and urine tests must follow the rules established by the Fourth Amendment for searches. A defendant can challenge the admissibility of BAC evidence by establishing a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. A 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision specifically addressed warrantless blood draws in DWI cases. The New Jersey Appellate Division cited that decision earlier this year in State v. Smijean, reversing a DWI conviction that involved BAC evidence from a warrantless blood draw.

Breath testing for BAC requires a person to blow into a tube attached to a testing device commonly known as a breathalyzer. Most New Jersey police departments use a device known as an Alcotest. Submission of a breath sample is mandatory for anyone who drives on a public road in New Jersey, and refusal to submit a breath sample upon request by law enforcement is a separate motor vehicle offense.

Since breath testing only requires blowing into a tube, it is not considered a “search” under the Fourth Amendment. Blood testing, however, is considered intrusive enough to fall under the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on warrantless searches. Drawing a person’s blood therefore requires that person’s consent or a warrant issued by a judge. In a general sense, police may be able to conduct a search without a warrant if they can establish that “exigent circumstances” made it impractical to obtain a warrant first, usually because of the risk of loss or destruction of evidence. How this exception applies in DWI cases has been a matter of dispute.

October 27, 2017

New Jersey DWI Law and the “Quasi-Entrapment” Defense

by Evan M. Levow

If you have been charged with alleged driving while intoxicated (DWI) in New Jersey, numerous different defenses are potentially available to you, depending on the facts of your particular case. The prosecution has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that they must present solid evidence of every element of the offense described in the DWI statute. New Jersey treats DWI as a traffic offense, and it is important to understand how DWI cases can differ from criminal cases as a result. Some defenses that are available in criminal prosecutions are not necessarily available in a DWI case. The New Jersey Supreme Court has held, for example, that the “entrapment” defense is not available to DWI defendants.

“Entrapment” involves a claim that law enforcement encouraged or induced a defendant to commit an offense they would not otherwise have committed. The U.S. Supreme Court stated in a 1992 decision, Jacobson v. United States, that the government cannot “originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person’s mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime” in order to prosecute that crime. Courts place an emphasis on the defendant’s “innocence.” In order to overcome an entrapment defense, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was already “disposed to commit the criminal act” before government agents came to them with the idea.

The New Jersey Supreme Court considered whether a defendant charged with DWI could raise a “quasi-entrapment” defense in State v. Fogarty, also in 1992. At the very beginning of its decision, the court describes the defense theory as “novel.” According to the opinion, the defendant was attending a wedding reception on the night of his arrest. Since he had been drinking, he had arranged for someone to drive him home and for someone else to drive his truck home.

October 26, 2017

The “Involuntary Intoxication” Defense in New Jersey DWI Cases

by Evan M. Levow

Individuals charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI) in New Jersey municipal courts can raise numerous possible defenses against the state’s charges. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, for example, allows defendants to challenge the basis for a traffic stop that led to a DWI charge. If a court finds that the stop violated the defendant’s rights, it must suppress any evidence obtained as a result of that stop. This usually results in the dismissal of the case. Defendants can also challenge the validity of the state’s evidence, such as Alcotest results. Some defenses that are available in criminal cases in New Jersey may also be available in DWI cases, but since New Jersey treats DWI as a motor vehicle offense, their availability is limited. A recent decision by a Texas court shows how the defense of “involuntary intoxication” could apply in a DWI case. New Jersey, however, does not currently allow this defense.

The New Jersey DWI statute defines the offense as operating a motor vehicle while “under the influence” of alcohol or drugs, or with blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08 percent or more. Most criminal statutes require proof that a defendant had a certain mental state, such as an intent to commit that specific offense or recklessness as to the criminal nature of their actions. This is known to lawyers as mens rea. New Jersey’s DWI statute makes no mention of intent or any other mental state. While court decisions have delved further into the issue of mens rea in DWI cases, the statute only requires proof that a defendant was intoxicated or impaired.

The affirmative defense of “involuntary intoxication” allows a defendant to challenge the “intent” element of many criminal offenses by showing that the intoxication was either “not self-induced” or was “pathological.” The statute defines “pathological” as being far in excess of what would ordinarily be expected for the amount of intoxicant consumed by the defendant. Since it is an affirmative defense, the defendant has the burden of proving it by “clear and convincing evidence.” This is a lesser burden of proof than the state’s burden of proving guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.”