Insomniacs beware! The medication that your healthcare provider prescribed to help you sleep could cause a phenomenon called sleep-driving. Driving while sleeping, by the way, is illegal, and not a good idea. Just imagine, you take your prescribed sleeping pill, get into bed to get some much needed and often elusive rest. Then, the next thing you know, you wake up in the morning with a motor vehicle traffic summons and a note with the location of where your car was towed on your bedside table next to you. Apparently, you have been charged with driving while intoxicated, DWI, but you have zero recollection of the event. The last thing you remember is going to sleep the night before.

If you or someone you know has experienced the scenario described above, you have experienced the phenomenon known as sleep-driving, an unfortunate side effect of many popularly prescribed sleep-aid medications. Some such sleep medications include Ambien; Butisol sodium; Carbrital; Dalmane; Doral; Halcion; Lunesta; Placidyl; Prosom; Restoril; Rozerem; Seconal; Sonata.

Courts are still divided on whether sleep-driving should fall under the category of driving while intoxicated, primarily because the driver never made a conscious decision to get behind the wheel. Legally speaking, and otherwise, this is an important distinction to make. The repercussions of such a conviction are as grave as if you were found guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol. If you have been charged with a DWI while you were under the influence of a prescription sleep-aid, or any medication, you should seek counsel immediately. Take every action to protect your rights.

If you are driving in New Jersey and a police officer pulls you over on suspicion of DUI/DWI, when asked to do a breathalyzer test, and you refuse, you have just broken a law. By possessing a driver's license, you have given consent to being administered these tests, through a concept known as "implied consent." For the privilege of being legally entitled to drive, you have legally committed to perform that act upon request. As such, breaking that promise or a refusal to submit to the test is illegal. Even if you are not convicted of DWI from that arrest, you are still guilty of that crime and your license is suspended for up to 10 years (20 years if the arrest occurs in a school zone and it is your third DWI!).

You may be convicted of "refusal" in particular, but until just this past week, such a refusal conviction would constitute a prior DWI conviction if you were subsequently pulled over for another DWI! The difference between a first offense and a second offense in refusals and DWIs is tremendous: 1 year 7 months to 1 year of suspended driving privileges and thousands of dollars.
The first point would be, obviously, don't drink and drive. The second would be to remember that submitting to the test, as you have promised to do by possessing a driver's license, does not necessarily mean you will be convicted of a DWI, but refusing to take the test will get you convicted of that crime, which carries its own fines and penalties.

The third, though probably most important if you dismiss the first, is that you should contact an attorney immediately so that you don't get caught in a web of complicated laws. DWI/DUI and refusal convictions come with fines, community service, jail time, car ignition interlock devices, IDRC (Intoxicated Driver Resource Center) classes, severe inconvenience, and have a way of following you for the rest of your life. Get yourself a skilled, experienced attorney immediately.

Side note #1: People with commercial driver's licenses have an entirely separate set of penalties that affect their license, even if they were stopped or charged while driving their personal car! For example, they lose their commercial drivers license for a minimum of one year.
Side note #2: If you have a DWI conviction, you cannot travel to Canada without permission from the Canadian Embassy! Canada considers a DWI a crime, and they will turn you away at the border without that express permission.

A Monmouth County man will reportedly be sentenced in Freehold to five years in prison in connection with the death of Wall Township man. Walter Poland was intoxicated when he hit the victim with his truck. Mr. Poland pleaded guilty to driving with a suspended license, driving while intoxicated and leaving the scene of a fatal accident. His 54 year-old victim used a walker, had fallen and was lying on the ground in the shoulder on Route 35 in Wall Township. Police found Mr. Poland with help from a witness who reported the incident, which occurred back on October 4, 2010. These are three separate offenses, 1. driving with a suspended license, 2. driving while intoxicated, 3. leaving the scene of a fatal accident, but all deal with his fatally irresponsible operation of an ice cream truck.

A DWI offense means he admitted to being intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle, Driving While Intoxicated. The suspended license offense means his license was suspended at some point prior to this accident for a motor vehicle violation, and that he has no legal right to be on New Jersey's roads. If that previous offense was a DUI conviction, Driving Under the Influence, then the current convictions carry mandatory jail time. In this case, the number of offenses charged is a factor that will be considered in his sentence.

Finally, the leaving the scene of a fatal accident is an extremely serious offense. In any motor vehicle accident, whether a fender bump or a full on crash, if someone involved in the accident leaves the scene of that accident, that person can lose his or her license. If injuries occur, the penalty becomes more significant. Obviously, in this case where there was a fatality, leaving the scene is a regarded as a fairly shocking wrongdoing. The public is supposed to be protected from anyone driving who has not earned the privilege of a valid drivers license from the state. So we can be certain that Mr. Poland will be off New Jersey roads for a long time.

Even one conviction of DUI on your record could have a big negative impact on your future. It is vital that an attorney assist in handling any DUI or motor vehicle charges. Contact an experienced attorney immediately if you have any DUI or motor vehicle charges brought against you.

Ms. Pressly is latest Hollywood star to find herself spending a night in a California prison. The "My Name Is Earl" co-star was pulled over for something she did or failed to do behind the wheel of a car; there was no collision, car crash or automobile accident reported. From that point, the officer apparently brought her in to the precinct, having detected some reason to believe she had been drunk driving. She posted bail of $15,000.00 and was released the next morning.

While it is reported that she has been booked on suspicion of DUI, that term can mean different things in various jurisdictions. The key point in this story is that you do not have to be over the legal limit of .08 in New Jersey, and nearly every other state, in order to be in DUI trouble. Perhaps the starlett slurred her words, or gave some other clue.

For example, if a police officer initiates a motor vehicle stop and observes the driver to be potentially impaired he can ask the driver to get out of the car to start a test. If the driver then proceeds to have difficulty saying the alphabet, walking a straight line, standing on one foot, or any other similar test, he or she is then placed under arrest for suspicion on DUI, or driving under the influence of alcohol. The breath test or blood test will reveal if the person is under the influence of alcohol. It should be noted that one can get DUI for being under the influence of any type of drug, including prescription or recreational drugs. Naturally, the breathalyzer does not apply in that situation.

It is very easy to find yourself in DUI trouble, even if you think you have been cautious. Call an attorney immediately if you have been pulled over and questioned about drugs or alcohol use.

Braylon Edwards, it was reported recently, upon being pulled over in the early morning hours for having overly tinted windows, was charged with drinking and driving. In response, he first suggested that perhaps he might just leave the car and head on home (really?), then questioned the legality of police procedure which stopped him for the windows only to discover that he had been drinking, without performing a field sobriety test.

Putting Edwards' off the cuff analysis aside, there are two issues here regarding his legal situation. Firstly, he is on probation in Ohio connected to aggravated disorderly conduct charges. It is unknown whether his Ohio probation will be affected by a DUI arrest in New York. In New Jersey, for example, the DUI charge is under Title 39, which governs motor vehicles. It is not a violation of the criminal code unless there is an injury. Thus, it would be doubtful that it could be a legal setback his most recent charges occurred in New Jersey. DUI is a serious offense, however, and has been treated with appropriate gravity by the Courts in recent years, so it is possible that Edward's actions could have some impact on his probation where discretion is permitted.

Secondly, the overly tinted windows caused the police to stop Edwards. The police cannot arbitrarily pull over drivers, however if a car has very tinted windows, which are illegal, they can lead to a police stop, and the noticeable odor of alcohol provides the police officer probable cause to inquire about the driver's level of intoxication, and subsequently, to request that a driver step out of the vehicle.

If you are trying to stay out of trouble, drive a vehicle that will stay under the radar, and attract no attention. Perhaps professional athletes are not familiar with this approach to life. According to reports, should he receive up to a year in prison, he may find it harder to go unnoticed among fellow inmates. Further, spontaneous legal analysis of police behavior is ill-advised, and best left to the skilled attorney that you should immediately consult should you find yourself in any similar situation.

A car is parked on the side of a highway with the internal light on and its occupants in a heated discussion of some sort. A police officer appears at the driver's side to check on the situation and make sure they do not need help. After being assured by both driver and passenger that they are fine and in no need of help, the officer smells what he believes to be alcohol on the driver's breath, and requests that he exit the vehicle for the purposes of a field sobriety test. Is this test respectful of the driver's constitutional rights? Is this test a warranted attempt to protect all the other vehicles on the road?

An experienced lawyer would tell you that according to the New Jersey courts, the oral aroma or odor of alcohol alone is not sufficient to sustain the probable cause necessary for questioning and sobriety testing. The New Jersey Appellate Division, in State v. Hawkins, A-7400-97T5F (1999), held that the smell of alcohol on an individual's breath is insufficient to provide probable cause for the officer's belief that the driver was operating his vehicle under the influence of alcohol in the absence of any untoward driving or other indication of insobriety. In the Hawkins case, the defendant was stopped for a community caretaking reason when the officer heard a scream emit from the vehicle. There was no evidence of unsafe or illegal operation of the car. The only indication to the officer that the defendant had consumed alcohol that evening was the odor on his breath.

The New Jersey Appellate Division again addressed this issue in State v. Jones, 326 N.J.Super. 234, 245-6 (App.Div. 1999), stating that, "The nervousness of the driver, considering the fact of the stop itself, along with his consumption of alcohol, is expected. The mere smell of alcohol and admission of consumption may not, by itself, warrant a sobriety test...However, justification of the search under these facts would have the effect of permitting a search...of every motor vehicle which is stopped for a minor motor vehicle violation, where the driver admits to having consumed one bottle of beer. Such a search goes beyond the bounds permitted and does not pass constitutional muster." In the Jones case, the driver was stopped by the police officer for failing to use a traffic signal when changing lanes on the New Jersey Turnpike. After the vehicle was stopped and the officer was speaking to the driver, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol on the driver's breath.

So not only must the police officer witness actual operation of a vehicle, he must witness a more than minor moving violation just prior to pulling you over, in order to be paired with detection of alcoholic breathe to create sufficient probable cause for a field sobriety test. Failing to signal before a lane change is too minor. What exactly constitutes a sufficiently serious moving violation for a police officer to legally request to administer a field sobriety test to a driver? Must it be obviously erratic and unsafe driving? What is clear is that alcohol on your breath is not enough. And that passes the sniff test. Reasonably, three sips of a beer could make your breath smell like alcohol, and simultaneously, you might have 6 beers in an hour, chew a couple of Altoids and not emit any oral alcoholic odor. What constitutes a serious enough moving traffic violation to make coincidental alcoholic breath sufficient probable cause to request a field sobriety test is a different legal question for a different post. Either question should be considered by a skilled attorney when defending any DUI/DWI charges, and should be contacted as soon as possible following such an incident.

Another sparkling product of the NFL has appeared on the crime blotter. Corey Dillon, retired running back for the New England Patriots, was reportedly charged with DUI, driving under the influence, or DWI, driving while intoxicated.

Sherriff's deputies have stated that officers spotted a man in a red Chevy Camaro driving very slowly behind them in the pre-dawn hours of the morning. The Super Bowl veteran was pulled over and questioned, and allegedly admitted to drinking earlier the prior evening. Bail for the 35 year-old father of three was set at $5,000.00, he was then released after posting, and he is expected to return to Court in June.

Operating a vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or DWI, in California is a criminal offense, which is why the $5000.00 bail was set. In New Jersey, DWI is technically a motor vehicle offense but it has with quasi-criminal penalties, including jail fines more than $750.00, license suspension and a record that can negatively impact many other parts of your life.

The recently unlucky football star has been brought to Court for other reasons as well. His wife, Desiree, has reportedly filed for divorce after 10 years of marriage, claiming irreconcilable differences. She has asked for full legal and physical custody of their children, spousal support and legal fees. While she has offered to agree to visitation for Dillon, his pending DWI charge will no doubt have an effect on how liberal that visitation will be, and whether or not the Court will require that he see his children while under supervision. His recent conduct was enough to bring criminal charges of DWI, even if they are not ultimately proven, at the very least give the appearance of questionable behavior, and arguably poor judgment. A judge may not want him driving with his children, for example, until the case is settled.

Given the complexity of the potential consequences of a DUI in New Jersey, it is crucial to have an experienced attorney represent your rights as soon as possible.

Interestingly, Corey Dillon was pulled over for driving unusually slowly. Though most thinkg of erratic driving as speeding or weaving, driving unusually slowly is another form of erratic driving. Driving extremely slowly is usually charged with careless driving, NJSA 39:4-97, which carries a penalty of 2 points as well as a fine, and is certainly a legitimate reason to stop a vehicle in NJ. So do not think you are in the clear if you "take it nice and slow" on your way home from a night out. Or if you do, have your attorney on speed dial.