New Jersey Criminal Lawyer Blog

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.

Marijuana Laws Could Change in New Jersey

On Monday, the chronically or terminally ill in New Jersey came a step closer to finding relief in cannabis, legally anyway, with medical marijuana. Outgoing Governor Corzine stated that he would sign the bill approved by the legislature before he left office. Soon-to-be Governor Christie has given his support to the bill publicly, though he had a concern for loopholes that may be exploited for the purposes of drug abuse. The federal government, according to what Attorney General Eric Holder has been reported as stating, would not prosecute those who are abiding by medical marijuana laws of the state.

The requirements for New Jersey's version of the medical marijuana law is strict, including that patients have chronic pain, wasting syndrome, or 12 months or less to live if a physician determines that the illness is terminal. In addition, only specific illnesses or debilitating medical conditions qualify, including AIDS, multiple sclerosis and certain kinds of cancer. Patients with the selected diseases would be given an identification card permitting them to obtain 2 ounces of marijuana each month from dispensaries sanctioned by the state.

Marijuana legalization on the whole is no closer to reality, however. The current marijuana laws, presumably, would remain in place. While the lowest marijuana law is a disorderly persons offense, possession of less than 50 grams or merely being under the influence of marijuana is punishable by up to 6 months jail time and a $1,000.00 fine. If you are found to have more than 50 grams, that increases to 18 months and a $25,000.00 fine. Possession of paraphernalia alone can get you 6 months and $1,000.00. Distribution of less than one ounce can put you in jail for 18 months as well, and paying a $10,000.00 fine, while more than one ounce increases the jail time to 3 to 5 years and a $25,000.00 fine. If distribution within 1000 feet of a school bus or school property, or near public housing, public park or public building, or sale to a minor or pregnant woman is proven, these factors will significantly increase penalties and make some incarceration and fines mandatory.

Make no mistake: For the foreseeable future, marijuana is far from being legalized, outside of a narrow medical purpose. Be sure to know your rights.

If you have been arrested for any drug related offense, or have questions regarding this area of the law, call Chamlin, Rosen, Uliano & Witherington for a consultation right away.

Leandra's Law, or the Child Passenger Protection Act, has helped New York make a political statement publicizing the terrible toll paid when drunk drivers have children in the car. Leandra Rosado was killed in October when Carmen Huertas was drunk driving young girls to a slumber party and the car flipped and Leandra was thrown from the vehicle. The law makes a first offense drunk driving with minors under age 16 a felony, with penalties of up to four years in prison and fines up to $5,000.00. A driver convicted under Leandra's Law is reported to the Statewide Central Registry of Child Abuse and Maltreatment and is required to use the mandatory ignition interlock system as well.

While New Jersey does not have a Leandra's Law, a driver who is drunk or under the influence of any drug that can alter one's ability to operate a vehicle and has minor passengers can be charged with additional crimes, including endangering the welfare of a minor, a disorderly persons offense, in addition to the motor vehicle offense of DWI, for which no jury trial is permitted. No plea bargaining is allowed, though each charge must be proven in court, and the conviction on your record is permanent. Once convicted, drunk drivers of children will receive more jail time than those who did not drunk drive with children in the car.

If you find yourself in this position, it is important that you contact an attorney immediately. For more information, see the attorneys at Chamlin, Rosen, Uliano & Witherington, who can help assess the details associated with your case.

DUI charges are always a big risk for college level student athletes. Unfortunately, University of Florida defensive end Carlos Dunlap made a really big mistake at a really bad time. With the Southeastern Conference Championship game against Alabama looming in just days, a police officer found the 20-year-old Dunlap asleep at the wheel at 3:25 early Tuesday, December 1st, 2009 while he was searching for a reported reckless driver in the area. The defensive MVP of the Bowl Championship Series national title game had difficulty performing the field sobriety test and refused a breath test. He was arrested and released six hours later without bond, having no prior offenses or failures to appear in court.

Dunlap, who has started every game this season but will not play Saturday, was apparently drinking under age, a common college campus occurrence, like it or not. He then chose to get behind the wheel of a car. He is yet another example of what not to do, as if any further examples were needed. A poor decision can be made by a "good kid" from a "good family," or by someone who has lacked the guidance and role models around him or her - the risks are the same in either case. The consequences of his actions are severe for his athletic career, but he is lucky he (and perhaps his team) is the only one paying for his mistake, as thankfully there was no collision and no one was hurt.

In New Jersey, DUI convictions carry heavy mandatory penalties including loss of license for a minimum of 3-12 months, prison for up to 30 days, fines and fees of up to $3,800.00 as well as 12-48 hours of community service. Failure to pay these fines could result in property liens and wage garnishment. If the driver is under 21 years of age, as Dunlap, there are additional fines, required participation in alcohol education and highway safety programs and more community service.

If you are arrested for DUI in New Jersey, you cannot refuse a breathalizer test like Dunlap did, because consenting to it is a condition of getting your drivers license. If you insist on refusing, you will lose your license, the police will detain you and bring you to a hospital where blood may be drawn.

If you have questions about New Jersey DUI law or how to handle these charges, the attorneys at Chamlin, Rosen, Uliano & Witherington can help.

According to a new study issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and data from the FBI, Driving Under the Influence citations have increased by nearly 30 percent among females over a 10-year period from 1998 to 2007. These stats are considered "disturbing" by the Transportation Board.

New Jersey Criminal Lawyer Blog's Take: As many are aware there have been national campaigns to raise awareness about the serious consequences of drunk driving. It is important to remember that in New Jersey the blood alcohol content is 0.08. Anything above that level is considered drunk driving in the eyes of New Jersey law. This study shows that more women are getting caught than in previous years. It is important to remember this fact when having social drinks prior to operating a motor vehicle. This study is a good heads up to all women out there that even a couple glasses of wine with dinner could result in an unfortunate DUI.

Feds: Spike in Female DUIs - CBS News 8/19/09