Because I was involved in State v. Chun, the case that has defined DWI defense and prosecution throughout the state of New Jersey, I have been fortunate to learn a great deal about the new breath testing machine in New Jersey, the Alcotest® 7110 MKIII-C. I have had the pleasure of passing on some of that knowledge to other attorneys by speaking at local and national seminars on the technical and scientific defenses related to the Alcotest®.

This video is from a New Jersey statewide presentation on Alcotest® defenses. I have given other presentations to attorneys at national speaking engagements in New Orleans, Dallas, Las Vegas, and in Wisconsin and Connecticut.

If you are convicted of a first offense New Jersey DWI/DUI, and you blew 0.15% or higher, or if you are a second or greater alleged New Jersey DWI/DUI offender, you will have to install an ignition interlock device on the car you primarily drive, if you are convicted.

If you are convicted of Refusing to Submit to Breath Testing, first offense included, you must install an interlock. So, even on a first offense, where you are charged with the DWI, where there is no reading, if you are convicted of the Refusal, you must install the interlock for 6 – 12 months.

This adds a significant expense to any conviction, as you must pay to install, maintain, and remove the ignition interlock device.

If you are a third or greater alleged DWI offender in New Jersey, you are looking at mandatory 180 days in jail. Certainly, the best form of relief is to fight and win the current case. Otherwise, the only way to avoid jail if you are convicted is to seek “Post Conviction Relief” (PCR) from your prior convictions.

As a DWI lawyer in New Jersey, when I am representing a client with a pending third offense, I always review the prior convictions to see whether relief can be obtained from the prior courts in one of two ways:

  • Seeking to vacate the prior conviction altogether, based on constitutional errors by the judge, prosecutor, or defense attorney, and then starting the case from scratch to try to win the prior DWI/DUI completely; or

In all states, including New Jersey, after a DWI arrest, a police officer must read a “standard statement” that contains a warning that the motorist must submit to breath testing when probable cause exists to believe the person is under the influence of alcohol.

The implied consent form includes some pretty alarming language that should make anyone hearing it sit up and take notice, even if the person is in a bit of an altered state. So, when I speak to clients who say that they don’t recall being read anything prior to being asked to submit to breath testing, I think that is a significant issue to explore.

For example, the most significant part of the statement sets forth the potential penalties for failure to submit to the testing:

If you are charged with a New Jersey DWI, and you are a doctor, nurse, lawyer, teacher, pilot, or other professional, you may have added concerns about the effect of a NJ DWI arrest or conviction on your profession.

DWI in New Jersey is not a criminal offense. It is a traffic offense, only. This is different than how 48 other states treat DWI/DUI. However, that does not reduce the severity of the charge and resulting effects in New Jersey. There is still loss of driving privileges, fines, and significant surcharges.

Because DWI is not a crime in New Jersey, it is not reported to criminal databases, such as the NCIC or National Crime Information Center, and will not be discovered during a criminal background check.

As a New Jersey DWI Attorney, I acknowledge that “refusal” cases, where a client says he/she will not submit to a breath test, is one of the harder types of cases to deal with in my DWI-only practice.

However, it is not a foregone conclusion that the person who says no will be convicted of refusing to take the test. There are many defenses to refusal charges.

There are very few instances where, in hindsight, refusing to blow would have been a good decision. Refusal is a second charge — in addition to the DWI charge — so, now, you have to worry about defending both charges. Even where the person is sure that he/she is over the limit prior to blowing into the breath testing machine, it is almost always better to blow than not, because there are many more defenses to breath testing issues than refusal cases.

After the landmark decision in State v. Chun, a significant part of DWI defense in New Jersey breath testing cases focuses on how the machine operated at the time of the defendant or accused’s testing. Challenging the “operability” of the machine is different than challenging the “scientific reliability” of the machine or its process. The latter challenge is now precluded by Chun. Now, the questions center on whether the machine was operating as it is expected at or around the time of the defendant’s arrest.

One of the most important assessments of how the machine is working is done through an analysis of the electronic data that is stored in the machine. This discovery or information obtained from the machine is referred to as the “data download”.

The data download is created every six months or so, when a State Police trooper does the bi-annual calibration on the machine, as required now by Chun. A copy of the information is downloaded onto two CD’s. One is taken to West Trenton and will eventually be made part of a statewide database that is supposed to be made available to the public “forthwith”, or immediately after Chun was decided in March 2008. The other disc is left in the local police department and is available for “discovery” by defendants tested on the machine.

State v. Chun is the biggest most important case in New Jersey DWI history, as it now sets the standards for DWI defense and prosecution throughout the state. It has also set standards across the country, since New Jersey was the first and only state, so far, to challenge the scientific reliability of the new breath testing machine in New Jersey, the Alcotest® 7110 MKIII-C.

I feel very fortunate to have been involved in State v. Chun since it began 2005, when New Jersey began to use the Alcotest® statewide. It has given me perspective and information that I would never have been able to learn from reading the case or the studies on the machine.

Long before the New Jersey DWI case is over, clients wonder whether they should go to Alcoholics Anonymous or even into an alcohol or drug rehab facility, and whether that will help their DWI case.

Certainly, if you are having ongoing issues with alcohol or drugs and need help with the situation surrounding alcohol or drug use, you should absolutely seek assistance with the problem.

Whether it helps the DWI case is very different, and should not affect whether to seek help, if help is needed.

Contact Information