by

Video evidence can be useful for either side in a driving while intoxicated (DWI) case. Prosecutors may introduce video from a dashboard camera in a police vehicle or an officer’s body-worn camera to corroborate the officer’s testimony about the defendant’s behavior or appearance. A DWI defense lawyer can use footage to chip away at the state’s case, such as by challenging the officer’s justification for making a traffic stop. Body cams have become increasingly common as a way to document arrests and other police encounters. Police departments and city governments may refuse to release body cam footage in some circumstances, although this is rarely the case for DWI defendants. A recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision expands the availability of body cam footage under the state’s Open Public Records Act (OPRA). How this may affect DWI defense remains to be seen.

Prosecutors have two ways to prove intoxication in DWI cases. They can introduce evidence of blood alcohol concentration (BAC) to show that a defendant was above the “legal limit” of 0.08 percent. They may also call the arresting officer and other witnesses to testify about how a defendant looked or how they were acting. Slurred speech, slowed or clumsy movements, and glassy eyes could be signs of intoxication. An officer may testify about these kinds of observations, as well as observations about a defendant’s performance on field sobriety tests (FSTs). Video evidence may support an officer’s testimony, but defense attorneys may be able to use it to refute what an officer claims on the stand.

Video evidence can challenge the state’s case in the hands of a skilled defense lawyer. While the prosecution might claim that a video shows a defendant “failing” one or more FSTs, the defense can point to features that dispute this. For example, the officer might have asked the defendant to perform a test on uneven ground that throws off their balance. Weather conditions like rain or snow could make it difficult for anyone to maintain balance. A video could even challenge an officer’s description of a defendant’s behavior or appearance, such as if claims of clumsy movements were the result of a cracked roadway or other obstruction.
Continue reading

by

New Jersey’s driving while intoxicated (DWI) law requires the state to prove that a person was impaired by alcohol or drugs while driving or attempting to drive. Police use breath testing to measure a DWI suspect’s blood alcohol content (BAC). Anyone driving on public roads in New Jersey has given their implied consent to submit to breath testing. Police and prosecutors must demonstrate that the devices used to test breath samples for BAC are in good working order. Nearly ten years ago, news broke that a former State Police sergeant had falsified maintenance and calibration records for Alcotest devices in five counties, affecting more than 20,000 DWI cases. That case is still affecting DWI cases today, as shown by a 2024 New Jersey Supreme Court decision in which a defendant challenged the use of a prior DWI conviction to enhance his sentence. The court discussed what evidence the state must present to prove that a prior conviction is not one of the 20,000 with tainted evidence.

In 2008, our firm was involved in a case before the New Jersey Supreme Court, State v. Chun, which addressed the use of the Alcotest device in DWI investigations. The court ruled that the Alcotest produces reliable results as long as it receives regular maintenance and calibration. It established procedures for proving that police departments have kept the devices in good repair. Defendants can request this evidence from prosecutors. Failure to maintain a device or to produce the required documentation can result in a court throwing out the BAC results.

The system established in State v. Chun works well enough, assuming that the police keep accurate records of Alcotest maintenance. In 2016, however, news emerged that a State Police sergeant responsible for maintaining numerous devices had failed to perform the necessary calibrations and had falsified records. The New Jersey Supreme Court appointed a special master to review how this affected the reliability of Alcotest results in the counties with inaccurate or falsified records.
Continue reading

by

The offense of driving while intoxicated (DWI) can have severe consequences in New Jersey. Penalties can range from relatively small fines to six months in jail, along with driver’s license suspension and mandatory use of an ignition interlock device. Defending against DWI charges often involves disputing the sufficiency of the evidence, but it is also possible to challenge the legality of the entire case. If police fail to respect DWI suspects’ constitutional rights, a court could toss out the entire case. This is what happened in a case before the New Jersey Appellate Division in 2024. The case involved a police officer who suspected a driver of DWI. The court found that his suspicions were legally justified, and that the traffic stop was legal. The officer violated the suspect’s rights, however, by entering the suspects garage after she had driven her car there. This resulted in dismissal of the case.

Both the U.S. and New Jersey constitutions prohibit “unreasonable searches and seizures” and require police to get a warrant before they may search a person or their property. Courts have identified numerous exceptions to the warrant requirement. For example, police may briefly stop a vehicle on the road if they have reasonable suspicion that a driver has committed or is committing a motor vehicle offense or criminal offense. They may not hold a driver longer than is necessary to assess whether an offense had occurred or is about to occur. If they have probable cause to believe driver has committed an offense like DWI, they may continue the investigation, such as by asking them to perform field sobriety tests.

These types of stops are sometimes known as Terry stops. The name comes from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1968 decision in Terry v. Ohio. The case established rules for traffic stops and other brief detainments by police. Generally speaking, police may not expand their search to additional locations under Terry without a warrant or another exception to the warrant requirement.
Continue reading

by

New Jersey’s driving while intoxicated (DWI) statute provides numerous ways to penalize a person after a conviction. It does less to provide resources and treatment to someone who might be struggling with substance abuse issues. Some states have created pretrial intervention (PTI) programs for eligible DWI defendants to help them seek assistance for alcohol or drug addiction. If they complete the program, the court could reduce their penalties or even dismiss the charges. New Jersey has PTI programs for criminal cases involving drugs or alcohol, but these programs are not available in DWI cases. The closest thing to treatment in the DWI statute is the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center (IRDC), which is mandatory for all DWI convictions. The program is brief, however, even for repeat DWI offenders. New Jersey may eventually allow some sort of PTI in DWI cases. For now, though, the main options are to plead guilty or fight the charges.

DWI is a motor vehicle offense in New Jersey, not a criminal offense. This means that DWI cases do not always have the full range of procedural and constitutional protections found in criminal cases. For example, New Jersey DWI defendants are not entitled to a trial by jury. The flip side of this is that the penalties for DWI convictions are not as harsh as they might be if they were criminal charges.

New Jersey PTI programs like Recovery Court are only available in criminal cases. DWI defendants are not eligible, essentially by definition. The only criminal offense under New Jersey law that may arise from a DWI case involves certain scenarios in which a person drives with a suspended license, and the suspension is due to a DWI conviction. This offense is a fourth-degree crime that has a minimum sentence of 180 days in jail. A person convicted of this offense is still not eligible for Recovery Court, which excludes convictions with mandatory minimums.
Continue reading

by

New Jersey motor vehicle offenses carry a wide range of penalties, ranging from driver’s license suspension to jail time. Driving while intoxicated (DWI) is a motor vehicle offense under New Jersey law rather than a criminal one, but some penalties can be just as serious as the criminal law system. Like many states, New Jersey uses a points system to assess penalties for many traffic offenses. Accruing too many points in too short a period may result in surcharges, driver’s license suspension, or both. DWI is not among the motor vehicle offenses that add points to your driving record. This is not exactly good news, however, as the penalties associated with DWI are generally harsher than points.

What Are Points?

New Jersey’s points system gives the state a way to assess whether you pose a danger to others on the road. The most minor traffic offenses do not add points to your record. A parking violation, such as forgetting to feed the meter, does not reflect poorly on a person’s ability to drive safely.

Traffic offenses like speeding, failing to yield, or running a red light pose a danger to other drivers and pedestrians. They may result in points on your driving record. For example, the number of points associated with speeding depends on how fast you were going:
– Up to 14 mph over the speed limit: 2 points
– 15 to 29 mph over the limit: 4 points
– 30+ mph over the limit: 5 points
Continue reading

by

Getting pulled over for suspicion of DUI can be a terrifying experience, even if you only had a single drink. Most drivers have a pretty good idea of when they are no longer safe to drive, but you can never be sure. And you wouldn’t be the first person to think that you were not impaired when you actually were. Unfortunately, when it comes to DUIs in New Jersey, there is not requirement that you knew you were intoxicated. Instead, law enforcement officers typically rely on chemical tests—usually of your breath or blood.

Whenever the issue of breathalyzer tests comes up, the issue of refusals frequently follows. DUI refusal is the name that New Jersey DUI lawyers give to the situation where a driver refuses to provide a sample. The thought goes: if you don’t provide a blood or breath sample, the police can’t prove you were intoxicated. And, while this is not correct, it’s also not entirely incorrect.

A Primer on New Jersey Refusals

New Jersey has an implied consent law. Essentially, this law provides that by operating a vehicle on the state’s roads, you automatically consent to submit to breath tests to determine your blood alcohol content (BAC) if law enforcement suspects you are driving under the influence.

Continue reading

by

New Jersey allows the state to prove driving while intoxicated (DWI) by having police officers testify about a defendant’s behavior or appearance. They may ask a defendant to participate in field sobriety tests (FSTs), which can supposedly demonstrate impairment. Unlike breath testing, FSTs are not mandatory under New Jersey law. If you agree to perform FSTs during a traffic stop, and the police arrest you for DWI, you may be able to challenge the evidence based on a variety of factors. A DWI lawyer can advise you about which defenses might be available to you.

What Field Sobriety Tests May New Jersey Police Use?

Police in New Jersey have official approval for three FSTs. They may use other tests as well, but anything other than the officially approved tests does not have any scientific support behind it.

Officially Approved Tests

Three FSTs have at least some scientific support as ways to detect intoxication or impairment. Their reliability is still a matter of much dispute.
– One-Leg Stand (OLS): You must stand straight, with your arms at your side, and lift one leg about six inches off the ground for thirty seconds.
– Walk-and-Turn (WAT): You must walk heel-to-toe in a straight line for nine steps, counting each step out loud. You must then turn around and return to the starting point with nine more heel-to-toe steps.
– Horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN): This is the most controversial of the three official tests. The officer will hold a pen or other object in front of your face. You must follow the object with your eyes, without moving your head. The officer is looking for involuntary eye movements that allegedly indicate impairment.
Continue reading

by

New Jersey law imposes numerous penalties for driving while intoxicated (DWI) and related offenses. Penalties like fines, jail time, and driver’s license suspension are fairly well known. Since late 2019, the penalties for all DWI convictions include mandatory use of an ignition interlock device (IID). People with DWI and other convictions must have an IID installed in their vehicle in order to reinstate their license. Interfering with or trying to get around an IID is a separate offense under New Jersey law that can bring additional penalties. This post reviews when state law requires the use of an IID, how long a person must use it after their conviction, and when they may have it removed.

What Is an Ignition Interlock Device?

An IID is a breathalyzer device that attaches to the steering column of a vehicle. A person must blow into the device in order to start the vehicle’s engine. If the breath sample exceeds a certain blood alcohol content (BAC), the IID stops the ignition from sending a signal to the starter, meaning that the vehicle cannot start.

The BAC level at which IIDs prevent ignition is 0.05 percent in New Jersey. Note that this is lower than the “legal limit” of 0.08 percent, at which the law presumes a person is too impaired to drive.

Continue reading

by

New Jersey law gives police and prosecutors several methods for proving guilt in driving while intoxicated (DWI) cases. Every driver on New Jersey roads must submit to breath testing if a police officer asks them to do so after arresting them on suspicion of DWI. Police must have probable cause to make an arrest before they can conduct mandatory breath testing. They may ask a person to perform field sobriety tests (FSTs) at the scene of a traffic stop. Unlike breath testing, state law does not require drivers to submit to FSTs. What happens, though, when a driver refuses an officer’s request to perform FSTs? Read on to learn more about what might happen in this situation.

New Jersey Law Does Not Require Participation in Field Sobriety Tests

Police must have probable cause to suspect DWI before they may arrest you or require you to submit a breath sample. The Fourth Amendment establishes the probable cause requirement for an arrest. The statute that defines the offense of refusal to submit to breath testing sets out three requirements:
– An officer had probable cause to believe that a person committed DWI.
– They placed the person under arrest.
– The officer requested a breath test, and the person refused.

FSTs appear nowhere in the DWI statute or the refusal statute. They are merely one of several methods police officers may use to assess whether a person appears to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Continue reading

by

Operating a vehicle is a significant responsibility, requiring careful attention to your surroundings and the safety of others. Alcohol and many types of drugs can interfere with attention, reaction time, and other abilities that you need when behind the wheel or at the controls. New Jersey treats driving while intoxicated (DWI) as a serious motor vehicle or traffic offense. Other vehicles, including boats and airplanes, also have legal restrictions based on impairment by alcohol or drugs. In 2018, the New Jersey governor signed a bill outlawing the operation of aerial drones while under the influence. The “drunk droning” law has not received much attention in the courts, so far, but it is worth exploring how it compares to the state’s DWI law.

What is “Drunk Droning”?

New Jersey’s DWI law requires three basic elements: a person, a motor vehicle, and the influence of alcohol or drugs. Prosecutors can prove that a driver was impaired based on blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.08 percent or more or other evidence indicating the influence of drugs or alcohol. This typically involves police officers’ observations of a driver’s behavior and appearance.

The new law applies the same restrictions to “unmanned aircraft,” which it defines as any aircraft that can only be operated by a person remotely. An ‘unmanned aircraft system” (UAS) consists of the aircraft itself and the equipment needed to operate it, such as a remote control. A person may not operate a UAS while impaired by alcohol or drugs or if they have BAC of at least 0.08 percent.

Continue reading

Contact Information

1415 Marlton Pike East #400
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034

TOLL FREE: (877) 593-1717

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, Levow DWI Law, P.C.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design