As it heats up outside many locals from Monmouth and Ocean Counties jump aboard their boats, sailboats, fishing boats, speedboats, catamarans, row boats, kayaks and canoes to have fun in the sun. But beware, after several hours of boating its effects on the body, such as fatigue, wave motion and heat exhaustion, which can make even the most prudent boater physically compromised or downright impaired. When these effects are combined with alcohol, it raises the likelihood that something will go wrong. When something goes wrong on water, it often goes quite wrong. The health effects mentioned have actually been proven to increase the effects of alcohol on the body with respect to sensory impairment. With the number of related accidents and fatalities, perhaps a Boating While Intoxicated or Boating Under the Influence public service campaign should be launched.

Nationwide each year, hundreds of boating deaths and injuries are caused by or in some way related to alcohol consumption. Authorities have determined that boating while intoxicated is just as dangerous as driving while intoxicated, if not, more so. Boats lack brakes, so there are no breaks to hit (and then pray). Further, open water is not equipped with traffic safety devices to guide your way, aside from buoy markers. The U.S. Coast Guard and New Jersey law enforcement will be on the look out for impaired boaters this summer on local lakes and rivers. Make no mistake about it if you are questioned by a member of the Coast Guard or police. Offenders can be charged with a DUI or DWI just as they could on land. Penalties include potential loss of all boat as well as automobile operating privileges for six months. The thinking is, if you can't be trusted with a boat, why should law enforcement trust you with a car.

As with all legal cases, details are significant. Further, civil suits may follow quickly. If you have been charged with a DWI/DUI for operating a boat while under the influence contact a defense lawyer immediately so that he or she can devise a legal strategy best suited to protect your rights.

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.

Alcohol and vehicular troubles are nothing new to collegiate athletes, unfortunately. So this story can be added to the others covered here. Notre Dame's Wide Receiver Michael Floyd was reportedly sentenced to a year of probation and cannot drive for 90 days following his guilty plea to a misdemeanor drunk driving charge. Once Floyd's license is reinstated he will have a device in his car for 180 days that will monitor Floyd's blood-alcohol level and will prevent the car from starting if his blood-alcohol level is too high. Floyd was arrested for driving while intoxicated in March in South Bend, Indiana. At the time of his arrest, his blood-alcohol level was 0.19%, which is more then double the legal limit. Any attorney in this position would likely be patting himself on the back. He seems to have some trouble maintaining the separation of driving and drinking, so perhaps his sentence is fitting and will help him focus on his talents.
In Indiana drunk driving is considered a misdemeanor crime. Had Floyd been arrested in New Jersey he would have instead committed a Title 39 motor vehicle violation rather than a crime. The minimum penalty in New Jersey for a DUI is 7 months loss of drivers license. Since his blood-alcohol level was as high as a 0.19% (New Jersey considers over a 0.08% blood alcohol level to be driving under the influence) he would be required to have a mandatory interlock device. This device of course would prevent the car from starting if his blood-alcohol level is too high. He would be stuck with the interlock device for six months after his license was restored.
There are many permutations of penalties and sentences you may receive depending upon the number of infractions you have on your record. It helps to have an experienced attorney on your side. If you have been charged with a DUI you should seek help from a licensed attorney immediately.

Real husband of Real New Jersey Housewife, Teresa Guidice, Joe Giudice can't seem to keep to the straight and narrow. It appears that he allegedly attempted to use identification belonging to his brother to obtain a fake driver's license.

Why would anyone other than a teenager who seeks to bar hop before they are legally entitled to do so want a fake i.d.? Perhaps someone whose driver's license has been suspended for driving under the influence, DUI, might be so frustrated and indignant at being denied the privilege and convenience of driving that he might attempt something so foolish. Last year, Giudice got his car entangled with a utility pole and directly thereafter failed a breathalyzer test. He then spent some time in jail for driving regardless of having had his license suspended. It seems he is determined to drive, regardless of what the law permits.

Here the Realty star's husband is in hot water due to attempting to obtain a fake i.d. A generation ago, a fake I.D. a tool used by those who were under age 21 to get into bars or purchase alcohol. After the September 11, 2001 attacks, however, the government made the process of getting identification a more rigorous and stringent one. Furthermore, the laws prohibiting falsifying identification carry far stiffer criminal penalties for those that are trying to circumvent the law now than there were then. Here, Giudice used his brother's information and official identifying documentation to attempt to get a license for himself from the New Jersey Department of Motor Vehicles. He used identification fraudulently, in that he is not who he said and tried to show that he was. He also attempted to have false identification forged with the unknowing participation of the DMV. These charges carry a potential jail sentence of 10 years! Two of his friends posted $50,000.00 in bond to free him at least temporarily, because his wife, Teresa was supposedly out of town on a publicity appearance.

It is possible that his defense attorney will be able to plea bargain somehow to allow him to avoid jail. He will not, however, be able to avoid a possible criminal conviction on his permanent record. The Giudices keep the legal community busy. Listing $8 million in debt and only approximately $2 million in assets, they declared bankruptcy and lost significant property as a result, and one must presume that their lavish lifestyle has been curtailed, despite their new status as high profile reality t.v. celebrities. One place not to scrimp is a criminal defense attorney, should you find yourself facing charges of any sort.

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.

Whether it is New Jersey or California, a Municipal Court judge may order a person to serve jail time. In New Jersey, the longest a person can be sentenced to serve in jail is 180 days in Municipal Court. Naturally, jail time is not common for municipal offenses, outside of a mandatory sentence for a third DUI offense. The key word in all of this is "may," because the law does give a judge the authority to order jail time for things such as disorderly persons offenses. The statute puts a cap on the amount of time, but as anyone would imagine, most people do have an aversion to any prison time.

Lindsay Lohan makes the news by being sentenced to 90 days jail time because, despite her exquisite display of tears and remorse, she has blatantly disregarded the prior court orders. She has missed court dates and failed to comply with terms of her probation, and further, she has erred more than once. Lets hope the jail time is a wake up call to Ms. Lohan, even if she is released after serving a fraction of her jail sentence. If the wake-up call hits, perhaps her mandatory in-house substance abuse rehabilitation following jail might have a shot at being effective.

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.

You would think that if you are driving a car, you are operating a vehicle. It is not, however, in the context of DUI/DWI, and there is case law to address the issue.

N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 provides in pertinent part: "A person who operates a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor...or operates a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.10% or more by weight of alcohol in defendant's blood...shall be subject [to certain enunciated penalties](emphasis added)." New Jersey courts have argued for many years over exactly what actions taken by a defendant will be construed as "operation" of a vehicle pursuant to the statute. In 1985, the New Jersey Appellate Division reviewed the principals derived from earlier and sometimes conflicting cases, synthesized two of the leading New Jersey Supreme Court cases and set forth the following standard:
[W]hen one in an intoxicated state places himself behind the wheel of a motor vehicle and not only intends to operate it in a public place, but actually attempts to do so (even though the attempt is unsuccessful) and there is the possibility of motion, he violates the [drunk driving] statute. State v. Stiene, 203 N.J.Super. 275 (App.Div. 1985)(footnote omitted)(emphasis added). Please see, State v. Daly, 64 N.J. 122 (1973); State v. Sweeney, 40 N.J. 359 (1963); State v. Morris, 262 N.J.Super. 413 (App.Div. 1993).

The New Jersey Supreme Court has utilized a definition of "operation" derived from "What Constitutes Driving, Operation, or Being in Control of Motor Vehicle for Purposes of Driving While Intoxicated Statute or Ordinance." 93 A.L.R. 3d 7, 16-17 (1979), stating, "The term 'operate', it has been held, includes merely controlling the vehicle and is intended to forbid persons from doing anything with regard to the mechanism of a motor vehicle, whether it has any effect on the engine or not. Similarly, it has been held that a person begins to operate the instant he begins to manipulate the machinery of the vehicle for the purposes of putting the car in motion, and that 'operates' refers to the actual physical handling of the controls of a vehicle." State v. Mulcahy, 107 N.J. (1987).

In the leading case of State v. Daly, above, the Court held that a defendant who, after exiting a bar, entered his vehicle in order to sleep off the intoxicated state under which he was affected, was not guilty of driving while intoxicated. During the course of that defendant's sleep, he was awakened by the cold and turned on the car's engine in order to utilize the heating system. When the officer noticed the running vehicle and went to investigate, he had to awaken the defendant in order to question him. The Court found that there must be some evidence of a defendant's intention to move the vehicle before he could be convicted of driving while intoxicated. The other leading case in this area, State v. Sweeney, above, stands for the proposition that a defendant who is inside a vehicle, with the engine running and has no other apparent purpose for being as such, is assumed to be in operation of the vehicle. The Supreme Court inferred that such a defendant must have the intention of moving the vehicle when positioned thus in a running vehicle.

The cases that involve defendants who were found guilty of driving while intoxicated where the vehicles are not moved at all, at the very least describe the defendant as being located inside the car when the police officers investigate. No case involves a defendant found guilty where he is outside of a vehicle that had been parked in his driveway and is not even running. Details are crucial, from a legal perspective, and a skilled attorney can use them to build your best defense.

A defendant who pleaded guilty to assault, and charged with drunken driving, drug possession among other things, fled his home state recently. But according to a report, he virtually turned himself in using Facebook. He was living in a nearby state since the fall, and has been wanted by police for failure to appear at his sentencing. Perhaps he didn't realize that police use the Internet too. The tech-savvy police posted a thank-you note too, for the defendant's diligent status posts, which led them to his whereabouts.

A 17 year-old girl pleaded guilty to misdemeanor driving while intoxicated and criminally negligent homicide connected to a car crash that killed her boyfriend. She was driving drunk in the middle of the night, and crashed her car into a brick pole. She had a blood alcohol level of .13 % and was driving 56 m.p.h. in a 30 m.p.h. zone. Basically, she got behind the wheel of a car while drunk, and should have known that doing so could easily kill someone. Every state, including New Jersey, has its own requirements, definitions and terms for driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol and the crimes that stem from that action. As always, it is crucial to consult an attorney well versed in those laws.

The Judge denied her youthful offender status and imposed a 6-month jail sentence reportedly because he had seen a picture she posted of herself on Facebook. The photograph was taken of her one month after the crash, and she posted it captioned "drunk in Florida." She could have gotten as much as 4 years in state prison, but the Judge reportedly felt forced to consider her young age and clear history.

Her drivers license is revoked, and following her jail sentence, she will be under electronic home monitoring for one year and on probation for five, during which she is not allowed to drink under its terms.

A judge wants to see a remorseful defendant regardless of the crimes he or she has been charged with or found guilty of, and evidence to the contrary is extremely damaging. The Judge is free to consider all factors that have any arguable relevance. Every defendant should keep in mind that the Judge wants to see that his or her encounter with the criminal justice system has taught a lesson and changed his or her behavior for the better. The Internet has created a new environment in which to evaluate a defendant's behavior, and it is completely public. There is a new way we are all being held accountable for our behavior, and the legal profession is aware, that is nothing new. The consequences can clearly be harsh, and it is yet another lesson young adults have to learn.

Arrested on drunken and careless driving charges, NFL linebacker Rey Maualuga reportedly hit a parking meter and two cars after a traffic accident was called in to local police. Apparently, after police were notified of the incident, the officers were able to conclude that Maualuga was driving the Pontiac that had hit the parked cars and meter. There were two female passengers with him who were released and not charged.

According to reports, he had a blood alcohol content of .157, admitted to having six drinks, and failed field sobriety tests. He had bloodshot eyes, slurred speech and was visibly unsteady. His first arrest was in 2005 on charges of misdemeanor battery, after he got in a fight at a party as a college freshman. Upon agreeing to community service, counseling and attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, the charges were dismissed.

It is unclear how police connected the football player to the car after the fact. This continues a trend of Cincinnati Bengals players that have been arrested in past years. Under New Jersey law, even if the police do not see the accident in progress, police can arrest someone after the fact if the officer can trace the car to the driver, and the driver is intoxicated. In this case it appears that happened and Maualuga was visibly intoxicated so he was charged. An experienced, skilled attorney can analyze the circumstances of a case like this to determine how to best defend against these types of subsequent charges.

Chris Terry was charged with a DUI, a class A felony dealing cocaine, a class C felony drug possession, resisting arrest, possession of a handgun without a permit and driving with a suspended license, in Clarksville, Indiana. Another man and woman were also in the car, in the man's pocket was $1,200.00 and near him was a large amount of cocaine. They were arrested for similar charges, including public intoxication. The arrest was made at a traffic stop early Wednesday morning when a police officer witnessed him driving erratically. Under Terry's his seat was a loaded handgun and in the cup holder next to him was some cocaine. Add to these elements that Terry is 6'5" and 295 pounds and that he allegedly refused to follow police instruction, this could certainly present a very dangerous set of circumstances. Terry is currently being held without bond.

Charges of DUI, drug possession, dealing, possession of a loaded weapon without a permit, resisting arrest and public intoxication carry serious penalties in every state, including New Jersey. This is quite a fall from Terry's football days. He attended the University of Georgia, and played for the Carolina Panthers, the Seattle Seahawks, and most recently, the Kansas City Chiefs in 2006 and 2007. It was reported that the Chiefs cut him for being absent from team meetings in 2007. The NFL suspended him from the 2008 season for substance abuse, after already having been suspended in 2003 drugs and a domestic dispute. Domestic violence and drugs are a common pair, and they should be taken very seriously.

In New Jersey, cocaine is considered a "Controlled Dangerous Substance," or CDS. As one example, this felony possession charge could lead to up to 5 years in jail and remain on your record permanently. If it is your first offense, you could be eligible for the Pretrial Intervention program, which can lead to a dismissal of charges after 1 year. One way to defend against charges of this nature is to question the method of the police search and seizure, or how the cocaine was discovered. The specific facts of the arrest are crucial in determining the best legal course of action.

If you have been involved in domestic violence, or charged with DUI, drug possession charges, weapons charges, or any of these crimes, it is crucial that you call an attorney immediately. Experienced attorneys can be reached at Chamlin, Rosen, Uliano and Witherington.